|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ah yes, I didn't notice that you were talking about transition forms while I was thinking of transitional species.
Archy might not be a transitional species, but it is still a transitional form. Good point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
I'm glad that you recognize both the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution and that the fact of evolution stands even if we find a replacement for the ToE.
I'm sorry, though, that you still remain confused about extinctions and how the ToE doesn't say a species can not be considered a transitional form if it goes extinct. To reiterate what I explained to CS: A transitional fossil is one that retains some shared trait(s) with an ancestral species, which is ancestral to the newer species. There are many examples of species who are the 'last' of their line. Horseshoe crabs are one example. Homo Sapiens happens to be the last surviving species in the Hominin line. We are still related to the ape lineage though, and we have plenty of examples of the divergence of the hominin line fromthe pongoid line. Edited by DBlevins, : Accidentally pressed done on mobile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year. That's how I see it anyway! Can you at least admit that Biblical Creationists have the same amount of evidence for their version of creation as the Pastafarians do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The whole thing comes down to misunderstanding "more evolved"' to mean "better or more advanced than" rather than using it correctly to describe the genetic distance between two organisms, whether comparing two contemporaneous species, or a species and its ancestral form. Could be, indeed. But in Portillo's case I doubt the subtlety would be recognized. It is best, IMO, to stay away from such distinctions and make a complete separation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Everybody's really digging their heels in on this absolute claim of "no such thing as more evolved" and, I think that it can be seen as technically incorrect. What seems to be confused is the process vs. the end result. Every lineage has been influenced by the process of evolution, but the end result of that process is different for each lineage. As an analogy, if a random number generator spit out a series of numbers would the highest number be called the most random? Of course not. All numbers are equally random even if some numbers are larger than others. They are all products of the same process. However, there is a term that does describe what people are trying to get at, and it is the term that scientists actually use. That word is "derived". A more derived species is one that has more changes than sister species as compared to the common ancestor. This would make modern bacteria less derived than humans since modern bacteria share more features with the common ancestor of bacteria and humans than humans do. Does that make sense?
I don't think so. Stasis is a lack of evolution. False. The only way that stasis can occur is through evolution. Stasis is the selection of alleles found in previous generations. Without evolution the prevalence of alleles from previous generations would be swamped by variation found in each subsequent generation. Whether it is selection of new alleles or pre-existing alleles the process is the same: evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Falsifying TOE does not prove creation. Falsifying TOE as it stands now does not mean evolution did not happen either. What supports creation is based on research such as that by scientists like John C Sanford on entropy and other creationist dating methods and research. Sanford's work is strictly anti-evolution. His model seeks to demonstrate that evolution working alone would result in genetic meltdown, therefore species could not have evolved. Period. Nowhere does Sanford run experiments that test whether or not species were magically poofed into being.
I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form? It is impossible for species to get stuck anywhere since every generation has new mutations not found in any previous generation. Evolution doesn't stop. It continues in every lineage. We can use the Romance languages (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) as an example. All share a common ancestor which is Vulgar Latin. All language groups have acquired their own specific differences over time. None are a transitional form of the other, nor are they in-between versions of one langage and Vulgar Latin. Each language lineage diverged from the others and continued to change. At the same time, there are obvious homologies in each language that come from their common ancestral tongue. In order to find the "in between" stages you have to travel back in time along the lineage of each language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What seems to be confused is the process vs. the end result. I'm talking about the end results.
Every lineage has been influenced by the process of evolution, but the end result of that process is different for each lineage. Can't we say that some species have been influenced more than others? That they've gone through more changes? Haven't whales gone through more changes than some fish? Random thought: On a totally different aspect, what about species that are better adapted to their particular niche? Couldn't describing that as being more evolved to that niche make sense?
As an analogy, if a random number generator spit out a series of numbers would the highest number be called the most random? Of course not. All numbers are equally random even if some numbers are larger than others. They are all products of the same process. What I'd be judging is the output of number. The more varience between the numbers, the more random they would be. Like, 1-2-2-1-1, would be less random than 3-6-1-5-2. Or does that not make any sense at all? I realize that its the same process, but couldn't the end result be described as such?
However, there is a term that does describe what people are trying to get at, and it is the term that scientists actually use. That word is "derived". A more derived species is one that has more changes than sister species as compared to the common ancestor. This would make modern bacteria less derived than humans since modern bacteria share more features with the common ancestor of bacteria and humans than humans do. Does that make sense? Yes! I do think that is a better word to use in this scenario. It would at least result in less confusion.
I don't think so. Stasis is a lack of evolution. False. The only way that stasis can occur is through evolution. Stasis is the selection of alleles found in previous generations. Without evolution the prevalence of alleles from previous generations would be swamped by variation found in each subsequent generation.
That's actually a really good point... in that there'd have to be some selective pressure to maintain the statis from being overridden by genetic drift. I hadn't thought of that. That kinda ties in to my random thought above, in that being better adapted to a niche might be a result of avoiding change. On the other hand, what about a species that, for whatever reason, did not experience as much mutation as normal, and also had very little selective pressure. If the genome remained relatively unchanged for a long time, despite selective pressure, wouldn't it make sense to say that it isn't evolving as much? I realize that's stretching but I'm just exploring here. Thanks for chiming in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I'm talking about the end results. The process is evolution. The end result is varying degrees of divergence.
Can't we say that some species have been influenced more than others? That they've gone through more changes? Is Mecury more gravitated because it's orbit is more heavily influenced by the Sun?
Random thought: On a totally different aspect, what about species that are better adapted to their particular niche? Couldn't describing that as being more evolved to that niche make sense? Nope. That is described by fitness. Species are more fit or less fit, not more evolved or less evolved. ABE: Just thought of some better examples. Let's look at the camel and polar bear. If we put the polar bear and camel in the desert you would say that the camel is more evolved. If we put them both in the arctic you would say that the polar bear is more evolved. So how can the polar bear (or camel) be both more evolved and less evolved at the same time?
What I'd be judging is the output of number. The more varience between the numbers, the more random they would be. It was only an analogy that is not meant to be strained this far.
On the other hand, what about a species that, for whatever reason, did not experience as much mutation as normal, and also had very little selective pressure. That would only affect the speed at which populations change. They are still evolving, just as both Mercury and Pluto are orbitting the Sun through the same process, just at different rates. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Alrighty then.
Well, having the phrase "more derived" to better describe the concept than "more evolved" does will work for me, so thanks again for the replies. I'm convinced that "more evolved" isn't good phraseology so I'll replace it with "more derived" in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Mazzy writes: The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year. You have it backwards. What evidence do you have that human beings aren't apes and properly classified as such, other than saying, "Well, they look different to me" and pointing out that we humans have cell phones and shoes, and chimpanzees don't? Genes and taxonomy say that we're apes - significantly different in behavioral terms, it's true, but apes just the same if you apply the same standards that we use to classify other organisms. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Taq writes: In order to find the "in between" stages you have to travel back in time along the lineage of each language. Good analogy. I'll also point out that in your travel back in time along the lineage of a language, you'll never find anything like Latin-speaking parents waking up one day to find their children all speaking French. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Short question? I hope you won't take this the wrong way as I am genuinely unsure.
What does more 'more derived' mean to you? If it is a replacement phrase for 'more evolved' then I'm not sure you understand it's role in cladistics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Good analogy. I'll also point out that in your travel back in time along the lineage of a language, you'll never find anything like Latin-speaking parents waking up one day to find their children all speaking French. This is true of each generation in both the French and Spanish lineages, clear back to the point where the languages diverged. At no point were children incapable of speaking to their parents, but the same can not be said of generations separated by longer time periods (try reading the Canterbury Tales in Old English). The difference is that each lineage acquired different changes. It is the divergence due to lineage specific changes over time that moved the two languages apart, just as it does in biology. Languages actually make for a good analogy when discussing evolution. It isn't a perfect analogy, but then no analogy is. For reference, wiki has a nice diagram of the Romance Languages here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Alrighty then. Well, having the phrase "more derived" to better describe the concept than "more evolved" does will work for me, so thanks again for the replies. I'm convinced that "more evolved" isn't good phraseology so I'll replace it with "more derived" in the future. Just so you don't feel picked on, I have heard biologists on TV programs talking about more and less evolved lifeforms. I wish they wouldn't do it, but they do nonetheless. If you were to push them on the topic they would probably agree that the phrasing is incorrect. The problem is one of communication. Scientists try to adopt a more colloquial vocabulary when talking to the public, and in doing so they can misrepresent what science actually says. More on topic, the term "ape" is colloquial. In scientific papers scientists will not use the term ape, at least not in my experience. Most often, they will usually just use the term "primate". A discussion on the every confusing classifications can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
What does more 'more derived' mean to you? If it is a replacement phrase for 'more evolved' then I'm not sure you understand it's role in cladistics. In "more evolved" the implication (intentional or not) is that something is better than something else. This isn't actually the case in real evolution, but since the term has been coopted into common usage, it's hard to keep a true perspective. When we say something is "more derived", it's a little easier to look at it as a math problem - "How many steps difference is there between A and G?" Ideally, they would mean the same thing, but it's easier to use different terms to assure understanding.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024