|
Author
|
Topic: "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
Message 146 of 286 (655432)
03-10-2012 9:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
10-12-2011 9:58 AM
|
|
Tangle writes: On the chimp line, nothing much would change except over millennium. Huh! Chimps are just as likely to have evolved from a human like ancestor as humans are to have evolved from a chimp like ancestor. Therefore, the human chain would gradually become shorter ending with a chimpanzee and the chimp chain would gradually become taller ending with a human. A Paradox!?! You decide. Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Tangle, posted 10-12-2011 9:58 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 151 of 286 (655597)
03-11-2012 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
03-10-2012 3:20 PM
|
|
Percy writes: It's not impossible for it to have looked somewhat like a modern chimp, but more likely it was different from both modern humans and chimps. I was thinking about it from a common sense perspective. Chimpanzees, live in the trees but their ancestors must have lived on the ground before adapting to a life in the trees. Their ancestors who lived on the ground could possibly have had greater similarities to humans than they do, most notably, feet and legs which function better on the ground than on trees. So it makes more logical sense that chimpanzees evolved from a human like ancestor than it does for humans to have gone from turf to tree and then back to turf again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 3:20 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 157 of 286 (656265)
03-17-2012 11:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by Tangle
03-16-2012 7:36 AM
|
|
Tangle writes: If you see it as man evolving over millions of years from ape-like ancestors, you’re right. But if you see it as a picture of how modern monkeys change into people, that’s probably why you may ask the question You must admit though that the first image has an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee? I would swear that someone had modeled or fashioned that image from what they know about modern chimpanzees. This is what is so misleading about it all. If the images are pure fiction why don't the scientists admit it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2012 7:36 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 166 of 286 (656572)
03-20-2012 8:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by RAZD
03-17-2012 1:29 PM
|
|
RAZD writes: A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern Not sure if all these fossils look all that different. On what basis are you determining that these fossils are all different from modern man? If you took the fossil of a 19 year old man and compared it with the fossil of a 60 year old man what differences would you see? If you were to extrapolate that difference to people who could potentially live till they were 800 years old what might you see? I am not suggesting that anyone could live 800 years but you never know what happened in the past right?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2012 1:29 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 175 of 286 (656792)
03-22-2012 7:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
03-20-2012 11:34 PM
|
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
RAZD writes: We would not expect teeth to become more robust and larger with age. Funny, because evidence shows that humans who manage to live beyond 110 begin to grow new teeth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2012 11:34 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
crashfrog writes: No, it doesn't. Evidential link
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2012 7:56 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
crashfrog writes: So, no. Old people don't start to regenerate teeth. Additional Evidence There are 100s of links that I could give but hopefully this will be my last.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2012 8:13 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 187 by Taq, posted 03-22-2012 11:22 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 182 of 286 (656811)
03-22-2012 10:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by crashfrog
03-22-2012 8:13 AM
|
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
crashfrog writes: So, no. Old people don't start to regenerate teeth. Yet more evidence. Ok, I really didn't want to provide link after link. But this example is more stark and more clear for those who are less educated.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2012 8:13 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 183 of 286 (656814)
03-22-2012 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by crashfrog
03-22-2012 8:13 AM
|
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
crashfrog writes: So, no. Old people don't start to regenerate teeth. And again! For those who are still sceptical, here's another link. Make of these what you will.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2012 8:13 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 185 of 286 (656824)
03-22-2012 10:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
03-22-2012 10:16 AM
|
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
Percy writes: Is the ability for the elderly to regenerate teeth important to any point you're trying to make I thought that the reverse was true. Crashfrog feels that the inability of the elderly to regenerate teeth is important to his cause. Maybe crashfrog could clarify what his cause is? If however, he is willing to accept that, infact, the elderly can regenerate teeth I am happy to have the debate move on to where ever it might take us.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 184 by Percy, posted 03-22-2012 10:16 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 195 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 8:00 AM | | Big_Al35 has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 189 of 286 (656841)
03-22-2012 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
03-22-2012 11:16 AM
|
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
Theodoric writes: As the oldest person ever only lived to 122 I don't think even you believe that! Lol.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2012 11:16 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
Theodoric writes: Why would I not believe this? Your link just reflects the oldest person according to the Guinness book of records. Sources show they have investigated individuals who have potentially been much older. Often people are denied entry simply due to inadequate paperwork. This can occur for many reasons and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fraud.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2012 2:13 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 194 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2012 7:09 PM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 196 of 286 (656927)
03-23-2012 8:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
03-23-2012 8:00 AM
|
|
Re: Getting Back On Topic
Percy writes: Whether the elderly regenerate teeth or how long people can live was not your original point. No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans. My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 195 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 8:00 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 202 of 286 (656979)
03-24-2012 8:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 201 by Meddle
03-23-2012 1:02 PM
|
|
Re: Getting Back On Topic
Malcolm writes: I'm no RAZD, but how about looking at the range of variation in cranial capacity as an example? When your data refers to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, It is not clear if this data includes the following groups; Cranial capacity for: northern and southern europeans, tribes of africa including masai, zulu, pygmy etc, northern and southern indians, chinese, japanese, phillipeno, thai, native northern and southern americans. Maybe we should assess the variance in cranial capacity for modern races today?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by Meddle, posted 03-23-2012 1:02 PM | | Meddle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:49 AM | | Big_Al35 has replied | | | Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 8:57 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1059 days) Posts: 389 Joined: 06-02-2010
|
|
|
Message 205 of 286 (656987)
03-24-2012 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
03-24-2012 8:49 AM
|
|
Re: Getting Back On Topic
RAZD writes: You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included? I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:49 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 11:31 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied | | | Message 225 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:39 PM | | Big_Al35 has not replied | | | Message 226 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 9:05 PM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2