Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 6:05 AM
239 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 237 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,570 Year: 10,393/29,783 Month: 1,057/1,583 Week: 75/451 Day: 7/68 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 61 of 1075 (515627)
07-20-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


Nonsense--again
Traste, you have shown that you know little about evolution, and have accepted the poison dished out by the anti-science and anti-evolution creationists. Unfortunately, they have to lie because the scientific evidence contradicts virtually all of their religious beliefs. You have fallen for their lies.

In answer to your statement/question about "human apes:"

When organisms evolve, they do so as populations.

Unfortunately this answer won't mean anything to you because you have accepted a religious belief that provides a different answer. Because of that you won't bother to learn anything about evolution--its all wrong so why bother, eh?

(See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 62 of 1075 (515634)
07-20-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


Silly Questions, Silly Answers
Oh dear.

Doubletime writes:

If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?

Traste writes:

Excellent question, double time,the plain answer is because there is no such thing.

No, silly question. There are about six billion human apes alive today. I am one, you are one...

If you were to ask why there are no modern hominids or other extant members of the genus Homo, now that might be a better question.

traste writes:

The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)

Funny, they seem to have left an awful lot of fossils for things that didn't exist. Are you just going to pretend that the human and hominid fossil records don't exist? That would be very silly and rather dishonest.

For the record, I agree with Anglagard; your attempt to hijack Gould is dishonest in the extreme. Gould never claimed what you are trying to make him claim. Who do you think you are kidding?

Again excellent question, since evolutionary theory predicted that as organasism advanced they are more suited than there predescors.

No it doesn't. You have forgotten one important factor; environment. What is well suited to one evolutionary niche might do very badly when forced to compete in another niche. Have a think about that, because it's central to answering Doubletime's question.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16028
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 63 of 1075 (515655)
07-20-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


{Irrelevant sniping hidden}
Is there anything you're not wrong about?

{Irrelevant sniping hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide message, added message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

tuffers
Member (Idle past 3110 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 64 of 1075 (516255)
07-24-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


WHY ARE THERE NO HUMAN APES ALIVE TODAY?
Hi Doubletime

I'm a little late to this debate and as usual haven't had time to read everyone else's response, so I apologise if I repeat what has already been said.

There are human apes alive today - that's us!

There's no such thing as a semi-human, or indeed any semi-species. No species is at a half-way stage towards evolving in a particular direction to something else that has been pre-determined. The way a species evolves depends on random mutations and environment. The individuals with random mutations that are an advantage in their environment are the ones that are most likely to survive and reproduce. But there is no foresight as to what those mutations or those environments will be. No organism or species is trying to be something else. It either survives to reproduce or it doesn't.

Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, and I understand that neither humans nor chimpanzees resemble that ancestor, so it's not accurate to say chimpanzees have survived to this day without evolving. They have evolved to be very well adapted to their environment in the rain forests.

Why other species of humans became extinct may largely be because they were in direct competition with us (Homo Sapiens) and our direct ancestors. It seems very likely that the Neanderthals died out due to competition from Homo Sapiens when we arrived in Europe. It may have been very similar to the fate of our indigenous squirrels here in the UK, which have nearly become extinct since the relatively recent introduction of North American squirrels that are simply much better competitors in their shared environment.

Other types of ape such as chimpanzees, orangutangs and gorillas have managed to survive because they live in a different environment to most humans and so are not in direct competition with us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
sywen
Junior Member (Idle past 3171 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-22-2009


Message 65 of 1075 (519812)
08-17-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
06-20-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Could you be more wrong?
i didnt read everything, but i just want to point out, not so long ago, there where 3 types of humanoids living next to each other

homo erectus, homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens.

why 2 of those are extinct.. no one knows (yet) but my theory is that homo sapiens are very good in adapting to new environments, maybe those other 2 humanoids wheren that much adaptive. it can be very good possible in the next million years other human species will develop out of us, the homo sapiens.

there was even a time when 4-6 humanoid species where living next to eachother.


Click to enlarge

Edited by sywen, : No reason given.

Edited by sywen, : No reason given.

Edited by sywen, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 3:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2009 10:47 PM sywen has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19526
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 66 of 1075 (519863)
08-17-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by sywen
08-17-2009 1:44 PM


Tea for Three?
Hi sywen and welcome to the fray.

why 2 of those are extinct.. no one knows (yet) but my theory is that homo sapiens are very good in adapting to new environments, maybe those other 2 humanoids wheren that much adaptive. it can be very good possible in the next million years other human species will develop out of us, the homo sapiens.

Or the weapons technology was just a little better ...

One of my favorite opinions\hypothesis is that Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis are the basis for the trolls, goblins and other mythological "sub"humans, from the times of conflict between them.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sywen, posted 08-17-2009 1:44 PM sywen has not yet responded

traste
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 67 of 1075 (520230)
08-20-2009 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by anglagard
07-19-2009 11:52 PM


Re: Really Bad Attempt to Fool Others
I have read Gould's Mismeasure of Man which is about eugenics, not a denial of the existence of hominid fossils

Was Gould a believer of Darwinian evolution? If your answer is yes,you simply denied the fact that he and Eldridge advanced punctuated equlibrium.

also am certain that I am not alone in this forum in reading this book and others by Gould.

Yes, you are not alone in believing that he supported Darwinian evolution, which in fact he did'nt.

Your use of this book in arguing against human and other species' evolution, which Gould accepted and wrote about in hundreds of works, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst

As I pointed he did'nt believe in Darwiniwan evolution, in I think 1978,he and Eldridge proposed punctuated equlibrium to explained the lack of "transitional links."

Is this an example of your version of Christian morality? If so, time to read the Bible again, try starting with the ten commandments as you just violated at least one in that post.

Im not dishonest, but I guess you are and many others proponents of evolution.

"Common sense means paying attention to what is obvious"

Edited by traste, : wrong grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2009 11:52 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2009 3:15 AM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 68 of 1075 (520234)
08-20-2009 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
07-20-2009 3:46 AM


Re: Silly Questions, Silly Answers
Granny Magda wrote:

No, silly question. There are about six billion human apes alive today. I am one, you are one...

If you were to ask why there are no modern hominids or other extant members of the genus Homo, now that might be a better question

Well, you are free to believe that you came from cows carabaos, dogs or even mosqutoes, just dont involve me in your belifs because it is unrealistic.You wrote "you are one" If evolution is correct? Is evolution correct? With an assertion of power many proponents of evolution will reply will it "is science,as we define science and we have to be content with it" . Well Im not content with it and amny otehr brilliant scientist are not content with it.

Funny, they seem to have left an awful lot of fossils for things that didn't exist. Are you just going to pretend that the human and hominid fossil records don't exist? That would be very silly and rather dishonest.

For the record, I agree with Anglagard; your attempt to hijack Gould is dishonest in the extreme. Gould never claimed what you are trying to make him claim. Who do you think you are kidding

Im not saying that human fossil doesnt exist,but I am saying ape men fossil doesnt exist,many so called fossils of ape men have been disproven by extensive investigation.

This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium?

Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?

No it doesn't. You have forgotten one important factor; environment. What is well suited to one evolutionary niche might do very badly when forced to compete in another niche. Have a think about that, because it's central to answering Doubletime's question

Actually that what is evolutionary theory say that as organism progress up to the ladder of complexities they are more suioted than there predessor. To claimed the opposite is dishonesty.Your claimed of environment as a factor,yes it is a factor but it doesnt prove that the advance form is disadvantage than thre predessors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2009 3:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 08-20-2009 3:22 AM traste has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2009 3:52 AM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 69 of 1075 (520235)
08-20-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
07-20-2009 12:42 AM


Re: Nonsense--again
Traste, you have shown that you know little about evolution, and have accepted the poison dished out by the anti-science and anti-evolution creationists. Unfortunately, they have to lie because the scientific evidence contradicts virtually all of their religious beliefs. You have fallen for their lies

Given that I read books for and againts evoltion is no hint that I have a little knowledge on this subject. You wrote"accepted the poison dish"well, this the most worst thing of all if I really did that,but I never did that I simpy believe in creation for the simple reason it is a better explanation when it comes to the emergenge of biological complexities in life. Random mututaion is no help when it comes to the emergence of biological complexities,in fact resaerch show that genes ae powerful stabilizing mechanism that forbids mutation.In addition it is a process that easily break genes tahn building them up. Another problems of evolution is that at molecular level things are interdependent,and taht is contrast to gradual development of organism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2009 12:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 7:21 AM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 70 of 1075 (520237)
08-20-2009 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluescat48
07-20-2009 12:36 AM


No primitive apes have survived only the modern apes, that is, modern gibbons, modern orangutans, modern gorillas, modern chimps & modern humans

Well I think you justdont get it. My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2009 12:36 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 7:26 AM traste has responded
 Message 77 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2009 8:32 AM traste has responded
 Message 78 by Blue Jay, posted 08-20-2009 5:12 PM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 71 of 1075 (520238)
08-20-2009 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2009 8:12 AM


Re: {Irrelevant sniping hidden}
Please,add substance to this debate.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: 24 hour suspension because of this message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2009 8:12 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16028
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 72 of 1075 (520242)
08-20-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by traste
08-20-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Really Bad Attempt to Fool Others
Was Gould a believer of Darwinian evolution? If your answer is yes,you simply denied the fact that he and Eldridge advanced punctuated equlibrium.

In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.

Yes, you are not alone in believing that he supported Darwinian evolution, which in fact he did'nt.

In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.

As I pointed he did'nt believe in Darwiniwan evolution,

In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.

in I think 1978,he and Eldridge proposed punctuated equlibrium to explained the lack of "transitional links."

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. --- Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

Im not dishonest, but I guess you are and many others proponents of evolution.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. --- Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

So, you claim not to be dishonest. What, then, is your reason for telling such dreadful lies about Gould's opinions? Gould suggested stupidity as the alternative --- but perhaps there is a third possibility that he didn't think of.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:34 AM traste has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 73 of 1075 (520243)
08-20-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by traste
08-20-2009 1:58 AM


Re: Silly Questions, Silly Answers
Hi traste,

Well, you are free to believe that you came from cows carabaos, dogs or even mosqutoes, just dont involve me in your belifs because it is unrealistic.

Okay. If you don't want to discuss evolution, feel free to go away. Bye.

You involve yourself by coming here and posting erroneous comments. As long as you insist on doing that, people are going to "involve you" in their evolutionist opinions, as ought to be obvious.

You wrote "you are one" If evolution is correct? Is evolution correct?

Yes it is. Thank you, come again!

No, seriously, you are an ape whether evolution is correct or not. Humans and apes have been classified together since Linnaeus, who, living some time before Darwin was even born, was no no Darwinist. This classification does not depend upon evolutionary theory, although such theories do explain the reason behind our similarities.

With an assertion of power many proponents of evolution will reply will it "is science,as we define science and we have to be content with it" . Well Im not content with it and amny otehr brilliant scientist are not content with it.

Did you just describe yourself as a "brilliant scientist"? I sincerely hope that was a mistake.

As it goes, it is completely irrelevant whether you are content or not. It doesn't matter whether "brilliant scientists" are content or not. All that matters is evidence and you have not presented any that challenges the ToE, which remains one of the best evidenced theories in the whole of science.

For the record, evolution has the overwhelming support of bio-science professionals. It's opponents are few to the point of negligibility and mostly motivated by religious dogma.

Im not saying that human fossil doesnt exist,but I am saying ape men fossil doesnt exist,many so called fossils of ape men have been disproven by extensive investigation.

Is that a fact? Come on then, name them. I can think of two (both debunked by scientists, not creationists), but that hardly qualifies as many...

Meanwhile, here is a satisfyingly long list of human family tree fossils which very much do exist. Do you really think you are going to be able hand-wave them all away? Dream on.

This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium?

Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?

Trying to move the goalposts eh? More dishonesty.

You did not say anything about punctuated equilibrium, you said;

traste writes:

The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's )

Now you and I both know that Gould never even implied that there are no human ancestor fossils. That was something that you made up. In fact, let's be clear; that was a lie that you made up. Or perhaps you are repeating a lie from some other source. Have you even read The Mismeasure of Man? I doubt it.

If I am wrong, then by all means, when you get back from your suspension, prove me wrong. Show me where Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man, denies the existence of the human fossil record. Of course, you can't, because he said no such thing.

Do you really think that telling pathetic lies is going to impress anyone?

Actually that what is evolutionary theory say that as organism progress up to the ladder of complexities they are more suioted than there predessor.

No it doesn't.

To claimed the opposite is dishonesty.

No, there is no dishonesty here. What there is is only a profound lack of understanding on your part.

Your claimed of environment as a factor,yes it is a factor but it doesnt prove that the advance form is disadvantage than thre predessors.

No, you are making several mistakes here. I will address the most relevant one.

"Survival of the fittest" only means the survival of those most fitted to their environment. If an organism adapts to suit a wet, swampy environment, and the climate changes, drying up its habitat, it will no longer be suited; it will no longer be the most fitting and it will be forced to find a new environment, adapt or die out. Environmental change is a major driver of evolution. If you insist on ignoring it, no wonder you are confused.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16028
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 74 of 1075 (520244)
08-20-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by traste
08-20-2009 1:58 AM


Re: Silly Questions, Silly Answers
This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium?

Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?

Of course. He's not insane.

Small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM traste has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 75 of 1075 (520253)
08-20-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by traste
08-20-2009 2:13 AM


Re: Nonsense--again
traste writes:

Given that I read books for and againts evoltion is no hint that I have a little knowledge on this subject.


Then how come virtually everything you say about it is wrong?

You wrote"accepted the poison dish"well, this the most worst thing of all if I really did that,but I never did that I simpy believe in creation for the simple reason it is a better explanation when it comes to the emergenge of biological complexities in life.

But it's not even an explanation. "Goddidit" is the same as "we don't know, and never will".

Random mututaion is no help when it comes to the emergence of biological complexities,in fact resaerch show that genes ae powerful stabilizing mechanism that forbids mutation.

Another lie? This is why we say you are ignorant of evolution.

In addition it is a process that easily break genes tahn building them up.

So...now they DO happen...yet are "breaking the gene up". Make up your mind, either they are or they aren't happening.

Another problems of evolution is that at molecular level things are interdependent,and taht is contrast to gradual development of organism.

If you really knew about evolution, you wouldn't be saying these things.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:13 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
72NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018