|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?) | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hi there.
If humans were said to be.. or be related to gorillas.. or chimpanzees or of those african apes, why is there still such things as gorillas and other apes.. wouldnt there be all humans if the apes have evolved into these humans.. Ah, it's the ol' "why are there still monkeys?" thing again. If Iceland was colonized by Scandinavians, why are there still Scandinavians?
how are these apes still maintain all the perfect DNA as to what exactly they are as apes, when apes have evolved into humans. The apes we have now are not, in fact, the apes you used to get in the good old days, they too have evolved since the time of our common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We are apes. Whoever told you that stuff is simply a liar, likely another "Liar for Jesus." All us Apes evolved from something that was not yet Ape I wish people wouldn't do that. Look, if apes are a clade, then our common ancestors with chimps was an ape. If, on the other hand, we're going to allow the term "apes" to be anacladic, then in common parlance we are not apes, and our common ancestor with chimps would so be clasified. 'Cos they look like, y'know, apes. Your definition of apes, in which we are, but our ancestors aren't, corresponds to no concept I've ever heard of, and combines the worst features of both definitions. Be nice. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, 6 million years ago there's a bunch of apes hanging around in a tree, some of these apes thought it'd be a nifty idea to start hanging around on all this big shiny savanna that opened up and was filled with Lions and Tigers along with the odd Mushroom and Badger and so they hoped down from the trees and learnt to walk on two legs, shave and do complicated long division sums while the rest of them sloped around and became chimps. Close, but no cigar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And yes, I've heard all the darwinist fairy-tales [just-so stories] about how, once upon a time, these creatures did not live in snowy climates, until one happy day a normal brown animal suddenly was touched by a magic genetic mutation that caused white fur when the winter came, but reversed itself with the snow-melt, and that complex but fortuitous genetic mutation enabled/compelled him/her to move north in the winter for camouflage purposes--to a place where, previously, all the brown-furred animals were wiped out soon after the first fall of snow, because they weren't snow white. Duh!! You have not, in fact, heard that, because no-one has ever said that. Except possibly the voices in your head.
Does gravity change "in unpredictable and irregular ways"? Does electro-magnetism or the nuclear forces? No, but environments do. This is a fact.
So how in the world can darwinists keep insisting that their "NS" is on the exact same level of causality as the four accepted 'forces'? They do not, which is why you can't quote them as doing so. --- Why don't you try arguing with some opinion that someone actually holds? Or is that too difficult for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time. "The" creation theory?
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity. You could make the same claim about any sufficiently recent concept. Should we give up on the theory that lightning is an electrical discharge, and go back to the "thunder god is angry" hypothesis? How about the germ theory of disease? Witchcraft has historically been the more popular explanation. Splitting the atom? Why, the very name means "unsplittable", and has done for 2500 years. The Periodic Table hasn't been around nearly as long as the "four elements" of earth, air, fire, and water.
(Image courtesy of the Rediscovery Institute.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So where do the australopithecines fit into all this?
A. africanus, cranial capacity 400 - 500 cm3
H. habilis, cranial capacity (this specimen) 510 cm3
H. sapiens, average cranial capacity about 1500 cm3
It would seem perverse to allow a relationship between H. habilis and H. sapiens but to deny the possibility of a relationship between the australopithecines and H. habilis. Humans and apes, you say, are "so diverse" --- yet the difference between australopithecines, outside genus Homo, and H. habilis, inside genus Homo, seem markedly less than the differences that we can find within genus Homo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To those who have criticised my response for one reason or another let me just say that when I have said I believe something, it is not as though I have dreamt it up. I find it insulting that I have been accused of doing so, despite the fact that I haven't quoted a reference. Yeah, that can happen.
My reference to H. habilis and H. erectus wasn't designed to be comprehensive. I could have included a myriad of others if that was my aim. Well, would it have included rhipidistian fish? Where, given the multitude of intermediate forms, would you like to draw the line, and declare --- here the possibility of ancestry stops? You will always face the same problem --- that of those species that you wish to include, there will always be one species outside that group that is more similar to one of the species inside that group than the species inside that group are to one another.
It would have been a waste of my time and yours. To speak for myself --- feel free to waste my time. We shall find out if it is a waste of yours.
According to some responses people must believe that I have misinterpreted the meaning of the topic. I thought (and still think) it was asking why apes still exist based on an assumption that apes evolved into humans. I was questioning the validity of that assumption. "I believe" that they are too genetically diverse. Then perhaps you had better answer my question.
As I have found in some other forums there is, unfortunately, a stigma attached to those who are assigned the misleading classification of "Junior member". It can bring out an unfortunate, primitive behavior pattern in others known as territorialism. Or perhaps there is some other reason why people familiar with the fossil record don't immediately fall at your feet declaring that of course you are absolutely right. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That could have been both more accurate and more coherent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I just read the Chimpanzee genome project and if you go there you will find is there are several differences between us and chimps. A 30% difference that covers all areas. We are closer in relationship to a rat that shows we are 88% identical and they mention the human/rat common ancestry. I believe I explained this at length here. It's as though you said: "One scientist tells me that the weight of an elephant is 4.5, and another tells me that it's 9000. Who should I trust?" You left off the units. One scientist is using tons, and the other is using pounds, and they are in agreement.
It is obvious to me that common ancestry is not a key factor in that it makes no sense at all. The fact that biology makes no sense to you is more a commentary on your present level of understanding than it is on biology. It all makes perfect sense to me. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024