Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 181 of 1075 (618960)
06-07-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Portillo
06-07-2011 6:29 AM


At the risk of overwhelming you with replies; you seem to accept that all other primates are primates, while rejecting humanity's membership of the Primate family, by pointing out some differences between humans and other primates. Problem is, every primate is different from other primates in some way - why do their differences not exclude the from the group, but humanity's differences do?
The list treats a wide array of things as if they'e constant over non-human primates which simply aren't. To take the most obvious example:
quote:
Primates have 48 chromosomes
Well, no. The great apes (excepting humans) have 48 chromosones, as do proboscis monkeys and rhesus monkeys. Capuchin monkeys have 54. Most gibbons seems to have 44 chromosones, though siamang have 50 and the concolor gibbon 52. Do we conclue that Capuchins aren't monkeys, and siamang aren't gibbons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Portillo, posted 06-07-2011 6:29 AM Portillo has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 182 of 1075 (618978)
06-07-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Portillo
06-07-2011 6:29 AM


On bones
Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every prehuman ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.
When I took human osteology in graduate school we learned to identify all the bones in the human anatomy, down to small fragments.
At the end of the semester the professor brought out a collection of various ape and monkey bones. To our surprise we were able to identify them also! The shapes were largely the same, although there were size and shape differences.
But the size (and weight) differences were meaningless. It was the shapes that told the story.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Portillo, posted 06-07-2011 6:29 AM Portillo has not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 183 of 1075 (620810)
06-21-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Panda
06-07-2011 8:16 AM


quote:
p.s. Any document that uses phrases like:
"...which only the black race has achieved."
immediately sets off alarm bells.
I dont see what that has to do with anything. Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes? Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Panda, posted 06-07-2011 8:16 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by anglagard, posted 06-21-2011 5:11 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 187 by Pressie, posted 06-21-2011 7:38 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 189 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2011 9:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2011 11:18 AM Portillo has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 184 of 1075 (620811)
06-21-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:02 AM


Portillo writes:
I dont see what that has to do with anything. Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes? Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?
I sure hope this is satire, for your sake.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM anglagard has replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 185 of 1075 (620812)
06-21-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by anglagard
06-21-2011 5:11 AM


Isnt the Origin of Species called "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
"At some period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by anglagard, posted 06-21-2011 5:11 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by anglagard, posted 06-21-2011 5:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2011 11:13 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 216 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-23-2011 12:35 AM Portillo has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 186 of 1075 (620814)
06-21-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:24 AM


Usual Misquote
Usually when confronted with something that stinks, I find the source.
Portillo writes:
"At some period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin
Oops another violation of what is commonly referred to as a commandment from God, namely bearing false witness.
From Notable Charles Darwin misquotes
quote:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.[8]
You have to do better than that if you so choose to deal with the adults as we find ignorance boring.
Oh, and welcome to EvC please remember to put on your armor.
Edited by anglagard, : remash of last sentence
Edited by anglagard, : Forgot to be civil to new members.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Wounded King, posted 06-21-2011 8:51 AM anglagard has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 187 of 1075 (620820)
06-21-2011 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:02 AM


Portillo writes:
I dont see what that has to do with anything. Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes?
No. Evolution doesn’t say anything. In particular, it doesn't "say" anything you claim it "says".
Paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc., utilizing the empirical evidence obtained through hard work, deducted that modern humans developed in East Africa around 200 000 years ago. All modern humans. It includes everyone. European, Asian, African, Australasian, everyone.
Portillo writes:
Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?
Any links to substantiate your claim? As far as I know no not one scientist killed Aboriginees for any claim like that. Non-scientists (religious folk and non-religious folk) did kill indigenous people all over Australia, because they thought that the Aboriginal people were inferior. Maybe some of these killers were scientists, but no scientist did it for the reasons you speculated they did.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 AM Portillo has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 188 of 1075 (620822)
06-21-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by anglagard
06-21-2011 5:42 AM


Re: Usual Misquote
Hi Anglagard,
I don't really see how what you quote in any way rebuts Portillo's claim that Darwin at least saw human races as being on an evolutionary scale.
The page you linked to gives Portillo's quote as one used to suggest that Darwin was advocating the extermination of the 'savage races', which would indeed be a quote mine. But the fuller quote actually seems to support Portillo's point ...
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
So Darwin clearly seems to be suggesting that there is less of an evolutionary gap between 'the negro or Australian and the gorilla' than between a Caucasian and a gorilla.
While this may have been a view that Darwin held it certainly doesn't form any part of modern evolutionary theory, indeed modern comparative genetics strongly suggests that there is no such differential gap between different 'races', which isn't to say there are no genetic markers of ethnicity.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by anglagard, posted 06-21-2011 5:42 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2011 11:17 AM Wounded King has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 189 of 1075 (620826)
06-21-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:02 AM


Thou Shalt Not Lie
Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?
quote:
The Oyster Cove people attracted contemporaneous international scientific interest from the 1860s onwards, with many museums claiming body parts for their collections. Scientists were interested in studying Tasmanian Aborigines from a physical anthropology perspective, hoping to gain insights into the field of paleoanthropology. For these reasons, they were interested in individual Aboriginal body parts and whole skeletons.
Tasmanian Aboriginal skulls were particularly sought internationally for studies into craniofacial anthropometry.
In one case, the Royal Society of Tasmania received government permission to exhume the body of Truganini in 1878, within 2 years of her death, on condition that it was "decently deposited in a secure resting place accessible by special permission to scientific men for scientific purposes." Her skeleton was on display in the Tasmanian Museum until 1947.[57] Another case was the removal of the skull and scrotum for a tobacco pouch of William Lanne, known as King Billy, on his death in 1869.
Source about 2/3 down under Anthropological interest.
As appalling as this is by today's standards it comes as no surprise that today's modern creationists twist it sicker still in lying about scientists and outright murder in violation of their god's commandment.
Another excellent example of the oxymoron "religious morality."
Edited by AZPaul3, : detailed the source.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 AM Portillo has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 190 of 1075 (620845)
06-21-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:24 AM


Isnt the Origin of Species called "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Yes, by which he meant varieties and species of animals; he never mentioned the various races of humans anywhere in the Origin of Species.
"At some period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin
And his gloomy prediction was largely correct; but I don't see how you can hold that against him. Why, you yourself must have been right about something once or twice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM Portillo has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 1075 (620846)
06-21-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Wounded King
06-21-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Usual Misquote
So Darwin clearly seems to be suggesting that there is less of an evolutionary gap between 'the negro or Australian and the gorilla' than between a Caucasian and a gorilla.
Only if he thought that a "civilized state" was a genetic property; and since five seconds' thought would show that it isn't, and Darwin was a genius, it is unlikely that this is what he meant.
It is obvious that Darwin, of all people, knew that the various human races were part of a family tree and not of the "Great Chain of Being".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Wounded King, posted 06-21-2011 8:51 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 06-21-2011 12:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 192 of 1075 (620847)
06-21-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:02 AM


Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes?
NO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 193 of 1075 (620858)
06-21-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
06-21-2011 11:17 AM


Re: Usual Misquote
Well I'm glad you had your Ouija board to hand to give us those insights into the mind of the deceased. Care to parse that conclusion out of anything that Darwin actually wrote?
Or alternatively would you care to explain how his statement makes any sense except with Caucasians or his hypothetical 'more civilised state' being further removed from the great apes than were negros or aboriginals?
Appealing to genetics hardly helps since Darwin didn't actually know any genetics. Indeed the quote that Anglagard provided strongly suggests that Darwin associated civilisation with ...
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
Which he clearly seems to have felt did have a heritable basis. Earlier on he wrote ...
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
So if you can use your psychic connection to once again tell us what Darwin really meant, instead of what he actually wrote, I'm sure that would help us out a lot.
The attitude hardly reflects badly on Darwin given the times he lived in, your attitude is harder to explain . You seem to wish to represent Darwin as the sort of infallible genius creationists and IDists often mistakenly claim all evolutionists regard him as. If he was such a genius about genetic properties what was the whole pangenesis thing about?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2011 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2011 5:03 AM Wounded King has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 194 of 1075 (620882)
06-21-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dr Adequate
06-21-2011 11:18 AM


Actually you are incorrect. Some scientists did refer to Aborigines as not being fully human but akin to homo erectus.
ABORIGINE EVOLUTION ASSUMES A MAJOR ROLE - The New York Times
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
Neanderthal used to be used as a represntation of mid species. They were represented as such and were good evidence for the transition from ape to man. However, as we all know, this is no longer the case with Neanderthal being classified by some scientists as homo sapiens neanderthalis, a human subspecies.
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project. Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
Another interesting twist to the topic is that no other organism has evolved high reasoning and perceptual capability. With all the homology around it is a shame we can't have a conversation with something like an evolved mouse or turtle.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2011 11:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Larni, posted 06-21-2011 2:18 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2011 4:33 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 197 by DBlevins, posted 06-21-2011 4:48 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 198 by jar, posted 06-21-2011 5:03 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2011 4:31 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 06-22-2011 8:58 AM Mazzy has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 195 of 1075 (620885)
06-21-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


You're not a halfling Paladin, are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024