Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 317 of 1075 (621323)
06-25-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Mazzy writes:
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?
All species are transitional because evolutionary change is inevitable due to imperfect reproduction. If environmental conditions are relatively constant then some species will retain their morphological forms over long periods of geological time, as far as can be ascertained from their fossils, but fossils are missing a great deal of detail, not just soft tissue but also genetics where we know that even a species that to all appearances is unchanging over time still has DNA that is definitely changing, just not in ways that are overtly expressed.
By the way, your post doesn't really seem to be a reply to me. Did you perhaps click on the reply button for one of my posts when you actually intended to reply to someone else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 366 of 1075 (621478)
06-26-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:35 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
Percy the classification of apes, does not explain why none of the off shoots, since the chimp human split, are here today.
Why would you expect a classification system to explain extinctions?
Biologists have organized life around the planet into a hierarchical classification system based upon degree of relatedness as indicated by morphological similarity and, where the information is available, genetic similarity. Extinction has nothing to do with it.
Why did every species since the chimp human split go off into extinction?
We have some hypotheses, but we don't really know for sure. But for the sake of discussion let's pretend that we do know why these other species went extinct. How would that affect the classification of Homo sapiens as members of the ape (Hominoidea) superfamily?
The peppered moth, for example, can revert back to light coloured as they did with environmental improvement. There was no speciation in that light and dark could still mate sucessfully....but a humans cannot revert back to an ape, over 200 years. Did light coloured moths go extinct..Not really. This is just adaptive change and is not permanent.
The peppered moth is not an example of speciation. It's an example of natural selection.
But you rhetorically ask if light colored moths went extinct, and this indicates some kind of fundamental misunderstanding, though I'm unsure what it is. You must be assuming some invalid relationship between evolutionary change and extinction. Are you assuming that evolution causes extinction? If so then that's dead wrong. Evolution causes adaptation. It is environments changing faster than evolutionary adaptation, causing species to become less competitive, that causes extinction.
Also, no adaptive change is permanent. Reproduction is imperfect. Even the most precious adaptive feature is vulnerable to copying errors, and natural selection weeds out bad errors.
This is why, although evolutionists have invented a theory to explain it all, the theory often makes no sense in light of what can be observed today.
I can see that your understanding of evolution makes no sense, but the fault is in your understanding, not with evolution. If evolution is wrong then it will be shown wrong for things it actually says, not for things you incorrectly think it says.
Even Ardi is being disputed, and about time. Even as unscientific as I am I could clearly see that Ardi did not have gracile fingers, which Lucy does. Something is amiss, although other reasons are cited as the cause for refuting Ardi as any human ancestor
In the field of human origins there is a great deal that is in dispute, not just Ardi. It's a very contentious field. But no matter what our evolutionary tree actually looks like, it wouldn't have any impact on the classification of humans as apes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 368 of 1075 (621481)
06-26-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Humans in Australia
Mazzy writes:
You are having a harder time in understanding that the idea of extinction is not observed. eg Peppered moths were light, then dark, then light again....no extinction observed. Bird beaks change in response to varying diet but other beak holders do not necessarily go extinct.
As you can tell by the responses you drew from Nuggin and DBlevins, it isn't possible to make any sense of why you think that a) some form of peppered moth should have gone extinct; and b) that this is a problem for evolution; and c) that this has something to do with the classification of humans as apes.
Can you take us through the chain of evidence and rationale that led you to these conclusions? We need to hear this because right now this just sounds like nonsense.
The rest of your post was pretty hard to swallow too:
Over the last 20,000 years the only extinction that has occured has been as a result of human interference...
What evidence led you to this conclusion? (I'm also curious, since your beliefs obviously stem from a literal interpretation of Genesis, why you believe there were any humans before around 6000 years ago, but that's a topic for another thread - forget I said anything.)
I have produced research supporting no link to speciation and catastrophe. eg chaos theory.
I must have missed this. Could you cut-n-paste that research into your reply? Thanks!
Poking holes in current evolutionary theory is another support for creationism.
This is the old familiar fallacy of a false dichotomy. No matter what field of science we're talking about, proving one theory wrong doesn't prove another theory right. And in this case, assuming we're talking scientifically, there's only one theory within biology right now that explains species diversity. There's no controversy within science between evolution and creationism. The controversy exists as a social/religious/political issue, not a scientific one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:50 PM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 369 of 1075 (621485)
06-26-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
I did not say species do not go extinct today. I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind. The Chaos theory link I put up also speaks to this and the writer is an evolutionist.
"What of extinction? Of course, species have gone extinct during the past 20,000 years. However, almost all examples involve some degree of human activity, either directly (think dodos) or indirectly (large mammals at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago)."
http://www.newscientist.com/...haos-theory-of-evolution.html
Professor Keith Bennet, the author of this article from New Scientist, is engaging in speculation. One currently popular hypothesis is that humans are responsible for the extinctions of large mammals in North America over the past 12,000 years, but there's no conclusive evidence. To state almost unequivocally that humans are responsible for most extinctions world-wide over the past 20,000 years goes way, way beyond the available evidence.
I think we're all having trouble understanding what connection you think you see between the classification of humans as apes on the one hand, and extinctions and the details of human evolutionary history on the other. Let's say that we determine that neither Homo floresiensis nor Ardi is a human ancestor. How does that affect the classification of humans as apes?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Mazzy, posted 06-26-2011 3:07 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 384 of 1075 (621524)
06-26-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Mazzy
06-26-2011 3:07 PM


Re: More evolved?
Hi Mazzy,
I think I understand your position now. You're focused on extinction because you think the missing intermediates aren't missing because they haven't been found yet. You think they're missing because they never existed. This explains why you're arguing that had they really existed they would not have gone extinct because you reject competition as a factor. It is usually not possible to know what factors were in play to cause an extinction, and all it means to say a species was out-competed is that they produced too few offspring for each succeeding generation, and eventually they produced no offspring at all. There are other factors besides competition. For example, all members of a species with a small geographic range might be wiped out in a disaster like a flood or volcano.
But the important point is that we don't classify humans as apes because of missing intermediates. We classify humans as apes because of shared morphology and genetics. The evolutionary relationships we've established with chimps, gorillas and other apes as well as extinct hominid species have only cemented our confidence in this classification,
For example I am saying Turkana Boy is fully human.
About Turkana boy being human, the other image I provided of the skull clearly shows that it is very similar to the Homo erectus skull you provided. here are the images again with Homo erectus on the left and Turkana boy in the middle. I've included a human skull on the right for comparison:
The braincase and brow ridge of Homo erectus and Turkana boy are an extremely good match. A large part of the central portion of the Turkana boy brow ridge has broken off and is missing, but if you click on the image to enlarge it you can clearly see how similar it is to the Homo erectus skull, and how different they both are from the human skull
Even just this cursory examination of these two skulls reveals that they are far more similar to each other than to a human skull. It is unlikely in the extreme that Turkana boy could be human while Homo erectus is not.
All scientists engage in speculation and indeed that is all they have once they delve past the here and now.
Gee, and they have such nice things to say about you.
If the winner of a debate is who can be most denigrating then I'd say you have a chance.
It is not so much that evolutionists like to give every variation a new name and call it a different species. What urkes me is that you use this to suggest macroevolution from ape to man.
The evidence suggests the relatedness of all life, not just man and other apes (the word is "irks").
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Mazzy, posted 06-26-2011 3:07 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Coyote, posted 06-26-2011 7:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 409 of 1075 (621697)
06-28-2011 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Pressie
06-28-2011 5:21 AM


Missing Links
To refresh people's memories, this excursion into confusion between lying and being wrong began with Portillo's Message 349 where he apparently repeated a claim that he'd made before and that had been rebutted before.
Portillo claimed that scientists were engaging in deception by periodically announcing they'd found the missing link, when in reality it doesn't exist. But the hugely divisive field of human origins brings no honor upon itself, ruled as it as more by personality and ego than by evidence with the resulting exaggerated claims that imply greater certainty than is possible, and they only invite this confusion on the part of that portion of the public that remains skeptical of evolution.
That being said, it is one of the most frustrating things at a discussion board when one encounters someone who stops arguing against rebuttals to his position, then after a brief while simply reintroduces the position into the discussion as if it had never been rebutted. I can't think of anything that has driven me more crazy than this kind seeming dishonesty. Our expectation is that someone who is being forthright will, when reintroducing a point, set the context and say something like, "Some who don't agree have argued that...", instead of just putting it out there like the point had never been made and rebutted before.
But there is another side to this, and that's that it is most often the case that rebuttal wasn't perceived as rebuttal because it wasn't understood, and I think that's the case here. In my experience most creationist lack of understanding or misunderstanding is extremely persistent. Those who remember Bolder-dash will recall that he never understood any argument about the non-random nature of evolution, and for him it as if the rebuttals to his claims that evolution was random had never been made.
Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that there isn't enough time left in the universe to persuade them otherwise. Anyone know anybody who believes in magnetic bracelets or astrology or ghosts or any of that stuff? Ever succeeded in convincing them these things are hokum? Doesn't happen often, I'm sure. It helps to keep in mind this natural human intransigence that we all have.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Pressie, posted 06-28-2011 5:21 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 1:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 426 of 1075 (621975)
06-29-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:54 PM


Re: More evolved?
Hi Mazzy,
You still haven't squared yourself with the classification issue. Regardless what you believe about human origins, you must agree that the mammal we are most like is the chimpanzee, and the next most is the gorilla. In any biological classification system, at some level these mammals will be placed in the same group. Whether you call that group apes or Hominoidea or something else, humans, chimps and gorillas will be in the same group. That fact is inescapable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 445 of 1075 (622123)
06-30-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 2:31 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
I'll answer you first as you appear to be the more emotionally stable and able to debate without resorting to insults.
Which means if you were debating yourself, you wouldn't reply to yourself first.
Mazzy writes:
Percy the Linneaus system is based on the concept of ancestry.
No, it's not, it's based on morphology. If you don't believe me, then this is from the Wikipedia entry on Linneaus:
Wikipedia writes:
Linnaeus' groupings were based upon shared physical characteristics.
And this is from the Wikipedia entry on Linnaean taxonomy:
Wikipedia writes:
Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms.
But I never said anything about Linnaean taxonomy. I think I said that in any biological classification system chimps, gorillas and humans would at some level be placed within the same group. If you think the evidence suggests that humans are actually more similar to orangutans then that's fine, too, and humans would instead be grouped with orangutans. The important principle that must be understood is that in any biological classification system similar organisms will be grouped together.
So since you mention orangutans I'll just mention that in the current classification system, humans, chimps, orangutans and gorillas are grouped in the Hominidae family, also known as the great apes. They are placed together because of shared characteristics and genetics. This means these species are more similar to each other than to any other life.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 448 of 1075 (622150)
07-01-2011 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Portillo
07-01-2011 6:10 AM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo writes:
Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience? Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment. He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent.
Every species has unique qualities that differentiate it from other species. The human brain is one of the qualities that makes humans unique
Humans are grouped with other apes because of the qualities they share as a group, such as large brains, taillessness, structure of the hands and feet, lengthy adolescent period, and no particular breeding season. They're also grouped together because genetic analysis reveals that their DNA is more similar to each other than to any other life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Portillo, posted 07-01-2011 6:10 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2011 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 520 of 1075 (622301)
07-02-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Mazzy
07-01-2011 11:21 PM


Mazzy writes:
The skull pictured is an darn ape.
Dr Adequate made no claim as to it's classification. He was responding to your assertion in Message 474 that our evidence of Heidelberg man is only a fossilized jaw:
Mazzy in Message 474 writes:
One example is Heidelberg man. Only a jaw was found.
So Dr Adequate responded with an image of a Heidelberg man skull. You are correct only so far as that the first Heidelberg man fossil found was a jaw. There is a Wikipedia article on Heidelberg man that makes clear that our fossil evidence for Heidelberg man consists of far more than a jaw.
Your incorrect assertion about Heidelberg man stemmed from a response to another incorrect assertion you made in Message 463, and that Taq responded to in Message 465:
Taq writes:
Mazzy writes:
Many of your fossils are just a few bones with the majority of the specimen reconstructed according to a wish list.
Evidence please.
And this was when you responded with your incorrect assertion about Heidelberg man that I opened with.
So could you answer the question about the evidence for your claim that theories of human ancestry are based on specimens consisting of "just a few bones"? If you'd care to support the other part of the claim that the specimens are "reconstructed according to a wish list" then that would be nice, too.
Another issue that would be nice to clear up concerns Homo erectus and Turkana boy. You keep repeating that Homo erectus is an ape while Turkana boy is human. Here are their skulls with Homo erectus on the left, Turkana boy in the middle, and a human skull on the right. Could you please explain what features you're considering in reaching your odd conclusions:
If you click on the peek button you'll see the markup for including these images in this message. You can cut-n-paste this markup into your own message for reference as you draft your response. If you click on any of the images they will grow to full size.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 11:21 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by jar, posted 07-02-2011 7:40 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 522 of 1075 (622304)
07-02-2011 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by jar
07-02-2011 7:40 AM


Edited by AdminModulous, : contents hidden, use the peek button to view contents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by jar, posted 07-02-2011 7:40 AM jar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 545 of 1075 (622340)
07-02-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by ZenMonkey
07-02-2011 12:25 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Hi ZenMonkey,
Just noticed the Theodoric quote in your signature. Even if "effect" is what he actually said, "affect" is what he meant.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-02-2011 12:25 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-02-2011 4:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 553 of 1075 (622348)
07-02-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by LucyTheApe
07-02-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Hi Lucy,
I doubt it makes sense to anyone that you think Coyote's list is a bunch of suppositions. Without going through the whole list and just focusing on the first item, what is it about forward-facing eyes as a quality we share with apes that seems like a supposition to you? Don't all apes have forward facing eyes?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-02-2011 1:31 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 3:26 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 560 of 1075 (622356)
07-02-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by LucyTheApe
07-02-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Hi Lucy, nice diagrams.
So let me get this straight.
You have no problem grouping insects, snakes, rats, pigs and humans in the Amimalia kingdom.
And you have no problem grouping catfish, snakes, rats pigs and humans in the Chordata phylum (mostly vertebrates).
And you have no problem grouping whales, snakes, rats, pigs and humans in the Mammalian class.
And you have no problem grouping lemurs, probiscus and spider monkeys, gibbons, chimps, gorillas and humans in the Primate Order.
And you have no problem that humans are all alone in the Homo genus.
But it drives you crazy grouping chimps, gorillas and humans in the Hominidae family, popularly called apes.
Why?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-02-2011 2:20 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 4:01 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 563 of 1075 (622360)
07-02-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Mazzy
07-02-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Mazzy writes:
Tigers have forward facing eyes also. It means little as far as ancestry goes.
We're talking about classification, not ancestry. Classification is performed by examining characteristics and seeking groups that share a set of characteristics, not just a single characteristic. I think most predators have forward facing eyes, which provide better tracking of prey through stereoscopic vision. And most herbivores have sideways facing eyes, which provide better detection of predators through peripheral vision.
When we classify life according to shared characteristics we get a nested hierarchy. So humans reside within the Homo genus, which resides within the ape family, which resides within the primate order, which resides within the mammal class, which resides within the vertebrae phylum, which resides within the Animal kingdom.
It's just a classification system. It says nothing positive or negative about any organism. Being a mammal doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity. Being a primate doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity. Being an ape doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 3:26 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 4:17 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024