Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 149 (8287 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2015 10:04 PM
77 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, JonF, nwr (5 members, 72 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: smithsheenna
Upcoming Birthdays: Ed Conrad
Post Volume:
Total: 755,796 Year: 10,762/30,875 Month: 1,957/3,662 Week: 91/369 Day: 58/33 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Where are all the apes leading up to humans?
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 10312
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 31 of 67 (653385)
02-20-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

No, why would I?

How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos? Why is there such a huge gap?

We out competed them.

Please don't post ad hoc explanations with no scientific evidence to back up it up.

Saying they are not alive today because X reason without any scientific evidence to support it is not science, but a cheap cop out.

You didn't offer the same courtesy. Why would we expect to find sub-humans walking around?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13322
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


(7)
Message 32 of 67 (653391)
02-20-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right? There should be sub-humans and sub-sub-humans and sub-sub-sub humans walking around.

The more I think about this, the sillier it seems.

They were living where we wanted to live, using the resources that we wanted to use, hunting the game that we wanted to hunt and inhabiting the land that we wanted to cultivate, and they were our technological and intellectual inferiors. What is there about the history of our bloody and warlike species that makes you expect that for tens of thousands of years we'd have (in effect) established nature reserves for them, while visiting unrestrained war and death on members of our own species, and while driving dozens of other mammal species into extinction?

Around these nature reserves --- are we to suppose? --- empires rose and fell, wave after wave of invaders came and fought and settled and were conquered in their turn, armies of thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands struggled for land, and all this time every culture that came into contact with H. erectus said "But we mustn't kill them and take their land. Because one day someone will invent the theory of evolution and then they will be seen as being of great scientific importance."

I think not.

It is obvious that they would be driven to extinction, because if nothing else got them, we would. So I think the explanatory burden is on you. Can you think up any plausible scenario at all under which they would have survived to the present day?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 3025
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 33 of 67 (653393)
02-20-2012 3:54 PM


You seems to have come here looking for a fight rather than to learn. That's a pity because what you've asked is a decent enough question and there are people here that are happy to help you find an answer to it.

I see that you have already proposed another thread asking whether the woodpecker's head is designed. That looks like a standard Jehovah's Witness 'gee wizz isn't nature amazing, god must have done it' question.

Before you get onto the bombarder beetle's backside, it would save some time and multiple copy and pastes if you tell us if there's anything you actually would like to know rather than just roll out the same old nonsense that we've all seen thousands of times.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(8)
Message 34 of 67 (653399)
02-20-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


misinformation rather than reality
Hi CrytoGod, and welcome to the fray.

I'll just add a few points to the ones made by others concerning your misinformation:

How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos?

There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

Why is there such a huge gap?

Measured by DNA the gap between chimps and humans is about 2%, and this is similar to the gap between horses and zebras and donkeys.

The gap between humans and chimps is similar to the gap between humans and bonobos. The gap between chimps and bonobos is also similar but not quite to the same degree, due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to chimps and bonobos that is more recent than the common ancestor with humans.

The gap between chimps and humans is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals (and yes we have DNA evidence of neanderthals as well as for chimps and bonobos) and the gap between humans and neanderthals is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals, but again not to quite the same degree due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to neanderthals and humans that is more recent than the common ancestor with chimps.

The differences in these genetic differences are not linear\additive, but more like the sides of a triangle (or quadrilateral when we include bonobos with chimps, neanderthals and humans).

There are scientists today that argue that chimps should be classified as hominids.

There are also elements in the DNA of chimps, bonobos, humans and neanderthals that show we all had a common ancestor. The DNA evidence also links us to a common ancestor with gorillas, other apes, other primates.

You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

Why?

Can you show how the theory of evolution would predict this?

Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents?

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.

As an example we can look at part of the fossil record for Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate ...

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.


This shows the gradual evolution, the "gradations of species" leading, generation by generation, from Pelycodus ralstoni through the intermediate species Pelycodus trigonodus and Pelycodus jarrovii before reaching Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

It also shows a speciation event where one parent population (Pelycodus jarrovii ) divides into two reproductively independent daughter populations (Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus).

At any one time along those paths you would think you have a single species, and yet by the time you go from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus you have sufficient differences that have accumulated that Pelycodus trigonodus appears different from Pelycodus ralstoni, and by the time you get to Pelycodus jarrovii there are additional differences that are now sufficient for Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different from Pelycodus trigonodus.

These differences are similar in quantitative measurements to the differences between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus, which are each sufficiently different from Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different one from the other and from their parent population.

Evolution occurs within the breeding population, not within individuals: it is the accumulation of differences from parent to child over generations.

Your parents are an intermediate between you and your grandparents. You will understand why your parents are likely still living, but that your great great grandparents have likely died out, gone extinct along with other individuals of their generation.