Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:05 AM
400 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, ThinAirDesigns, vimesey (6 members, 394 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Where are all the apes leading up to humans?
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 1732 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


(2)
Message 1 of 67 (653297)
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


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

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 02-19-2012 8:41 PM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 8:43 PM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 5 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 8:51 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 02-19-2012 9:50 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2012 10:29 PM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 02-20-2012 12:09 AM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 02-20-2012 12:25 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2012 3:02 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2012 3:39 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2012 4:46 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 67 (653299)
02-19-2012 8:29 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Where are all the apes leading up to humans? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(5)
Message 3 of 67 (653300)
02-19-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


CrytoGod writes:

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

Since you say that we should expect to find "living gradations of species leading up to human," it seems that you're aware of the extinct species leading up to human, and that what you're really asking is why they're extinct instead of still with us like chimps and bonobos.

My own opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to provide any specific answers about why they went extinct. From Australopithicus afarensis and before all the way up to Homo neanderthalensis (Neaderthals), we can only speculate about the reasons for their extinction.

But the same is true of most extinct species. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Was it the asteroid? A period of unusually active volcanoes? Increasing competition from mammals? A combination? We don't know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:13 PM Percy has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 4 of 67 (653301)
02-19-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


Why should anyone bother about posting evidence to support their explanation when you start by positing something with no evidence to support your suggestion that there should be such a thing?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:28 PM subbie has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(7)
Message 5 of 67 (653302)
02-19-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


CrytoGod writes:

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


There used to be more human-like apes but they are all now extinct.
We do not know for sure why they became extinct.
But, as a species, we tend to react to direct competition with deadly force, so that could be one possible answer.

Currently we are wiping out the other apes (e.g Oran Utan, Mountain Gorilla, etc.)
When we have wiped out all the other great apes will you then be asking "Why are there no ape species even close to being like us?"
Or will you realise that species that get in our way have a tendency to become extinct?

CrytoGod writes:

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


Wrong. More species have become extinct than are currently in existence.
Most species have become extinct - there is no reason for our cousins to have been exempt from that.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 6 of 67 (653304)
02-19-2012 9:33 PM


Not living but ...
I would guess that the majority of pre-modern homids would be in DC, New York, Los Angles, Boston and London.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 7 of 67 (653305)
02-19-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Where are all the apes leading up to humans?
How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos? Why is there such a huge gap?

They all once roamed this earth. But as with so many things, they no longer exist.

Like dinosaurs, mammoths, and grandparents.

Species go extinct.

quote:
Wikipedia on Extinction:

It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.


The fact that the critters you hint at are all extinct seems to pose little problem for evolutionary theory. In fact, it appears that it would be more astonishing for them to all be living than for them to all be extinct. Which answers your next question:

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

Seems not.

Saying they are not alive today because X reason without any scientific evidence to support it is not science,

What reasons are you looking for? Shouldn't evidence that they existed and evidence that they currently don't be sufficient to conclude that they are not alive today?

If what you're looking for is a reason for their extinction, then science has offered many. But it should be noted that no natural explanation of their extinction would invalidate the fact of evolution.

Typically the reasons are different for different species, so if you want any detailed discussion, you should pick a species and the reasons for its extinction can be examined.

Jon


Love your enemies!

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

  
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 1732 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


(1)
Message 8 of 67 (653308)
02-19-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
02-19-2012 8:41 PM


quote:
Since you say that we should expect to find "living gradations of species leading up to human," it seems that you're aware of the extinct species leading up to human, and that what you're really asking is why they're extinct instead of still with us like chimps and bonobos.

My own opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to provide any specific answers about why they went extinct. From Australopithicus afarensis and before all the way up to Homo neanderthalensis (Neaderthals), we can only speculate about the reasons for their extinction.

But the same is true of most extinct species. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Was it the asteroid? A period of unusually active volcanoes? Increasing competition from mammals? A combination? We don't know.


I am aware that there is a dispute about the hominid fossils and its interpretations.

Don't take my word for it, let's read what the scientists say:

Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee?, Return to the Planet of the Apes?, Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.
R. A. Raff and T. C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes and Evolution: The Developmental Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Indiana University Press, 1991, p. 34

In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.
(Ridley, Mark, Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.
Gould, Stephen J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and fully formed.
Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolutions erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

Many evolutionary biologists since Darwins time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, without transitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared.
Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago - Field Museum), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.

Dr. Richard Leakey?, discoverer of Skull 1470 (Homo habilis), one of worlds foremost paleo-anthropologists,said in a PBS documentary in 1990:
If pressed about mans ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.

Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.
Henry Gee, Return to the Planet of the Apes, Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

Unfortunately, the fossil record for hominids [the half-human pre-humans] and pongids [the ape family] is almost totally blank between four and eight million years ago - an irresistible tabula rasa [an erased tablet; a clean slate] on which to inscribe belief, preconception, and personal opinion.
A. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, False Start of the Human Parade, in Natural History, August 1979, pp. 86, 88.

The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table.
New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.

Perhaps one of the most revealing statements concerning the supposed evolution of human beings from apes was made during an interview of Dr. Richard Leakey after the discovery of Skull 1470. In an interview for the National Geographic Magazine he said:

Scientific explanation is challenged on the basis of observation, not of whim or fancy. Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man, asserts anthropologist, [Dr.] Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. . . . (it) leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.
National Geographic, June 1973, Vol. 143, No. 6, p. 819.

Similar truth and confusion abounds amongst those who believe in the evolution of human beings.
The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other.
Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex-New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227

There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how Homo sapiens emerged.
Takahata, Molecular Anthropology, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1995, p. 355

The australopithecines known over the last several decades Are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks . . .
Charles Oxnard (Professor of anatomy and leading expert on australopithecine fossils), The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, 1984, p. 332.

Most textbooks avoid showing comprehensive tables of the discovered human fossils - doing so exposes the contradictions.
James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p. 106.

I find it quite funny that they all just so happen to be extinct. Evolutionists will give ad hoc explanations for why it is so. It's one of the many reasons why I doubt their evolution story.

Edited by CrytoGod, : Spelling errors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 02-19-2012 8:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 10:40 PM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 02-19-2012 11:42 PM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 20 by Warthog, posted 02-20-2012 6:31 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 02-20-2012 7:15 AM CrytoGod has responded

    
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 1732 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


(1)
Message 9 of 67 (653309)
02-19-2012 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
02-19-2012 8:43 PM


quote:
Why should anyone bother about posting evidence to support their explanation when you start by positing something with no evidence to support your suggestion that there should be such a thing?

Well, if this evolution story was true then it wouldn't be a surprise to find some sub human species walking around somewhere on the planet, correct? It would make a strong case for the evolution story if sub humans were walking around. But how convenient that they just so happened to be extinct. But humans are thriving and chimps and bonobos are extant. Why is that so? Evolutionists will just concoct some ad hoc explanation without any scientific evidence to back it up.

quote:
There used to be more human-like apes but they are all now extinct.

Why of course they just so happen to be extinct.

quote:
Currently we are wiping out the other apes (e.g Oran Utan, Mountain Gorilla, etc.)

Last I read we are preserving and protecting many ape species.

quote:

Wrong. More species have become extinct than are currently in existence.
Most species have become extinct - there is no reason for our cousins to have been exempt from that.

Scientific evidence for your claim please?

quote:
They all once roamed this earth. But as with so many things, they no longer exist.

Like dinosaurs, mammoths, and grandparents.

Species go extinct.


They all just so happened to be extinct. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

My grandparent is still alive.

If species go extinct then why are there species still extant? I find it funny it is the supposed species leading up to humans are extinct.

quote:
The fact that the critters you hint at are all extinct seems to pose little problem for evolutionary theory. In fact, it appears that it would be more astonishing for them to all be living than for them to all be extinct. Which answers your next question:

Why is that? What scientific evidence is there that 99% of species have become extinct?

quote:
What reasons are you looking for? Shouldn't evidence that they existed and evidence that they currently don't be sufficient to conclude that they are not alive today?

I'm not looking for any particular reason. I'm looking for any explanation backed by scientific evidence. Speculation and assumptions is not scientific evidence.

quote:
If what you're looking for is a reason for their extinction, then science has offered many. But it should be noted that no natural explanation of their extinction would invalidate the fact of evolution.

Please post a reference that has scientific evidence to back it up.

Edited by CrytoGod, : Spelling error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 8:43 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 02-19-2012 10:52 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 11:38 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(12)
Message 10 of 67 (653310)
02-19-2012 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


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

They're extinct.

Why is there such a huge gap?

It's not actually that big, as gaps go.

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

Wrong ... I would not.

There should be sub-humans and sub-sub-humans and sub-sub-sub humans walking around.

Why?

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.

Well, I may not be able to achieve the high degree of intellectual rigor attained by creationists' explanation for everything ("An invisible man in the sky did it. By magic. Because he wanted to.") but there are certainly some highly suggestive facts available to us.

First, it seems from the evidence that the earlier hominids were trying to fit into the same ecological niche as each other and as us. This must inevitably cause competition in which the better adapted would survive.

We would expect increasing adaptation on theoretical grounds --- one does not just go overnight from being a well-adapted jungle ape to being a well-adapted tool-using biped with a preference for the plains --- and this is confirmed by the evidence. If intelligence accounts for our success (and can it be doubted?) then we have evidence for increasing intelligence as reflected both by increased encephalization and an increasingly sophisticated material culture.

It would be our expectation, then, that the more intelligent, better adapted hominids would out-compete their less well-adapted competitors.

To this we may add the observation from history that we have a grisly record of more technologically advanced races destroying less technologically advanced races, even though these were members of our own species and innately our intellectual equals. How much more likely is it then that we would have visited the same fate on members of other species that were our intellectual as well as our technological inferiors?

In this connection we may note that the evidence shows that our species has driven a large number of other mammal species into extinction, and have failed to exterminate a large number of others only by a conscious attempt at species conservation.

Based on the evidence, then, it is probably the case that more advanced hominids caused the extinction of less advanced hominids either indirectly by competition, directly through violence, or by some combination of the two.

But if you can think of an alternative hypothesis, I await it with an open mind. Can we hear your explanation of why autralopithecines, H. erectus, and H. habilis are no longer with us?

If not, then I would suggest that if we have only one plausible explanation for their extinction, and as this explanation is eminently plausible, it is likely to be correct, subject of course to the usual scientific caveats about potential falsification by an increase in our store of evidence.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 1732 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


(1)
Message 11 of 67 (653311)
02-19-2012 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2012 10:29 PM


quote:
It's not actually that big, as gaps go.

Actually, there is a huge gap between humans and its supposed closest ape relative in terms of biology, anatomy, physiology etc.

The following website details the many major differences http://www.whyevolution.com/chimps.html

quote:
Why?

Why not? Evolutionists claim they are a reality.

quote:
Well, I may not be able to achieve the high degree of intellectual rigor attained by creationists' explanation for everything ("An invisible man in the sky did it. By magic. Because he wanted to.") but there are certainly some highly suggestive facts available to us.

First, it seems from the evidence that the earlier hominids were trying to fit into the same ecological niche as each other and as us. This must inevitably cause competition in which the better adapted would survive.

We would expect increasing adaptation on theoretical grounds --- one does not just go overnight from being a well-adapted jungle ape to being a well-adapted tool-using biped with a preference for the plains --- and this is confirmed by the evidence. If intelligence accounts for our success (and can it be doubted?) then we have evidence for increasing intelligence as reflected both by increased encephalization and an increasingly sophisticated material culture.

It would be our expectation, then, that the more intelligent, better adapted hominids would out-compete their less well-adapted competitors.

To this we may add the observation from history that we have a grisly record of more technologically advanced races destroying less technologically advanced races, even though these were members of our own species and innately our intellectual equals. How much more likely is it then that we would have visited the same fate on members of other species that were our intellectual as well as our technological inferiors?

In this connection we may note that the evidence shows that our species has driven a large number of other mammal species into extinction, and have failed to exterminate a large number of others only by a conscious attempt at species conservation.

Based on the evidence, then, it is probably the case that more advanced hominids caused the extinction of less advanced hominids either indirectly by competition, directly through violence, or by some combination of the two.

But if you can think of an alternative hypothesis, I await it with an open mind. Can we here your explanation of why autralopithecines, H. erectus, and H. habilis are no longer with us?

If not, then I would suggest that if we have only one plausible explanation for their extinction, and as this explanation is eminently plausible, it is likely to be correct, subject of course to the usual scientific caveats about potential falsification by an increase in our store of evidence.


It's just mere speculation. Anyone can conjure up a just-so story to explain something away. What I am asking for is scientific evidence to back up the story.

Edited by CrytoGod, : No reason given.

Edited by CrytoGod, : Spelling error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2012 10:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2012 10:46 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 02-20-2012 12:01 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(5)
Message 12 of 67 (653312)
02-19-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 10:13 PM


Did you happen to notice that most of those "quotes" are 30 years old or more?

Here's a tip; if you see a quote of a scientist from a creationist, check the source. It's either a lie or taken out of context or both.

Here's a brief introduction to how evolution occurs, and why we wouldn't expect to see an unbroken continuum of ring species.

First, organisms don't evolve. They stay the same species their entire lives. What evolves is populations. In any given population of organisms, there is going to be a variety of genotypes. That variety will be different in the next generation of the population. Some of that difference will be due to differential reproductive success. In other words, some members of the original population will be more successful at passing their genetic material to the next generation. Some of the difference will be due to mutations from one generation to the next.

Occasionally, populations will split; some portion of the population will go one way and some portion will go another. These two daughter populations can become reproductively isolated from one another. When that happens, they will evolve differently from one another. After enough time has passed, they can become completely different species. Because they are reproductively isolated, there is no intermixing of the genetic material between the two populations. As such, they can evolve in opposite directions (one population produces bigger organisms and the other produces smaller), or they can evolve in completely different ways (one population becomes better at camouflage and the other develops a toxin). In this second instance, there's no reason to expect any kind of intermediate population because there never was a population halfway between the characteristics of the two populations.

This is a very simple description of the process and leaves out a lot of detail, but I think it shows why there's no reason to expect that all organisms will consist of ring species. However, occasionally we do see exactly the kind of thing that you are talking about. We refer to those as ring species. For more information, click the link that I have created referring to the Wikipedia description of them.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:13 PM CrytoGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by CrytoGod, posted 02-20-2012 12:07 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(8)
Message 13 of 67 (653313)
02-19-2012 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 10:39 PM


Actually, there is a huge gap between humans and its supposed closest ape relative in terms of biology, anatomy, physiology etc.

No.

Why not? Evolutionists claim they are a reality.

And that they're extinct.

So, why would you expect them not to be extinct?

Round here is is customary to have reasons for the things you think rather than just thinking stuff at random.

It's just mere speculation. Anyone can conjure up a just-so story to explain something away. What I am asking for is scientific evidence to back up the story.

And evidence there is, as I have pointed out. We know that encephalization increased, and we know that tools became more sophisticated, and we know that technologically advanced nations have destroyed technologically inferior ones, and we know that if two species compete for the same niche the better adapted will win and we know that our species has an unpleasant habit of causing the extinction of other species.

This is not, therefore, mere speculation, it is a hypothesis consistent with the known facts. If I know that my dog habitually steals pizza, and I leave my dog alone with a slice of pizza for five minutes, and when I come back the pizza is gone, it is more than mere speculation to suggest that the dog ate the pizza. We may entertain other conjectures, but how would you bet?

You say that "anyone can conjure up a just-so story". Well, I'm all ears, let's hear your just-so story and see how it measures up. Go on, have a go. Why are australopithecines extinct?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:39 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 14 of 67 (653314)
02-19-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 10:28 PM


Well, if this evolution story was true then it wouldn't be a surprise to find some sub human species walking around somewhere on the planet, correct?

Incorrect. There's nothing about the Theory of Evolution that predicts such a thing will happen.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:28 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 15 of 67 (653315)
02-19-2012 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 10:28 PM


It would help if you replied to each person in separate threads - but I'll pick out my bits...

CTG writes:

Panda writes:

There used to be more human-like apes but they are all now extinct.


Why of course they just so happen to be extinct.

Yes they do.
Is childish sarcasm the only argument you have against this?

CTG writes:

Panda writes:

Currently we are wiping out the other apes (e.g Oran Utan, Mountain Gorilla, etc.)


Last I read we are preserving and protecting many ape species.

Then you need to read more recently.
Most great apes are endangered and many are critically endangered.
"Critically Endangered means that a species' numbers have decreased, or will decrease, by 80% within three generations."
We wipe out competing species. That is a fact.

CTG writes:

Panda writes:

Wrong. More species have become extinct than are currently in existence.
Most species have become extinct - there is no reason for our cousins to have been exempt from that.


Scientific evidence for your claim please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_primates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primates

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 10:28 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017