|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Agnostic Member (Idle past 5959 days) Posts: 36 From: Netherlands Joined: |
We didn't evolve from modern apes. We evolved from ancient apes, that were ancestral to both humans and modern apes.
The apes alive today, are just as modern as we are. And by no means our ancestors. I hope that answers your question
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elmer Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 82 Joined: |
Another way of looking at the question raised in the OP is this--If Natural Selection is true, then why aren't humans the only species of primate extant? Put another way, why is it that anything besides archaea exist?
This question arises from the reasoning that follows, 'reductio ad absurdum', out of the principle, 'survival of the fittest'. According to this principle, only the ablest, most productive members of a certain set of bioforms can survive, and so, only they can have offspring. That is, any bioform/genotype differing from the best, the ideal, must be 'weeded out' by 'natural selection' with each new generation. The difficulty with this notion being that in fact, no such thing actually happens in the real world, because "Natural Selection" is a local, not a universal, phenomenon. That means that, unlike scientific causal forces like gravity and the electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces, "Natural Selection" is not a universal causal mechanism, even though it is constantly put forward as if it were such. NS being in truth, no more than a label for any strictly local, relative, anomalous and particular mortality event, biodiversity is neither generated nor prevented by it. The only way to square the notion of 'natural selection' to the fact of biodiversity is to appeal to isolation from one another, [wrt groups and individuals], so that they are not 'competing' with each other. It is the elimination of this, 'natural selection', considered as a universal causal mechanism-- [which Darwin based on the Malthusian laissez-faire capitalist doctrine of 'competition for limited resources'],-- from any further scientific consideration, that admits for the fact of biodiversity, and therefore, for the fact of evolution, itself. And this fact, biodiversity, is why Fisher, Haldane, and above all, Sewall Wright, had to come up with 'random genetic mutation' as the non-scientific, non-mechanismism that supposedly explains the orgins of biodiversity. They realized, as had so many before them, that "NS" can only explain biodiversities limitations, including its absence and elimination. Problem remains, however that 'chance' is incompatible with the regularity and predictability required of any scientific mechanism. Which is why the notion of "NS" as the supplier of this requirement persists, even though the fact of biodiversity shows, as above, that "NS" events are every bit as relative, local, irregular, unpredictable, anomalous and chance-based as any random genetic mutation. "NS" does not render "Random Genetic Mutation" scientific, because they both suffer, separately and together, from the exact same fatal flaw--they are both anomalous matters of chance. There is no regularity and universality in them, neither in the one, the other, or in any proposed "synthesis" of the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Niche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Another way of looking at the question raised in the OP is this--If Natural Selection is true, then why aren't humans the only species of primate extant? Did you read the thread? that question has already been answered, pretty much. If you didn't like the answers, maybe you should respond to those points instead of just repeating stuff. "The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness." Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You know, science is more than being able to arrange your words in a clever manner. Your message there is very poetic, but I'd say that it's little better than an 19th century science fiction novel.
In other words, who are you trying to fool? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MikeMcC Junior Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
I think a very solid proof that we have evolved from a common ancestor will arive the day we realise that not all "humans" can interbreed. We will certainly, eventually, evolve enough that people, for argument's sake, on far sides of the planet to one another could not possibly reproduce, by natural methods anyway, and thus be considered different species. I admit that it will be difficult to realise when this has happened, if it hasn't already.
Is every combination of two random people on this earth capable of reproducing?? (excluding people with genetic defects and physiological problems which would prevent them from interbreeding with anyone at all!) Just a thought. Edited by MikeMcC, : Just to clarify a point being made
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray MikeMcC.
I think a very solid proof that we have evolved from a common ancestor will arive the day we realise that not all "humans" can interbreed. We will certainly, eventually, evolve enough that people, for argument's sake, on far sides of the planet to one another could not possibly reproduce, by natural methods anyway, and thus be considered different species. You need to consider gene flow rather than individual mating. With the increasing globalization, I think it is less likely for people to become genetically isolated than in the past. Probably the biggest test of human breeding was the european discovery of america and the indigenous population here. Isolation doesn't always lead to genetic incompatibility, even after many generations - without any selection pressure for the basic phenotype to change all that you have is random mutation and genetic drift. Enjoy. ps - as you are new, some tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MikeMcC Junior Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
Thanks for the tips there. I'll try to incorporate them into my ramblings as much as possible.
I was wary of someone bringing up the globalisation factor but i decided to omit it simply so as not to sacrifice the clarity of what i was stating and asking. I considered using the extreme example of someone who currently lives in a western, cosmopolitan part of the world, trying to have a child with someone who was brought up in a jungle tribe somewhere and whose previous generations have all come from the same setting. Do you not think that, given enough time, and maintaining these conditions, that these two individuals' succeeding generations would eventually differ so much that they'll no longer be considered of the same species. It's important here, i think, not to have any limit on the time line. Let's not forget that we didnt just occur over a few generations. I understand the relevence of genetic flow in general and in the world as it is today, but in the extreme example above i think it changes considerably. I'm aware that someone is bound to pick a difficulty with my jungle tribe example but it's the better of two i could think of. I'm aware it's not the best but it's only for discussions sake on a matter which doesnt depend on it entirely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You might want to look at One evolving species vs speciation..
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I considered using the extreme example of someone who currently lives in a western, cosmopolitan part of the world, trying to have a child with someone who was brought up in a jungle tribe somewhere and whose previous generations have all come from the same setting. But they mate with people from the next village who mate with people from the next village ... Think of it as a series of circular areas where each "village" mates with someone in their circle, but the circles overlap with the circles of several other "villages" etc etc until the earth is covered. Genes flow across the overlap areas. Generation by generation they spread further. The gene doesn't need the european to mate with the amazon to move to the far side of the earth. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4627 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Elmer writes: Another way of looking at the question raised in the OP is this--If Natural Selection is true, then why aren't humans the only species of primate extant? Put another way, why is it that anything besides archaea exist? That is an excellent question.
Elmer writes: That is, any bioform/genotype differing from the best, the ideal, must be 'weeded out' by 'natural selection' with each new generation. The difficulty with this notion being that in fact, no such thing actually happens in the real world, because "Natural Selection" is a local, not a universal, phenomenon. And you have given yourself an excellent answer.
Which is why the notion of "NS" as the supplier of this requirement persists, even though the fact of biodiversity shows, as above, that "NS" events are every bit as relative, local, irregular, unpredictable, anomalous and chance-based as any random genetic mutation. Your kidding right?
Biodiversity shows that there is a diversity of environments. Environments can change in unpredictable and irregular ways so its no suprise to say that natural selection is also irregular (so I would agree with that point, along with relative and local)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Since the OP is ludicrous on its face, I think a topic divergence is in order.
Hi Elmer (if you're still around). I think you might be missing some element of either "natural selection" or "biodiversity". You say:
That means that, unlike scientific causal forces like gravity and the electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces, "Natural Selection" is not a universal causal mechanism, even though it is constantly put forward as if it were such. NS being in truth, no more than a label for any strictly local, relative, anomalous and particular mortality event, biodiversity is neither generated nor prevented by it. (emphasis added) I work with biodiversity, at least conceptually, on a nearly daily basis. Even as we speak, I'm in the throes of designing study protocols for a biodiversity conservation project that simply would not work if NS didn't influence biodiversity (IOW, I'm goofing off on EvCForum instead of working). Apologies for the length of this response, but I think it pretty illustrative of how NS influences and changes biodiversity. One of the critical problems facing conservation biologists and ecologists trying to develop effective techniques for monitoring biodiversity is the simple physical fact that you can’t - with the best will in the world - observe and count every single individual of every species that might be of importance or interest. In other words, we have to come up with ways of monitoring and measuring the ecological integrity of a particular area that don’t rely on direct observation. This isn’t as easy as it sounds. There has been a tremendous amount of ink spilled over the issue. What we have to find are critters or guilds (a number of different species that taken together occupy a particular niche or fulfill a specific ecological function - for instance, the guild of fruit eating birds, etc) that can serve as “stand-ins” for the overall biodiversity of a site. In my case, I have chosen to focus on the dung beetle guild (subfamily Scarabaeinae) as a viable stand-in for ecological integrity and ecosystem health (not real sexy, I know, but hey - whatever works). These beetles play an absolutely crucial role in decomposition and nutrient recycling. If they didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them or be hip-deep in rotting poop. A number of species in this guild have adapted to the loss of large mammals (during the Pleistocene extinction) and hence the loss of large-mammal-poop by developing obligate saprophagous (rotting fruit) or necrophagous (rotting cadaver) behavior. What makes these critters so useful for conservation is that in the same geographic areas, the taxonomic composition of the guild within forests is completely distinct from that in areas where the forest has been cut or otherwise disturbed. The internal structure and organization is also different. It’s possible to differentiate between guilds found in disturbed habitat, undisturbed habitat, and transitional habitat. Here’s where natural selection and biodiversity intersect: changes in organization, structure and composition over time serve as valid and accurate indicators of change within each type of habitat. The guild clearly reflects anthropogenic (human-caused) change: defaunation, fragmentation, ecosystem simplification, introduction of exotic and/or domestic animals (e.g., cattle), etc. Not only will it reflect negative changes in the habitat, but we can use it to track positive changes due to management intervention (including re-forestation, landscape restoration, the effects of the reintroduction of locally extinct species, etc). Now why is this? Because selection pressures (i.e., natural selection) are subtly different in each type of habitat. Natural selection either eliminates or promotes whole populations of different species of this guild, thus reflecting changes in selection pressures and causing changes in guild composition, diversity and population density. And we can watch the change occurring right before our eyes. If NS had nothing to do with biodiversity as you state, how could I use the Scarabaeinae to monitor ecosystem integrity? If you want to discuss this any further, we need to take it to a new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elmer Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 82 Joined: |
Hi vacate;
You say--
quote: Your kidding right? Um, whatever gives you that impression?!?
Unpredictable? Tell me what happens to a brown rabbit in the winter anomalous? See above What's your point?
chance based? see above What's your point, again? Nobody is denying 'evolution' and 'adaptation' here. Just the mechanism that drives them--ostensibly RM and NS. IOW, how come snowshoe hares, arctic hares, and other animals--[but not bunny rabbits]--are brown-furred in summer, white-furred in the snowy months? Random genetic mutation plus random predation [aka, "Natural Selection"]? Prove it. And yes, I've heard all the darwinist fairy-tales [just-so stories] about how, once upon a time, these creatures did not live in snowy climates, until one happy day a normal brown animal suddenly was touched by a magic genetic mutation that caused white fur when the winter came, but reversed itself with the snow-melt, and that complex but fortuitous genetic mutation enabled/compelled him/her to move north in the winter for camouflage purposes--to a place where, previously, all the brown-furred animals were wiped out soon after the first fall of snow, because they weren't snow white. Duh!!
Biodiversity shows that there is a diversity of environments. Environments can change in unpredictable and irregular ways so its no suprise to say that natural selection is also irregular (so I would agree with that point, along with relative and local) Does gravity change "in unpredictable and irregular ways"? Does electro-magnetism or the nuclear forces? I think not. So how in the world can darwinists keep insisting that their "NS" is on the exact same level of causality as the four accepted 'forces'? It quite plainly is no such thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MikeMcC Junior Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
The level of ignorance regarding NS here is sickening. You try to dumb it down by makin it sound like the particular rabit needed it one day and thus it happened. As if a spontaneous mutation against all odds occurred, which allowed it to survive, just in the nick of time.
Nobody claims this bar people who are trying to make it sound like a silly theory as improbable a creationism. And also, regarding this divine force that drives this 'creationistic evolution' some of you like to believe in.....it only serves to show us how poorly you understand natural selection. The fact that some theists are starting to come around even slightly to the idea of evolution is a promising sign at first but sadly all that can be seen are attempts to mould it into some happy middle-ground theory which will keep everyone satisfied but still as ignorant as people were hundreds of years ago. There is no divine force driving evolution. It doesnt require it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And yes, I've heard all the darwinist fairy-tales [just-so stories] about how, once upon a time, these creatures did not live in snowy climates, until one happy day a normal brown animal suddenly was touched by a magic genetic mutation that caused white fur when the winter came, but reversed itself with the snow-melt, and that complex but fortuitous genetic mutation enabled/compelled him/her to move north in the winter for camouflage purposes--to a place where, previously, all the brown-furred animals were wiped out soon after the first fall of snow, because they weren't snow white. Duh!! You have not, in fact, heard that, because no-one has ever said that. Except possibly the voices in your head.
Does gravity change "in unpredictable and irregular ways"? Does electro-magnetism or the nuclear forces? No, but environments do. This is a fact.
So how in the world can darwinists keep insisting that their "NS" is on the exact same level of causality as the four accepted 'forces'? They do not, which is why you can't quote them as doing so. --- Why don't you try arguing with some opinion that someone actually holds? Or is that too difficult for you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024