|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Careful, dude! There's a round house coming your way soon!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature. Our reasoning capacity is greater. I think you will find that many species have areas of their brain devoted to sensory information far more well developed than ours and consequently superior. Did you know the olfactory sensitivity of canines (and the associated olfactory cortex) is such that they can detect smells through an area of hard vacuum? Some dogs can actually smell cheese on the moon. Edited by Larni, : Could not resist it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You're not a halfling Paladin, are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum? What you appear to be missing is that populations of organisms evolve to fit their enviroment. Therefor, pondscum is far more evolved than we are for surviving in ponds. Often, people think that evolution is directed with humans as the end point of evolution. We are very well adapted by evolution for tool use, distance running and selective abstraction but terribly adapted by evolution for flying, or metabolising arsnic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
There is plenty of evolution in human affairs. But that is not biological evolution, is it.
If I may, what you appear to be doing is suggesting that the more different an organism is from pond scum the more evolved it is. And that the more evolved it is, the better it is. The thing to remember is that evolution is not about getting better in an absolute sense (like how my sister used to say she was better than me). Evolution is about how well a population of organism can survive long enough to breed in it's environment. When you say 'humans are more evolved than pond scum' it is like saying my sister is more evolved than I because she is better. What measure of better are you using? If better means putting men on the moon then you have a point: but better at putting men on the moon is not part of evolution: only being able to survive long eoungh to pass on copies of your genes is important and ponds scum does that really, really well. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Crows have been shown to display self awareness and tool use. Google 'crow intelligence' and you will see how smart and self aware they are.
They can recognise who they are in mirror test and display theory of mind. Edited by Larni, : Editing content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution. This makes no sense and shows a convincing lack of understanding of ToE. 'An ape' would not evolve into a human. The accurate statement is that over the course of millions of years a population of non-human primates evolved over successive generation into humans because of geographic isolation and changed selection pressures. You are confusing one organism 'an ape' morphing in it's own life time into a modern human, with a population over millions of years.You do know that is not evolution, don't you? Edited by Larni, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Can you clarify that you do not believe that 'an ape' morphed into a modern human over one generation?
I have no idea what seed output is: you will need to elaborate on that point or point me in the direction of it's meaning. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I ask instead you prove your ape offspring You are asking me to 'prove' my offspring? I don't have any offspring: even if I did how would proving my offspring (I suppose you mean proving it exist) be of any relevance to the discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I don't think it was a personal question - he was using the plural, not personal, "your". On reading it back it would make sense if s/he meant 'you're' rather than 'your'. But I'm still confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Why are there no human apes (I'm assuming she means our cousins such as neanderthal et al) alive today?
Because they are all dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers. I think you will find the Neanderthals had different shoulder joints so they could not make use of missile weapons such as spears. So what you say above is clearly false. Anyway, closing statements only. I gave mine. Sleep tight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Article writes: An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that have been collected over the last few years [5,25] that clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to the human—chimpanzee—gorilla clade and Old World monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage. Article writes: Several speculative scenarios may be envisioned to explain the absence of retrovirus in both the orangutan and human lineages. It is possible that the African apes evolved a susceptibility, or humans and Asian apes developed resistance to infection, although in either scenario convergent evolution would have had to have occurred with respect to the viral infections. Studies of the retroviral infection of the Lake Casitas mouse population reveal that such susceptibility/resistance genes may emerge very quickly among closely related strains of mice [34]. Another scenario may be that the lineage that ultimately gave rise to humans did not occupy the same habitat as the ancestral chimpanzee and gorilla lineages. An excursion by early hominids to Eurasia during the time that PTERV1 infected African great apes and then a return to Africa would explain this phylogenetic inconsistency. It is also possible that this effect may have been created by dramatic differences in ancestral population structure. If, for example, the ancestral populations of humans and orangutans were substantially larger than those of the African great apes, the fixation of new insertions (1/2N) would occur much more rapidly within small inbred populations even if similar infection rates existed. A similar model has recently been proposed, albeit in the opposite direction, to explain an increase of apparent Alu Ya5 and Yb8 retroposition activity in the human lineage but not in chimpanzees and gorillas [35]. In this regard, it is interesting that documented differences in the patterns of endogenous retrovirus between domesticated and feral species have been attributed to inbreeding [19,20]. There is, however, no evidence to date that the ancestral populations of chimpanzees were smaller than that of humans. Recent studies suggest that ancestral chimpanzee populations, in fact, may have been two to four times larger [36,37] than the effective human population size (greater than 10,000). A dramatic population crash in ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee populations would be required to explain the effect we have observed. Further population genetic studies of contemporary great apes or paleoanthropological work may help to eliminate these and other possible scenarios. Did you forget to read the discussion? Edited by Larni, : Second paragraph
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024