Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
34 online now:
Britton, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,849 Year: 18,885/19,786 Month: 1,305/1,705 Week: 111/446 Day: 7/104 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 46 of 1075 (512764)
06-20-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Meddle
06-20-2009 3:16 PM


Ardipithecus ramidus?
Hi Malcolm,

Could Doubletime be referring to Ardipithecus ramidus?

That's possible, but we won't know until Doubletime (a) admits that he has misidentified this fossil/species, and (2) provides information about it that can be used to identify it properly.

It was originally classified as an Australopithecus due to similarities in dentition, but as more finds were discovered enough differences were observed that it was classified in its own genus. It is still considered a close relative of Australopithecus, but its anatomy puts it closer to the chimpanzee/human common ancestor.

Yes, and according to the evidence it was a bipedal woodland ape ...

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm

quote:
This early fossil hominid was initially placed within the Australopithecus genus, with a new specific epithet - ramidus (from the Afar word "ramid", meaning "root") [White, et al, 1994]. Tim White and associates have subsequently reassigned the hominid to a new genus, noting the apparently extreme dissimilarities between ramidus and all other known Australopithecines. They proposed Ardipithecus (from "ardi", which means "ground" or "floor" in the Afar language) to be the genus [White, et al, 1995].
...
Additionally, the associated strata were most likely produced within the context of a heavily forested, flood plain environment. Evidence for this conclusion was derived from representative non-human fossil remains, particularly from those species whose present-day analogues are environment-specific.
...
Some important derived features, link Ardipithecus ramidus with the Australopithecines. Hominid-like canines are present. These are low, blunt, and less projecting than the canines of all other known apes. Upper and lower incisors are larger than those of the Australopithecines, but are smaller than those of chimpanzees. This character state can thus be considered transitional between apes and Australopithecines. Additionally, the lower molars are broader than those of a comparably-sized ape. This trait, too, approaches the common hominid condition.

Finally, something can be said of the skeletal anatomy and how it relates to the potentiality for bipedalism in A. ramidus. Pieces of the cranial bones that have been recovered, including parts of the temporal and the occipital, strongly indicate an anterior positioned foramen magnum. The fact that the skull of A. ramidus rested atop the vertebral column, rather than in front of it, suggests that if this creature was not bipedal in the modern sense, it at least had key adaptations toward a similar end.


http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aramidus.html

quote:
The dentition of Ardipithecus ramidus is more primitive (more apelike) than that seen in Australopithecus afarensis, with narrower molar teeth capped with thin enamel, unlike the condition in all other known hominines; the canines are larger, but not as large as in living apes. The arm exhibits both apelike and non-apelike features, from which, White and his colleagues concluded that the mode of locomotion cannot confidently be determined.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/ramidus.htm

quote:
Ardipithecus ramidus is considered to be the earliest member of the Hominoidea family, this is because it is the most ape-like hominid known. The initail fossils of this species were found in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia. Total seventeen fossil fragments were found including, two skull bases, a child's mandible, teeth, and arm bones. The fossils were found by a research team headed by Dr. Timothy White, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkely, in 1992 and 1993.

In 1994 more fossils were also recovered in Ehtiopia, close to the original site. Total 90 fragments where found, which accumulated to be about 45 percent of the total skeleton. Included in these fragments were pieces of the pelvis, ankle, feet, and leg. This find still awaits official anylisis to draw conclusive evidence on whether or not Ardipithicus was bipedal, even though the foramen magnum and leg fragments initially indicate this species was bipedal.


http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/ramidus.html

quote:
The Aramis discoveries are important for several reasons. First, they place very early hominids in a woodland setting rather than a savanna one. Second, They show that although there is an emphasis on anterior loading, an adaptive trend emphasizing powerful mastication had begun. Also, they establish a unique link with chimpanzees based on cranial, dental, and postcranial similarities. It is also important to note that ramidus were almost contemporaries with afarensis (and might have been). Since the two species are adapted to different ecological environments, there are major differences between the two species, but some features both have seem to indicate that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was probably more hominid-like than chimpanzee-like. A conclusion that is gaining support, in opposition to the presupposition that the common ancestor was more chimpanzee-like. In short, this is a very new species that is changing some ideas of modern human origins. It will be interesting to see the impact the material makes once it is extensively published and disseminated.

... demonstrating the evolution of bipedalism prior to the Savannah ecology developing, and absolutely refuting the Savannah theory for the evolution of bipedalism. With features that are transitional\intermediate between chimp and Australopithicine (and thus between chimp and human), and that may even be closer to the common ancestor with chimps than chimps are.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Meddle, posted 06-20-2009 3:16 PM Meddle has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 47 of 1075 (512772)
06-20-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 6:55 AM


New Guinea Man - another creationist hoax hoax
Hi Doubletime,

I just checked on another of your pet hoaxes:

Along with the new guinnea man that was said to be one of our ancestors that lived today but later on turn out to belong to a modern race. ( Another HOAX)

I did a google on "new guinea man fossil" and once again there were few hits that were relevant:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

quote:
"Big Daddy?" is a small anti-evolution comic book tract by evangelist Jack Chick.
...
This is a typical rehashing of the usual creationist chestnuts. It ignores almost all the the real evidence, misrepresents the real fossils that are discussed (Heidelberg Man, Peking Man, Neandertal Man), of course mentions Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, and finally lists some fossils that have never been claimed to be anything but Homo sapiens (New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man)
...
The real oddity in Chick's list is "New Guinea Man". As far as I know, no one has ever proposed this as any sort of transitional form. It presumably refers to fragments of a fossil modern human skull thought to be about 5000 years old found at Aitape (now Eitape) about 60 years ago. This is the only human fossil ever found in New Guinea, and is very obscure; I have never seen it even mentioned in any mainstream scientific or popular literature on human origins. The only place (other than Big Daddy) I have ever seen it referred to is a 1961 book by Canadian creationist Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Shute merely mentions the existence of this fossil in a list of many other fossils and does not discuss it individually, so Chick may have found out about this fossil from another unknown source.

This little list has been widely copied. If you see a reference to New Guinea Man, or read that Heidelberg Man was "built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human" or that Peking Man is "supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared", you'll know it was cribbed from this little booklet.


So there you are: this is a hoax hoax - it never was misrepresented by science, but is a creationist fabrication from head to toe.

And not just any creationist fabrication but a Jack Chick fabrication ...

From Catholic Answers
http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

quote:
Chick Tracts
Their Origin and Refutation

The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

You’ve seen them.

Perhaps left in a phone booth, Laundromat, or other public place. Maybe a Fundamentalist coworker or a street evangelist gave one to you. Perhaps a child gave one to your child at school. They have titles such as Are Roman Catholics Christian?, The Death Cookie, and Why Is Mary Crying? They are Chick tracts—tiny cartoon booklets produced by Jack T. Chick ("J.T.C.") and his publishing house, Chick Publications.

You’ve seen them . . . but have you read one? Do so, and you step into the nightmarish world of Jack T. Chick.

In this world, few things are as they appear. It is a world of shadow and intrigue, a world of paranoia and conspiracy theories, a world where demons haunt people sincerely trying to follow God, and the Catholic faith is the devil’s greatest plot against mankind.

Here are just a few things you will "learn" if you start reading Chick tracts and comic books:


  • The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]

  • But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]

  • The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

  • "Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican."[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]

  • The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, "Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII."[9]

  • The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]

  • The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]

  • "Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years"[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]

Tracts are only one of the ways Chick spreads his messages of hate and paranoia. His website (www.chick.com) lists large-size comic books, posters, booklets, books, videos, and DVDs for sale. Still, it is the tracts for which he is most famous. According to Chick Publications, more than 500 million of them have been distributed.


Notice that this is not an "evolutionist" response to the quackery of Jack Chick, but it comes from the Catholic Church.

Is this your source of (mis)information?

Looks like this is another addition to the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread.

Do you ever get the idea that the more you say about your position, the more you find out it is based on falsehoods, misinformation, and lies?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2009 8:36 PM RAZD has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 48 of 1075 (512773)
06-20-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
06-20-2009 8:09 PM


Re: New Guinea Man - another creationist hoax hoax
Do you ever get the idea that the more you say about your position, the more you find out it is based on falsehoods, misinformation, and lies?

Creationists have to lie, distort, and misrepresent the scientific evidence for evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs.

The only other alternative would be to admit that the evidence supporting evolution (and an old earth) is overwhelming, and they are not able to do that. So they have to ignore, misrepresent, distort, and outright lie about that evidence. They even devised creation "science" and intelligent design in a dishonest attempt to lend some scientific legitimacy to the falsehoods and misrepresentations they have come up with. All of this might make them feel better, but it is the exact opposite of science.

(Note that I am referring to Creationists -- capital C. There are other creationists -- lower case c -- including most Catholics, who accept evolution and an old earth.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 8:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 10:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 49 of 1075 (512780)
06-20-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
06-20-2009 8:36 PM


Re: New Guinea Man - another creationist hoax hoax
Hi Coyote,

Creationists have to lie, distort, and misrepresent the scientific evidence for evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs.

The only other alternative would be to admit that the evidence supporting evolution (and an old earth) is overwhelming, and they are not able to do that. So they have to ignore, misrepresent, distort, and outright lie about that evidence.

Which is why anyone who is NOT a (big C) Creationist should not need to use such arguments.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : why


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2009 8:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 782 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 50 of 1075 (512786)
06-20-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"

Here's your problem. You are getting your "information" from popular magazines.

A magazines job FIRST and FOREMOST is to SELL MAGAZINES. If they ran a story that read: "Recent fossil discovery just yet another confirming piece of evidence" it wouldn't sell.

So, EVERY STORY is the "newest", "best", "rule changing", "controversial", etc etc etc

You get the impression that it changes the tree of life because they want you to get that impression.

It doesn't. There have been EXTREMELY FEW fossils which have significantly changed the tree in any meaningful way.

From time to time we'll find a new branch off one of the main branches - interesting, but no big deal.

The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.

Stop and think for a minute.

You are arguing that ALL fossils are either 100% human or 100% not-human. To say that they are made to look "more like apes" means that they must first look SOMETHING LIKE apes.

If cReationists are right, then there should be NOTHING in common between human and ape remains. All human remains should be distinctly 100% human just like you are today, and all ape remains should be distinctly 100% ape just like chimps and gorillas of today.

There should be NO middle ground whatsoever.

Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.

The first Neanderthal fossils were from a man with severe arthritis, and this was 150ish years ago, when the field of study was brand new.

The people who evaluated the fossils CORRECTLY characterized him has brow ridged, stooped and lumbering.

Illustrations made him look like what we refer to today as cartoon cavemen. They, however, did NOT look like apes.

As we uncovered MORE Neanderthal skeletons, the mistakes were corrected.

That's because science is self correcting. Meanwhile, Creationists are stuck with the same mistakes they were handed at the begining of their fairy tale.

How'd they get the T-Rexs to stay on the Ark for a month without eatting the gazelles?

Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?

WTF is "archapitetus"? A search on the word only shows THIS thread.

Let's pretend you didn't make that word up and proceed.

The jaw connects to the skull. In an animal which walks erect, the spinal cord enters into the base of the skull as opposed to in the rear of the skull. (your spine is directly under you, your dogs spine is behind him)

With the jaw bone, you can determine how and where the jaw attaches to the skull and how it opens. This can tell you whether or not the skull was above or infront of the spine and therefore whether or not the creature walked erect.

Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.

If scientists were forming the evidence to make it what they wanted, then how do you know Piltdown was a fake? Why would scientists expose it?

They wouldn't.

However, since Piltdown disagreed with all the other fossils in both location and development, it became apparent that it DIDN'T conform to how we "wanted" the evidence.

THAT'S how Piltdown was exposed - it DIDN'T fit the evidence.

That's EXACTLY the opposite of your claim.

YOu have to really try to be 100% wrong on something.

The rest of your post is just nonsense about what you're "afraid" of and how little you know about math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 51 of 1075 (512860)
06-21-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 12:04 PM


unfinished business before new threads?
Hi Doubletime,

As noted on the Seashells on tops of mountains thread, it has been a while since you posted there, leaving several replies to your last post unanswered.

This is typical of cognitive dissonance behavior when a person runs into information that contradicts cherished beliefs: the first stage is denial, the second is avoidance.

Whatever the reason though, I normally take a person's abdication from a debate as a tacit admission that they have lost the debate and are unable to support their concept further.

I also note that you have replied to your Let the students study the evidence themselves! thread and then left without any reply to this thread. There are several unanswered issued here:

(1) hominid evolution: I am still waiting for your reply to Message 41, in particular I am interested in your reply to:

quote:
There seems to be a huge gap between C and D or is it just me ?

No, it's just you. Can you tell me what are the huge differences between these skulls?

Click to enlarge

Note that for there to be a "huge gap" we would have to see larger variations than within what you group as human ("D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo.") and within what you group as chimp ("Only the 3 first were possibly all chimpanzees").

Here's a comparison from what you group as human:


Click to enlarge

Note: that's a Homo ergaster skull on the left, so it is a ~1.75 million years old.

Are the differences in the first picture above more than in this picture? Please list them.

Here's a comparison from what you group as chimp:


Click to enlarge

Note: that's a female chimp skull, the male skull has much larger canines and more pronounced brow ridges. I've rotated both photos so that the cheekbones are level and on a line.

Are the differences in the first picture above more than in this picture? Please list them.

Now one of your premises in your proposed new topic Let the students study the evidence themselves! is:

* The recreations of human apes are very unsure (see piltdown neanderthal nebraska Archapitetus ) So instead students should see the fossils we have in the book. So they can study the fossils for themselves.

So let's apply what you claim you want to see in school to this thread: in Message 34 we have several of the fossils of hominid evolution, and you have made a claim that one group is ape-like and the other in human-like. Now is your chance to expand on that answer to provide more detail about why you made that distinction.

Then we can move on to your next claim that "D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo" and how you know they are races instead of species (as designated by their species name after the genus name Homo).

Here's a website that may help:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001203212500/http://www.amnh.org/enews/iskulls.html

quote:
Below are 12 fossil skulls that represent more than 3.5 million years of human evolution. Click on any of them to find out more. This exhibit is enhanced with the Shockwave plug-in, which you can download for free from Macromedia.

It shows a tree of ancestry for hominids, a rather branchy bush arrangement than a linear one, and it shows a representative skull for each species population. Click on the skull and it takes you to a page where you can rotate the skull with your mouse (need shockwave to operate).

Message 28: Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
Message 37: Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.
Message 42: Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.

Now, abiogenesis is off topic here, but you seem to be obsessed with this, as you keep mentioning it (see :

Message 1: I think it is wrong to teach evolution, abiogenisis and big bang as facts in school. ... Abiogenisis and Big Bang should really not be taught in science class rooms at all. I mean mostly because the odds for that happening are so immensely low that it will never happen. But students will get to study the different variations of abiogenisis and the big bang hypothesis and then later on decide if its even worth considering.
Message 4: Abiogenisis should not be taught as all. Even as it is mathematicly compleatly impossibel scientist still believes in it.

The big problem here is, that your definition of abiogenesis is false, it's wrong. That has been pointed out here (see Message 45.

Do you think students should be taught falsehoods? Don't you think you should finish with seashells and human evolution before you go off on another jaunt full of the same false information? Don't you think you should educate yourself according to your own standard first?

If you're going to claim that abiogenesis is wrong, then you have to do it from a proper understanding of abiogenesis AS USED IN SCIENCE, or you are talking about a fantasy, a falsehood, a fabrication, a lie.

There are still alot of debattes going on about EvC so it should not be called a scientiffic fact.

You do realize, don't you, that debate doesn't alter fact? The reason there is so much debate in the public arena is because there are people who refuse to accept certain facts, such as that the earth is old, that life began over 3.5 billion years ago, and that life has evolved.

In science there is very little debate. The reason there is significantly less debate in science is not because scientist have "made up their minds" or "believe" something - it is because they have seen the facts, they have evaluated the evidence in a thorough scientific manner and they have concurred with the evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty.

Edited by RAZD, : added link

Edited by RAZD, : -

Edited by RAZD, : /


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 12:04 PM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:41 AM RAZD has responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 3681 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 52 of 1075 (512977)
06-23-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
06-21-2009 6:51 PM


Re: unfinished business before new threads?
The reseon i had problems replying is because im kinda bussy irl.

And when i spoke about archaptitetus i actually meant Austraphicitetus.

I guess we have gone very off topic. Nvm my misstakes. I will soak this new information up =P I have read about evolution and so but it was a while ago.

So what next ? can i simply surrender and close the discussion ? There are no humans apes alive today, because they all died out while the more primitive monkeys stayed undeveloped and survived. It makes sence.

I think i will stick to religius topics from now on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 6:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 06-23-2009 7:02 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2009 5:57 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2009 8:30 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 56 by lyx2no, posted 06-24-2009 2:45 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 584 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 1075 (512979)
06-23-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:41 AM


Re: unfinished business before new threads?
Doubletime writes:

The reseon i had problems replying is because im kinda bussy irl.


There's no timelimit, post when you can. But please, make sure it's a quality post.

And when i spoke about archaptitetus i actually meant Austraphicitetus.

That's still wrong. I think you mean Australopithecus. I appreciate that English is not your first language, but misspellings like these are really unnecessary, not to mention of course that it's Latin and not English, but still.

Oh, and what's wrong with the perfectly fine intermediate fossils of the Australopithecus?

I guess we have gone very off topic. Nvm my misstakes. I will soak this new information up

Very good, and very mature of you to admit mistakes. This shows you are willing to learn.

I have read about evolution and so but it was a while ago.

We're here to help, if there's anything that's not clear, feel free to ask. :)

So what next ? can i simply surrender and close the discussion ? There are no humans apes alive today, because they all died out while the more primitive monkeys stayed undeveloped and survived. It makes sence.

Do you really mean that? Because I'm not sure if there is a hint of sarcasm in there. You can choose to no longer reply to this thread, but threads are generally only closed if they reach somewhere around the 300 post mark, or if they're going completely off-topic. In the latter case they can usually be requested to be reopened after a few days.

I think i will stick to religius topics from now on.

That's your choice, but there's a lot to learn here besides religion. :)


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:41 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 54 of 1075 (512999)
06-23-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:41 AM


Thanks.
Hi Doubletime

And when i spoke about archaptitetus i actually meant Austraphicitetus.

Australopithicus is a genus with several known species, including A. afarensis (lucy, first family, et al[/i] and A. africanus, A. garhi, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. aethiopicus, A. boisei, [i]A. robustus, depending on whether you are a lumper (lumps more fossils into one species) or a divider (divides fossils out into more species), and depending whether you lump Ardipithecus ramidus, and Kenyanthropus platyops in austrlopithicines or not.

All of these fossils appear to be fully functional bipeds, unlike chimps.

I will soak this new information up =P I have read about evolution and so but it was a while ago.

Enjoy learning then. It is one of the benefits of a brain.

So what next ? can i simply surrender and close the discussion ?

Yes, you can admit that your understanding was incomplete, as has been evident, and why you need to soak up new information. Not knowing something is not a crime, nor is it stupidity: there are many areas where I am ignorant of things. The best one can do is try to recognize when our understanding is not complete.

There are no humans apes alive today, because they all died out ...

There are humans. We haven't died out ... yet.

... while the more primitive monkeys stayed undeveloped and survived.

The monkeys are just as evolved as we are, and they survived because they were very well adapted to their ecology and because they out competed other species for use of that ecology.

I think i will stick to religius topics from now on.

This is your choice. I hope you also realize that your lack of understanding on this and other science topics (seashells on mountains, abiogenesis, big bang, etc) means that you have no authority to judge what should be taught in schools, and you should close your new topic.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:41 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 55 of 1075 (513008)
06-23-2009 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:41 AM


One more comment
Sorry I didn't include this in the previous reply Doubletime,

The reseon i had problems replying is because im kinda bussy irl.

Thanks. I had to rush off for my yoga class, so I was a little brief.

I will soak this new information up =P I have read about evolution and so but it was a while ago.

You are welcome back any time you want to learn more about it. If you read the material I provided and have questions, this is a good place to ask, as you will generally find several different ways people respond to questions. I'll certainly be glad to help.

I understand that processing new information that seems contrary to old beliefs can be difficult - this occurs to everyone and involves any topic, and the trick is to find an open minded skepticism view.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:41 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 56 of 1075 (513064)
06-24-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:41 AM


Really?
So what next ? can i simply surrender and close the discussion ? There are no humans apes alive today, because they all died out while the more primitive monkeys stayed undeveloped and survived. It makes sence.

I agree with with Huntard's Message 52 on this one. You seem to be repeating the same misconception you started with. The only thing missing is the "Yeah, right." and the winky ;).

What I'd like to see is an:

"Oh! I see now: We and the other great apes had a common ancestor some many millions of years ago; kind of like the kids of my 6x great grandmother's kids going off and having families of their own. Here are the Dobbins, here are the Johansens, here are the Whitcombs… Some of the families did well and produced many more families. Some went off and produced few or even no families. We just happen to be on a branch of the family where we're the only direct kin left."

I find it so frustrating when I (and by "I" I mean "RAZD") put so much effort into a proper explanation and get nothing to indicate whether the recipient learned anything more then just to shut-up when not talking to people whom he knows to be stupider then himself.

Please, Doubletime, give us a hint that you're not just going away.

Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity & flow


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:41 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 57 of 1075 (513067)
06-24-2009 3:00 PM


Ignoring the evidence?
Please, Doubletime, give us a hint that you're not just going away.

Are you going to consider the evidence, or ignore it?

Does this evidence make any dent in your a priori conceptions?

Or are we just wasting our time responding to what, if it is impervious to evidence, is nothing more than witnessing?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

traste
Member (Idle past 3432 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 58 of 1075 (515623)
07-19-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Doubletime wrote:

If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?

Excellent question, double time,the plain answer is because there is no such thing.

How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved

The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)

How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?

Again excellent question, since evolutionary theory predicted that as organasism advanced they are more suited than there predescors. So where are those apemen? Proponents of evolution are just bluffing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2009 11:52 PM traste has responded
 Message 60 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2009 12:36 AM traste has responded
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2009 12:42 AM traste has responded
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2009 3:46 AM traste has responded
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2009 8:12 AM traste has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 59 of 1075 (515624)
07-19-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


Really Bad Attempt to Fool Others
traste writes:

The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)

I have read Gould's Mismeasure of Man which is about eugenics, not a denial of the existence of hominid fossils.

I also am certain that I am not alone in this forum in reading this book and others by Gould.

Your use of this book in arguing against human and other species' evolution, which Gould accepted and wrote about in hundreds of works, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Is this an example of your version of Christian morality? If so, time to read the Bible again, try starting with the ten commandments as you just violated at least one in that post.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:34 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2479 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 60 of 1075 (515626)
07-20-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


quote:
quote:
How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?

Again excellent question, since evolutionary theory predicted that as organasism advanced they are more suited than there predescors. So where are those apemen? Proponents of evolution are just bluffing


No primitive apes have survived only the modern apes, that is, modern gibbons, modern orangutans, modern gorillas, modern chimps & modern humans.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:33 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019