Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 76 of 1075 (520255)
08-20-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by traste
08-20-2009 2:33 AM


traste writes:
Well I think you justdont get it.
...
My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)
Because those apes were adapted to their (ever changing) environment, yet those apemen weren't. It's really that simple.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:33 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 11:33 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 135 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:51 AM Huntard has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 77 of 1075 (520270)
08-20-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by traste
08-20-2009 2:33 AM


My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)
Who said anything about monkeys? Monkeys aren't apes. Apemen are no more advanced that other apes, just different. For the same reason that their are only 2 species of Chimpanzee & one species of Gorilla adaptation. Those species that could adapt, survived, those that couldn't became extinct.

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 70 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:33 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 11:42 PM bluescat48 has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 1075 (520310)
08-20-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by traste
08-20-2009 2:33 AM


Hi, Traste.
traste writes:
My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)
Would you also argue that humans are more advanced than, say, moths? Or, are they more advanced than jellyfish? Flies? Slugs? How come these things survived when "more advanced" things died?
The existence of "more advanced" species does not mean "less advanced" species have to go extinct to make room.
Every species adapts to a particular environment. Then, the fate of the species is tied to that particular environment. If that environment changes, the species must adapt to it; if it cannot, it will go extinct.
The environment to which chimpanzees adapted was different from the environment to which Neanderthals adapted. The Neanderthal environment changed such that they could no longer survive. But, the chimpanzee environment remained similar enough that the chimps could survive in it.
And the story is the same for every species: change happens, and some species are affected more than others. It has nothing to do with who is "more advanced" (whatever that means, anyway).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 2:33 AM traste has not replied

Databed
Junior Member (Idle past 5303 days)
Posts: 7
From: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Joined: 09-10-2009


Message 79 of 1075 (524257)
09-15-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Why haven't humans lived in the jungles where gorillas live? The answer is probably very similar to the answer for, "Why aren't Neanderthals there wiping out gorillas?"
Neanderthal did not evolve to live in jungles, they evolved to live in the exact same niche as modern humans. Since modern man was better at it, we wiped them out. Simple as that.
Hominids weren't good at living in the niche that apes lived in. True, today we can live anywhere due to our technology, but do you think a family of man could survive in the jungles along side apes without any modern conveniences like guns or weapons and modern tools? I don't think so.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 12:22 PM Databed has not replied
 Message 81 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2009 5:19 AM Databed has replied
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 3:16 PM Databed has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 80 of 1075 (524267)
09-15-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Databed
09-15-2009 11:24 AM


Why haven't humans lived in the jungles where gorillas live?
They do! That's why gorilla's are an endangered species...
But I see what you mean

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Databed, posted 09-15-2009 11:24 AM Databed has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 81 of 1075 (524348)
09-16-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Databed
09-15-2009 11:24 AM


Jungle men
Neanderthals didn't evolve to live in the same niche as modern humans. Neanderthals were adapted to live in chilly, ice-age Europe while modern humans were busy evolving on Africa's savannahs. They were shorter and stockier, helping in heat retention; they were much more robust to enable them to get by in harsh environmental conditions, and they were less equipped for long treks across open country. Modern humans managed to solve the problems of northern living with more advanced technology than the Neanderthals.
As for whether humans can survive in jungles without modern technology, indeed they can and do. The few people still living with no contact with modern civillisation can be found mostly in places like the Amazon and the jungles of New Guinea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Databed, posted 09-15-2009 11:24 AM Databed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Databed, posted 09-16-2009 1:21 PM caffeine has not replied

Databed
Junior Member (Idle past 5303 days)
Posts: 7
From: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Joined: 09-10-2009


Message 82 of 1075 (524429)
09-16-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by caffeine
09-16-2009 5:19 AM


Re: Jungle men
Well, my point is that the niches of neanderthals and humans overlapped which probably led to the extinction of the species. The fact that gorillas and apes still have habitat that is undisturbed by humans is why they are still around. Their niches simply don't overlap or at least they have stabilized in a way where they don't overlap.
Humans,historically have not lived in the places where gorillas currently live. If they did, the gorillas would not be around. I'm in no way saying that gorillas have not been displaced and are not endangered by human deforestation and habitation today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2009 5:19 AM caffeine has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 1075 (524447)
09-16-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Databed
09-15-2009 11:24 AM


Why haven't humans lived in the jungles where gorillas live?
They do. Who else do you think is poaching them?
Hominids weren't good at living in the niche that apes lived in. True, today we can live anywhere due to our technology, but do you think a family of man could survive in the jungles along side apes without any modern conveniences like guns or weapons and modern tools? I don't think so.
Well, there are cases of ferrel children being born in the wild and raised by wolves, so it is conceivable that they could survive.
But where are you going with this?

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Databed, posted 09-15-2009 11:24 AM Databed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Databed, posted 09-16-2009 4:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Databed
Junior Member (Idle past 5303 days)
Posts: 7
From: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Joined: 09-10-2009


Message 84 of 1075 (524455)
09-16-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 3:16 PM


By living where gorillas live I obviously mean competing in the same niche and location. No one lives with gorillas in this sense. Poachers definitely don't fit this description and even in the literal sense, which is how I guess my statement was taken, they still don't live there.
Also, I guess I should have made it clearer that I am speaking in an evolutionary sense for humans, which includes the last 2 million years or so. In this sense, I wasn't really thinking of men with guns and trucks.
My point was that humans were never competing for any niches that apes occupy. They weren't fit for those niches regardless of competition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 3:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 09-16-2009 5:25 PM Databed has replied
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 8:33 PM Databed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 85 of 1075 (524462)
09-16-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Databed
09-16-2009 4:22 PM


Databed writes:
By living where gorillas live I obviously mean competing in the same niche and location.
Same niche, sure. Same location, of course not. Gorillas wouldn't set up shop in a human village, and humans wouldn't build a village in the midst of a gorilla group. But fairly nearby one another? Why not?
Also, I guess I should have made it clearer that I am speaking in an evolutionary sense for humans, which includes the last 2 million years or so...My point was that humans were never competing for any niches that apes occupy. They weren't fit for those niches regardless of competition.
You've lost me, and probably just about everyone else, too. Do you really believe that during the past 2 million years in Africa that humans and human evolutionary ancestors did not live in the same jungles as gorillas, probably right up to the 20th century and somewhat beyond? And that there are no primitive tribes still living in jungle niches?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Databed, posted 09-16-2009 4:22 PM Databed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Databed, posted 09-17-2009 11:23 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 1075 (524473)
09-16-2009 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Databed
09-16-2009 4:22 PM


?
My point was that humans were never competing for any niches that apes occupy. They weren't fit for those niches regardless of competition.
I don't see where you are going with this, though? Are you using this an explanation for why and how neandethal's were competed out of existence versus gorilla's?
What is the greater point you are trying to make, in other words?

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Databed, posted 09-16-2009 4:22 PM Databed has not replied

Databed
Junior Member (Idle past 5303 days)
Posts: 7
From: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Joined: 09-10-2009


Message 87 of 1075 (524536)
09-17-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
09-16-2009 5:25 PM


There are thousands of different jungle niches. You seem to be confusing jungle niche with jungle habitat. Take a look at the typical diet of a mountain gorilla (this is part of its niche, food, in case you didn't know), an ape that lives on the ground just as hominids. This is no where close to what our diet can consist of. We can't digest leaves and stems which is about 85% of their diet and they have to eat a lot of it. Further, there isn't much other food available in these locations.
The whole point I was trying to make is that hominids are not fit to live in niches that apes occupy and that's why we don't find them there. Modern human consumed every niche that a hominid can occupy and therefore all other hominids were wiped out and many apes were not. This is not complicated.
BTW, sorry if I strayed from my original point, I was having to defend against people nitpicking my original post.
Edited by Databed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 09-16-2009 5:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 88 of 1075 (525611)
09-23-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
08-20-2009 7:26 AM


Huntard wrote:
Because those apes were adapted to their (ever changing) environment, yet those apemen weren't. It's really that simple
What made them better adapted? If they are better adapted then it follows that they have advanced feutures. In this respect my argument remained intact and my question remained unanswered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 7:26 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2009 5:39 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 89 of 1075 (525612)
09-23-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bluescat48
08-20-2009 8:32 AM


bluescat48 wrote:
Who said anything about monkeys? Monkeys aren't apes. Apemen are no more advanced that other apes, just different. For the same reason that their are only 2 species of Chimpanzee & one species of Gorilla adaptation. Those species that could adapt, survived, those that couldn't became extinct.
Actually they are advanced because the theory of evolution itself claimed as complexities increased they became more advanced than there predessors, in this regards the question is sensible. Because if they are not advanced. Why they survived? The theory of evolution claimed that natural selection choose only those organism that are better adapted, it cannot be called better adapted if it is not advanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2009 8:32 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by bluescat48, posted 09-24-2009 12:05 AM traste has replied
 Message 91 by Granny Magda, posted 09-24-2009 12:10 AM traste has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 90 of 1075 (525617)
09-24-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by traste
09-23-2009 11:42 PM


Why they survived?
The point is they didn't survive. The other apes & Homo sapiens survived but the so called apemen didn't.
Me writes:
Apemen are no more advanced that other apes, just different.
If, according to your statement, the apemen should have survived since they were "More advanced."

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 89 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 11:42 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by traste, posted 09-25-2009 11:32 PM bluescat48 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024