Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 114 of 1075 (526159)
09-26-2009 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
09-25-2009 10:49 AM


Percy wrote:
About your first two quotes (from Steven Stanley and Niles Eldrege), do you really beleive that these two very prominent paleontologists actually believe that the fossil record is not consistent with evolution?
Those statements, are saying that the evidences are inconflict with there evolutioanary beliefs.
They're on the evolutionary side, remember?
Yes, but they are posting negative comments.
Can you even count the number of times you've been warned not to trust creationist websites when it comes to quotes?
If you study polsci and logic,you will understand why.
Stanley is misquoted. Where you have [slow evolution] he actually said "gradualism." Stanley is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium. So is Eldredge, a colleague of Gould. They're making the point that the fossil record actually indicates that species change can be relatively rapid, with the emphasis on "relatively." They're still talking about thousands of years at a minimum.
If he is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium,he cannot be an advacate of gradualism. Similarly if, a= b,and b is not c then a is not c.
The fossil record is compatible with the descent of chimps, gorillas and humans from a common ancestor, but more relevant is the morphological and genetic similarities. Both morphologically and genetically chimps, gorillas and humans are more similar to each other than to any other animals in the animal kingdom. Chimps, gorillas and apes are all animals. They're all vertebrates. They're all mammals. They're all primates. And they're all apes.
In biology's classification system all animals have to be in some group with other animals until you get down to the bottom level, the species level. Human beings are a unique species, Homo sapiens. We're even unique in our genus, Homo, since we're the only species in this genus. But we're not the only species at the family level, which is called Hominidae, less formally and more ambiguously, apes. Chimps, gorillas and humans share the same Hominidae, or apes, classification group
The primary task of science is to" minimze story telling" and to maximze objective truth", we dont need to call a story teller in making bridges, nor we do call a story teller in manufacturing cars, but we need a one who has profound understanding of the engineering principle. "Science is not an inscrutable priesthood ",so writes onejudge ,hence it follows that it not a matter of faith,but a matter of evidences, but this is conflict with what we observed among proponents of evolution, when they cannot figure out they just said " through billions of years of evolutionary changes" this organism became lke that and this one became like that, this a only a sory telling, indeed those billions of years of evolutionary changes become the "god of the gaps".
No proponents of ID claimed that classification doesnt exist,they exist but what is the connection of that to gradual change on organism, Linneus observed those yet he dont believe that they evolved, he simply group those organism for easy study. In addition, dog and plant breeders observed those small changes, those are micro changes they didn't evoved into something new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 09-25-2009 10:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 09-26-2009 8:19 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 115 of 1075 (526164)
09-26-2009 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by bluescat48
09-26-2009 1:05 AM


bluecats wrote:
How does they didn't survive, violate the theory of evolution. Ever heard of survival of the fittest?
It really violates because according to evolution they supposed to survived, but as we know they dint, for the simple reason that we dont see them today.
Edited by traste, : add word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by bluescat48, posted 09-26-2009 1:05 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 1:34 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 118 of 1075 (526170)
09-26-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by DrJones*
09-26-2009 1:34 AM


Dr Jones wrote:
Why are they "supposed" to survive? What would prevent them from being outcompeted by other species
They should supposed to survived, because they are advanced,the simple reason why they are not outcompeted is they have advanced features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 1:34 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 1:49 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 119 of 1075 (526171)
09-26-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 1:35 AM


Dr Adequate wrote:
To be a professional biologist, you have to work as a biologist.
He was a former member of the National Academy Of Science. Are you seriouly suggesting that the members of the National Academy Of Science are not professional biologist?
Edited by traste, : wrong placement of qutatio mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 121 of 1075 (526174)
09-26-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 1:35 AM


Dr Adequate wrote:
He is writing what the Moonies are saying. There's a difference
Are,the moonies all biologist? How in your opinion, can someone without solid credentials in biolgy can cause so much trouble?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:10 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 123 of 1075 (526176)
09-26-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by DrJones*
09-26-2009 1:49 AM


DrJones writes:
Advanced is relative, this was pointed out to you with the whale example up thread
Would you mine stating those relativity factors? If so advancement is not universal. So, how does an organism survived in this instance,while it cannot surived in the next instance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 1:49 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 2:09 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 126 of 1075 (526179)
09-26-2009 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Huntard
09-26-2009 2:03 AM


Huntard writes:
Yes, let's assert all around. You studied biology and therefore know that wells is telling the truth? I'd like some evidence for that claim.
Yeah I know some biology, like for example the DNA, folding the folding is very precise because if not it cease to function properly. He is telling the truth on the ground that he implied, there is no way for blind material to bring up those precision, those precision according to our common sense was design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:03 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:18 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 129 of 1075 (526184)
09-26-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:10 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology
Therefore they dont believe that dogs are animals? Or you mean something about that rejecting "the most fundamental truhts in biology". Maybe you mean rejecting the most fundamental truth of evolution?
You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat?
Let's dont talk about his status, in fact I dont agree much of his religious beliefs.,Evaluating the status of someone is no help to refute his argument. Have you ever think about that?
My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.
In this regards the National Academy Of Science , very wrong for appointing him as a fellow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:38 AM traste has replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:47 AM traste has not replied
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 09-26-2009 10:39 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 135 of 1075 (532998)
10-28-2009 12:51 AM
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
The question remains. What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 7:26 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2009 1:21 AM traste has not replied
 Message 140 by anglagard, posted 10-28-2009 1:28 AM traste has replied
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 10-29-2009 2:51 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 136 of 1075 (532999)
10-28-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Dr Adequate wrote:
Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record
If you really look on you will find out that you were wrong.
Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap.
It is not. Even scientist who dont have any religious connotation(i.e. Fred Hoyle) implied that it is the most plausible explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 137 of 1075 (533000)
10-28-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by DrJones*
09-26-2009 2:09 AM


Dr Jones wrote:
I stated 2 of them, enviroment and other species.
If the enviroment was harsh. What do you think will survive better the simple or the complex? The answer is obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 2:09 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by DrJones*, posted 10-28-2009 1:08 AM traste has replied
 Message 142 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2009 1:49 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 141 of 1075 (533004)
10-28-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:38 AM


Re: Wells
Dr Adequate wrote:
It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status.
Im not the one who started it first, but you. Actually evaulting one's status to refute one's argument is a genetic fallacy one of the fallacies in logic. Would you say that Copernicus is wrong bacause some people considered hi as ignorant?
Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status
Actualy you and your co- supporters are the one who are doing this, given that you dont like to listen and and see what the idea of creation is all about. When a proponent of creation and a scientist present evidence in favor of it,was he entertain fairly,? or he was easily dissmiss as a crank? When Neils Henrik Abel showed proof that an equation of degree 5 or more is not solvable by radicals, was he entertain fairly by the leading mathematician of that day( Carl Friedrich Gauss)or he was dissmissed as a crank?
Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.
As I said evaluating one's status is a genetic fallacy. Actually Wells in his book Icons Of Evolution ( I forgot the whole title) present publicized evidence that in conflict with Darwin's prediction. To give you a clue let me present some the idea of primative atmosphere (the reducing one) fish turning into amphibians.
If your reply to this message is again evaluating Well's status I will not bother myself to reply, I have a lot of important things to do.
Edited by traste, : iproving text
Edited by traste, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 5:49 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 150 of 1075 (534418)
11-08-2009 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by DrJones*
10-28-2009 1:08 AM


Dr Jones:
You have fearful words, when I click on them they just disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by DrJones*, posted 10-28-2009 1:08 AM DrJones* has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 151 of 1075 (534419)
11-08-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by anglagard
10-28-2009 1:28 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
anglagard wrote:
What is the meaning of complex? Are modern city dwellers more complex, dealing with politics, financial derivatives, supposed education in reality, and so on more complex than those who live in nature, as 'wildlife' does?
Ohhhh, you are confusing yourself with my simple point. Complex means advanced, that is what we observed in technoloy today.
Jared Diamond in the introduction to Guns, Germs, and Steel refers to the New Guinea tribesmen as the most intelligent people he has ever met due to the fact they have an almost absolute knowledge of every plant, animal and geographic feature in their environment.
Do they know computer, math , engineering, predicting weather, predicting volcano eruption,? If your answer is no I hope you will agree if I say that you are advanced than than them in terns of those things.
Do you have an almost absolute knowledge of everything in your environment?
I dont have,and no people has.
Would you like to try your adaptation skills against such people?
If they are adapted to cold and I am adapted to hot, and the challenge is who will survive better in hot places I will take the challenge.
Would you like to try your adaptation skills against the wild without the convenience of modern science? As in naked, without Wal-Mart clothes? without 7-11 beef jerky? without municipal water? without that SUV to transport you away from those all so 'fierce' black bears and mountain lions?
Dont be very confident with your reasoning, because we are talking about descendant and predessors here, so far in your illustration you dont point out the descendants and predessors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by anglagard, posted 10-28-2009 1:28 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2009 12:04 PM traste has not replied
 Message 155 by Granny Magda, posted 11-08-2009 12:30 PM traste has not replied
 Message 156 by caffeine, posted 11-09-2009 3:33 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 152 of 1075 (534420)
11-08-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Huntard
10-28-2009 5:49 AM


Re: Wells
Huntard wrote:
Evidence? What evidence? He had (false) critiques of evolution. This is not evidence for creation.
In mathematics we called it,indirect proof.
Since his ideas were wrong, he was indeed easily dismissed by the actual evidence.
No, they argue with ad hominem attacks and long disproved evidence of evolution.
A genetic falacy? Surely you mean logical falacy? I know English is not your first language, but still.
I think I know logic than you, a genetic fallacy is irrelevant in debunking one's argument becase it evaluates one's status not his argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 5:49 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Huntard, posted 11-08-2009 11:24 AM traste has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024