Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 1075 (512576)
06-19-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 5:43 AM


Doubletime writes:
I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neanderthal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neanderthals as an own species.
You used several different forms of Neanderthal, so to resolve any uncertainty, the accepted spellings of Neanderthal in English are "Neanderthal" and the less common "Neandertal". It's capitalized.
You either misunderstood the article in your magazine, or your magazine has published nonsense. There has never been any discovery of a hybrid Neanderthal/human fossil, and especially not with a Neanderthal skull and a human body. Perhaps you're thinking of a November 17, 2005, article about the discovery of human, Neanderthal and hyena remains in a French cave.
What we've been able to discern so far from studies of fragmentary Neanderthal DNA seems to indicate that the Neanderthals were a separate and distinct species from Homo sapiens, and now that I think about it, perhaps your magazine article was actually discussing the possibility of human/Neanderthal interbreeding.
The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today.
Actually, the real question is why you believe that surviving descendants have anything to do with any species' evolutionary history of descent. To use an analogy, whether or not your grandfather is still alive cannot affect your own personal family tree since they're events that have already happened and cannot be changed, so why do you think that whether or not one of our evolutionary ancestors still survives could affect our own evolutionary family tree?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 5:43 AM Doubletime has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 26 of 1075 (512628)
06-19-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Doubletime writes:
Who said im a creationist?
No one called you a creationist, but your views are mainstream creationism. Are you saying that you reject evolution but don't interpret Genesis literally to conclude a recent creation of the universe, the earth and life, as well as a global flood being responsible for existing geological formations?
Anyway, it was your views that were called creationist, which they are. It's impossible to talk about creationist views without using the term "creationist". It would be like talking about how to weave yarn using pointed rods without using the term "knitting." Not possible.
Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution?
You give the impression of having poor skills in science, grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and reading comprehension. I'm only saying this so you can have an example of a true flame for future reference.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 30 of 1075 (512647)
06-19-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Doubletime writes:
Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
Creatio ex nihilo is impossible and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
See how easy this is?
We already have a pretty good idea of your views. Despite your denials that you're a creationist, so far your arguments are straight down the middle of road creationism. Simply declaring your creationist views isn't discussion or argument, isn't any form of give and take. It's just repeated soliloquy.
I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
For learning about what i said
Okay, two things, Sherlock.
First, Dawkins doesn't agree with you about anything you've said here so far. What makes you think he does? There's that comprehension problem again.
Second, your YouTube link is to an incredibly corny music video called RickRoll'D.
Sheesh!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Doubletime has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 1075 (512746)
06-20-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 12:04 PM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
Doubletime writes:
Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools)
You sure cram a lot of errors into a small space. Your name should be Doubletalk.
When you say "a cell alters itself without anyone moderating it," you're much closer to describing evolution than abiogenesis.
Put simply, evolution describes the process by which life changes over time. Cells don't alter themselves, rather they experience mutations and rearrangements of gene types (alleles) during reproduction.
Abiogenesis is our name for the yet unknown process by which life arose from non-life solely through matter and energy following known physical laws.
It's turning out that everything you think is stupid and retarded is just stuff you've made up in your own head. Now that you know what abiogenesis really is, what do you think and, more importantly, based upon what evidence and rationale.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 12:04 PM Doubletime has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 102 of 1075 (525964)
09-25-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
09-25-2009 10:10 AM


Hi Peg,
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? They're on the evolutionary side, remember? Do you think it's possible that the quotes you found are actually just posing a conundrum to which they next provide the solution? Can you even count the number of times you've been warned not to trust creationist websites when it comes to quotes?
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 the World Book Encyclopedia actually says that, "Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes," then it is just plain wrong. No biologists believe this. Unless the broader context makes clear that by "sudden" they mean "over thousands of years," what they say is completely wrong.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 09-25-2009 10:10 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2009 10:51 AM Percy has replied
 Message 114 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:16 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 104 of 1075 (525974)
09-25-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2009 10:51 AM


I wasn't ignoring polyploidy, I just felt that chromosome duplication wasn't the same thing as "sudden, drastic changes in genes" since the genes in the duplicated chromosome are, except for the inevitable copying errors, the same as the originals. While a species can arise suddenly in this way (usually in plants, I think), I was assuming the DNA nucleotide sequences in the genes themselves aren't much changed.
But however this is related to the topic, my main point to Peg was that gorillas, chimps and humans have to be in a common group at some level of our classification system, and that happens to be the Hominidae family, informally known as apes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2009 10:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 132 of 1075 (526214)
09-26-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by traste
09-26-2009 1:16 AM


Hi Traste,
First, I have a request. When you resume posting to a thread, please don't post eight responses to eight different messages. No thread should be spread out across so many subtopics that it can support eight different conversations. The main topic in this thread is the classification of humans as one species of Hominidae, or more informally, apes.
traste writes:
Those statements, are saying that the evidences are inconflict with there evolutioanary beliefs.
No, they're not. They're using the literary device of first posing a conundrum for which they then provide a solution, except that:
Yes, but they are posting negative comments.
No, they're not posting negative comments. They're not posting anything at all. Creationist websites posted those comments, and they posted only a portion of what was said in order to give the false appearance that they both believe the evidence is not in concert with the theory.
If he is an advocate of punctuated equilibrium,he cannot be an advacate of gradualism.
Uh, yes, that's what he was getting at, that he's not an advocate of gradualism. That's okay, I understand English isn't your first language.
The main point to take from this is that punctuated equilibrium, the view accepted by Stanley and Eldredge, is compatible with evolution. Where they differ with advocates of gradualism is on the tempo and pace of evolution, not on whether it happened.
Look at this by way of example. Say scientists believed that toadstools could only grow gradually, and that one day a scientist came along who claimed that toadstools could spring up overnight. How much sense would it make to take this disagreement over the tempo and pace of toadstool growth to argue that it means this scientist believes the evidence is inconsistent with the existence of toadstools?
You're basically arguing the same thing, that a disagreement over the tempo and pace of evolution means the evidence is in conflict with evolution.
Returning to the topic, we're talking about a classification system, not story telling. Humans are in the same grouping as chimps and gorillas when it comes to Animalia. Do you have a problem with calling humans animals, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Chordata (vertebrates). Do you have a problem with calling humans vertebrates, along with chimps and gorillas.
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Mammalia (mammals). Do you have a problem with calling humans mammals, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Primates. Do you have a problem with calling humans Primates, along with chimps and gorillas?
And we're all in the same grouping when it comes to Hominidae. Do you have a problem with calling humans Hominidae, along with chimps and gorillas?
The informal name for Hominidae is apes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by traste, posted 09-26-2009 1:16 AM traste has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 210 of 1075 (620992)
06-22-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Hi Mazzy,
You seem to pop into discussions for brief periods and then disappear, so since I doubt I'll get any response I'll just respond to the first thing I saw that was wrong. Others have pointed out your other errors.
Mazzy writes:
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
This is a common creationist misconception, but we have no evidence that intermediates must go extinct, and there is nothing in what we know of evolutionary processes that requires it. We do know that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct.
The term "intermediates" can be a confusing one within evolution. In a strict sense all species are intermediate between what they were and what they will be. The copying of genetic material during reproduction is imperfect, hence even asexual offspring are usually imperfect copies of their parent. In fact, during cell division where one might expect that one of the cells gets the original and perfect DNA, in reality each cell receives half the DNA helix, and errors happen as the DNA splits in half and as each cell recreates a full DNA helix. After the division both cells will often be imperfect copies of the original.
Since the copying of genetic material during reproduction is imperfect, no species breeds perfectly true. Slow and gradual change, usually termed drift in a relatively unchanging environment, is inevitable. It can't be stopped.
The need, in both a human and scientific sense, for classification as an aid to understanding and interpretation means that we find a fossil in the ground and give it a species name, but in reality that fossil was of a single representative of a population of a species that was in the midst of change that never ceases. All life is intermediate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 214 of 1075 (621028)
06-22-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Portillo
06-22-2011 6:43 PM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo writes:
My understanding is that we evolved from pond scum, hence we must be more evolved than it.
AZPaul3 could have expressed himself more positively, but what he's saying is correct. That's because we didn't evolve from pond scum. What the evidence indicates is that we and pond scum share a common ancestor that lived some billions of years ago. In the time since that common ancestor both lineages evolved. One evolving lineage led to to pond scum, the other to human beings. Both lineages evolved for equal amounts of time and so both lineages are equally evolved.
There's another sense in which saying "more evolved" is incorrect, and that's when "more evolved" is meant to imply better. All organisms that are well adapted to their environment are equal in terms of evolution.
But there is yet another way of looking at it in which you are correct. If you measure the percent of difference between the common ancestor and pond scum, and also for the common ancestor and human beings, then there would likely be a much greater difference with human beings. But this is not a way that can be quantified since we don't have any DNA from the common ancestor, we can only conjecture that it was much more similar to the DNA of pond scum rather than human beings.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Left a word out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 6:43 PM Portillo has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 1075 (621153)
06-24-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


Hi Mazzy,
Others have already responded to the portions of your post that appear to be misconstruals of both the evidence and processes of evolution, so I'll just mention that I wasn't advocating gradualism as the sole rate of evolution. I was making a different point. I guess I'm not sure how you're using the word "disappearance". I thought you were referring to missing intermediates in the fossil record, but you didn't detect that intermediates was my main point, so I guess you must have meant something else. Extinctions, perhaps?
All species, one could even argue all individuals, are transitional. They're intermediate between what came before and what will come after. The pace of change, the tempo at which a species transitions to another species, the rate at which intermediate stages are traversed, does not affect this fact. Gould would completely agree that all species are transitional (except species that go extinct, of course), and so would everyone else in biology, and certainly everyone here in this thread except maybe you and Portillo.
This is because reproduction is imperfect. No species ever breeds true because of copying mistakes during reproduction (genetic errors can pop up at other times too, but there's no need to descend into too much detail). The errors perpetuate and carry forward into following generations. Each generation is slightly different than the one before. Change is inevitable. Whether fast or slow, change will happen.
By the way, like everyone else I'm wondering what on Earth moved you to say this:
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:26 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 254 of 1075 (621213)
06-24-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:28 PM


Re: More evolved?
Hi Mazzy,
Ape (Hominoidea) is a classification that includes several different species. When we say that both humans and chimps are apes we only mean that they hold certain identifying characteristics in common. Saying that humans and chimps are both apes does not imply we're "no different than a chimp." If we were really the same as chimps then we'd be the same species, but we're not.
We could modify the classification system so that chimps, gorillas and orangutans were in one group and humans in another, and in fact it was not uncommon to do that not so long ago, but that wouldn't change the characteristics we have in common with them, and that's all the classification of Apes is saying.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:28 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 2:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Percy has replied
 Message 323 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:35 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 1075 (621216)
06-24-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.
Usually this will work pretty well, it's pretty standard at most discussion boards, except that here you can also specify the width, in this case I've set it to 300:
[img=300]http://www.superchrist.com/images/fish_black.gif[/img]
That should give you this:
If you hover over the image you'll see a little magnifying glass with a "+" inside. Click on it to display the image at full size.
Click on "peek" to see all the dBCodes and HTML of any message.
The dBCodes are documented over at EvC Forum: dBCodes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 261 of 1075 (621227)
06-24-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by DBlevins
06-24-2011 2:26 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
DBlevins writes:
It sounds like you're saying that an extinct species would not be considered transitional, which would rule out all extinct transitional forms (which, I think is basically what Mazzy is suggesting when she implies that the ToE is falsified because Homo Erectus is not currently around).
Ooh, good point!
He'll (she'll?) see your post, hopefully that'll clear up the confusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:26 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 316 of 1075 (621320)
06-25-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
The topic is why are there no human apes alive today.
It's important to note that the thread's question, why there are no human apes alive today, is nonsensical. Humans *are* apes. It would make just as much sense to ask why there are no human mammals alive today.
I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.
Again, humans *are* apes. It would make as much sense to talk about mid mammal/human species.
This is an aside to the fact that indeed primates have been ideologicaly separated as we refer to us as human and mankind and the animal kingdom primates as apes.
I think in casual conversation most people do not mean humans when they say "apes," but checking over at Wikipedia so I can get this right, the scientific term for ape is Hominoidea and it includes chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, people and more.
Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.
Yes, of course. If there weren't differences then we'd be the same species. But no one is saying we're the same species. We share a number of certain characteristics that puts us all in the same superfamily, and the name of that superfamily is Hominoidea, popularly known as apes.
Would it help if we stuck to technical terms? We could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all mammals. And we could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all primates. And we could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all Hominoidea.
The onus is on evolutionists to explain the how and why.
Evolutionists can explain the what and the how, but not the why. Why is the purview of religion.
Anyway, evolutionists *have* explained the what and the how, to the extent evidence is available. In this very thread, in fact. The current classification is based upon both morphology and genetics, and we can get into as much detail as you like. Regardless of the label, chimps, gorillas and humans, and especially just chimps and humans, are more similar to each another than to any other animals, so they would be grouped together in any biological classification system.
Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did.
As I said, why is the purview of religion.
You seem convinced that Turkana Boy is human while Homo erectus is not, based upon the images from Wikipedia articles. Here are the two images side by side, Homo erectus on the left:
But the frontal view of Turkana Boy's skull makes the brow ridge appear very small. Here's a different view where you can see how similar it is to Homo erectus, and in fact many anthropologists classify Turkana Boy as a Homo erectus. Notice that a large part of the central portion of Turkana Boy's brow ridge is missing (click on the image to enlarge it and you'll see this clearly), which is why it doesn't appear as prominent in the photograph of the whole skeleton:
More importantly, no anthropologist classifies Homo erectus or Turkana boy as human, i.e., as Homo sapien.
I can tell that you find changing views within science as an indication of something rotten, but the object of your criticism is not evolution but merely the interpretation of the evidence of natural history in an evolutionary context. The theory of evolution as it relates to human evolution has changed little, but our reconstructions of the path of human evolution have changed and will change a great deal with new evidence and improving insights.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve description of Turkana Boy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by DrJones*, posted 06-25-2011 2:38 AM Percy has seen this message but 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