Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
31 online now:
Percy (Admin), Pressie (2 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,794 Year: 1,542/23,288 Month: 1,542/1,851 Week: 182/484 Day: 105/77 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 256 of 1075 (621220)
06-24-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
06-24-2011 7:16 AM


If Extinct then not transitional?
Hey Percy,

I think you might be confusing Mazzy when you say:

"...all species are transitional (except species that go extinct, of course)."

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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 7:16 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:40 PM DBlevins has responded
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 2:46 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 1075 (621223)
06-24-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by AZPaul3
06-24-2011 10:50 AM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
The regulars here know you understand this, CS, so I have to question the quibble.

Oh, just a little pedantry for the sake of brevity, Paul

Your usage can be seen as technically correct. Portillo's is most certainly not.

I'm not interested in how Portillo is wrong, I used the General Reply to seperate my point from his misunderstandings.

Everybody's really digging their heels in on this absolute claim of "no such thing as more evolved" and, I think that it can be seen as technically incorrect.

"More" change does not mean "more" evolved.

Evolution *is* change...

Hey, I see here where Percy has been making this same point, Message 214:

quote:
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.

I don't see a problem with that, in particular.


In Message 249, frako writes:

The Amoeba has more gens then a human so comparing the changes that acured with our last common ancestor the first cell would make the amoeba more evolved then humans ???

Yes! Exactly.

The only way i see to measure how evolved something is would be to measure its reproductive success in a given environment. And i still doubt this method would be good enough.

That seems like it'd be something you'd have to measure for the individuals, rather than the population like we should be considering.


In Message 250, Tag writes:

More divergent does not equal more evolved. Selection of already existing features is as much evolution as selection of new features.

I don't think so. Stasis is a lack of evolution. The more static a species is, the less it is evolving, imho. Is that really just wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 10:50 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 1075 (621224)
06-24-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by DBlevins
06-24-2011 2:26 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
It sounds like you're saying that an extinct species would not be considered transitional, which would rule out all extinct transitional forms

Not necessarily, if the decendents of that extinct transition still exist then it would still be a transitional even thought that particular form of the species no longer exists.

The exception to the tranistionals would be species that went extinct and didn't have any decendents at all.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:26 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 259 of 1075 (621225)
06-24-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
06-24-2011 1:48 PM


Re: More evolved?
Actually, I've read fairly persuasive arguments that its only an inflated self-image that prevents us from classifying ourselves and the two species of chimpanzee in the same genus, giving us Homo sapiens, Homo troglodytes, and Homo paniscus. We three chimps are much more closely related than some organisms that we put into different genera.

See The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond and this recent article from the National Geographic


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 1:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 3:04 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 1075 (621226)
06-24-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.

In addition to the help Percy provided you in Message 255, I think its worth pointing out that images have to already be hosted somewhere on the internet. You can't post images from your harddrive without going through a hosting service.

Places like www.imgur.com, or Photobucket, or... well there's all kinds of image hosting websites out there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19319
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


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 yet responded

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

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 262 of 1075 (621230)
06-24-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2011 2:40 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Apologizing in advance for inability to use "quote" boxes as i'm currently on my mobile and it curiously doesn't have the bracket symbols.

I was pointing out that it sounded to me like Percy was ruling out ALL extinct species from consideration for being a transitional form. I didn't want Mazzy to get the wrong impression.

There are species who do not leave divergent descendants that are considered still to be representative of transitional forms because they have retained some shared traits between the 'newer' form and the ancestral. Case in point would be Archaeopteryx, which we really can't say is ancestral to any current bird species (that I know of) yet is considered as an example of a 'transitional' form from reptiles to birds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 3:55 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 263 of 1075 (621231)
06-24-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
06-24-2011 1:48 PM


Re: More evolved?
Hi Percy

The topic is why are there no human apes alive today. I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.

I offer whale evolution as, what I see to be, a classic misrepresentaion of the fossil evidence, which is the only way evolutionists can morph intermediates into mythical existence, as required by TOE. 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.

Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.

The onus is on evolutionists to explain the how and why. Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did. The how alludes to a science mankind is yet to imagine. Afterall, anyone that believes in a God, regardless of their stance on TOE, is already upholding the belief in a spirit being, the science of which is beyond human comprehension.

God only knows what Homo erectus is. It appears to be a fossil dump of varying humans and apes. Many of your representations are based on fossil fragments and a few bones.

Look at these erectus fossils in Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Now look at these of Turkana Boy. They are quite clearly different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference. The skulls are clearly ape and human. As you would be aware the rounded human skull that is usually portrayed for comparisons to ape is the most different your scientists could find. In actual fact the is variety amongst the skulls of any species and huge variety in human skulls. The Australian Aborigine has eye brow ridging as do some other races, this is just variety, as these races are just as human.

There are flat faced primates and don't forget Lluc the flat faced ape around 12 million years ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

Again the point being the onus is on evolutionists to explain why no ape intermediate is around today that did not quite get the conditions that drove the species all the way to mankind. No sister species of all the itermediates in the evolutionary bush survived.

I can post research that speaks to no correlation between catastrophe and evolutionary change, including Toba and KT, where most species are represented afterwards.
http://www.newscientist.com/...haos-theory-of-evolution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Also note scientists found evidence that Toba was not so catastrophic in 2009 and whallah..in 2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation. Do you see a pattern here? It is a pattern repeated throughout evolutionary history. A theory is discredited and another flavour of the month ensues to replace and explain it. That is why TOE is simply unfalsifiable. More theories just 'poof' into existence to rescusitate TOE.

So there is no reason why some of the ape midpsecies and sister species to not have survived till today looking fairly apey and not real smart.

The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.

That's how I see it anyway!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 1:48 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 4:10 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 280 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 5:04 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 290 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:22 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 1:13 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 320 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 4:00 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 264 of 1075 (621232)
06-24-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2011 2:45 PM


Re: More evolved?
Thanks..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 265 of 1075 (621233)
06-24-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ZenMonkey
06-24-2011 2:42 PM


Bipedal obligates
Iirc they attempted to clarify this with the newer 'Hominin' subclass for bipedal obligates and 'hominids' which include all great apes.

Edited by DBlevins, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 2:42 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 266 of 1075 (621235)
06-24-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
06-24-2011 2:46 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Sort of!

Falsifying TOE does not prove creation. Falsifying TOE as it stands now does not mean evolution did not happen either. What supports creation is based on research such as that by scientists like John C Sanford on entropy and other creationist dating methods and research. These are based on models not unlike yours but different assumption are used in the set up. All models are based on an assumption and use probabilities as insertion values. That is why it is referred to as theoretical modelling and not factual modelling.

I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?

If you had an ape man eg a walking Neanderthal from the earlier representations, evolution would be proven. However you need long evolutionary distances and all intermediates to have not survived to explain the clear distinction between a human and chimp, cat and dog, whale, crocodile and mouse deer.

Catastrophe no longer explains it. What does?

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 2:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 3:55 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 272 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 4:05 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:36 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 292 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:35 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 1:25 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4806
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 267 of 1075 (621236)
06-24-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2011 2:38 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
"More" change does not mean "more" evolved.

Evolution *is* change...

And more change is still evolution, not "more" evolution.

Hey, I see here where Percy has been making this same point, Message 214:

quote:

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.

I don't see a problem with that, in particular.

Neither do I since Percy is talking about the amount of change in each species evolution, not whether one is "more" evolved than another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2011 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 3:44 PM AZPaul3 has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 268 of 1075 (621237)
06-24-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

I spoke to the fossils rather than the misrepresentation of ambulocetus natans ... etc.

You appear to be replying to Nuggin's Message 232, instead of what I was discussing in my own Message 242. This tends to make me think that just like Portlllo, you're not actually reading any replies. Sad.

Since my post had absolutely nothing to do with ambulocetus natans, I won't address the details of that line of argument. I'll just point out that the simple assertion that natans and crocodiles are "almost identical" isn't evidence. As Nuggin pointed out, they may have superficial similarities, but show significant anatomical differences. The average guy might not be able to tell the difference between an iguana and a cat just by looking at the skeletons, but the folks who go to school for years and get their paychecks for knowing this stuff certainly can. Common sense doesn't always count for much.

Your issue with the classification of Neanderthals seems to be that science revises its understanding of things whenever new evidence arises. I fail to see the problem.

Now, if you'd like to discuss what I was actually saying in Message 242 about misunderstanding the term "evolved" to mean "better than" or "more advanced," I'd be happy to do so.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


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

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 269 of 1075 (621240)
06-24-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by AZPaul3
06-24-2011 3:22 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
AZPaul3 writes:

And more change is still evolution, not "more" evolution.

The whole thing comes down to misunderstanding "more evolved"' to mean "better or more advanced than" rather than using it correctly to describe the genetic distance between two organisms, whether comparing two contemporaneous species, or a species and its ancestral form.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 3:22 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 4:23 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 270 of 1075 (621244)
06-24-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Mazzy writes:

I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?

One well-evidenced hypothesis that I subscribe to is that Homo sapiens has a habit of exterminating our nearest relatives. We polished off H. Neanderthalis and a pack of other species in our genus a while back, and are almost done with the rest of the great apes.

You still seem to be asking: "If I'm still alive, why are all of my great-grandparents' cousins dead?" Think about it.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020