Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
146 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 286 (637198)
10-14-2011 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 2:37 AM


I...Chuck...77...am not in favor of the "why are there still apes around if..." argument. [...] I don't think it's a good argument.

* applies Chuckian hermeneutics *

So, you're an evolutionist then?

There's no need to conceal it, you're among friends here.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 2:37 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 286 (637200)
10-14-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
10-14-2011 3:08 AM


Re: He's no atheist
Tangle writes:

I am now trying to renew my acquaintance with evolution theory and I came here for help in doing that when I found myself unable to satisfactorily answer some questions from a Jewish friend.

Here you go Tangle. Tell your Jewish friend this isn't an argument he should use anymore:

"If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?
Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG–U.S. onSeptember 21, 2010"

Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.

Here is how their misguided thinking goes: “If evolution were true, then modern humans descended from apes. (After all, we’ve seen many scientific charts showing apes as man’s ancestors.) So, since apes still exist, they didn’t turn into humans, and evolutionists are being silly when they say apes evolved into humans. Case closed!” People who think this way (and I have met many, but not within Answers in Genesis ministries) sincerely believe that the present-day existence of apes discredits evolution.

Well then, why don’t we ask the obvious question: If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist today? If they evolved into humans, the apes should naturally be gone . . . right?

Well, no, not really.

This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe.

This is another argument the Christian should not use.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../humans-evolved-from-apes

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 3:08 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 4:00 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 286 (637201)
10-14-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 3:41 AM


Re: He's no atheist
Here you go Tangle. Tell your Jewish friend this isn't an argument he should use anymore:

"If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?
Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use

No, no, we need a list of arguments that Jews shouldn't use.

Apart from that, good job. Apparently you stealth evolutionists have infiltrated AiG, and while I deplore your underhand tactics I have to admire your success.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 3:41 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 34 of 286 (637203)
10-14-2011 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 3:21 AM


Re: He's no atheist
It seems to me you are arguing against evolution here. Are you not?

I am not a creationist and that's the last time I'm going to say it.

However, if I was a creationist, I would have a half decent point wouldn't I?

We - and to be clear, I include myself - say that H sapiens is an ape and that our closest relative is Pan troglodyte, also an ape. It would have been nice to show the lines of descent to our joint common ancestor, Pan prior, using fossil evidence but it seems I can't. And worse, we only have Pan prior as an idea, not a fossil.

The fact that we find few fossils in arboreal environments where the chimp line lived is a bloody nuisance for my proposed explanation - it would sound like an excuse to those on the other side of the argument so I can't easily use it.

I now need to think of something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 3:21 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 4:18 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 286 (637204)
10-14-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
10-14-2011 4:11 AM


Re: He's no atheist
Well in order to demonstrate that the existence of humans, the existence of other apes, and the theory of evolution are mutually consistent, it isn't necessary to have a complete set of intermediate forms, just to show that there's no inconsistency --- that the evolution of humans wouldn't somehow magically make all the other apes disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 4:11 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 4:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 36 of 286 (637207)
10-14-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2011 4:18 AM


Well in order to demonstrate that the existence of humans, the existence of other apes, and the theory of evolution are mutually consistent, it isn't necessary to have a complete set of intermediate forms, just to show that there's no inconsistency --- that the evolution of humans wouldn't somehow magically make all the other apes disappear.

Completely agree - just in this particular case if fcuks up my story. (Which would have been a good one had it worked).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 4:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 4:49 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 286 (637208)
10-14-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
10-14-2011 4:44 AM


Completely agree - just in this particular case if fcuks up my story. (Which would have been a good one had it worked).

Well in fact now I think about it displaying a complete set of intermediates wouldn't actually answer the "why" question any more than pointing out that chimpanzees etc are not actually extinct. Anyone who thought that that would be contrary to theory could go on thinking it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 4:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 5:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 38 of 286 (637209)
10-14-2011 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tangle
10-12-2011 12:10 PM


Hmm - that's interesting and a little disappointing :-)

Could it be that those involved in the battle were warriors and therefore larger? I really don't want to believe that all those medieval buildings had doorways too small for the people living in them!

Is there any evidence that modern man gets taller with improved nutrition? Are Asians in fast developing countries like India and China getting taller?

Sorry for the slow reply! Improved nutrition in early life does lead to taller populations usually. The misconception is the belief that nutrition has steadily improved over human history, so you get shorter the further back you go. These warriors in mostly agricultural 15th century England properly ate healthier than the slum dwellers who made up a sizable portion of the population of industrial 18th century England. The ups and downs of your ancestor's height would depend on which societies and ethnicities you're tracing that ancestry through.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tangle, posted 10-12-2011 12:10 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2865
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 39 of 286 (637210)
10-14-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 3:21 AM


Re: He's no atheist
Tangle writes:

As it happens, it looks like I've picked the wrong story; science doesn't yet have the chimp line story sorted out at all. No intermediates between chimp and the common ancestor and no bloody common ancestor to hold hands with. Pity.

Im sorry but that doesn't seem like something an evolutionist or an atheist would say at all.

It seems to me you are arguing against evolution here. Are you not?

Thats like arguing well we dont know who your grate grandfather was there are no pictures, no birth certificate, no nothing, so the theory of common descent is wrong and clearly your grandfather was poofed into exsistance fully formed by a magic man up in the sky.

Its not an argument against evolution if we are missing an evaluational link between 2 species its a prediction that will eventually come true as it has so many times proving evolution right. The same way if we put our backs in to it we would eventually find some evidence for your grate grandfathers exsistance.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 3:21 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 40 of 286 (637212)
10-14-2011 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2011 4:49 AM


Well in fact now I think about it displaying a complete set of intermediates wouldn't actually answer the "why" question any more than pointing out that chimpanzees etc are not actually extinct. Anyone who thought that that would be contrary to theory could go on thinking it.

It would simply demonstrate, with evidence, how both lines developed from a common ancestor and it would have been quite a powerful story that is fairly easily explained.

I wasn't expecting it to change all creationist's minds - particularly the ones found on these boards.

I seem to remember that the horse has a pretty good fossil record - anyone know what its nearest living relative and common ancestor are? ["Hello Google"]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 4:49 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 10-14-2011 5:43 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 6:14 AM Tangle has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 41 of 286 (637213)
10-14-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
10-14-2011 5:22 AM


It would simply demonstrate, with evidence, how both lines developed from a common ancestor and it would have been quite a powerful story that is fairly easily explained.

I wasn't expecting it to change all creationist's minds - particularly the ones found on these boards.

I seem to remember that the horse has a pretty good fossil record - anyone know what its nearest living relative and common ancestor are? ["Hello Google"]

The nearest living relatives of horses are zebras and asses. They're very close relatives, all classed in the same genus, and horses are believed to have split from the rest only about 2.5 million years ago. There is an extensive fossil record of the horse/ass/zebra genus Equus, with dozens of extinct species being named.

However, despite this, there is nothing we can point to as the common ancestors of horses and asses/zebras, and there never will be. The simple question is, how could we possibly ever know? Think back to crashfrog's analogy of family relationships. You and your cousin share a common ancestor, your grandfather. Imagine you then come across pictures of your grandfather, your grandfather's brother, and your grandfather's cousin. All of these may share some distinct family traits, and in all of them you might be able to see the resemblance. Without some sort of documentation, however, you would never be able to tell which one was your grandfather, or even if none of them are and your grandfather's picture was lost.

And that's similar to the situation we're looking at in fossils. We can identify the family relationships. You can dig up a load of fossils of horses and their relatives, and you can tell that they're all relatives. If the material is good enough, it's possible to make pretty good family trees. But there will never be a way of distinguishing between a (metaphorical) grandfather, grandfather's brother and grandfather's cousin.

Having said all that, if you want the scientists' best guess as to the fossil nearest to the horse/ass/zebra ancestor; the answer is Equus simplicidens from Idaho about 3 million years ago.

Edited by caffeine, : spelling and messed up tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 5:22 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 6:25 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 42 of 286 (637214)
10-14-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
10-14-2011 5:22 AM


I seem to remember that the horse has a pretty good fossil record - anyone know what its nearest living relative and common ancestor are?

Horses go with rhinos and tapirs.

One of these is an early tapir, the other is an early horse. As you can see, there's not much in it ...

... and there'd be even less difference if it was an even earlier horse, which would have had more toes. As this author states, in early perrisodactyls "species, genera, and even higher taxa differ little from each other".

So in this case you do have ancestral forms pretty much holding hands. Or hooves, or whatever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 5:22 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 7:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 286 (637215)
10-14-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by caffeine
10-14-2011 5:43 AM


The nearest living relatives of horses are zebras and asses.

I was taking "the horse" to mean Equus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 10-14-2011 5:43 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 44 of 286 (637220)
10-14-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2011 6:14 AM


So maybe a way to answer the question is to explain all the above about humans and chimps, then say that because all the descendants of horses AND their nearest living relative shared the same environment (?) and because that environment was the open plains where fossils survive (?) we have a good fossil record of both lines going back to best a guess common ancestor.

Or

"if horses descended from Xs, why are Xs are still here?"

Applications for best X, please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2011 6:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 10-14-2011 7:50 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 2:26 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15903
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 45 of 286 (637225)
10-14-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
10-14-2011 7:06 AM


If you want a complete record, I don't think that fossils are the way to go, for two reasons.

Firstly, we don't have any thing like a complete record of every species that ever lived. A large majority have left no fossils. Hard-shelled marine species are best, but I somehow don't see that as being very useful in convincing a creationist.

Secondly, species transitions often take place in small isolated populations over a geologically short period (likely around 1,000 years). And that is unlikely to show up in the fossil record at all.

So I think that you are better off showing that the argument is fundamentally mistaken.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 7:06 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2011 8:16 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 10-14-2011 12:07 PM PaulK 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 © 2020