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


Message 61 of 286 (637538)
10-16-2011 12:16 PM


How's this?

“If we descended from apes, how come apes are still here?”

Imagine that you are standing face to face with a chimpanzee - let’s call him Pan. The chimp (Pan troglodytes) is an ape and one of our (Homo sapiens) closest animal relatives.

Now imagine that with your left hand you are holding the hand of your mother and that your mother is holding the right hand of her mother and so on for thousands of generations back into the past.

Imagine that Pan is doing the same but with her right hand.

You now have imaginary parallel lines of women and female chimps holding hands backwards into time - like a railway track with women and chimps lining each side.

You can now walk down the centre of the rails and look carefully at your mother's family line and the chimp's family line going back millions of years.

So what would do you see?

Walking back about 200,000 years you see the first different species that gave rise to us - Homo heidelbergensis. But you wouldn’t be able to tell exactly when H. sapiens merged into H. heidelbergensis because each mother would look almost identical to the next – you can’t see the join. The changes from mother to mother are so gradual that you only see a change by comparing mothers thousands or millions of years apart.

This is why there’s no such thing as a transitional fossil or a missing link; every fossil is a transitional fossil and every living species is in transition to the next – if we had a fossil for every mother in the lines, even the experts wouldn’t be able to say when a separate species had been formed. We can only guess with hindsight.

As you walk back further, at about 500,000 years ago, you’d see a branch form and go off sideways Homo neanderthalensis – the Neanderthals. They lived along side us but developed separately. There may even be Neanderthal mothers in our line, because we think that for some time there was interbreeding.

And so on down the line of mothers through increasingly apelike creatures until we reach an animal called Australopithecus africanis (the Southern African ape) at about 2.5 million years ago.

At this point something amazing happens - you see that the right hand of a mother from the chimp line is holding the left hand of a mother from the human line. The lines have met.

This mother starts the lines to both Pan and you. Pan is your distant cousin.

And both you, the human, and Pan, the ape, are still here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 1:31 PM Tangle has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 286 (637545)
10-16-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
10-16-2011 3:33 AM


Re: Dogs and Cats
Tangle writes:

No, I'll have to go back to trying to explain that we and apes are both modern and do the cousins thing again. Frustrating.

I still think you are attacking at the wrong point. Consider that you cannot fully describe the apes/man evolution, yet you can see that "why are there still apes" is a nonsense question. You could not possibly have reached your own position on the matter by considering human evolution in detail.

For one to rationally conclude that "why are there still apes" is a valid retort requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what proponents of evolution actually think happened. A logically sufficient response to the question would be to show that evolution as scientists understand it is different from evolution as the questioner understands it. You don't need proof that scientists are right; you just need to establish that the question is irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 3:33 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 4:53 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 94 by glowby, posted 10-25-2011 1:50 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 63 of 286 (637558)
10-16-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
10-16-2011 12:16 PM


How's this?

It fails. Sorry.

The more words you use, the more it sounds like you are lying. "Well, that college boy sure does talk in circles."

These are simple minded people who pride themselves in their lack of education and unwillingness to consider anything in depth. "Book smarts" is, to them, the worst insult you can hurl at someone.

You can't use terms like "troglodytes" or "parallel" etc. You're just going to confuse and scare them.

As I pointed out before, these people want SHORT and EASY to grasp sound bites.

"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
"If America declared independence from England, why is there still England?"

Done.

They can grasp the idea that America breaking away from England doesn't make England disappear.

I hesitate in the use of the word "independence" because it has too many letters, but I assume that they are familiar with the 4th of July so hopefully it won't scare them too much.

Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 12:16 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 5:58 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 74 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:59 AM Nuggin has responded

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


Message 64 of 286 (637566)
10-16-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
10-16-2011 12:50 PM


Re: Dogs and Cats
You could not possibly have reached your own position on the matter by considering human evolution in detail.

I have never reached a 'position' on evolution - or at least I didn't know I had.

For me, as for most I suspect, there was no difference between the theory of evolution, the periodic table, Ohm's Law and Calculus. It was just a subject studied as fact like all others. I no more have a position on evolution than I do on the knee reflex. I find the whole religion vs Darwin thing bizarre.

The people I'm talking to are not the kind that have 'positions' - they just haven't really thought about it much, if at all; but they've heard the silly arguments.

This place is extreme, not everyone worries about this stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2011 12:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2011 11:37 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 65 of 286 (637569)
10-16-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 1:31 PM


You can't use terms like "troglodytes" or "parallel" etc. You're just going to confuse and scare them.

Deep in there, you have a point - I'll tone down the science names.

BUT it's dumb to assume that people who don't know anything about evolution are dumb. I know nothing about Homer but I assume that's because I never had to study him, not because I'm stupid.

It may be the case that hyper-religious people are dumb (ie possibly 40% of all Americans) but in some other parts of the world it ain't like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 1:31 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 6:03 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 902 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 66 of 286 (637570)
10-16-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
10-16-2011 5:58 PM


I know nothing about Homer but I assume that's because I never had to study him, not because I'm stupid.

Homer in a few brief seconds.

Wife Marge, Children Bart, Lisa, Maggie
Lives in Springfield
Works at a nuclear power plant as a safety supervisor
Hobbies include drinking Duff Beer and watching TV
Catch phrase "Doh"
Skin tone Yellow
Hair a few strands

It may be the case that hyper-religious people are dumb (ie possibly 40% of all Americans) but in some other parts of the world it ain't like that.

But "other parts of the world" aren't going to be asking you "how come there's still monkeys?"

Look, as I said before, if you are talking about someone under the age of 12, go for it. They are likely asking the question for real.

Anyone older than that is not asking a question. They are making a statement about their faith and this is a rallying cry.

You can literally spend an entire year discussing in detail with them every little bit of this and it won't make any difference whatsoever.

Look at ICANT for example. He posts the same shit time and time and time again. It's been picked over in GREAT detail by at least 20 other people. His points have been refuted endlessly. His claims have been shown to be false.

Doesn't make one bit of difference to him.

They don't care that they are wrong.
They take PRIDE in being wrong.
Being wrong for Jesus is better than being right in their book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 5:58 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 286 (637587)
10-16-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tangle
10-16-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Dogs and Cats
Tangle writes:

NoNukes writes:

You could not possibly have reached your own position on the matter by considering human evolution in detail.


I have never reached a 'position' on evolution - or at least I didn't know I had.

I'm referring to your position on whether "how come apes are still here" is a rebuttal of the theory of evolution. You apparently do have an opinion on that.

The people I'm talking to are not the kind that have 'positions' - they just haven't really thought about it much, if at all; but they've heard the silly arguments.

That's fine. Those people still don't need a detailed explanation of human and chimp evolution to understand why there are still apes. If such an explanation were necessary, then you ought to be just as puzzled as they on why there are still apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2011 4:53 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 286 (637606)
10-17-2011 5:09 AM


the ape to human chart
I think it has to do with that big chart that used to be in class. You know the one with the ape slowly turning human? Yeah that one.

That's what the theory USED to say right? That we "turned into apes" or "became apes"? Then, after seeing how flawed that was, NOW, we "share a common ancestor"

Maybe they should change that pesky chart? Yes, the evolution of the theory of evolution.

If they would stick to one story we wouldn't all be so confused about the why are there still apes today, ya know? Image below:

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:19 AM Chuck77 has responded

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


Message 69 of 286 (637607)
10-17-2011 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:09 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
That's what the theory USED to say right? That we "turned into apes" or "became apes"?

No.

NOW, we "share a common ancestor"

No-one ever claimed that we were descended from modern apes. We have a common ancestor with modern apes. That common ancestor is an ape from which we descended.

If they would stick to one story we wouldn't all be so confused about the why are there still apes today, ya know?

We aren't all confused. Creationists are confused. There's nothing we can do about that, because they're trying to be confused.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:09 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 10-17-2011 5:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 286 (637608)
10-17-2011 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2011 5:19 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
"The Evolution Ape Man Chart And Humans And The Nebraska Man"

It was difficult finding any fossils that appeared to be \'ape-men\' to fill in the Evolution ape man chart during the first few decades of the theory. By the year 1925 there had been two or three of these. The Piltdown man was being used as an example of human evolution (which was later exposed as a hoax) in addition to Java Man (which was later shown to be the combination of two bones from different species).
Evolutionists desired to put evolution into the schools but were finding it very difficult. They decided to put on a ‘circus' type event in order to get attention to the theory. This event was called the ‘Scopes Trial' but was eventually referred to as The Monkey Trial.

It was more of a spectacle than a real trial. With all of the national attention that this event received, it was important that the evolutionists "made a splash". They certainly did that with a new \'ape-man\' dubbed The Nebraska Man.

This \'ape-man\' was drawn with artistic license from one single tooth. The creationists felt like this was \'foul play\' because they were presented with this creature without having any chance for research.

The evolutionists alleged that the anti-evolutionists simply could not accept any new evidence that contradicted their ideas.

After the ‘smoke had cleared', the Darwinists walked away with an outright victory (technically they lost the ‘trial' but won the national approval by many). The huge amount of publicity had worked. This so called \'ape-man\' was very instrumental in putting Darwinism on the map and into the schools.

Weeks later it was discovered that this tooth that had been used to draw The Nebraska Man had actually come from an extinct pig.

But the damage was done. The amount of attention that this eventual discovery (that the tooth was actually from an extinct pig) received was just a fraction of the publicity that the trial had received.

The Nebraska Man, The Piltdown Man and the Java Man were the ‘ape-men' that had given credence to the idea of human evolution for the first few decades of the theory. By the early 1950\'s they had all been exposed as horrendous science or outright frauds. But by that time the theory had gotten a foothold into the education of America.

Today, the evolution ape man chart for Darwinism is no better than it was those 5 or 6 decades ago. Though we have been taught (and our schools are still teaching today) that the human evolution chart is based on fact, reality is the exact opposite.

Besides having to remove ‘ancestors' like the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, other flaws also exist with this chart. Every one of the \'ape-men\' have now turned out to be either one hundred percent ape or one hundred percent human. Even the fossils labeled as Australopithicene (including \'Lucy\') are entirely ape (extinct). And Neanderthals have been determined to be 100% human. There are no known fossils that tie apes to humans.

The \'human evolution\' chart,if it was truly accurate should consist of nothing but 100% apes and 100% humans with just a very large blank spot between them. I.e. No evolution has ever occurred between any apes and humans and the so called \'evolution ape man chart\' ought to be completely discarded.

http://www.articlesbase.com/...the-nebraska-man-2069297.html

Yeah, you're right, I have no clue what to believe when it comes to evolutionist'.

How did you work your way thru all the lies (or maybe a better word-mistakes) and eventually come to accept it?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:52 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 75 by caffeine, posted 10-17-2011 6:02 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 10-17-2011 6:06 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 11:56 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

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


Message 71 of 286 (637609)
10-17-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2011 5:19 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
We aren't all confused. Creationists are confused. There's nothing we can do about that, because they're trying to be confused.

Hard core creationists know this argument because we've told the story a hundred times - they just won't hear it.

I'm not doing this for them, it's for those people who simply haven't thought about it but have heard and accepted the line 'if we come from apes......etc'. They then go about their daily lives and never think about it again until they meet someone like me on a bad day.

I too think that image has a lot to answer for. It's persisted for 150 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 72 of 286 (637612)
10-17-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:25 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
How did you work your way thru all the lies (or maybe a better word-mistakes) and eventually come to accept it?

Why do mistakes need "working through"? There have been mistakes (and indeed outright fraud) in the history of every field of study. But, for example, the fact that people once mistakenly believed in phlogiston does nothing to stop me from understanding valence.

It is creationist lies or blunders such as those you quote that are evidently the real obstacle to understanding evolution, as evidenced by the fact that I do and you don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:25 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 286 (637613)
10-17-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
10-17-2011 5:52 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
the fact that people once mistakenly believed in phlogiston does nothing to stop me from understanding valence.

Im sorry, I only have a GED and im to lazy to google that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 5:52 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2011 6:02 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 286 (637614)
10-17-2011 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
10-16-2011 1:31 PM


Nuggin's education
Nuggin writes:

These are simple minded people who pride themselves in their lack of education and unwillingness to consider anything in depth. "Book smarts" is, to them, the worst insult you can hurl at someone.

It's time to provide evidence of your education big mouth. Until then you are a pathetic internet troll.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 10-16-2011 1:31 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:40 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 75 of 286 (637615)
10-17-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:25 AM


Re: the ape to human chart
If your link means the picture posted above when it talks about the 'Evolution Ape Man chart', then it seems strange to talk about trying to fill it in in 1925, since these drawings are taken from an illustration produced in 1965 by Rudolph Zallinger.

What's more, it seems odd to talk about the search for fossils to fill in this chart, since the pictures are all based on actual fossils. In the abridged version you posted above, the first two appear to be, in order Dryopithecus, first found in 1865 in France; and Ramapithecus, first found in 1932 in India (and since reclassified as Sivapithecus). I'm having difficulty identifying the rest, since the pictures don't appear to be an exact copy of the original drawing, but you can look at the full list of illustrations from the original picture at Wikipedia if you like. No Nebraska Man, no Piltdown Man, no Java Man.

As for the tired old claim that all known fossils are either only ape or only human, rise up to the challenge posted earlier and demonstrate this. Explain what the clear difference between ape and human bones are and apply it to the fossils posted above. I can guarantee that whatever arbitrary definition you come up with will leave you with some apes and humans more similar to each other than they are to their supposed brother apes/humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:25 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 6:22 AM caffeine 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