|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Looks to me atm that the split was at least 4m years earlier - perhaps Toumai is the nearest I can get. 7mya is (AFAIK) the nearest date allowed by molecular clocks, which gives us a ballpark figure. Toumai is an interesting case. Everyone agrees that it is "a find of major significance", as the article says, but no-one will know what it signifies until they find more fossils, as the article also says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To start off, I have to agree that this has to be the ace-number-one-ichiban stupidest creationist claim ever. I put it third, after the argument from population growth and Bananas The Atheists Worst Nightmare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You convinced an uneducated mother that she is related to monkeys? That is your argument? Wow, have you recently talked a fish into drinking water or sold a block of cheese to a mouse? I am impressed really, that you actually had the nerve to try to brag about confusing the hell out of a woman who was probably perfectly content believing there was a loving caring God out there looking out for her and her children. Whether it is true or not, do you inform a child that he/she can develop a brain tumor at any time and die? Honestly, your kind of a jerk. I guess if you have no sort of rational argument, an illiterate personal attack probably is the next best substitute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just when you think they can't get any dumber ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was never meant to be an argument with his views, I just thought it was a cruel thing to do. Cruelty usually involves hurting people. The idea that anyone got hurt is not supported by glowby's narrative, which actually includes the words: "We were happy with the results".
One question though, ILLITERATE? If you prefer, semi-literate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
you did not descend from an ape ,man was created by gods, apes were made different,but they learned just enough to stay alive, that's why they are still here The tale is told that when The Biggest Donkey Of All made the universe, he wept. And then he spoke as follows: "The clay of the earth is truth, for who will say otherwise?" "But the water of my tears is falsehood, and in falsehood it will abide." "For the evolutionists will tell the truth, but the creationists will speak falsehood." "And behold, the number of the creationists shall be very many, because my tears shall be very many, and they shall be nourished by the water of my tears." "And fuck them, for they are idiots."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was thinking about it from a common sense perspective. Chimpanzees, live in the trees but their ancestors must have lived on the ground before adapting to a life in the trees. Their ancestors who lived on the ground could possibly have had greater similarities to humans than they do, most notably, feet and legs which function better on the ground than on trees. So it makes more logical sense that chimpanzees evolved from a human like ancestor than it does for humans to have gone from turf to tree and then back to turf again. Quick quiz: where do monkeys live? It wouldn't have been humans that went "from turf to tree and then back to turf again". Early primates went up into the trees. Early Hominina came down again. So if you're looking for a parsimonious sequence of events, it would be this: great apes had a common monkey ancestor that lived in trees. Humans came down, the rest of 'em stayed up. Your way is more complicated, because it involves a common chimp-human ancestor coming down and then the chimp group going back up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You must admit though that the first image has an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee? I would swear that someone had modeled or fashioned that image from what they know about modern chimpanzees. This is what is so misleading about it all. If the images are pure fiction why don't the scientists admit it. They're not pure fiction. But they are based on a certain amount of extrapolation and guesswork. And every scientist will indeed tell you that. Have you ever, ever, ever heard any scientist claiming that artists' reconstructions are perfectly accurate? No, you haven't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus. Within limits you can look at any animal and claim that it's a giraffe. The limits would be that it's actually a giraffe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image. You realize, don't you, that the color of the fossils and the fact that the first specimen has no jawbone are not morphologically diagnostic characteristics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans. Whereas your point now would appear to be that there's so much variation in H. erectus alone that the specimens even within that necessarily narrower range shouldn't be classified together:
Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different. The fossil ancestors, apparently, "fall well within the range of modern humans" and they are "completely different". These specimens, it seems, are so very similar to H. sapiens that they should all be considered modern humans, and so completely different from one another that they shouldn't all be considered H. erectus. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have a reply which is similar to Dr. Adequate's reply: "If Brazilians descended from the Portugese, how come Portugese are still here?" Except that the Brazilians aren't just descended from the Portuguese, that's why I picked Iceland, which was empty when the Norse moved in on it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024