Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


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 (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 286 (637752)
10-17-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tangle
10-17-2011 5:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tangle, posted 10-17-2011 5:26 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 286 (639384)
10-31-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
10-27-2011 3:14 AM


Re: So Exactly What Mistake are They Making?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 10-27-2011 3:14 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 286 (651455)
02-07-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by amp1022
02-07-2012 12:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 12:31 PM amp1022 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 286 (651460)
02-07-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Trixie
02-07-2012 3:47 PM


Re: Apologies in advance....
Just when you think they can't get any dumber ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2012 3:47 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 286 (651533)
02-07-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by amp1022
02-07-2012 8:30 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 8:30 PM amp1022 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 130 of 286 (651678)
02-09-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jrchamblee
02-08-2012 9:28 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jrchamblee, posted 02-08-2012 9:28 PM jrchamblee has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 286 (655605)
03-11-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Big_Al35
03-11-2012 5:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Big_Al35, posted 03-11-2012 5:52 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 9:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 286 (656274)
03-17-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Big_Al35
03-17-2012 11:37 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Big_Al35, posted 03-17-2012 11:37 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 286 (657013)
03-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 219 of 286 (657014)
03-24-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 227 of 286 (657033)
03-25-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 7:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 282 of 286 (660873)
04-30-2012 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by tomato
04-30-2012 3:59 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by tomato, posted 04-30-2012 3:59 AM tomato has 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