Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
515 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (4 members, 511 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,307 Year: 4,419/6,534 Month: 633/900 Week: 157/182 Day: 37/27 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ape to Man or Common Ancestor
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 31 of 38 (479650)
08-29-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheDarin
08-28-2008 11:38 AM


Re: No Purpose
Hi TheDarin,

Please let moderators handle moderation issues. Problems and concerns should be expressed in thread Windsor castle, not here. But I see no significant problem in this thread so far, and I think if you continue discussion that people will gradually develop a better understanding of your position.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheDarin, posted 08-28-2008 11:38 AM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheDarin, posted 08-29-2008 9:40 AM Admin has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20766
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 32 of 38 (479653)
08-29-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheDarin
08-28-2008 11:38 AM


Clarifying Ape/Human Common Ancestor
Your thread is titled Ape to Man or Common Ancestor, and I think the discussion so far indicates that there's a problem with terminology that stems from the word "ape". Without an adjective for modification, the term "ape" is just too ambiguous.

The way that you're using the term "ape" implies this evolutionary tree:

ape human
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
ape

But the ape at the bottom of the apex is not the same ape at the top left, and so if you get into a discussion using only the word "ape" it will quickly become unclear which ape you're talking about.

The evolutionary tree is much more clear when labeled like this:

modern
ape human
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
ape/human
ancestor

But even this is not quite right, because in reality humans *are* apes, and the common ape/human ancestor would probably be called an ape, too. It's better to create a more accurate evolutionary tree:

chimpanzee,
gorilla bonobo human
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \/
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
common ape
ancestor

Gorillas, chimps, bonobos and humans are all apes, and far enough back in time they all shared the same ape ancestor, one that appears to be extinct from the evidence we have available at the present time.

This is not a view that many creationists find acceptable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheDarin, posted 08-28-2008 11:38 AM TheDarin has taken no action

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 33 of 38 (479658)
08-29-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
08-29-2008 9:10 AM


Re: No Purpose
I just don't think so.

The folks in here are so boxed in to this set of rules of engagement that they cannot even lighten up for a moment and take a conversation or question at face value.

Dr. Francis Collins said that one of the reasons he thinks that God used evolution to create, is because he saw too many similarities between (I think I'm quoting or coming close to it) "human DNA and yeast."

When I heard this, I'm thinking, "has he read Genesis?!" Why wouldn't we have similarities at that level?

But I'm done with that question. I thought, of all places, that I could get a face-value understanding of what I was getting at.

The folks in here ONLY want to play chess. So I come in here with my checkers, and I say, HEY! look, our boards have something in common!

They are so focused on the differences - my board has black and red in it, and theirs is black and white... that they cannot open their minds for a split second moment and see the commonalities.

There really are no truly open and changeable minds in here and I'm including myself. And I cannot satisfy the questions asked of me, any more than they can satisfy mine.

Edited by TheDarin, : Wording issues


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 08-29-2008 9:10 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2008 9:47 AM TheDarin has taken no action
 Message 35 by Admin, posted 08-29-2008 9:50 AM TheDarin has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 38 (479662)
08-29-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheDarin
08-29-2008 9:40 AM


Re: No Purpose
The folks in here ONLY want to play chess. So I come in here with my checkers, and I say, HEY! look, our boards have something in common!

They are so focused on the differences - my board has black and red in it, and theirs is black and white... that they cannot open their minds for a split second moment and see the commonalities.

There really are no truly open and changeable minds in here and I'm including myself. And I cannot satisfy the questions asked of me, any more than they can satisfy mine.

I think you're right.

And if you don't want to "play chess" then this probably isn't the site for you.

The veterans realize that minds don't get changed within the arguments, people are trying to not be wrong. But don't forget that there's lurkers who are reading too. They might be learning something from you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheDarin, posted 08-29-2008 9:40 AM TheDarin has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 35 of 38 (479664)
08-29-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheDarin
08-29-2008 9:40 AM


Re: No Purpose
Hi TheDarin,

In what way was, "Please let moderators handle moderation issues," ambiguous? What part of, "Problems and concerns should be expressed in thread Windsor castle, not here," didn't you understand?

In case it still isn't clear, please, no replies in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the topic of your thread then please continue, but otherwise please stop posting here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheDarin, posted 08-29-2008 9:40 AM TheDarin has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 38 (479723)
08-29-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
08-26-2008 12:12 PM


I was Wrong. We are closer
I'd guess it was somewhat more like them than like us. Instead of being exactly as different from us as from them I would make an uneducated guess and say it was 30% different from chimps and 60% different from us.

But it seems my wild ass guess was wrong according to this site discussing Haldane's dilema.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes_nondil.html

This quote is about half way down.

[4] While we are around 240 genes away from the LCA, we are around 594 genes way from the chimp, they have fixed about 50% more genes since the LCA than we have. Most of the genes substituted are for immune and reproductive system genes, and only a handful seem to have anything to do directly with brain function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2008 12:12 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
XX
Junior Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 09-11-2008


Message 37 of 38 (481637)
09-11-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
08-26-2008 3:30 PM


Re: the evolution image
I posted a message on a thread..replying to one thread and found the message posted in another thread.
I am removing my post until I figure out how to post to the proper thread..
I will be back soon

Edited by XX, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2008 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 38 of 38 (484178)
09-26-2008 8:20 PM


I agree with Percy. I think the notion some ape/human co- ancestor was something between an ape and a hominid is just playing nice. We are a brachiating ape, plain and simple. Oh, sure, we are one weird one. Big heads beget big egos in males and big asses in our females. I rather fancy the swimming ape hypothesis in regarding our elongated nature.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022