Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
181 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 178 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,778 Year: 2,526/23,288 Month: 717/1,809 Week: 149/225 Day: 8/44 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 128 (443122)
12-23-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kakip
12-23-2007 6:21 PM


Hi there.

If humans were said to be.. or be related to gorillas.. or chimpanzees or of those african apes, why is there still such things as gorillas and other apes.. wouldnt there be all humans if the apes have evolved into these humans..

Ah, it's the ol' "why are there still monkeys?" thing again.

If Iceland was colonized by Scandinavians, why are there still Scandinavians?

how are these apes still maintain all the perfect DNA as to what exactly they are as apes, when apes have evolved into humans.

The apes we have now are not, in fact, the apes you used to get in the good old days, they too have evolved since the time of our common ancestor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kakip, posted 12-23-2007 6:21 PM kakip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Equinox, posted 12-25-2007 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 7 of 128 (443135)
12-23-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
12-23-2007 7:55 PM


Actually ...
We are apes.

Whoever told you that stuff is simply a liar, likely another "Liar for Jesus."

All us Apes evolved from something that was not yet Ape

I wish people wouldn't do that.

Look, if apes are a clade, then our common ancestors with chimps was an ape.

If, on the other hand, we're going to allow the term "apes" to be anacladic, then in common parlance we are not apes, and our common ancestor with chimps would so be clasified. 'Cos they look like, y'know, apes.

Your definition of apes, in which we are, but our ancestors aren't, corresponds to no concept I've ever heard of, and combines the worst features of both definitions.

Be nice.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 7:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 8:26 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 13 of 128 (443338)
12-24-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Jack
12-24-2007 3:25 PM


So, 6 million years ago there's a bunch of apes hanging around in a tree, some of these apes thought it'd be a nifty idea to start hanging around on all this big shiny savanna that opened up and was filled with Lions and Tigers along with the odd Mushroom and Badger and so they hoped down from the trees and learnt to walk on two legs, shave and do complicated long division sums while the rest of them sloped around and became chimps.

Close, but no cigar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 12-24-2007 3:25 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

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


Message 30 of 128 (448977)
01-15-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Elmer
01-15-2008 6:18 PM


Re: Natural Selection
And yes, I've heard all the darwinist fairy-tales [just-so stories] about how, once upon a time, these creatures did not live in snowy climates, until one happy day a normal brown animal suddenly was touched by a magic genetic mutation that caused white fur when the winter came, but reversed itself with the snow-melt, and that complex but fortuitous genetic mutation enabled/compelled him/her to move north in the winter for camouflage purposes--to a place where, previously, all the brown-furred animals were wiped out soon after the first fall of snow, because they weren't snow white. Duh!!

You have not, in fact, heard that, because no-one has ever said that.

Except possibly the voices in your head.

Does gravity change "in unpredictable and irregular ways"? Does electro-magnetism or the nuclear forces?

No, but environments do. This is a fact.

So how in the world can darwinists keep insisting that their "NS" is on the exact same level of causality as the four accepted 'forces'?

They do not, which is why you can't quote them as doing so.

---

Why don't you try arguing with some opinion that someone actually holds? Or is that too difficult for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Elmer, posted 01-15-2008 6:18 PM Elmer has not yet responded

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


Message 80 of 128 (458414)
02-28-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 4:51 PM


"The" Creation Theory
Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

"The" creation theory?

quote:
“Glooskap came first of all into this country, into Nova Scotia, Maine, Canada, into the land of the Wabanaki, next to sunrise. There were no Indians here then (only wild Indians very far to the west). First born were the Mikumwess, the Oonahgemessuk, the small Elves, little men, dwellers in rocks. And in this way he made Man: He took his bow and arrows and shot at trees, the basket-trees, the Ash. Then Indians came out of the bark of the Ash-trees...

Glooskap made all the animals. He made them at first very large. Then he said to Moose, the great Moose who was as tall as Ketawkqu's, "What would you do should you see an Indian coming?" Moose replied, "I would tear down the trees on him." Then Glooskap saw that the Moose was too strong, and made him smaller, so that Indians could kill him.

Then he said to the Squirrel, who was of the size of a Wolf, What would you do if you should meet an Indian? And the Squirrel answered, "I would scratch down trees on him." Then Glooskap said, "You also are too strong," and he made him little.

Then he asked the great White Bear what he would do if he met an Indian; and the Bear said, "Eat him." And the Master bade him go and live among rocks and ice, where he would see no Indians. So he questioned all the beasts, changing their size or allotting their lives according to their answers.”


quote:
At the time that turned the heat of the earth, / At the time when the heavens turned and changed, / At the time when the light of the sun was subdued / To cause light to break forth, / At the time of the night of Makalii [winter] / Then began the slime which established the earth, / The source of deepest darkness. / Of the depth of darkness, of the depth of darkness, / Of the darkness of the sun, in the depth of night, / It is night, / So was night born.

Kumulipo was born in the night, a male. / Poele was born in the night, a female. / A coral insect was born, from which was born perforated coral. / The earth worm was born, which gathered earth into mounds, / From it were born worms full of holes. / The starfish was born, whose children were born starry.


quote:
The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again. The Indians are afraid of this.

When all was water, the animals were above in Gälûñ'lätï, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room. They wondered what was below the water, and at last Dâyuni'sï, "Beaver's Grandchild," the little Water-beetle, offered to go and see if it could learn. It darted in every direction over the surface of the water, but could find no firm place to rest. Then it dived to the bottom and came up with some soft mud, which began to grow and spread on every side until it became the island which we call the earth. It was afterward fastened to the sky with four cords, but no one remembers who did this...

When the animals and plants were first made -- we do not know by whom -- they were told to watch and keep awake for seven nights, just as young men now fast and keep awake when they pray to their medicine. They tried to do this, and nearly all were awake through the first night, but the next night several dropped off to sleep, and the third night others were asleep, and then others, until, on the seventh night, of all the animals only the owl, the panther, and one or two more were still awake. To these were given the power to see and to go about in the dark, and to make prey of the birds and animals which must sleep at night. Of the trees only the cedar, the pine, the spruce, the holly, and the laurel were awake to the end, and to them it was given to be always green and to be greatest for medicine, but to the others it was said: "Because you have not endured to the end you shall lose your hair every winter."

Men came after the animals and plants. At first there were only a brother and sister until he struck her with a fish and told her to multiply, and so it was. In seven days a child was born to her, and thereafter every seven days another, and they increased very fast until there was danger that the world could not keep them. Then it was made that a woman should have only one child in a year, and it has been so ever since.


quote:
Of old, Heaven and Earth were not yet separated, and the In and Yo not yet divided. They formed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits and contained germs. The purer and clearer part was thinly drawn out, and formed Heaven, while the heavier and grosser element settled down and became Earth. The finer element easily became a united body, but the consolidation of the heavy and gross element was accomplished with difficulty. Heaven was therefore formed first, and Earth was established subsequently. Thereafter divine beings were produced between them.

Hence it is said that when the world began to be created, the soil of which lands were composed floated about in a manner which might be compared to the floating of a fish sporting on the surface of the water.

At this time a certain thing was produced between Heaven and Earth. It was in form like a reed-shoot. Now this became transformed into a God, and was called Kuni-toko-tachi no Mikoto. Next there was Kuni no sa-tsuchi no Mikoto, and next Toyo-kumu-nu no Mikoto, in all three deities. These were pure males spontaneously developed by the operation of the principle of Heaven.


quote:
The Raven and his wife created the world. They made the cape of Uñi´sak out of a nose of an eider-duck [Somatheria spectabilis]; the peninsula of Alaska, of a long belt-knife; and the island Ima´lik [one of the Diomedes], of a button of the scabbard [with which it is clasped around the hip]. They made reindeer of their hair, and dogs of their nails, and sea-water of their urine.

P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity.

You could make the same claim about any sufficiently recent concept.

Should we give up on the theory that lightning is an electrical discharge, and go back to the "thunder god is angry" hypothesis?

How about the germ theory of disease? Witchcraft has historically been the more popular explanation.

Splitting the atom? Why, the very name means "unsplittable", and has done for 2500 years.

The Periodic Table hasn't been around nearly as long as the "four elements" of earth, air, fire, and water.

(Image courtesy of the Rediscovery Institute.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

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


Message 90 of 128 (523270)
09-09-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by djwray
09-08-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Why still apes
So where do the australopithecines fit into all this?

A. africanus, cranial capacity 400 - 500 cm3

H. habilis, cranial capacity (this specimen) 510 cm3

H. sapiens, average cranial capacity about 1500 cm3

It would seem perverse to allow a relationship between H. habilis and H. sapiens but to deny the possibility of a relationship between the australopithecines and H. habilis.

Humans and apes, you say, are "so diverse" --- yet the difference between australopithecines, outside genus Homo, and H. habilis, inside genus Homo, seem markedly less than the differences that we can find within genus Homo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by djwray, posted 09-08-2009 9:58 PM djwray has not yet responded

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


Message 93 of 128 (523410)
09-10-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by djwray
09-09-2009 10:24 PM


To those who have criticised my response for one reason or another let me just say that when I have said I believe something, it is not as though I have dreamt it up. I find it insulting that I have been accused of doing so, despite the fact that I haven't quoted a reference.

Yeah, that can happen.

My reference to H. habilis and H. erectus wasn't designed to be comprehensive. I could have included a myriad of others if that was my aim.

Well, would it have included rhipidistian fish?

Where, given the multitude of intermediate forms, would you like to draw the line, and declare --- here the possibility of ancestry stops?

You will always face the same problem --- that of those species that you wish to include, there will always be one species outside that group that is more similar to one of the species inside that group than the species inside that group are to one another.

It would have been a waste of my time and yours.

To speak for myself --- feel free to waste my time. We shall find out if it is a waste of yours.

According to some responses people must believe that I have misinterpreted the meaning of the topic. I thought (and still think) it was asking why apes still exist based on an assumption that apes evolved into humans. I was questioning the validity of that assumption. "I believe" that they are too genetically diverse.

Then perhaps you had better answer my question.

As I have found in some other forums there is, unfortunately, a stigma attached to those who are assigned the misleading classification of "Junior member". It can bring out an unfortunate, primitive behavior pattern in others known as territorialism.

Or perhaps there is some other reason why people familiar with the fossil record don't immediately fall at your feet declaring that of course you are absolutely right.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by djwray, posted 09-09-2009 10:24 PM djwray has not yet responded

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


Message 114 of 128 (583695)
09-28-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by barbara
09-28-2010 1:56 PM


Re: where to go?
That could have been both more accurate and more coherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by barbara, posted 09-28-2010 1:56 PM barbara has not yet responded

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


Message 121 of 128 (585525)
10-08-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by barbara
10-04-2010 1:30 PM


Re: where to go?
I just read the Chimpanzee genome project and if you go there you will find is there are several differences between us and chimps. A 30% difference that covers all areas. We are closer in relationship to a rat that shows we are 88% identical and they mention the human/rat common ancestry.

I believe I explained this at length here.

It's as though you said: "One scientist tells me that the weight of an elephant is 4.5, and another tells me that it's 9000. Who should I trust?"

You left off the units. One scientist is using tons, and the other is using pounds, and they are in agreement.

It is obvious to me that common ancestry is not a key factor in that it makes no sense at all.

The fact that biology makes no sense to you is more a commentary on your present level of understanding than it is on biology.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM barbara has not yet 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