Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
88 online now:
dwise1, jar, nwr (3 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 59 of 1075 (515624)
07-19-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


Really Bad Attempt to Fool Others
traste writes:

The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)

I have read Gould's Mismeasure of Man which is about eugenics, not a denial of the existence of hominid fossils.

I also am certain that I am not alone in this forum in reading this book and others by Gould.

Your use of this book in arguing against human and other species' evolution, which Gould accepted and wrote about in hundreds of works, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Is this an example of your version of Christian morality? If so, time to read the Bible again, try starting with the ten commandments as you just violated at least one in that post.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:34 AM anglagard has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 140 of 1075 (533003)
10-28-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by traste
10-28-2009 12:51 AM


What is the Meaning of Complex?
traste writes:

The question remains. What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?

What is the meaning of complex? Are modern city dwellers more complex, dealing with politics, financial derivatives, supposed education in reality, and so on more complex than those who live in nature, as 'wildlife' does?

Jared Diamond in the introduction to Guns, Germs, and Steel refers to the New Guinea tribesmen as the most intelligent people he has ever met due to the fact they have an almost absolute knowledge of every plant, animal and geographic feature in their environment.

Do you have an almost absolute knowledge of everything in your environment?

Would you like to try your adaptation skills against such people?

Would you like to try your adaptation skills against the wild without the convenience of modern science? As in naked, without Wal-Mart clothes? without 7-11 beef jerky? without municipal water? without that SUV to transport you away from those all so 'fierce' black bears and mountain lions?

So what is the meaning of complex?

Or, in this case, is the term complex simply a mistaken and inappropriate term for adaptability.

Edited by anglagard, : add 'in this case' to last sentence for clarity


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:51 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM anglagard has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 184 of 1075 (620811)
06-21-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:02 AM


Portillo writes:

I dont see what that has to do with anything. Doesnt evolution say that different races are at different stages of evolution and that the black race is closer related to the apes? Didnt scientists kill Aborigines in Australia to take back to England and proclaim them as the missing link?

I sure hope this is satire, for your sake.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM anglagard has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 186 of 1075 (620814)
06-21-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:24 AM


Usual Misquote
Usually when confronted with something that stinks, I find the source.

Portillo writes:

"At some period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin

Oops another violation of what is commonly referred to as a commandment from God, namely bearing false witness.

From Notable Charles Darwin misquotes

quote:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.[8]


You have to do better than that if you so choose to deal with the adults as we find ignorance boring.

Oh, and welcome to EvC please remember to put on your armor.

Edited by anglagard, : remash of last sentence

Edited by anglagard, : Forgot to be civil to new members.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM Portillo has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Wounded King, posted 06-21-2011 8:51 AM anglagard has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 200 of 1075 (620966)
06-22-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Ahsankmc
06-22-2011 2:51 AM


Humans are Essentially Apes
Ahsankmc writes:

Human Anatomy itself explains a lot of facts about evolution but still one cannot say for sure that human beings have descended from apes. Enough proof and data is still to be presented to make people believe in this.

Do you speak for all people?

Well, maybe some less informed people, be it by choice or 'ahem' design.

The nearly unanimous decision among the informed is that anatomy is clear evidence of a relationship, along with DNA.

Do you have a tail? (it happens but it is rare). If not, I would be less confident of declaring all great apes inherently unrelated.

You may want to look up human chromosome 2, not just evidence but damning evidence.

What have you got in way of evidence for your doubts?

Welcome to EvC!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Ahsankmc, posted 06-22-2011 2:51 AM Ahsankmc has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 202 of 1075 (620970)
06-22-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


More Evolved than What?
Portillo writes:

Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?

Are you better adapted to your environment than pond scum is to its environment?

IMO you have a lot to learn about what evolution actually means. If biology is not your forte, consider reading the first chapter of Guns, Germs, and Steel. Then learn a lot about what the Theory of Evolution actually states.

Should you choose to remain, like all else here, you are in great danger of learning something about a lot of subjects.

Edited by anglagard, : last sentence


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 221 of 1075 (621051)
06-23-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by ZenMonkey
06-23-2011 2:27 AM


Advice for Portillo
Portillo, a bit of friendly advice.

If you are going to argue with people who understand what the Theory of Evolution actually means, you must learn what it means.

Take hooah212002's advice, see what Berkeley has to say about evolution as per his link.

Otherwise, it will just wind up being a 20 to one, some of those 20 having PhD's in this very subject, many of which have a master's, many of which who have done regardless of paper qualifications (due to personal integrity) what I ask of you, and at least one of which is a library dean.

Otherwise, you just appear foolish, and on the internet that means for all the world to see, forever.

Edited by anglagard, : add those who understand without paper approval


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-23-2011 2:27 AM ZenMonkey has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 581 of 1075 (622386)
07-02-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by Mazzy
07-02-2011 8:34 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Mazzy writes:

I have already established common sense has no place in evolutionary thinking.

Are you Amish, or a hypocrite? Electricity?

Do you use gasoline, derived from oil, which is discovered through principles of the very geology and biology you have already declared as lacking common sense?

Ignorance is not a virtue, neither is bearing false witness.

Troll.

And your avatar is hideous.

Why can't you answer Percy's comments?

Knock, knock, anyone home?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 8:34 PM Mazzy has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 611 of 1075 (622427)
07-03-2011 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 608 by Portillo
07-03-2011 2:47 AM


Of Chickens and Pyramids
Portillo writes:

I never said that animals are stupid. They are magnificent and marvelous. Just because a Raven cracks a nut or a monkey uses a tool does not prove that they have the self awareness that humans do. Come back to me when an animal besides a human builds a rocketship, builds pyramids like the Egyptians or ancient wonders like the Babylonians, art and philosophy like the Greeks, merchant fleets, the scientific revolution of modern science. Look around you and wander at the marvel of evolution in human affairs. It is truly remarkable.

Do you, personally as an individual, know how to build a rocketship, pyramids, understand Greek art and philosophy, build a merchant fleet, actually engage in the scientific revolution.

You could, with a complex language and communication with the knowledge of others, that is of course if you largely took the experts at their word.

After all, which came first? the chicken or the egg?

Or did they co-evolve? Evidently a stumbling block for some.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

Please contribute to my apprenticeship in the gadfly society by rating all my messages as low as possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Portillo, posted 07-03-2011 2:47 AM Portillo has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 616 of 1075 (622433)
07-03-2011 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by DrJeffrey
07-03-2011 3:30 AM


DrJeffrey writes:

Despite the passionate desires and efforts of many highly qualified people over many decades to find real real evidence of ape men the hard scientific facts are clearly against the existence of such. Notice this quote from Science Digest May 1982 p. 44 : " Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans-of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings-is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter".

Wow, an article from science digest revokes all of an entire field of science, namely physical anthropology. That is of course, if it is properly cited.

Regarding the impressive pictures, documentaries etc that the public are subjected to I find this quote revealing from the book The Biology of Race 1971 p. 135,171 : "The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin colour; the colour, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face -of these characteristics we know absoulutely nothing for any prehistoric men". The above quotes are the real situation and very little has changed since this material was published . I find it disturbing that our 21st. Century scientists seem increasingly unaware that human evolution is still highly speculative.

Biology of Race? 1971? Are you from Stormfront?

Welcome to EvC!

Anyone in a betting mood, I say a week.

That is of course, depending upon your ability to listen, my good doctor. You are in grave danger of learning new things here.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

Please contribute to my apprenticeship in the gadfly society by rating all my messages as low as possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by DrJeffrey, posted 07-03-2011 3:30 AM DrJeffrey has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2011 4:14 AM anglagard has taken no action

anglagard
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 632 of 1075 (622547)
07-04-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by Portillo
07-04-2011 3:04 AM


Number of Hominid Fossils
Portillo writes:

After 150 years, evolutionary scientists have discovered a handful of disputed fossils and artist impressions.

This is similar to Creationist Claim CC030 under Index to Creationist Claims at Talk Origins.

The claim is:

quote:
All known fossils of ancient humans would fit on a billiard table (or in a coffin).

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 202.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 86.


I think this counts as a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times).

Here is the response at Talk Origins:

quote:
1. That may have been true at one time, but there are thousands of hominid fossils now. Lubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 hominid individuals catalogued as of 1976. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.

2. It takes only a handful of fossils to show that hominid forms have changed over time.


From the same source here is a list of the more prominent hominid fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

I count 68.

From another source, evidently a senior class project in Anthropology, here is a list of 420 hominid fossils all but the last half dozen or so over 100,000 years old.

They are broken down by species in this manner:

quote:
A. ramidus (17)
A. anamensis (38)
A. afarensis (28)
A. africanus (33)
A. garhi (9)
A. bahrelghazali (1)
P. boisei (48)
P. aethiopicus (8)
P. robustus (28)
H. habilis (34)
H. rudolfensis (9)
H. erectus (21)
H. ergaster (27)
H. antecessor (39)
H. heidelbergensis (7)
H. neanderthalensis (33)
H. sapiens (50)

I think your definition of 'handful' at 4,000, 420, or even 68, is not the same as the definition commonly accepted in the English language.

{ABE}Just wanted to add that even the wiki article List of human evolution fossils lists 102 before 50,000 years in what they refer to as a "brief overview."{/ABE}

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Portillo, posted 07-04-2011 3:04 AM Portillo has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022