Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
189 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,414 Year: 7,162/23,288 Month: 1,068/1,214 Week: 80/303 Day: 1/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 165 of 1075 (534777)
11-10-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jacortina
11-10-2009 8:03 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
Many changes DO get fixed in a population because they are 'cool looking' ... to prospective mates. Sexual selection means that 'cool looking' gives greater reproductive success, because without mating reproduction is zero. And it's reproductive success, not 'survival' per se, which is the key.

Of course, "cool looking" in an evolutionary sense often means "I'm a healthy individual and can give you many strong babies." Traits that are selected for in choosing a mate - bright colors, big horns, huge plumage, loud croaking - can all attest to a suitor's, well, suitability.

Also, thanks for mentioning a point that traste seems to be trying very hard not to understand: success = reproductive success. Nothing else matters to natural selection except passing on the genes. The notion that organisms somehow strive to become more "advanced," like Windows upgrades or cell phones, is fundamentally wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jacortina, posted 11-10-2009 8:03 PM jacortina has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 216 of 1075 (621042)
06-23-2011 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Portillo
06-21-2011 5:24 AM


Protillo writes:

Isnt the Origin of Species called "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
"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

And when read in context, as you yourself can do if you just go back to anglagard's Message 186, you'll see that Darwin is hardly advocating or approving of this prediction. And, sadly, he appears to have been correct.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Misspelled anglagard's name.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Portillo, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 AM Portillo has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 217 of 1075 (621043)
06-23-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by AZPaul3
06-22-2011 7:35 PM


Re: More evolved?
AZPaul3 writes:

What's with the *** instead of the word stu*id?

Who's idea was this?

Are you self-Moosing?

/off topic


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2011 7:35 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 220 of 1075 (621049)
06-23-2011 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Portillo
06-23-2011 1:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo writes:

Does pond scum think? Does it have speech, self reflection, self awareness, can it investigate the earth and universe?

Probably not, but you're only thinking of these things as important because human beings can do them. (Sorta.) Asserting that this makes human beings "more evolved" in the sense of "better than everyone else" is like asserting that Willie Mays had a much better batting average than Beethoven. Well, yeah, but so what? In terms of evolutionary success as measured by longevity and adaptability, pond scum wins out over human beings by a huge margin.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 1:01 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by anglagard, posted 06-23-2011 2:53 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 242 of 1075 (621118)
06-23-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo writes:

So every living and perhaps non living thing are all 100% equally evolved?

Have you read any of the replies to your messages so far?

There is no such thing as "more or less evolved."

Evolution is change over time. That's all. You can talk about how closely or distantly two different organisms are from their common ancestor. For example, we're more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to chipmunks, but more closely related to chipmunks than we are to chickens. Or you can talk about how well something has adapted to its environment. Or you can compare how much change one organism has experienced since it diverged from the common ancestor it shares with another organism. For example, I would hazard a guess that we primates have gone through a few more changes than rats have since the Jurassic. Witness the thrinaxodon, one of the first mammal-type beast from back in the day:

Anyway, the point that everyone has been trying to make is that there is no ladder or chain of being or grades of development, nothing that really makes any one organism "superior" to another. There's just life, and all the different ways life has managed to express itself over time.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by bluescat48, posted 06-24-2011 2:34 AM ZenMonkey has acknowledged this reply
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM ZenMonkey has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 259 of 1075 (621225)
06-24-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
06-24-2011 1:48 PM


Re: More evolved?
Actually, I've read fairly persuasive arguments that its only an inflated self-image that prevents us from classifying ourselves and the two species of chimpanzee in the same genus, giving us Homo sapiens, Homo troglodytes, and Homo paniscus. We three chimps are much more closely related than some organisms that we put into different genera.

See The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond and this recent article from the National Geographic


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 1:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 3:04 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 268 of 1075 (621237)
06-24-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

I spoke to the fossils rather than the misrepresentation of ambulocetus natans ... etc.

You appear to be replying to Nuggin's Message 232, instead of what I was discussing in my own Message 242. This tends to make me think that just like Portlllo, you're not actually reading any replies. Sad.

Since my post had absolutely nothing to do with ambulocetus natans, I won't address the details of that line of argument. I'll just point out that the simple assertion that natans and crocodiles are "almost identical" isn't evidence. As Nuggin pointed out, they may have superficial similarities, but show significant anatomical differences. The average guy might not be able to tell the difference between an iguana and a cat just by looking at the skeletons, but the folks who go to school for years and get their paychecks for knowing this stuff certainly can. Common sense doesn't always count for much.

Your issue with the classification of Neanderthals seems to be that science revises its understanding of things whenever new evidence arises. I fail to see the problem.

Now, if you'd like to discuss what I was actually saying in Message 242 about misunderstanding the term "evolved" to mean "better than" or "more advanced," I'd be happy to do so.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 269 of 1075 (621240)
06-24-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by AZPaul3
06-24-2011 3:22 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
AZPaul3 writes:

And more change is still evolution, not "more" evolution.

The whole thing comes down to misunderstanding "more evolved"' to mean "better or more advanced than" rather than using it correctly to describe the genetic distance between two organisms, whether comparing two contemporaneous species, or a species and its ancestral form.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 3:22 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 4:23 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 270 of 1075 (621244)
06-24-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Mazzy writes:

I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?

One well-evidenced hypothesis that I subscribe to is that Homo sapiens has a habit of exterminating our nearest relatives. We polished off H. Neanderthalis and a pack of other species in our genus a while back, and are almost done with the rest of the great apes.

You still seem to be asking: "If I'm still alive, why are all of my great-grandparents' cousins dead?" Think about it.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 280 of 1075 (621262)
06-24-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.

You have it backwards. What evidence do you have that human beings aren't apes and properly classified as such, other than saying, "Well, they look different to me" and pointing out that we humans have cell phones and shoes, and chimpanzees don't? Genes and taxonomy say that we're apes - significantly different in behavioral terms, it's true, but apes just the same if you apply the same standards that we use to classify other organisms.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 281 of 1075 (621265)
06-24-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Taq
06-24-2011 4:36 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Taq writes:

In order to find the "in between" stages you have to travel back in time along the lineage of each language.

Good analogy. I'll also point out that in your travel back in time along the lineage of a language, you'll never find anything like Latin-speaking parents waking up one day to find their children all speaking French.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:36 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 5:25 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(3)
Message 312 of 1075 (621314)
06-24-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:36 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

The reality is I am not wrong...and you cannot explain why no other mid species was lucky enough to survive till today. Not all mid species were exposed to exactly the same environment or anything, yet not one hairy species managed to survive. Sounds like a fairytale to me.

I'm about to call a Poe here.

A number of forum participants have already explained why we don't find living examples of what you seem to think of as an intermediate human species. (And explained. And explained.) It would actually be an unexpected surprise if we did find a living H. ergaster hiding out in some remote area. As has been pointed out, human beings have forced our way into every ecological niche we could, not leaving room for anything else that was there first. All our close relatives are gone, and I expect that all the other ape species will be extinct within my lifetime. (And I'm almost 50, so that's not so long, is it?)

To use the example of another genus, if we weren't around to take care of them, our friend Canis familiaris, the humble ol' dog, would most likely either be driven into extinction within a few generations by their cousins the wolf (C. lupus) and the coyote (C. latrans), or they would interbreed with them and be reabsorbed. The niche that dogs would try to fill in nature has already been taken by relatives who are better adapted. Sorry, guys, no room for you.

Or to use the language analogy again, what you're saying is something like: "I won't believe that Modern English descended from Anglo-Saxon unless you can find someone who speaks Middle English today."

ABE: Which, by the way, means that you are quite, quite wrong.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:36 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 370 of 1075 (621500)
06-26-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 9:52 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

These above are representative of kinds. A cow is Bovinae and a horse is from the family Equidae.

Define "kind."


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 9:52 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Nuggin, posted 06-26-2011 1:02 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 373 by Mazzy, posted 06-26-2011 2:33 PM ZenMonkey has responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 382 of 1075 (621522)
06-26-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Mazzy
06-26-2011 2:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

A kind is the initial creation of God and it's decending progeny.

Okay. How exactly do you determine one kind from another?

Here, lets try some examples. Could you tell me which of the following are different kinds and which are the same?

1. A dog and a wolf.

2. A macaw and a cockatoo.

3. Vibrio cholerae and E. coli

4. A termite and a cockroach

5. A tiger and a cheetah

What standard or method do you use to determine kinds, and how specifically do you use that standard or method to determine whether something is (by your definition) an ape or a human being?

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Couldn't spell "macaw."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Mazzy, posted 06-26-2011 2:33 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by jar, posted 06-26-2011 5:57 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 413 of 1075 (621735)
06-28-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Nuggin
06-27-2011 7:37 PM


Re: More evolved?
Nuggin writes:

You can't repeatedly make the same errors in the face of evidence without knowingly being dishonest.

If I remember correctly, the practice of knowingly asserting falsehoods in a debate goes by the name of "arguing in bad faith."

It's possible that Portillo actually hasn't understood that the facts he's used to support his position have been refuted. He could ask for a clarification, but that hasn't happened, and I think that any reasonable person would have to admit that the evidence has been explained clearly enough. Or Portillo could have rebutted with either a clarification of his own position or additional supporting evidence, but that hasn't happened either.

So I'll also have to agree that he's arguing in bad faith, which essentially means that the debate is over.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 7:37 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2011 1:53 PM ZenMonkey has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020