"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

Hi jrchamblee, and welcome to the fray. Correct in the same way that a dog has not descended from dogs, because they already are dogs. but weren't apes also created by gods, and monkeys were made different?weren't monkeys created by gods, and lemurs made different? Bizarre.Do you realize that some chimpanzees are smarter than some humans? Perhaps humans "learned just enough to stay alive, that's why they are still here" as well?Of course when you apply this "theory" of how some things still exist to their capacity for cognition (does a tree think\learn?) it kind of breaks down. Badly. The theory of evolution, however, appears to provide cogent answers for the whole diversity of life as we know it.Do you know what evolution is? Do you understand the vast amount of evidence for evolution occurring all around us? Do you know what the theory of evolution is?Enjoy.

Hi Chuck77, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=tex...
Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [1st edition]

quote:

---

[page] 193 CHAP. VI. TRANSITIONS OF ORGANS.
The electric organs offer another and even more serious difficulty; for they occur in only about a dozen fishes, of which several are widely remote in their affinities. Generally when the same organ appears in several members of the same class, especially if in members having very different habits of life, we may attribute its presence to inheritance from a common ancestor; and its absence in some of the members to its loss through disuse or natural selection. But if the electric organs had been inherited from one ancient progenitor thus provided, we might have expected that all electric fishes would have been specially related to each other. Nor does geology at all lead to the belief that formerly most fishes had electric organs, which most of their modified descendants have lost. ...

​

[page] 282 IMPERFECTION OF THE CHAP. IX
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

---

bold addedNot only is descent of varieties from common ancestors and the inheritance of homologous traits already taken as a given process by Darwin in 1859, but he discusses cases of convergent evolution of analogous traits in different species, and he extends the descent from common ancestors to the larger taxonomic classes: species, genera, families, etc.Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Homologies and Analogies

​

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characterscharacters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that featureso the presence of four limbs is a homology.

​

​

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

​

Bird and bat wings are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

---

Everytime a speciation event results in two or more daughter populations becoming independently evolving species we have a point where we have descent from a common ancestor population. This is what macroevolution is according to biologists: the division of species and the increase in diversity of life.Enjoy

Hi Dr Adequate, There may have been a common ancestor that was a "facultative biped: bipedal when moving on the ground, but quadrupedal when moving about in tree branches":Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Ardipithecus is a fossil hominoid, described by its discoverers as a very early hominin genus. Two species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago[1] during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).[2]

---

There is also the hypothesis that tree walking along limbs pre-adapted these ancestors for walking on the ground when open spaces prevented arboreal transportation.Australopithecus - Wikipedia

quote:

---

It is suggested that the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became more specialised in climbing vertical tree trunks, using a bent hip and bent knee posture which matches the knuckle-walking posture they use for ground travel. This was due to climate changes around 11 to 12 million years ago that affected forests in East and Central Africa so that there were periods when openings prevented travel through the tree canopy, and at these times ancestral hominids could have adapted the upright walking behaviour for ground travel. Humans are closely related to these apes, and share features including wrist bones apparently strengthened for knuckle-walking.[6] However, the view that human ancestors were knuckle-walkers is now questioned since the anatomy and biomechanics of knuckle-walking in chimpanzees and gorillas are different suggesting this ability evolved independently after the last common ancestor with the human lineage.[7] Further comparative analysis with other primates suggests these wrist bone adaptations support a palm based tree walking.[7]

---

One wonders how these differences figure into the new genome information in Gorilla Genome Decoded. They certainly are comfortable on the ground.And then there is always the question of Paranthropus - was it in the hominid lineage or the gorilla/chimp/bonobos lineage? Paranthropus - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The robust australopithecines, members of the extinct hominin genus Paranthropus (from Greek παρα, para "beside"; άνθρωπος, nthropos "human"), were bipedal hominids that probably descended from the gracile australopithecine hominids (Australopithecus).[1] They are characterised by robust craniodental anatomy, including gorilla-like cranial crests, which suggest strong muscles of mastication.

​

All species of Paranthropus were bipedal, and many lived during a time when species of the genus Homo (which were possibly descended from Australopithecus), were prevalent. Paranthropus first appeared roughly 2.7 million years ago.

​

​

The behavior of Paranthropus was quite different from that of the genus Homo, in that it was not as adaptable to its environment or as resourceful. Evidence of this exists in the form of its physiology which was specifically tailored to a diet of grubs and plants.

---

Paranthropus were more robust than Australopithicines ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : picture

Hi Tangle, There are a couple of points I think we should make.1. That picture is waaaay outdated, almost embarrassingly so, and does not really depict the current known stages of evolution of (a) hominins and (b) hominids, and (c) humans, and (d) (worst of all) it is an artistic impression. The common ancestor with chimps now appears to be an arboreal ape that did not knuckle walk (it appears that there is a difference between gorilla and chimp knuckle-walking sufficient that they may be independently evolved (derived) rather than inherited).A much better picture is this one:

quote:

---

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

---

Although I would replace A with an Ardipithicus ramidus skull and I would add this skull between I and J This is a 160,000 year old fossil skull of Homo sapiens found in ethiopia
http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtmlPut that all together with full (or as full as possible) skeletons for Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus (Turkana boy), Homo habilis (tool maker), Australopithicus afarensis (Lucy) and Ardipithicus ramidus (ardi), and you have a much better picture.Here are Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon (H sapiens) and Turkana boy (H erectus) adjust to be the same height: Most everybody is familiar with "Lucy" but here is how she appears as a standing skeleton (completed with mirrored elements or parts from other Australopithicus afarensis fossils): Here is ardi drawn as a full skeleton: 2. The branch to Neanderthals in the hand-holding analogy is just the latest in a number of such branches, to other hominids and farther back to other apes. There is also a branch on the chimp side to Bonobos. Another major recent hominid branch would be for Homo erectus colonizing asia, and may have interbred with sapiens there.Further, if you started with a gorilla rather than a chimp you'd have a branch for chimp, and if you started with Orangutan, you'd have a branch for gorilla, etc.3. The example given -- ‘Taumai’ (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) -- for a hominid ancestor, may instead be a common ancestor with chimps or a gorilla ancestor or a different branch. A better example would be Ardipithicus. It may even be that the Ardipithicus family includes the common ancestor with chimps.4. The description of the Southern African ape (Australopithecus africanis) as "covered in hair" is speculation and likely, imho, to be wrong ... on two counts: first, we are covered in hair, and second we don't know how far back selection for apparent bareness occurred. We see some evidence in gorillas and some in lactating female chimps, so a common ancestor with gorillas may have had significant areas of apparent bareness.5. The Savannah theory has it backwards. Our ancestors were pre-adapted to bipedal walking and running (see Ardipithicus again), and may have been relatively more apparently bare due to sexual selection (which is still ongoing). There is no need for "losing hair to keep cool" as evidenced by the lack of any other species doing so. What humans did do was evolve sweating to keep cool. Horses have also evolved sweating, yet they still have fur.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : replace AEdited by RAZD, : )Edited by RAZD, : added early homo sap skull

Hi Big_Al35 Of course they don't, especially as you go from one to the next: that is the point. What you are seeing is the modified traits in the skulls of hominids and the traits shared with the oldest skull are observed with many shared traits, and with the progress of the derived traits - especially with the front of the face becoming flatter and the back of the skull becoming bigger. We also see changes to the jaw and the teeth. These traits all make a slow progression from B to N. That's because these are all ape skulls, and they are all homininae skulls, including A (the chimpanzee). Because they are all in the same clade we expect similarities, and we also expect a gradual transition from more ancient to more modern. On the basis of detailed measurements made on the skulls in question (and others that match the various species shown). I'm sure Coyote could go into further detail on the changing aspects of each of the particular parts that make up the skull.If you look at the angle of the front of the face and compare B to N you should see noticeable differences. I would expect to see very little difference to the overall structure, but some differences where the bones come together, and changes in the proportions of bone to cartilage.Most of the difference would be observed in the teeth, with wear on the molars and loss of teeth with age. Why would a two point extrapolation be valid when there is a whole spectrum of data available? If we looked at the available data for the shape of a human skull from infant to 100 year old, we would see a lot of changes in the early years, with the degree of change becoming less and less as we reached greater age. From 60 to 100 there is very little overall change (with good health - and you are assuming good health for your mythical people yes?). Extrapolating that as an exponential curve we would expect a skull 8 times older than the last data point to be fairly similar to it.We would not expect teeth to become more robust and larger with age. What we know from the fossils is that it is rare for a skull to be from an individual older than 40 years old. We also know that there is no known evidence of fossil skulls from 100 year old individuals.Enjoy.

Hi again growing extra teeth

quote:

---

• i am 14 and have 4 teeth behind my adult teeth ...
• ... i attended my 154th dentist appointment by the time i was 9 and that was when they told me that i had three sets of teeth. ...
• ... In my early teens I then grew a complete third set, ...
• I myself have three sets of teeth: one baby, two adult (a trait I inherited from my father). Because of it my second set (first set of adult teeth) were forced through early and, due to the lack of space in my mouth, I had a LOT of teeth removed. I'm 18 now ...
• ... When she was 60+ years old, her teeth started falling out. They decided the best thing to do was pull the rest and give her dentures. Thing is, one or two grew back in. The dentist continued pulling teeth, and more kept coming. At the end of the day (or year as it may be), he ended up pulling an entire third set.
• My 41 year old husband is on his third set of teeth, and dental x-rays reveal another set below the present teeth. ...
• I'm 18 and have had many dental problems ... studying the progress of my brace in the mirror I discovered that, along my bottom jaw, I appear to have a third set of every tooth (except for my incisors) growing.
• When I was about twelve I started losing my teeth. I was terrified until I found that a third set was growing in. ...
• I believe my extra set of teeth was also inherited paternally. When I grew them, some 45 years ago, ...
• When I was 13 years old and going into ortho, my x-rays showed a third set of permanent teeth. However, the were upside down. ... These rare teeth are referred to as "Mesiodens" -- more commonly known as "Supernumerary Teeth." My father, who is a dentist, had explained to me this phenomena. ... There is a myth that it is a sign of royalty that dates back hundreds of years ago.
• My father had three complete sets of teeth, with four sets in the canines. I have had three sets in the upper canines, which have grown in two at a time - ...
• I'm 25/f and I also had an extra set of permanent top teeth. ...
• I have also had an extra set of top teeth! ... I am now 37
• ... My little brother (age 8 at the time) was found to have an extra permanent front tooth. ...
• When I was 20 and in the Air Force, I had a third set of teeth growing ...

---

Looks like this condition is not relegated to extreme old age, as you claimed, but can occur at any age.Hyperdontia - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Hyperdontia is the condition of having supernumerary teeth, or teeth which appear in addition to the regular number of teeth.

​

There is evidence of hereditary factors along with some evidence of environmental factors leading to this condition. Many supernumerary teeth never erupt, but they may delay eruption of nearby teeth or cause other dental problems. Molar-type extra teeth are the rarest form. Dental X-rays are often used to diagnose Hyperdontia.

​

It is suggested that supernumerary teeth develop from a second tooth bud arising from the dental lamina near the regular tooth bud or possibly from splitting the regular tooth bud itself. Supernumerary teeth in deciduous (baby) teeth are less common than in permanent teeth.

---

And it appears to be a rare developmental disorder, whether caused by environmental factors or hereditary is uncertain.Curiously, we do not see these teeth becoming more robust and larger with age -- my original point -- and you need a significant size increase in some teeth to match the early fossil skulls (particularly canines?)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi again Big_Al35, Curiously that is not at all what you said. If you had started with this comment then we wouldn't have had the rather silly, imho, discussion about extra teeth, and your amusing assertion that it only occurred in old people.So you now admit that supernumerary teeth are not evidence of any belief you happen to have regarding people. Good. Now you waffle on to another point. So you are now saying that ALL the skulls in the picture repeated below are for modern humans? And you also agree that all the skeletons shown in that post are also for modern humans? Because these also "fall well within the range of modern humans" yes?Is this the skeleton of a modern human?

quote:

---

http://www.boneroom.com/casts/bcloneprimate.html

---

Enjoy.

Hi again Big_Al35, You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included?Meanwhile there are some other questions you have not answered: If they are not all modern humans then where do you draw the line?Enjoy.

Hi once again Big_Al35,One wonders how many times you will dodge the issues that you raise when they are answered. What you asked was: Now clearly you either think (a) that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens and thus ALL were already covered in the chart provided -- in which case your question is simply pointless -- or (b) that some of them were omitted from the categtory Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- in which case I've asked you to identify which ones would not fall under the Homo Sapiens Sapiens category on the chart.It is a simple question, trying to clarify your position. Aw playing the persecuted Christian card already?All I asked was a simple question: which ones you did not consider to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens, -- ie which ones you felt were omitted from that category on the chart (implying discrimination by the chart makers) -- and if you simply reply that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens then we can look at that category on the chart and see the range of skull capacities involved, without needing to discriminate.Of course we also see that your question was pointless and just another attempt to avoid dealing with the information provided to you. Can you point out those differences? Is one of them human and one not? Or are both within the range of modern humans as you claimed of the skulls in the picture (in which case your reply to frako is also pointless)? So is that a skull you feel is human (within the range of modern humans)?Where do you think it fits in the picture (once again): Please note that your skull is not an actual fossil, but a plastic model with the jaw shown (jaws are all removed from the photos to make comparisons easier). Here's a picture of the fossil:

quote:

---

Dmanisi hominins - Wikipedia Fossil skull from Dmanisi.

---

Care to comment on any differences between your picture of the plastic model and mine of the actual fossil?Are there differences? Nose, jaw, eyebrows, teeth, cranium? Curiously, we have Wounded King saying that there is some variation in the teeth between two specimens and you taking this to mean that they are arbitrarily combined into one species, while at the same time claiming that ALL the skulls on the picture are within the range of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens (seeing as you have not yet told us which ones you think are not in that category -- where you draw the line).Where do you think the Homo erectus skull shown by frako fits in the picture? Is it before or after yours? What features do you use to tell?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : completedEdited by RAZD, : engls

...Edited by RAZD, : delete double postEdited by RAZD, : .

Hi again Big_Al35 In other words, no you cannot describe in detail the differences you find are so definite, and choose instead the old creationist gambit of running away from the issue.Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures: It is a simple question, yes?Enjoy.

And hi again, Big_Al35.Going back a little: Curiously, what the scientists actually do is compare similarities as well as differences when classifying fossils. As Coyote (who has actually done this) points out you need a matrix of measurements to do a proper study, not just look at photographs.It may also interest you to learn (hopefully) about the degree of variation within the Homo erectus classification, especially as you were so hot to point out the degree of variation in Homo sapiens sapiens (and we can also talk about variations within Homo sapiens if you want).

quote:

---

Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of Homo. As a distinct Asian species, however, no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later hominids.

​

• Homo erectus

• Homo erectus erectus
  
• Homo erectus yuanmouensis
  
• Homo erectus lantianensis
  
• Homo erectus wushanensis
  
• Homo erectus nankinensis
  
• Homo erectus pekinensis
  
• Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
  
• Homo erectus soloensis
  
• Homo erectus tautavelensis
  
• Homo erectus georgicus

---

Here are some pictures for you to study: The last one is the Dmanisi Homo erectus georgicus fossil again, and the one on the red table is a composite of "Peking Man" and we see that they are (a) grouped together under Homo erectus by their shared (synapomorphies) characteristics and (b) divided into subspecies by their derived (apomorphies) features. This is done by comparing their overall matrix of characteristics of skull and skeletal features.Enjoy.

Hi Big_Al35, What about the differences between 1 and 2: Other that pic 1 having a lower jaw and being a plastic model while pic 2 is an actual fossil ...Also you have not answered this yet: I'm still waiting for an answer. Indeed:

quote:

---

wikipedia Homo erectus article:

​

At around 600 cubic centimetres (37 cu in) brain volume, the skull D2700 is dated to 1.77 million years old and in good condition offering insights in comparison to the modern human cranial morphology. At the time of discovery the cranium was the smallest and most primitive Hominina skull ever discovered outside of Africa. ...

​

Subsequently, four fossil skeletons were found, showing a species primitive in its skull and upper body but with relatively advanced spines and lower limbs, providing greater mobility. They are now thought not to be a separate species, but to represent a stage soon after the transition between Homo habilis and H. erectus, ...

---

When we look at the chart provided by Malcolm in Message 201 ... ... we see that 600cc is right about the middle of the Homo habilis range (as is the age, at 1.77 mys), and the low early end of the H. erectus range.Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis.

quote:

---

wikipedia Homo habilis article:

​

​

KNM ER 1813 is a relatively complete cranium which dates 1.9 million years old, discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973. The brain capacity is 510 cm, not as impressive as other early specimen and forms of Homo habilis discovered.

---

Would you care to point out the obvious differences between these: Note that I've sorted them roughly by cranial capacity ... Really? What did you find? Where did you find it? What did it say?Enjoy.Edited by Admin, : Narrow the images.

Hi Big_Al35, what's up with the non-responses? Feeling boxed in? Piled on? But why would you expect two different fossils to be exactly the same -- particularly after going on at length about variations within modern humans.We expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible. WE would be surprised if there was NO difference. What we are curious about is what differences YOU see from looking at pictures. For instance ... ... was a bit of a trick question: these are pictures of exactly the same fossil (one is an accurate, detailed plastic model of the other), and any apparent differences are due to camera angle. If you doubt me look at the crack lines on the nose bridge, the cheekbones, the top of the right eye, the teeth and the teeth sockets.Now I expect that the "obvious differences" you mentioned are also due in part to these camera angles -- especially when you compare pictures from different sources.This is why Coyote stresses using a matrix of data obtained from detailed measurements of the skulls, not cursory glances at photos. BZZT!!! WRONG AGAIN. What I said was: Note that I specifically said that YOU might ask ... based on only two pieces of information (age and cranial capacity) ... and this is because you apparently are not very well informed about how fossils are classified, and think that you looking at pictures can tell as much as Coyote can from looking at the actual fossil and the complete set of data that has been collected regarding this fossil when this is his particular field of study. Rather than bluster on you should pay attention to Coyote and ask questions about aspects that you do not understand.That chart is not used to classify fossils, but to catalog the variations in cranial capacity of the fossil specimens. The fact is that when you compare ALL the features, the similarities as well as the differences, this fossil is a better match to Homo erectus than to Homo habilis, yet different enough from the main group of Homo erectus fossils to be classed as a subspecies -- Homo erectus georgicus.See Message 232 for a list of other subspecies.

quote:

---

Wiki article on Homo erectus again:

​

... an extinct species of hominid that lived from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. ...

---

That's ~500,000 years, while Homo sapiens (including subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens and other subspecies) have only existed ~200,000 years. It would be astonishing if they did not have some variations between early samples and late sample and between african samples and asian samples.Again, we expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible. We also expect similarities between late Homo habilis and early Homo erectus when one evolves into the other. The chart also shows this kind of blending between all species on the chart. Who has said that? What we have asked you is what differences YOU see between them and what differences you see between them and Homo sapiens.You were the one that claimed that they fell under the range of variation seen in modern humans. Not at all: those copies are very accurate right down to the break lines in the skulls. The only obvious difference between the photos is camera angle, so that the size of the cranium appears different. Again, this is incorrect. The lower jaw provides information certainly (when available - same with the teeth), but the major information comes from the parts that can be compared 1 to 1, and not from how complete the image is or how you look at it in a photo. The picture in question: ... has intentionally deleted jaws (not all fossils have them), and presented the fossils from the same point of view for the frontal and profile views, so that people like you will not be distracted from comparing actual differences.Look at them carefully: can you pick out Homo erectus georgicus? Put your hand over the jaw on the second picture above, look at the teeth, eyebrows, etc. Curiously, what this really shows is that you are not properly equipped -- either by education or personal investigation -- to understand what people have been saying, what they have been showing you, and what they have been asking you about. You need to do more than just make a couple of cursory observations and make some unspecified internet research (presumably of creationist websites).Now I suggest you go ask Coyote, humbly, for some advice on what you need to study in order to learn some basic understanding of this field.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : trick question

Hi Big_Al35 Curiously, Coyote is probably the best person on this thread to discuss fossils and the comparisons of shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features and how they are used to categorize fossils in a scientific process, rather than just looking at pictures.Enjoy.