Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 3:06 AM
21 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 117 of 286 (651528)
02-07-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by amp1022
02-07-2012 8:30 PM


Hi Amp1022,

I think you may be interpreting Jar's post in ways he never intended. When he said that most Christian denominations acknowledge that evolution has happened, he didn't intend it as a claim about creationists or about the theory of evolution.

You may also have misinterpreted Dr Adequate's use of the word illiterate. While one of the definitions does mean unable to read or write, I think in this case the intended definition was the one having to do with unfamiliarity with a field of knowledge, in this case evolution.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by amp1022, posted 02-07-2012 8:30 PM amp1022 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 123 of 286 (651553)
02-08-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Trixie
02-08-2012 3:37 AM


I used to like that one better, too. It feels more direct and personal and should therefore be more effective, but when I've seen it used, including by myself, I've found that it has two problems:

  1. Creationists don't accept that their own personal ancestry has anything to do with evolution.

  2. Grandparents are the same race of people as grand kids. Wolves are a different race from dogs, and since creationists acknowledge this it helps it work better.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Trixie, posted 02-08-2012 3:37 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Tangle, posted 02-08-2012 10:00 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 141 of 286 (652073)
02-12-2012 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Chuck77
02-12-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Story time...
Disappointing, Chuck. Very disappointing to witness your decline from promising new member into fantasy and irrationality

Unless you're trying to introduce humorous interludes, which are by no means unwelcome, it would be better if you could argue positions that are supported by evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Chuck77, posted 02-12-2012 4:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2012 10:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 142 of 286 (652080)
02-12-2012 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Chuck77
02-12-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Story time...
Chuck77 writes:

Are you saying that within the TOE common ancestory has always been taught?

Common ancestry was in Darwin's book on evolution, On the Origin of Species.

What impulse caused you to post before making sure that what you were saying had any basis in fact? We all get weird notions that pop into our heads from time to time, but what is it about creationists that causes them to skip any fact checking and just post their unvetted ideas willy-nilly on discussion boards? Creationists who remain here for any length of time hear this over and over again, but I'll say it once more: if evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up.

Anyway, it's not like the correct information is hard to find, it's in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Common Descent:

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in On the Origin of Species...

Darwin believed that all modern life descended from one or a few original forms. Today we believe that there was widespread gene sharing amongst the earliest forms of life, so it would be more accurate today to say that life descended from amongst gene sharing populations.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Chuck77, posted 02-12-2012 4:21 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 150 of 286 (655462)
03-10-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Big_Al35
03-10-2012 9:30 AM


Hi Big Al,

I'm not sure exactly what Tangle was trying to say way back in October, but both humans and chimps are hypothesized to have descended from a common ape ancestor. We don't know what this common ancestor looked like. It's not impossible for it to have looked somewhat like a modern chimp, but more likely it was different from both modern humans and chimps.

It's unlikely to have looked much like us because fossil finds of ancient human relatives that post-date the split with the chimp line are already significantly different from us, for example, Ardipithicus, which dates back to around 4 million years ago. The chimp/human split is hypothesized to have taken place around 7 million years ago.

But if you understand that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, then you already understand why there are still apes here, so I don't understand why you're posting to this thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Big_Al35, posted 03-10-2012 9:30 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Big_Al35, posted 03-11-2012 5:52 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 153 of 286 (655608)
03-11-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Big_Al35
03-11-2012 5:52 PM


Human/Chimp Ancestor
Big_Al35 writes:

Chimpanzees, live in the trees but their ancestors must have lived on the ground before adapting to a life in the trees.

What makes you think so?

But more importantly, if you understand that both chimps and humans are apes, and that the common ancestor was also an ape, why are you posting to this thread?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Big_Al35, posted 03-11-2012 5:52 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 163 of 286 (656288)
03-17-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Big_Al35
03-17-2012 11:37 AM


Big_Al35 writes:

You must admit though that the first image has an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee? I would swear that someone had modeled or fashioned that image from what they know about modern chimpanzees. This is what is so misleading about it all. If the images are pure fiction why don't the scientists admit it.

You're absolutely right, the first image looks just like a chimpanzee. I think the scientists who presented that illustration in a scientific peer-reviewed paper *should* admit that it's fiction. In which journal did this diagram appear, and who were the authors? We'll hound and email them until they all retract and disavow the paper.

Of course, the illustration might only be the work of an artist attempting to illustrate that human evolution is a succession of changing forms over time. Clues that the image was never included in a scientific paper about human evolution are the lack of genus/species labels, and the use of animal images instead of skeletons. It's the kind of image one might use when making the point that humans evolved, and it is not the sort of image one would use to illustrate possible paths of human evolution.

If you want accurate information about the current state of knowledge about human evolution you need only go to the Wikipedia article on evolution where no version of that illustration appears.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Big_Al35, posted 03-17-2012 11:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 180 of 286 (656805)
03-22-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Big_Al35
03-22-2012 7:37 AM


Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
Big_Al35 writes:

Funny, because evidence shows that humans who manage to live beyond 110 begin to grow new teeth.

I've got prime ocean front property in Arizona that I'm selling cheap, call me.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Big_Al35, posted 03-22-2012 7:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 184 of 286 (656815)
03-22-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Big_Al35
03-22-2012 10:03 AM


Re: on shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
Hi Al,

Is the ability for the elderly to regenerate teeth important to any point you're trying to make that is relevant to the topic? I'm asking because I don't think our ability to relieve your misunderstanding exceeds your determination to misinterpret what you read as supporting what you think, so maybe this teeth diversion can be shelved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Big_Al35, posted 03-22-2012 10:03 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Big_Al35, posted 03-22-2012 10:49 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 195 of 286 (656926)
03-23-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Big_Al35
03-22-2012 10:49 AM


Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

Whether the elderly regenerate teeth or how long people can live was not your original point. You were trying to argue that as people age they undergo morphological change that causes them to resemble what anthropologists mistakenly interpret as evolutionary predecessors of humans.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Big_Al35, posted 03-22-2012 10:49 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 204 of 286 (656982)
03-24-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 8:12 AM


Cranial Capacity Data
Hi Big Al,

This is from the Wikipedia article on Cranial Capacity:

Examples of early hominids:

TaxonSize (cc)Number of specimensAge (megannum)
Australopithecus afarensis43843.6–2.9
Australopithecus africanus45273.0–2.4
Paranthropus boisei52112.3–1.4
Paranthropus robustus53011.9–1.4
Homo habilis61261.9–1.6
Homo rudolfensis70012.4–1.6
Homo ergaster87131.9–1.7

It provides these ranges for existing species:

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 8:12 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 206 of 286 (656989)
03-24-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 10:55 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Big_Al35 writes:

I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?

I think the point everyone is making is that you're not addressing any information provided to you. All you do is ask for more information. That's why RAZD keeps repeating his question.

You haven't explicitly stated your position, but your questions make clear that you believe hominid fossils all fit within the range of modern human variation. Clearly this cannot be true, e.g., this image of an Australopithicus africanus skull:

This skull is clearly outside the range of modern human variation, so RAZD is asking where you draw the line.

Also, cranial capacity information has now been presented to you. Are you going to discuss the data, or will you just continue asking more questions?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 10:55 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 213 of 286 (657004)
03-24-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.

What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.

And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 217 of 286 (657012)
03-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

You're not really addressing anything in any of the responding messages. You're not responding to what people say, and you're not describing what it is in the images that you find different or similar. I'm reduced to doing what RAZD has been doing, cut-n-pasting my previous post and hoping you respond someday:

The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.

What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.

And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(6)
Message 223 of 286 (657023)
03-24-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull:

The three Homo erectus skulls have a great deal in common, most notably the large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. The one with the large canines is a subspecies of Homo erectus, but it still has large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. None of these qualities are possessed by the human skull.

The question on everyone's mind is whether you can see the differences between the Homo erectus skulls and the human skull.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019