Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
111 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,412 Year: 2,058/14,102 Month: 426/624 Week: 147/163 Day: 2/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where are all the apes leading up to humans?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(8)
Message 34 of 67 (653399)
02-20-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


misinformation rather than reality
Hi CrytoGod, and welcome to the fray.

I'll just add a few points to the ones made by others concerning your misinformation:

How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos?

There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

Why is there such a huge gap?

Measured by DNA the gap between chimps and humans is about 2%, and this is similar to the gap between horses and zebras and donkeys.

The gap between humans and chimps is similar to the gap between humans and bonobos. The gap between chimps and bonobos is also similar but not quite to the same degree, due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to chimps and bonobos that is more recent than the common ancestor with humans.

The gap between chimps and humans is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals (and yes we have DNA evidence of neanderthals as well as for chimps and bonobos) and the gap between humans and neanderthals is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals, but again not to quite the same degree due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to neanderthals and humans that is more recent than the common ancestor with chimps.

The differences in these genetic differences are not linear\additive, but more like the sides of a triangle (or quadrilateral when we include bonobos with chimps, neanderthals and humans).

There are scientists today that argue that chimps should be classified as hominids.

There are also elements in the DNA of chimps, bonobos, humans and neanderthals that show we all had a common ancestor. The DNA evidence also links us to a common ancestor with gorillas, other apes, other primates.

You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

Why?

Can you show how the theory of evolution would predict this?

Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents?

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.

As an example we can look at part of the fossil record for Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate ...

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.


This shows the gradual evolution, the "gradations of species" leading, generation by generation, from Pelycodus ralstoni through the intermediate species Pelycodus trigonodus and Pelycodus jarrovii before reaching Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

It also shows a speciation event where one parent population (Pelycodus jarrovii ) divides into two reproductively independent daughter populations (Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus).

At any one time along those paths you would think you have a single species, and yet by the time you go from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus you have sufficient differences that have accumulated that Pelycodus trigonodus appears different from Pelycodus ralstoni, and by the time you get to Pelycodus jarrovii there are additional differences that are now sufficient for Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different from Pelycodus trigonodus.

These differences are similar in quantitative measurements to the differences between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus, which are each sufficiently different from Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different one from the other and from their parent population.

Evolution occurs within the breeding population, not within individuals: it is the accumulation of differences from parent to child over generations.

Your parents are an intermediate between you and your grandparents. You will understand why your parents are likely still living, but that your great great grandparents have likely died out, gone extinct along with other individuals of their generation.

Message 8: My own opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to provide any specific answers about why they went extinct. From Australopithicus afarensis and before all the way up to Homo neanderthalensis (Neaderthals), we can only speculate about the reasons for their extinction.

Curiously, opinion has been shown to be a very poor barometer of reality, and it has a very poor record of being able to alter reality in any significant manner. You are free to think whatever you want, even that neanderthals had wings if you wish to.

In science, however, we like to see hypothesis backed up and tested against evidence. In this case we have fairly solid evidence that Australopithicus afarensis existed ~3.5 million years ago but that it was replaced circa 3 million years ago by Australopithicus africanus ...

quote:
Human Evolution

• Under each species name is a list of the national or geographical areas where all or most of its fossil remains have been found.

• White numbers inside the species bars indicate the approximate count of distinct individuals in each species from whom fossil remains survive. This is considerably smaller than the number of fossil specimens, because a specimen can be a single tooth, bone or bone fragment.


... now please note that initially there has been some dispute over whether or not Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus are actually two different species instead of specimens of the same species: this is because the differences from one to the other are of the same quantitative degree as the differences between Pelycodus ralstoni and Pelycodus trigonodus seen above. If you arranged the specimens of both from 2.9 million years ago to 3.1 million years ago together, you would be hard pressed to draw a line between them - even if you were an experienced scientist.

I am aware that there is a dispute about the hominid fossils and its interpretations.

And yet you do not appear to be aware of how small that dispute is: it is the dispute between classification of specimens, and not about the general trend. This is a difference between "splitters" and "lumpers" - where a "lumper" could classify Australopithicus anamensis, Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus as a single species rather than as a genus.

Curiously, we see this same pattern again and again in the fossil record for all species of fossils, and it is the pattern that is predicted and thus expected from evolution.

Again from the last link:

quote:
The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

• Each colored bar represents the time interval spanned by recovered fossils associated with that species. Dotted lines indicate the conjectural evolutionary lines of descent. (Different paleoanthropologists will connect these in different ways, while preserving the chronological sequence.)


There is no dispute regarding the overall chronological sequence. I suggest you read the whole article, as it might bring you up to date.

You can then look around the internet to see if you find a radically different sequence published by a paleontologist: without finding a radically different sequence you should admit that the "dispute" is rather minor if existing at all.

I find it quite funny that they all just so happen to be extinct. Evolutionists will give ad hoc explanations for why it is so. It's one of the many reasons why I doubt their evolution story.

Amusingly, we are entertained by your rather uninformed opinions and amused by your attempts to portray evolution in a negative light with ancient outdated information quoted out of context, when we know the context and we know that more recent information has only served to add to, and solidify the case for, evolution.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 49 of 67 (653443)
02-21-2012 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 12:14 AM


Perhaps one thing at a time ...
Hi CrytoGod,

Theobald's conclusion has been rigorously challenged.

Why should we respond to a new set of assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation when you have yet to respond to the information provided to you on your previous assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation? Just repeating assertions that HAVE been answered is not a refutation.

I'd like to see your answer -- in your words, not in more copyandpaste regurgitations from creationist sites full of misrepresentations and misinformation -- to my previous post: Message 34.

I believe we have answered your questions in the opening post, and you need to either acknowledge these answers or refute them.

For instance you have asked repeatedly for scientific evidence of extinctions, and you have been given answers, such as:

Message 34: As an example we can look at part of the fossil record for Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate ...


This shows the gradual evolution, the "gradations of species" leading, generation by generation, from Pelycodus ralstoni through the intermediate species Pelycodus trigonodus and Pelycodus jarrovii before reaching Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

Do you or do you not understand WHY Pelycodus ralstoni no longer exists at the time of Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus?

Do you or do you not understand that this IS scientific evidence for the extinction of Pelycodus ralstoni?

Do you or do you not understand that this same process is seen in the human fossil record as shown by

Message 34:
quote:
Human Evolution

• Under each species name is a list of the national or geographical areas where all or most of its fossil remains have been found.


... now please note that initially there has been some dispute over whether or not Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus are actually two different species instead of specimens of the same species: this is because the differences from one to the other are of the same quantitative degree as the differences between Pelycodus ralstoni and Pelycodus trigonodus seen above. If you arranged the specimens of both from 2.9 million years ago to 3.1 million years ago together, you would be hard pressed to draw a line between them - even if you were an experienced scientist.

Do you or do you not understand that the scientific fossil evidence of the transition from Australopithicus afarensis to Australopithicus africanus is the same degree of scientific fossil evidence of the transition from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus?

Do you or do you not understand WHY Australopithicus afarensis no longer exists at the time of Australopithicus africanus ?

Do you or do you not understand that this IS scientific evidence for the extinction of Australopithicus afarensis?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ? added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 67 (653453)
02-21-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Panda
02-21-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Competition & Extinction
Hi Tangle and Panda

I think squirrels in the UK are a good example of competition in nature - particularly since the grey squirrels are now being out-competed by black squirrels.

And then there are the numerous examples of species introduced by modern man into island habitats, australia, south and north america ...

There is so much documented evidence even from only the last 100 years that only blind willful ignorance can deny it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Panda, posted 02-21-2012 8:17 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Panda, posted 02-21-2012 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 56 of 67 (653456)
02-21-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 12:14 AM


Hi again CrytoGod,

I see that what you do is mix up your replies to everybody without attributing them or properly linking them to the specific messages. This is like trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.

Please either reply to specific messages so that the forum software links them or do the link manually with:

type [qs=RAZD]There are many intermediate species ...[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

There are many intermediate species ...

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

Personally I like to use the [qs]Comments ...[/qs] or [qs=Person]Comments ...[/qs] for replyiing to posts and the [quote]Quoted material...[/quote] for quotes from websites and books, as this distinguishes one from the other visibly on the page and adds clarity to the post.

quote:
There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

Oh, riiiiiight they evolved to other species so that's why we don't see sub humans or they got outcompeted by other species.

Later species means that Australopithicus afarensis no longer exists at the time of Australopithicus africanus because the population has evolved over time from one to the other. The line between them is rather arbitrary as it is hard to distinguish one from the other:

RAZD writes:

Message 34: ... now please note that initially there has been some dispute over whether or not Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus are actually two different species instead of specimens of the same species: this is because the differences from one to the other are of the same quantitative degree as the differences between Pelycodus ralstoni and Pelycodus trigonodus seen above. If you arranged the specimens of both from 2.9 million years ago to 3.1 million years ago together, you would be hard pressed to draw a line between them - even if you were an experienced scientist.

Do you not understand how evolution actually works?

Scientific evidence please?

Already given in the previous post, and repeated in Message 49, and just repeated again above. Your apparent inability to recognize evidence when given does not mean that it is not given. When you keep asking for something that has been provided you begin to look silly.

CrytoGod original assertion writes:

You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

quote:
Why?

Can you show how the theory of evolution would predict this?

Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents?

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.


If living sub human populations were walking around it would certainly give more credence to the evolution story. But of course, they just so happened to be extinct or they evolved. Whatever. But not even the fossil record supports their story as quoted by evolutionists.

In other words, (A) no, you do NOT understand how evolution actually works, (B) no, you CANNOT show how the theory of evolution would predict that "living sub human populations" should be walking around, and (C) your ONLY response is to repeat your previous assertion.

Epic fail.

If living sub human populations were walking around it would certainly give more credence to the evolution story.

Again: WHY? you have not answered the question.

What is your reasoning here? Can you explain it? Curious minds want to know.

AGAIN: Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents? Do you understand why these questions are pertinent?

message 34 writes:

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.

Do you understand that evolution (and common sense) predicts that ancestral species will actually be ancestral rather than contemporaneous?

Do you understand that the fossil record actually shows this to be the case?

Do you understand that chimpanzees and bonobos are not ancestral species to humans, that they are sibling species?

quote:
Measured by DNA the gap between chimps and humans is about 2%, and this is similar to the gap between horses and zebras and donkeys.

Actually, that has been challenged. Recent study shows it can be as low as 70% genome similarity. http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Moreover, A Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny
http://www.evolutionnews.org/..._a_whopping_23_of047041.html

I looked at your reference. Pitiful. A creationist\IDologist website that quotemines, rather than original research published in peer reviewed journals for the appropriate field of study. Why don't you find the original articles in the peer reviewed articles, read them and then post what you think?

You can start here: Google scholar search for human+chimp+genome+comparison

If you find it difficult to understand some of the articles, there are actual biologists here capable of helping you through the rough spots ... if you actually want to learn what the scientific evidence shows.

I suggest you also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project:

quote:
... There are nine other major chromosomal differences between chimpanzees and humans: chromosome segment inversions on human chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18. ...

Note that these are the same differences noted in your creationist\IDologist polemic, and that this shows how disingenuous your article is: the difference is that one is "backwards" in sequence compared to the other -- yet this would not affect the function of the sequence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 59 of 67 (653462)
02-21-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Panda
02-21-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Competition & Extinction
Hi Panda

True, but one aspect I think is different to most of those is that the changes in squirrel population are all within living memory.

Fundamentalists often complain that "No-one was there to see it!" but the squirrel example has been witnessed first-hand by many people.

See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium for additional examples:

quote:
One of the problems that creationists seem to have with evolution is how new species can disburse and displace existing species. This is especially true for the punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") model of Gould and Eldridge. This article is to discuss the dispersal aspects of small populations into a new environment, removing the issue of new species evolution from the discussion.

Bird species introduced into North America, both intentionally and accidentally, have shown different levels of dispersal across the continent. In some cases we know that they had only small initial populations located in one place, the point of release. We also know that they were not here before being introduced. Thus such species are good models for new species dispersal behavior into a new environment.


There are lots of well documented historical instances of intentional or accidental introduction of non-native species. Being historical means of course that someone was there to see it.

quote:
Conclusions

Thus we see two extremely successful dispersions and others of limited success and finally some that succeeded only to lose out to later competition. Obviously not all introductions are successful, and just as obviously not all newly evolved species will win out in similar circumstances.

Native species are being impacted by the "successful" introductions (Starlings and House Sparrows) but they are still viable at this time (probably most impacted is the Eastern Bluebird). There was no eco-niche vacuum for the newcomers to fill and there was competition, but they have been able to disperse across the continent.


The easy spread of introduced species during the recent past is a telling example of how easily a newly evolved species with a fitness advantage could rapidly (in geological time) spread to fill and displace older species in an ecological niche.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : coding


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Panda, posted 02-21-2012 9:06 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 61 of 67 (653464)
02-21-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
02-21-2012 11:49 AM


Hi Taq,

If apes are still alive today then why not the half human-apes?

Because they went extinct. What more need be said? Do you likewise believe that wooly mammoths never existed because they are not alive today?

And why are brothers and sisters alive today when their great-great-great grandparents have mysteriously disappeared ...

As did the species of apes that are ancestral to the modern apes. The apes alive today are not the species that lived when australopithecines and other early hominids existed.

The apes alive today have evolved from their ancestral species and those ancestral species are also extinct.

ALL living species today have evolved from ancestral species that are now extinct, a pattern repeated and repeated and repeated in the fossil record, AND a pattern that is evidenced in the cladograms developed from the DNA evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : nglis


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 02-21-2012 11:49 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 02-21-2012 12:47 PM RAZD 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 © 2021