Jump to content


Photo

Why Are There Still Apes?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
230 replies to this topic

#41 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:39 AM

Perhaps this "hypothesis" deserves its own thread. And perhaps it can be stated as something other than an assertion therein. If that should happen, those who support the idea should prepare to face simple common-sense evidence, like a picture of a fat dude.

View Post

I did provide a link for those that wanted to read further. Here it is again. Remember this is an inter-species comparison. This is the gastro-intestinal system - not a measure of body fat
http://www.scielo.br...ipt=sci_arttext

I'm not familiar with this idea. I've heard explorers died due to disease, heat, dangerous natives, and all sorts of causes. Somehow I doubt starvation is very high up on the list. I would further expect a good amount of whatever starvation did take place was due to ignorance rather than actual lack of available food.

View Post

Actually starvation is very high on the list. I can recommend several books
The Darkest Jungle: The True Story of the Darien Expedition and America's Ill-Fated Race to Connect the Seas
http://search.barnes...e/9780739303528
The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey
http://www.amazon.co...w/R9Y3MKOONN2SA
The Lost City of Z (soon to be a major motion picture starring Brat Pitt)
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0385513534

Of course, preparation is always an issue. However, in the above cases, the expeditions often resorted to shooting the local primates to avoid starvation.

I would guess that if you were thrown into an environment where chimps or gorillas live, you would have a very difficult time surviving. Your big brain demands larger amounts of digestible protein and your weak digestive system makes most of the forest undigestible.

Now that the irrelevant has been addressed, can someone explain how come there are still apes? How is it that intense competition and struggle permitted the unfit to survive right alongside the fit for millions of years? How come the selection goddess took yet another vacation?

I know intelligence, and the extreme uniqueness of mankind is being discussed as well. At least that's a related topic. Both are valid, unanswered questions, and both deal with evostories about human origins.

View Post


You are starting with the incorrect assumption that non-human apes are less fit than humans for their environment. Maybe you can explain why you think non-human apes are unfit for their jungle environment.

There are a set of related questions. What environmental changes and mutations allowed at least one line of apes to move towards larger and larger brains (that require high amounts of digestible protein). If the early human line became "unfit" for the jungle environment, what environment were they more fit for?

James

#42 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:33 AM

Well the only problem that evolution has is the very beginning of ape to human evolution. Quite frankly both lived in the same environment, and both were supposedly the same at one time. They had absolutely no reason to evolve seeing as how both basically came from the same environment, and both encountered the exact same situations.

So yes, there is a problem with apes still existing.

#43 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 31 May 2009 - 11:29 AM

Well the only problem that evolution has is the very beginning of ape to human evolution.  Quite frankly both lived in the same environment, and both were supposedly the same at one time.  They had absolutely no reason to evolve seeing as how both basically came from the same environment, and both encountered the exact same situations.


View Post


Well golly Scott. You do have some of the most novel ideas. So in your theory of evolution, when the human line became genetically distinct from non-human apes, they were living in exactly the same place with the same environment? This is a curious theory and not what many anthropologists propose. How did you come up with that conclusion?

Many species have sub-populations that migrate to new locations and become genetically isolated. Even today, Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes - not including bonobos) have five different subspecies across Africa that are genetically distinct.
http://www.vellerosu...e/history.shtml

"Chimpanzees belong to a single species, Pan troglodytes, that may be divided into as many as five subspecies based on geographical, genetic, morphological and behavioral data.

distribution map http://www.vellerosu.....ioti 2009.jpg

P. t. verus and P. t. vellerosus) and a central/eastern African group (P. t. troglodytes, P. t. schweinfurthii and P. t. marunguensis). Subsequent population genetic analyses from samples collected throughout Nigeria and Cameroon indicate that a significant phylogeographic break between these two groups occurs at the Sanaga River in central Cameroon, delimiting P. t. vellerosus from P. t. troglodytes in southern Cameroon. This phylogeographic break at the Sanaga appears to be quite ancient in that the mtDNA lineages of chimpanzees restricted to either side of the Sanaga shared a last common ancestor approximately 600,000 years ago. However, the specific patterns of gene flow between chimpanzees near the Sanaga have not been well characterized. There is additional evidence for population subdivisions of chimpanzees in western Africa. Chimpanzees from Upper Guinea (P. t. verus) and those from the Gulf of Guinea region (P. t. vellerosus) cluster together into two groups, whose distributions may be separated by either the Niger River or the Dahomey Gap. "


So where did these subspecies come from? Were they all on the ark? How do you explain the genetic differences?

#44 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 May 2009 - 12:01 PM

Yes, if a population becomes isolated, then their genes will become isolated as well. The question is are these actually subspecies, or just different breeds of chimps. If each of these subspecies can breed, and produce fertile offspring then they are indeed the same species.

Even dogs have differences in their genes from breed to breed, hence why we have different breeds in the first place. Which amazingly, can be recombined, over and over to produce new breeds... Using existing breeds that is, which also brings the question of the new breed actually being new or not, simply because the same genetic information is passed from parent to offspring.

Now even genetic differences in humans can also be found from isolated area, to isolated area. With no new genetic information to gather from, it is easy to see why they would basically stay the same breed within the area.

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2009 - 12:06 PM

I'm just curious, are we the only creature that has the whites of our eyes so highly exposed?

View Post



Careful there cowpoke, that thar may be circular reckoning :P

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 May 2009 - 01:35 PM

I would guess that if you were thrown into an environment where chimps or gorillas live, you would have a very difficult time surviving.

I would guess if anyone was thrown into an unfamiliar environment they'd have difficulties surviving. That's part of the reason survival courses exist.

Your big brain demands larger amounts of digestible protein and your weak digestive system makes most of the forest undigestible.

I've always heard a man can last about a month on stored reserves. Even without a large amount of "fat reserves", Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is known to have fasted for weeks.

You are starting with the incorrect assumption that non-human apes are less fit than humans for their environment. Maybe you can explain why you think non-human apes are unfit for their jungle environment.

I am starting with what Darwin said. Have you not read his writings?

There are a set of related questions. What environmental changes and mutations allowed at least one line of apes to move towards larger and larger brains (that require high amounts of digestible protein). If the early human line became "unfit" for the jungle environment, what environment were they more fit for?

James

View Post

You might as well stop trying to portray humans as "unfit". Your fish-out-of-water stories won't fool one single person. Your own source on the "City of Z" said that living off the land was going to be an innovation.

All three of your sources indicate the jungles involved were populated. Unless you consider these populations subhuman, I don't see that you have any case at all. Even if they were subhuman, they'd be further up the chain than their ancestors, by Darwinian standards. If you measure their brain sizes, I'm extremely confident you'll find them exceeding the apes by a good amount, and probably at least one member of this very forum as well.

#47 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 May 2009 - 02:12 PM

Evolutionists like comparing cranial capicity as if that can distinguish between human,ape,and hominid.It is totaly irrelevant.Neanderthal has an average crainial capacity larger than modern human.Humans can very between 700-2200 cc without any kind of pathalogical disorder (e.g. dwarfism,microcephaly).The largest australopithecine on record (KNM ER-1470) has a cranial capacity of over 700 cc,which means some true apes from the fossil record actualy overlap modern human.

#48 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:07 PM

Yes, if a population becomes isolated, then their genes will become isolated as well.  The question is are these actually subspecies, or just different breeds of chimps.  If each of these subspecies can breed, and produce fertile offspring then they are indeed the same species.

Even dogs have differences in their genes from breed to breed, hence why we have different breeds in the first place.  Which amazingly, can be recombined, over and over to produce new breeds... Using existing breeds that is, which also brings the question of the new breed actually being new or not, simply because the same genetic information is passed from parent to offspring.

Now even genetic differences in humans can also be found from isolated area, to isolated area.  With no new genetic information to gather from, it is easy to see why they would basically stay the same breed within the area.

Both 'breed' and 'sub-species' describe populations which can inter-breed with other members of the entire species.
The ease of interbreeding and the fertility of these crosses is likely to decrease as the various breeds become more distinct eg cross between particularly large and small dogs.

Genetic information is certainly passed from parent to child, but different mutations of all types also accumulate separately in each breed. Even if you choose not to call this new information, it contributes to the differences between breeds and eventually to the separation of individual breeds as species.

#49 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:34 PM

Both 'breed' and 'sub-species' describe populations which can inter-breed with other members of the entire species.
The ease of interbreeding and the fertility of these crosses is likely to decrease as the various breeds become more distinct eg cross between particularly large and small dogs.

Genetic information is certainly passed from parent to child, but different mutations of all types also accumulate separately in each breed.  Even if you choose not to call this new information, it contributes to the differences between breeds and eventually to the separation of individual breeds as species.

View Post


The problem is that it is a fact that these breeds exist soley on genetic isolation, not new genetic information.

#50 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 01 June 2009 - 02:27 AM

The problem is that it is a fact that these breeds exist soley on genetic isolation, not new genetic information.

View Post


How do you account for Ring Species then?

#51 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 June 2009 - 05:26 AM

How do you account for Ring Species then?

View Post


The exact same way we account for lions and tigers. If the species cannot successfully interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, then it is absolutely not the same species, it is a different species.

There is no problem here, besides just because one breed of those sea gulls does not breed with another breed, does not make them two seperate species. What makes them two seperate species is the fertility of their offspring.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:28 AM

How do you account for Ring Species then?

View Post

I believe the creationist orchard is the right explanation.

#53 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 01 June 2009 - 11:34 AM

I believe the creationist orchard is the right explanation.

View Post


Yes.....that is certainly one POSSIBLE explanation. However, ring species demonstrate evolution working. Today's ring species will generate tommorrows new complete species and evenually a new genus.

This is where evolution can be tested. Ring species are a natural consequence of evolution, and fit neatly into the entire evolutionary model. They are not a "problem" at all, infact they are logical by-product of a simple process of the survival of replicating entities in the presence of environmental factors and billions of years. A very simple process that best describes the facts.

#54 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:22 PM

On accounting for ring species:-

The exact same way we account for lions and tigers.  If the species cannot successfully interbreed, and produce fertile offspring, then it is absolutely not the same species, it is a different species.

There is no problem here, besides just because one breed of those sea gulls does not breed with another breed, does not make them two seperate species.  What makes them two seperate species is the fertility of their offspring.

You seem to be intentionally missing the essential feature of ring species.
Over most of the distance there is continuous small variation, with neighboring populations interbreeding readily.
However, where the two ends close the circle, there is a sharp boundary. Typically there is some interbreeding but the hybrid offspring can not compete with either parent population (either because of fertility problems or simply survival etc.). Result is a narrow region of overlap without effective interbreeding.

By your test the two end populations are separate species. However, taking the longer way around the ring does not reveal any discontinuity.
Does this count as 2 species or 1?

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

Yes.....that is certainly one POSSIBLE explanation. However, ring species demonstrate evolution working. Today's ring species will generate tommorrows new complete species and evenually a new genus.

View Post

Yeah, we see micro-evolution "working" then you speculate the rest and call it science. There are to many obstacles, ignored by evolutionists deliberately, to make this loose speculation of common ancestry for all living organisms back to a single common creature.

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 03:35 PM

Yes.....that is certainly one POSSIBLE explanation. However, ring species demonstrate evolution working. Today's ring species will generate tommorrows new complete species and evenually a new genus.

View Post


:lol: "evolution working", "eventually" :lol: Tomorrow + Miiiilllllliiiiiooooons of years :lol:

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:12 PM

I keep hearing FRDB mentioned, but I'm not familiar with the site. I think someone may have stolen my nickname!  :lol:

View Post



Are you sure? :lol:

#58 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:21 PM

Yeah, we see micro-evolution "working" then you speculate the rest and call it science. There are to many obstacles, ignored by evolutionists deliberately, to make this loose speculation of common ancestry for all living organisms back to a single common creature.

How about focussing on the ring species question and its implication.

Is a ring species 1 species or 2?

If you regard it as a single species, (because you are emphasizing the continuity the long way round the ring), what changes if the climate change or some similar effect breaks the ring open in the middle of the long-way-round? The continuous linking sub-species are now not there and all that is left are the two ends which already behave as 2 distinct species.

I submit that this is not wild or improbable speculation, but a very realistic possibility which has happened many times. This is perfectly capable mechanism producing distinct and different species.

An important aspect of this scenario is that it goes beyond the development of various dog breeds within the dog species, because those breeds are all contained in one species.

What more needs to be shown before you will accept that natural selection can explain the diversification of species, even if you are not admitting it can take us back to one single origin?

#59 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:17 PM

Ah, we must first understand some things. A species, by definition is a group of care bears, or whatever animals that can all reproduce and produce fertile offspring successfully.... Does this need to be repeated??? Obviously yes.

Now, is a ring species 1 or 2 species??? Thats an extremely easy question to answer... Get the two animals, breed them, and see if a completely fertile offspring pops out. There you have it, just different breeds. If it produces offspring that are not fertile then YES they are 2 different species...

I don't care which care bear likes who or what, or breeds unsuccessfully with a kitten... what matters here, is putting the 2 animals we think are seperate species together, and breed them.

Now, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Now lets go over this again...










Ok, now to test and see if the two animals are different species are not, we will breed them and see if they can produce fertile offspring... If the animals fail, then we will try try again... until we get some results.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:33 PM

Scott,

There is a broader question at play here. Can two groups of animals vary enough away from what we would call the original kind to be infertile and still have a common ancestor? Could we accidentally identify two species as separate kinds when they actually do have a common ancestor?

Could we safely say that tigers and lions have a common ancestor? Is it possible that house cats and linx cats have a common ancestor, linx and leopards? The question that Keith wants answered is framed in a way to facilitate a jump of faith that is based on the idea that if Christians can admit that some subspecies are different enough from their cousins that they can't interbreed then why not believe that a turnip is also our cousin?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users