230 replies to this topic

[CTD]

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? We see this question mocked reflexively. It's a fine question, if one understands what Darwin actually said.

http://www.darwinpro...entry-2136.html

VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted 20 species belonging to 18 genera),—or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging almost to as many genera and families as to species.— We can understand this with the higher, animals whose habits we best understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight, if cropped with several species of grasses than with 2 or 3 species. Now every single organic being, by propagating so rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties or sub-species or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts that the varying offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature, as possible. Each new variety or species, when formed will generally take the places of and so exterminate its less well-fitted parent.

The very phrase "survival of the fittest" clearly entails death of "the unfit". Why then is it improper to ask why the allegedly unfit remain alive? It is not improper at all.

Darwin discussed this sort of thing more than once. He seems to me to have grown more and more adamant about it over time. In more recent decades, the competition inherent in evolutionism has been downplayed considerably. "Selection" means death. Victory consists not merely of surviving, but the failure of the competition to survive.

It doesn't matter if one imagines big steps or small. The first monkey-girl on the way to becoming human had to reproduce. Her offspring had to compete with and mix with the regular monkey types. Now either they blend in completely, making one big group of monkey-people, or they form a group of their own and compete with the inferior type.

Typically, "geographic isolation" is introduced, when "the unfit" need to be protected from competition. In the case of humans, we're told it happened in Africa - not on some remote island.

This is an opportune time for this topic I think, because the "Oh well, it's just pure dumb luck" response runs contrary to the current fad claims of evolution being a non-random process..

[CTD]

Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor. That is why there are still apes.

This thoughtless assertion does not even acknowledge the issues, let alone attempt resolution.

But as long as I'm posting, I'll point out that subsequent sects have no better hope than Darwin had. We're told that "beneficial" mutations (and mutations in general) spread throughout populations and achieve fixation. If this really took place, the whole population should have obtained basically the same set of mutations. Hopeless. Some sort of "lucky exception" to the rule will have to be posited, acknowledging chance and rendering the rule a non-rule.

[CTD]

The truth is humans share the same lineage as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, but humans and chimpanzees diverged most recently.  The lineages the led to chimps and humans existed separately, and they likely weren't competing against each other as they occupied different biological niches.

Separated by say-so? Or was there a court order?

[Arch]

Hi CTD,

Been watching these forums for a couple of weeks now and thought I might step in and give my opinion.

Firstly let me get my bias out of the way and say yes, I am an atheist and believe evolution is a scientific fact.

Also I was curious, does CTD stand for something?

Anyway, chit chat out of the way and on to the topic.

Overture was correct with his statement "Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor. That is why there are still apes."

You claim this doesn't acknowledge the issue, but I didn't understand why you objected. Could you please elaborate?

A rhetorical question I've heard in responce to this question is "Why are there still British people if there are Americans?"

Regards,

Arch.

[de_skudd]

A rhetorical question I've heard in responce to this question is "Why are there still British people if there are Americans?"

Regards,

Arch.

Hello Arch, it’s good to hear from you. Your name looks familiar, have we meet somewhere before?

Anyway, that argument is a non sequitur. Neither Americans nor British are (nor is there real evidence that they ever were) descendants of an ape-like creature. Both are intelligent, can reason and can speak. Both can conceptualize, write, design, create and build. None of which has been demonstrated by any ape, or ape-like creature.

Which brings me to another question along these lines; if we (as “supposed” animals) have “purportedly” spent the last few millions of years “allegedly” “evolving” from primordial slime, why is man (of all this earth’s inhabitance) the only “creatures” with these features?

And no, a dog’s bark and a whale’s singing aren’t the same as our language.

[jason777]

Gorillas date much older than Australopithicus or Habilis.So the question remains,why were apes around before their ancestors (10-11 million years ago) and why did every other species change except them?

Based on genetic evidence, gorillas and humans were thought to have split away from a common ancestor about eight million years ago.

The world's oldest gorilla fossil has been found in Ethiopia, defying earlier assumptions about ape and human evolution, scientists at the National Museum of Ethiopia announced Wednesday.

Scientists believe the nine teeth unearthed during an excavation near Addis Ababa belong to a newly discovered type of 10-million-year-old gorilla. If their data is correct, the fossil could reveal several new truths on ape and human evolution.

"We used to believe, based on genetic information, DNA studies and molecular studies, that the splits between chimpanzees and the human line on one side and the gorilla line on the other side … happened around eight million years ago," said paleontologist Berhane Asfaw, who helped unearth the fossil. "But based on this new information, the split had to happen before 10 million years ago. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."

www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/08/22/tech-fossil070822.html -

[de_skudd]

Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor. That is why there are still apes.

Will the evo-bable never cease?

Gorillas date much older than Australopithicus or Habilis.So the question remains,why were apes around before their ancestors (8 million years ago) and why did every other species change except them?

Based on genetic evidence, gorillas and humans were thought to have split away from a common ancestor about eight million years ago.
www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/08/22/tech-fossil070822.html -

hey Jason, I couldn't get that link to work

Is it me?

Anyway, good question and good point!

[jason777]

Here you go,try this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/te...ssil070822.html

[de_skudd]

Here you go,try this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/te...ssil070822.html

Thanks dudeage!!

[CTD]

I'm undecided. Since what I write is being ignored, I'm pretty much ignoring the writings which only serve to inform me that I'm being ignored. I'm considering making it more permanent by employing the handy, dandy forum feature.

I'll be weighing the for's and against's.

[de_skudd]

I'm undecided. Since what I write is being ignored, I'm pretty much ignoring the writings which only serve to inform me that I'm being ignored. I'm considering making it more permanent by employing the handy, dandy forum feature.

I'll be weighing the for's and against's.

That’s because you don’t exist in some people’s reality! As a matter of crypto-fact, you can’t even prove I’m responding to you right now!!

How’s that for some Crypto-philosophy!!!

[CTD]

I addressed all your points.  What you're saying here is pointless.

What's pointless is trying to carry on a discussion with someone like you. You ignore what I say, what Darwin says, and everything else.

So I now ignore you. Officially.

[jason777]

You're not even making an argument here because no biologist would ever attempt to say habilis and australopithicus are ancestors of gorillas.

The point,that everyone else got besides you,was stasis.Gorillas have been gorillas since way before any human ancestor,so there is no evidence of divergence.According to adult comic books (evolutionists journals) humans and chimps split from a common ancestor ~7 million years ago,so how do explain gorilla stasis for 11 million years?

[jason777]

Fair enough,we'll just pretend that gorilla teeth don't belong to gorillas.