Why are there still apes?

[April_Rose]

And remember, they're known for beating their women over the head with a club, dragging them home by their hair, and having them cook and have children.

Well saying we evolved out of that is pretty much an insult then isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well saying we evolved out of that is pretty much an insult then isn't it?

Yup.

 

[April_Rose]

Yup.

You know that the really good thing about all of this is whenever I start doubting my faith, or other people cause me to,.. I just realize how much stronger my faith in Jesus is than compared to this crazy cartoon.

 

[driewerf]

As an atheist you are bound by your non belief in God.

Meaning that i was spot on.

 

[driewerf]

As an atheist you are bound by your non belief in God.

My conclusion? Meh, atheist.

Would it be asked too much to answer with some substance?

 

[driewerf]

Anything over the internet isn't evidence to me,.. it's hearsay.

Have you ever opened any textbook on any subject? let's say archaeology? Have you then repeated the findings of the authors or did you went with what they found? So is that not "hearsay' too?

 

[April_Rose]

Truthfully,.. it's hard for me to take anything gospel unless there are tons of evidence that it is fact,.. and I never trust the media one hundred percent.

 

[driewerf]

Again,

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

So if I hope for an ice cream, faith is ice cream?

 

[Tone]

So if I hope for an ice cream, faith is ice cream?

Whatever took place in its aquisition is faith.

 

[driewerf]

Whatever took place in its aquisition is faith.

faith = acquiring an ice cream?

 

[Tone]

faith = acquiring an ice cream?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Truthfully,.. it's hard for me to take anything gospel unless there are tons of evidence that it is fact,.. and I never trust the media one hundred percent.

Do you accept the four gospels as evidence without a ton of facts?

Because believe me, they aint got a ton of facts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm not saying that I have a problem with evolution in general. I'm saying that I have a problem with a select few apes singing around the campfire, and grilling, and whatever the heck the OP was talking about.

What if those apes are halfway between a human and what you would call an ape. Do you have a problem with them sitting around the campfire and singing?

I always thought a movie on homo erectus would be a great idea. It could be complete with adultery, murder, revenge, relationship building, romance, fireside fun, treachery, trust, struggles to organize the group, socializing, a skilled hunting expedition, and all the other things that could make for an intriguing movie.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's see:

What do these three have in common: library at the University of Pennsylvania, public library in Philadelphia, kindergarten section of the local library?

Answer: academia.

What are you getting at? When I mentioned the University of Pennsylvania library, you suggested it could not be trusted. Are you saying that all libraries are equally untrustworthy?

Suppose I wanted to learn about the fossil evidence. Where do you suggest I go?

 

[April_Rose]

What if those apes are halfway between a human and what you would call an ape. Do you have a problem with them sitting around the campfire and singing?

No, but I don't believe that they evolved out of apes directly.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have a presupposition that evolution is blind and everything is random chance, if evolution is guided it certainly is worth pointing out the strange anomaly that evolution would unleash the potential for an enlightened havoc wreaking species to far exceed the destruction ability of just its natural prey, along with the potential to wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem. These issues are married to each other if teleology is written into nature.

They were apes very similar to apes in the jungle? Or they were given increased cognitive abilities? Which one is it? There’s a big difference. So you are proposing incremental cognitive steps from ape to man? How many intermediate stages if so? Each intermediary step was a little smarter than apes yet still not as smart as homo sapiens is what you’re saying? I could be wrong but isn’t the dominant view today that Neanderthals and Humans were of equal intelligence?

My biggest brain teaser is the “If you don’t use it you lose it” factor. If a species is given creative thinking survival abilities that are adequate for their survival then their superior senses will go into decline. But they are doomed if their senses drop off before acquiring the cognitive boost of creative thinking. Becoming enlightened first, then having the senses drop off is what makes most sense to me.

I’m saying that once evolution gifted a species with the cognitive abilities it is written in the cards, no matter where you place them (IF they don’t die off of course). I’m not referring to factors that would have led to evolution going in another direction. I’m speaking of afterwards not beforehand.

Cognitive abilities, the design of our hands, and creative use of tools are all cut from the same cloth. This shows a brilliance in evolution, our cognitive abilities would be extremely hindered with cat paws! Give us these traits and we will start using tools on a beach, in the mountains, in a forest, etc.

This short sighted brilliance of evolution is completely at odds with it being clueless to the environmental ramifications that these evolutionary traits would introduce to the world. This world consists of one enlightened species in a sea of non-enlightened species. The entire Earth is a connected system! It makes no sense that the evolutionary mechanism of life ON EARTH would be so completely obtuse to the larger picture of the Earth which is a connected system.

I get so confused when people hold the contradictory positions that Mother Earth is a brilliantly connected system, yet the evolution of Mother Earth is blind and is totally ignorant to the complete system.

That’s what I’m saying. Your explanation credited us being removed from trees as a major reason behind our cognitive power. But other creatures changed environments in a whole host of scenarios, yet it was an irrelevant factor because no evolutionary spark took place for them that lead to them having our cognition as well. There is no magic chain of events, in fact each chain of events was probably repeated by a million different species a million times over (without resulting in our cognition). Evolution is guided to produce an enlightened species in a sea of non-enlightened species. The consequences to Mother Earth as a result of that is part of the teleological play book. The unanimity of our higher brain power ability speaks volumes about this purpose being written into the fabric of reality. If evolution was blind this cognitive trigger would have fired off way more often.

You are mixing up the effects of cognitive brain power with the cause. Evolution not only didn’t give the hippo our cognitive powers but it also would not have chosen to give it to the body type of a hippo because it would be rather useless. Human hands are not a blind mistake that luckily matched up with our other blind mistake of brain power. It gets very ad hoc when people try to deny teleology in nature, even to the point of scrambling up effects with a cause.

This statement combines two separate things as if talking about one thing, it doesn’t matter what our “Large brained ancestors” inherited if in your own statement they are already large brained to begin the statement with. Why do you end your statement with “evolutionary history would have been different” if the beginning of your statement already has them with big brains? The evolutionary process IS the process towards the big brains. Go ahead and put them on a beach after that, it won’t matter.

It absolutely was set in stone. We would have learned to cook as long as we had the material available. How many instances do we see throughout history of civilizations of large brained mammals that thrived in a similar fashion, yet who never bumped into each other? The fact that the world was not connected long ago, and that these civilizations didn’t bump into each other is very beneficial to see this pattern as independent of environment. They just needed the cognition first. These civilizations of those with evolved brain power happened all throughout history in all types of environments.

I don’t know why you are fixating on long infancy periods. That is simply a trait of the species that the species must deal with. Every species is stuck with whatever they are.

Catch up with us? If they evolved into having higher brain function and long infancy periods then they would be like us, they wouldn’t have done anything to get there. The only process involved is to just survive without dying off.

Well being more concerned with our local restaurant is the evolutionary default. Hippos & apes can care less beyond their local environment as well. What evolution has given us that’s novel and that extends beyond that default is the part where we can also care beyond our local restaurant.

I know that it took forever for large brained mammals to reach this level of destruction, but it’s very interesting that the tools that yield the potential for us to do so were always lying underneath the surface the entire time just waiting for us large brained mammals to uncover them (scientific revolution). I don’t really elevate the John Locks and Thomas Hobbeses of society too much because I think that such geniuses were always with us, but it was more a matter of finding Pandora’s Box (having an original idea that changes everything). The huge majority of us today can’t even understand modern physics, it only takes our brightest to change everything with one huge idea.

If I could go into a time machine and introduce the ideas of our technology to the earliest homo sapiens, the unfolding of wreaking havoc on the ecosystem would commence much quicker. If I went back and gave that same information to apes (maybe with a detailed demonstration, with lots of monkey see monkey do sign language) it would not take off. One idea of innovation changes everything (if the species has the cognition first).

Humans can’t seem to stop sociopaths from ruling, we’re always underneath a system of greed, deception, destruction, etc. I think sociopaths naturally rule because it’s in their nature to plot non-stop on how to rule, and with whatever means necessary, whereas normal people are way more passive about it.

This is your second lengthy reply, with a lot of repetition. I will not address everything, but I will hit a few highlights.

First, you seem to think cognition is all or nothing, that one either has it or he doesn't. That is not true. Many animals have minimal levels of cognitive brain function.

The skulls of the earliest hominids we find show evidence of increased cognitive power. They are nowhere close to homo sapiens in brain power.

You also seem to have difficulty understanding the problems with having increased brainpower. Every mother can tell you that it is not easy getting a baby's head down the birth canal. So even if you are God, you cannot simply decide that the next primate to be born will have a full sized human head. The mother who tries to deliver that baby will curse your holy name. So you need a way of getting increased cognitive brainpower, while having mercy on the mothers.

Evolution came up with two tricks to do this. First, it sacrificed some of the sensory portions of the brain to have more cognitive functions. Scientists know this because they have examined the skulls of our ancestors.

There is a downside--animals need their senses.

The second trick is to allow the brain to increase in size after birth. Again, evidence shows this in our ancestors.

Again, there is a downside. This process involves a prolonged infancy where the child is helpless.

But in early hominids, there were enough of advantages to increased cognitive ability that natural selection favored these changes. It was a tradeoff, but it was worth it. For other primates, these changes were not worth it.

Also, you don't seem to recognize the resource needs of the enlarged brain. If a monkey suddenly gave birth to a monkey with a human brain, what good is that? This brain is going to require an immense amount of energy. If there is nobody around to communicate with her, if there is nobody to teach her to make a fire, make a hand axe, or organize a hunting expedition, what is she going to do with a human brain? She is going to eat like a carnivore, and add little to the community. How is she going to get all the meat she craves?

But if evolution is allowed to proceed in a slow path, with the body, brain, and available technologies all developing within a community of hominids, the result is, uh, us!

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, but I don't believe that they evolved out of apes directly.

Then why is it that scientists have found a long series of fossils between ape and man?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why is it that scientists have found a long series of fossils between ape and man?

Because apes don't bury their dead?

 

[April_Rose]

I think I am bowing out of this conversation now until I get some advice of where to go from here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, but I don't believe that they evolved out of apes directly.

Understood, but what problem do you have with a bunch of half-ape people partying around a campfire as they cook a pig? That is no more offbeat than a lot of science fiction movies out there.