Why are there still apes?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ahhh I see why you took your statement back:

"Nested hierarchies. Apes are monkeys in the same way that monkeys are primates, humans are apes and I am a human – it's called a nested hierarchy. This means that all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human.Apr 21, 2011"
Apes are monkeys – deal with it

You saw that the game changed ...

*C'mon Bander you gotta keep yo game up!

**For those who missed it, @FrumiousBandersnatch said "apes are not monkeys and vice versa", but then he saw what this did to his argument.

You're welcome to gloat. I decided to remove it because there are differing views even among taxonomists on whether apes should be considered monkeys or not and I didn't want to trigger an interminable debate about it. Basically it's just a matter of nomenclature, but it seems to stir up people's emotions for some reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[AV1611VET]

As story about a monkeyape.

I think Edgar Rice Burroughs has that one.

Tarzan is a fictional character, an archetypal feral child raised in the African jungle by the Mangani great apes; he later experiences civilization only to reject it and return to the wild as a heroic adventurer.

SOURCE

 

[ViaCrucis]

if you're an atheist you can't believe anything that science doesn't say.

Atheism is simply a position about the existence of [a] G/god, namely that there are none.

An atheist could very freely reject literally everything science says about anything, and could still be an atheist--simply because they simply don't belief in the existence of a divine power of any sort.

In the same way, belief in a divine power of some kind, or being religious of any kind, does not render someone opposed to science.

There are scientists who are theists, scientists who are atheists, scientists who are agnostic, scientists who are deists, and scientists who can probably be described as apatheists (they simply don't care one way or the other).

And there are people who fit all those categories who are scientifically illiterate, or who reject science, etc.

The two simply aren't related.

The idea that atheism and science are linked, while theism and science denialism are linked is more to do with a cultural myth that we continue to perpetuate. And no single "group" is to blame here. I've seen devoted Christians and other religious people perpetuate this myth, and I've seen atheists perpetuate this myth. Because it's a myth that has somehow become baked into our culture, and which popular media expresses and the whole thing becomes like Ouroboros eating its own tail, a self-perpetuating feedback loop.

Where this ongoing myth becomes more than just wrong, is that it actually has a measurable impact. As it influences identity. E.g. "I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot accept evolution, because only atheists believe in evolution" or "I am an atheist, and religious people are all closed-minded science deniers".

Recognizing that religious or various metaphysical questions are of one kind, while questions about observable, testable reality are of another kind is important. It frees us up to have better conversations, and to decrease misconceptions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[April_Rose]

I never said that there couldn't be religious scientists. That wasn't my point at all. I guess I see your point too though.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not just genealogy -- endless genealogies.

And having more holes (missing links) than Clyde Barrow.

If you really need the word "endless" to be included, then here you go - evolution is not endless genealogies. Happy now?

One wonders - does AV know what genealogy is, or is that another word he thinks he understands but actually doesn't?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never said that there couldn't be religious scientists. That wasn't my point at all. I guess I see your point too though.

Oh I know, I was simply using your post as an opportunity to make a point that is frequently confused, not that I think you were.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tone]

You're welcome to gloat. I decided to remove it because there are differing views even among taxonomists on whether apes should be considered monkeys or not and I didn't want to trigger an interminable debate about it. Basically it's just a matter of nomenclature, but it seems to stir up people's emotions for some reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fair enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

One wonders - does AV know what genealogy is,

Luke certainly does.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[April_Rose]

Sorry but genealogy bores me. :/

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why don’t we still see creatures that are still in the process of this transformation from ape to man. Why are there no half ape half man creatures? Why did this process of evolution or mutation cease?

Per the opening post, humans have overwhelmed the resources, so all other intermediates died out. Apes who come out of the jungle today will not have the opportunity we had.

 

[Strathos]

Where does science say they grunted?

See Point 5 of my standards.

Well if they were human they probably grunted at least once, everyone I know has done so.

 

[April_Rose]

Well if they were human they probably grunted at least once,

I usually do that at least once every morning,.. in the bathroom.

 

[Shemjaza]

Atheism is simply a position about the existence of [a] G/god, namely that there are none.

An atheist could very freely reject literally everything science says about anything, and could still be an atheist--simply because they simply don't belief in the existence of a divine power of any sort.

In the same way, belief in a divine power of some kind, or being religious of any kind, does not render someone opposed to science.

There are scientists who are theists, scientists who are atheists, scientists who are agnostic, scientists who are deists, and scientists who can probably be described as apatheists (they simply don't care one way or the other).

And there are people who fit all those categories who are scientifically illiterate, or who reject science, etc.

The two simply aren't related.

The idea that atheism and science are linked, while theism and science denialism are linked is more to do with a cultural myth that we continue to perpetuate. And no single "group" is to blame here. I've seen devoted Christians and other religious people perpetuate this myth, and I've seen atheists perpetuate this myth. Because it's a myth that has somehow become baked into our culture, and which popular media expresses and the whole thing becomes like Ouroboros eating its own tail, a self-perpetuating feedback loop.

Where this ongoing myth becomes more than just wrong, is that it actually has a measurable impact. As it influences identity. E.g. "I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot accept evolution, because only atheists believe in evolution" or "I am an atheist, and religious people are all closed-minded science deniers".

Recognizing that religious or various metaphysical questions are of one kind, while questions about observable, testable reality are of another kind is important. It frees us up to have better conversations, and to decrease misconceptions.

-CryptoLutheran

Also some of us atheists forget that there are a great many atheists who are total wack-a-doos on just about any issue aside from the belief in deities.

 

[Jok]

Well, not necessarily; if you make some simple assumptions, you can estimate the rates of change. For example, you can assume that over the last couple of million years, the mutation rate was fairly stable; one can assume the rate of ERV insertions was fairly stable, and so-on; then you can match the predictions from molecular biology with the fossil record, assuming that the fossils we have found are random samples of the lineage. You can also correlate these calculations with archaeological site evidence of cultural artefacts and activity, even when no fossils are available.

This sounds really interesting, unfortunately I’m not familiar with this stuff. Rather then continue on with the reply I had started I’d rather familiarize myself this stuff, because I’m not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing, I don’t mind having my opinion changed if new information convinces me.

I never even meant to get pulled into this because I’m not content with how much I know about all of this stuff, to tell you the truth for the most part I just peak into these threads sometimes because I think @AV1611VET is hilarious lol, even though I don’t agree with him on creationism he drops some one liners sometimes that crack me up lol

 

[BNR32FAN]

Per the opening post, humans have overwhelmed the resources, so all other intermediates died out. Apes who come out of the jungle today will not have the opportunity we had.

what resources? Are you just making this up or does someone actually claim to know what resources were necessary for this mutation to occur?

 

[AV1611VET]

I never even meant to get pulled into this because I’m not content with how much I know about all of this stuff, to tell you the truth for the most part I just peak into these threads sometimes because I think @AV1611VET is hilarious lol, even though I don’t agree with him on creationism he drops some one liners sometimes that crack me up lol

Why, thank you, sir!

It's good to know that even people who disagree with me can get some entertainment value out of my posts!

 

[Shemjaza]

what resources? Are you just making this up or does someone actually claim to know what resources were necessary for this mutation to occur?

It's not a resource for the mutations leading to higher intelligence... it's resources in the environment to survive as a species. Even in the stone age humans were a terrifyingly dangerous super predator, and when more then one variety competed for the same territory Homo sapiens absorbed or destroyed them.

 

[Strathos]

Why, thank you, sir!

It's good to know that even people who disagree with me can get some entertainment value out of my posts!

Well that's always been the case, although Gottservant's are even more amusing I think, simply for making much less sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that's always been the case, although Gottservant's are even more amusing I think, simply for making much less sense.

I'm going to have to agree with that.

(No offense, Gotts!)

 

[April_Rose]

I never even meant to get pulled into this because I’m not content with how much I know about all of this stuff, to tell you the truth for the most part I just peak into these threads sometimes because I think @AV1611VET is hilarious lol, even though I don’t agree with him on creationism he drops some one liners sometimes that crack me up lol

Yeah, I don't always agree with him either but I still really like him. He seems like an all around good guy.