If evolution is true

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, that reference is to 'your questions' (how can this be?); you've established you have no 'answer' to my question, other than a TOE one... I'm just asking why would the average chimp, even extraordinary ones, venture beyond his relative safety and the norm? I can't see hunger doing it or they all would have left or moved to another forest, I can't see preditors running them off, they were use to that.

Again, all you are doing is arguing from a place of incredulity. You don't see it couldn't have happened, so it wouldn't have happened. Just because you can't see it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, that reference is to 'your questions' (how can this be?); you've established you have no 'answer' to my question, other than a TOE one... I'm just asking why would the average chimp, even extraordinary ones, venture beyond his relative safety and the norm? I can't see hunger doing it or they all would have left or moved to another forest, I can't see preditors running them off, they were use to that.

Your logic is faulty for several reasons.

If I walk into a very busy restaurant and they tell me there's no food left for me it doesn't follow that there's no food there and everyone in there will have to leave to get something to eat... just that there's nothing there for me.

It's the same for large populations of animals and limited food supplies. It's usually not a case of a total environmental collapse with no food for anyone, it's usually just too much competition and may be worth while to try other options.

Also, you seem to have the idea that evolutionary change applies to the entire population, when typically it's about populations dividing and separating.

But I think it's interesting that you are focusing on chimps alone... as they seem pretty set on staying in forested areas. Are you willing to concede that you were wrong about animals in general? And do you understand that no one thinks that chimps are ancestral to any other species?

 

[inquiring mind]

Again, all you are doing is arguing from a place of incredulity. You don't see it couldn't have happened, so it wouldn't have happened. Just because you can't see it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yet, you can’t see it happening, except in theory, but you believe it happened.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your logic is faulty for several reasons.

If I walk into a very busy restaurant and they tell me there's no food left for me it doesn't follow that there's no food there and everyone in there will have to leave to get something to eat... just that there's nothing there for me.

It's the same for large populations of animals and limited food supplies. It's usually not a case of a total environmental collapse with no food for anyone, it's usually just too much competition and may be worth while to try other options.

Also, you seem to have the idea that evolutionary change applies to the entire population, when typically it's about populations dividing and separating.

But I think it's interesting that you are focusing on chimps alone... as they seem pretty set on staying in forested areas. Are you willing to concede that you were wrong about animals in general? And do you understand that no one thinks that chimps are ancestral to any other species?

Well, other animals didn't supposedly evolve into us.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yet, you can’t see it happening, except in theory, but you believe it happened.

Your initial general rule is wrong.
Animals do move into new environments frequently.

Your only evidence seems to be that chimps have not been observed to make permanent homes in the savanna... but you do accept that they move through it as a matter of course.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet, you can’t see it happening, except in theory, but you believe it happened.

No, I can definitely see it happening since there are a species of chimp that does live in the intermediary between savannah and forest, the savannah chimp, and also baboons live in the grasslands of Africa, not in the forest.

Well, other animals didn't supposedly evolve into us.

Chimps didn't evolve into us either. The ancestor of the chimps evolved into the chimps, the ancestor of humans evolved into humans.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your initial general rule is wrong.
Animals do move into new environments frequently.

Your only evidence seems to be that chimps have not been observed to make permanent homes in the savanna... but you do accept that they move through it as a matter of course.

Of course, I pointed out that Jane said they did, but they didn't like to linger.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, other animals didn't supposedly evolve into us.

Chimps and a humans share a common ancestor, chimp is not the ancestral population.

Chimps have been evolving and adapting the entire time since the two species split... in particular they have been adapting to living in deep African forests because there is less competition with hominids there.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, I can definitely see it happening since there are a species of chimp that does live in the intermediary between savannah and forest, the savannah chimp, and also baboons live in the grasslands of Africa, not in the forest.



Chimps didn't evolve into us either. The ancestor of the chimps evolved into the chimps, the ancestor of humans evolved into humans.

Are you saying humans have always been humans?

 

[Shemjaza]

Of course, I pointed out that Jane said they did, but they didn't like to linger.

Which is unbelievably weak evidence.

Chimps are intelligent, adaptable animals who travel to the savanna, but don't seem to stay.

And you seem to feel that a reasonable conclusion from this is that it is impossible for something like a chimp to permanently move to a savanna environment?

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you saying humans have always been humans?

No, but they have never been chimps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you saying humans have always been humans?

As far as we have been a member of the homo genus after we split off from the pan genus which included the ancestors to chimpanzees and bonobos.

 

[inquiring mind]

As far as we have been a member of the homo genus after we split off from the pan genus which included the ancestors to chimpanzees and bonobos.

But, Have humans always been humans?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But, Have humans always been humans?

As far as we have been a member of the homo genus after we split off from the pan genus which included the ancestors to chimpanzees and bonobos.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, but they have never been chimps.

As far as we have been a member of the homo genus after we split off from the pan genus which included the ancestors to chimpanzees and bonobos.

As far as we have been a member of the homo genus after we split off from the pan genus which included the ancestors to chimpanzees and bonobos.

I take that as humans have always been humans... so, what have we been arguing about all these years?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I take that as humans have always been humans... so, what have we been arguing about all these years?

You seem to have a massive inability to read what people tell you, along with not seeming to know how to follow links.
Maybe you should try that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I take that as humans have always been humans... so, what have we been arguing about all these years?

The ancestor of humans and chimps would resemble a chimp more than a human, but it was not a chimp.

Given that chimps move differently to other quadrupedal great apes it's possible the human-chimp common ancestor was actually more upright than a chimp, but lacking an actual skeleton we don't know.

 

[inquiring mind]

You seem to have a massive inability to read what people tell you, along with not seeming to know how to follow links.
Maybe you should try that.

Back to the dumb accusations I guess. You just think humans had to split off something else, yet humans have always been human. I think humans have always been human and were created as such... what's so dumb about that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Back to the dumb accusations I guess. You just think humans had to split off something else, yet humans have always been human. I think humans have always been human and were created as such... what's so dumb about that?

Except that there's evidence to support what I think and only claims for what you think. Big world of difference.

 

[Shemjaza]

Back to the dumb accusations I guess. You just think humans had to split off something else, yet humans have always been human. I think humans have always been human and were created as such... what's so dumb about that?

There is genetic and fossil evidence to demonstrate that humans are descended from common ancestors with chimpanzees.

If humans were independently created from primates there is no reason for there to be genetic and fossil remnants of an evolutionary history.