How did apes evolvle into humans?

[Jet Black]

So you're saying the common ancestor would have looked more like a chimp, and that some chimps evolved; some didn't.

no, both evolved, just one evolved to a radically different environment. just because a group stays morphologically similar does not mean they did not evolve.

I see NO reason for the change in some and not in others. Environment is ruled out as a factor if you say what the above article says (they changed while still in the forest with the other monkeys). Nourishment, etc., would have been the same. So what caused the divergence?

there are too many errors in the AAH to go into, so I am not going to. you base your entire argument against evolution on a bad hypothesis. naughty you.

• i doubt a chimp could out run a lion, or similar large predator, so a desert dwelling (or somewhere in the plains) would be doubtful, since they would have few (if any) trees to hide in, depending... and their size alone is enough to get them eaten out there.

Your view is oversimplistic. why the black and white "straight from dense forest to open savannah" as the forests were receding, doubtless there would be clumps of forest. Even a slight ability to run a bit better would be beneficial when the organisms were running back to the forest. Remember that when evolving methods of predator escape, the task is not to outrun the predator, but not be the slowest of those trying to escape. Furthermore, why are you living by the assumption that bipedality was purely for escaping predators? It is well worth noticing there that humans have the longest running stamina of any animal.

Yes, I see them drowning, boiling, freezing, or being digested... sorry I'm so skeptical can't help it.

your views are oversimplistic. sceptical you may be, but it is due to a strawman of your own creation.

 

[dr.p]

No. He's saying that some of the common ancestors moved out into the savannahs, and some remained in the jungle. These two populations evolved in different ways, one into humans, the other into chimpanzees.

You're right, I'm sorry. They all evolved, but some just didn't change physically (or morphologically) as much. That's not much different, though.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're right, I'm sorry. They all evolved, but some just didn't change physically (or morphologically) as much. That's not much different, though.

French and Italian both evolved from Latin, but Italian didn't change morpologically as much as French did.

Does that mean that Italian isn't much different to Latin?

 

[dr.p]

there are too many errors in the AAH to go into, so I am not going to. you base your entire argument against evolution on a bad hypothesis. naughty you.

No, my entire argument isn't based on that... that's why I said "Environment is ruled out as a factor if you say what the above article says". My argument was based on skepticism

Your view is oversimplistic. why the black and white "straight from dense forest to open savannah" as the forests were receding, doubtless there would be clumps of forest. Even a slight ability to run a bit better would be beneficial when the organisms were running back to the forest. Remember that when evolving methods of predator escape, the task is not to outrun the predator, but not be the slowest of those trying to escape.

Good points. I will think on them.

Furthermore, why are you living by the assumption that bipedality was purely for escaping predators? It is well worth noticing there that humans have the longest running stamina of any animal.

You're saying what? Apes ran for fun or while traveling? I've seen cartoon apes do that

your views are oversimplistic. sceptical you may be, but it is due to a strawman of your own creation.

My views are "oversimplistic" because I've never really thought about evolution before, btw. I'm new to exploring it as a possibility.

 

[dr.p]

French and Italian both evolved from Latin, but Italian didn't change morpologically as much as French did.

Does that mean that Italian isn't much different to Latin?

No... I can't really argue that well, because I don't know much about Italian, and I'm just starting French and Latin.

BUT, I would imagine BOTH have evolved quite a lot from Latin, and are readily distinguishable, whether penned or spoken. Where as the monkey skill bears a great resemblence, and the human skull does not.

 

[Jet Black]

No, my entire argument isn't based on that... that's why I said "Environment is ruled out as a factor if you say what the above article says". My argument was based on skepticism

that part of the argument was based on a bad model, just forget about it.

You're saying what? Apes ran for fun or while traveling? I've seen cartoon apes do that

no. Many of the early hominids were actually rather vicious hunters. of course it would not be possible to outrun say, zebra in terms of sheer speed, but it would be possible to just wear them down over time. there are a number of african nomadic tribes such as the !kung that still do this, although they are very skilled at it and it is much more complex than doing the savannah marathon.

My views are "oversimplistic" because I've never really thought about evolution before, btw. I'm new to exploring it as a possibility.

well at least you are honest

 

[ebia]

You're saying what? Apes ran for fun or while traveling? I've seen cartoon apes do that

Being bipedal has lots of advantages. It puts the eyes higher up, so you can see futher. It puts the brain further away from danger. It means your hand don't need to be suitable for walking, so they can change to be better suited to other tasks, ...

 

[Jet Black]

BUT, I would imagine BOTH have evolved quite a lot from Latin, and are readily distinguishable, whether penned or spoken. Where as the monkey skill bears a great resemblence, and the human skull does not.

the analogy was a little bit poor because unlike language where there is only one aspect to consider (i.e. the raw language itself) there are two aspects to consider when looking at evolution of biological organisms - the genotype and the phenotype. While the phenotype (body) might not change that much, there are still changes at the phenotype level, particularly due to genetic drift and so on. This is evolution just as much as anything else. As I said, just because there are not so many phenotypical changes, this does not mean that evolution has not occured, or less evolution has occured than in something that has seen great phenotypical changes. The closest language I can think of might be say, Cantonese and Mandarin, which change in terms of sound, but do not change in terms of the characters they use.

 

[Jet Black]

Being bipedal has lots of advantages. It puts the eyes higher up, so you can see futher.

this is a good point.

It puts the brain further away from danger.

I don'T think this is so good. the difference between 3 and 6 feet isn't alot.

It means your hand don't need to be suitable for walking, so they can change to be better suited to other tasks, ...

this is more of a long term advantage and would not be a factor in the initial evolution of bipedality, unless there was something fairly immediate which required free hands.

it is interesting to note that even the very early humans - the Australopithenes - had a footprint not entirely dissimilar to our own (but still reasinably differnt - intermediate between the chimp and ours)

note that I am not making any detailed analysis, it would be wrong of me to since I am no expert

 

[ebia]

I was just making the point that one has to consider all the possible advantages a change brings, not just the most obvious one, in considering its evolutionary advantage.

Putting the brain higher up may not be the deciding factor, but it might be greater than you think - a snake bite on the face (for example) is more likely to be lethal than one on the foot (depending on the type of snake). This is one of the reasons that Tiger Snakes kill lots of dogs in Melbourne, but very few people.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Jet Black:

"Unfortunately there is significant fossil evidence, as has been demonstrated in the post above."

The above post shows evidence of fossil skulls only, not human evolution.

"interestingly, the creationists cannot make up their minds as to which fossils are human and which are ape[sic]."

Fortunately, procreationists are not in the business of identifying certain fossils as belonging to either a former human being or an ape. Scientists who can't tell the difference ought to be put out of business because comparing and associating any of the ancestral remains of members of the human race with an extinct species of African apes is a form of scientific racism.

 

[john crawford]

crawford appears to have forgotten that racism is discriminatory by definition.. I fail to see how saying "Louis armstrong and I have an ancestor that is not human" is racist anymore than saying "some of my ancestors are black and lived in africa" is racist.

If racism is discriminatory by definition then evolutionist theorizing and labeling some biological ancestors of the human race as sub-human or non-human species, is both discriminatory and racist.

 

[Self Improvement]

If racism is discriminatory by definition then evolutionist theorizing and labeling some biological ancestors of the human race as sub-human or non-human species, is both discriminatory and racist.

Calling an organism another species means one is racist?!

 

[Nathan Poe]

If racism is discriminatory by definition then evolutionist theorizing and labeling some biological ancestors of the human race as sub-human or non-human species, is both discriminatory and racist.

So is zoology racist because it classifies most animals as "non-human species?"

 

[Tomk80]

If racism is discriminatory by definition then evolutionist theorizing and labeling some biological ancestors of the human race as sub-human or non-human species, is both discriminatory and racist.

Since all humans are apes, I really don't see the problem.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider:

"How exactly is pointing out that I am related to Australopithecus in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as Louis Armstrong racist?"

It's racist to theorize that you and Louis are related to an extinct breed of apes by common ancestry because relating any members of the human race with sub-human and non-human species by ancestry based on the physical characteristics of fossil skulls is a scientific form of racism.

"Racism would be saying "Louis Armstrong is MORE closely related to Lucy than I am"

That would also be a form of scientific racism.

 

[john crawford]

Thank you, but the context of my post isn't about the common ancestor of HUMANS, but of HUMANS AND APES.

Humans and apes had no common ancestor. That's just an evolutionist theory based on concepts of species and race.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Humans and apes had no common ancestor. That's just an evolutionist theory based on concepts of species and race.

And the facts.

 

[john crawford]

Umm, even if the theory of evolution is racist, which it isn't, seeing as it says we all came from a common ancestor, as opposed to saying for example that white people arose from some other primate which would be ridiculous, it still doesn't actually prove that the theory of evolution is false.

The fact that theories of human origins and evolution may either be true or false has nothing to do with observations and conclusions of the intrinsic racial concepts, associations and implications inherent in them.

 

[Sheseala]

Erm I thought anything in the genus "homo" was considered a human? Homo erectus is human, but a different species of human.

I wonder what the term "human" may entail.