If evolution is true

inquiring mind said:

I believe evolution happens, just not to the extent you do.

Click to expand...

No-one believes that evolution happens. Belief doesn't factor into it. It's acceptance of fact, that's what we have. And you refuse to accept anything we tell you because you're not being honest in your questioning in this thread.

inquiring mind said:

Take a deep breath and relax... the question is 'why' or 'what' do you think could have happened to make chimps take such a bold step and not look back, when that goes against the norm, evidenced by so many that didn't do it?

Click to expand...

And you have been given answers and you just ignored them.
How are you not understanding the issue here?

inquiring mind said:

You're just being argumentative now.

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm being honest and stating facts. Answers have been given to your questions throughout this thread, and you just blithely ignore them and pretend that no-one has answered you. You're dishonest in your questioning.

inquiring mind said:

I believe evolution happens, just not to the extent you do.

Click to expand...

Patterns in genetics,
Transitional fossils,
A complete lack of a barrier mechanism to limit evolution...

All meaningless compared to a feeling you have that it doesn't add up.

inquiring mind said:

No question is bogus, answers on the other hand...

Click to expand...

I disagree.

A question can absolutely be used dishonestly to misrepresent the reason for a disagreement or to misrepresent events in question.

inquiring mind said:

I even quoted an expert that indicated that chimps preferred not to linger in open country... what are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Yes, you quoted Jane Goodall, but you have also repeatedly refused to understand and have ignored what people have told you, such as your insistence on moving the goalposts each time someone answers your question.
And do not play dumb on this since it is easy for people to see.

inquiring mind said:

I even quoted an expert that indicated that chimps preferred not to linger in open country... what are you talking about?

Click to expand...

No one said they don't.

But your quote also demonstrated that entering and moving through the savanna can absolutely a natural part of chimp behavior.

Leaving it as an obviously possible environment for animals like them to colonise.

inquiring mind said:

Well, she does have an institute named after her.

Click to expand...

I like how you're really just proving what I'm saying.

inquiring mind said:

Click to expand...

My comment:
Yes, you quoted Jane Goodall, but you have also repeatedly refused to understand and have ignored what people have told you, such as your insistence on moving the goalposts each time someone answers your question.

Your response:
Well, she does have an institute named after her.

Shemjaza said:

Could you please attempt to understand this point:
Animals changing environments is common

Multiple examples have been given.

Chimps do not spend very much time in the savanna.

However chimps do travel into and through the savanna, so your description of forest primates moving into a nearby savanna as a "profound and un-natural change" is simply ludicrous.


Given that you do not believe in macroevolution, how do you justify the existence of transitional fossil primates who clearly lived in savanna areas?

Click to expand...

If the trees all died the chimps wont just give up and die too.

inquiring mind said:

And... she said something that was contrary to what you and your group are saying, namely that chimps seemed to prefer forestation over open ground. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that leaving the jungle permanently would have been a somewhat un-natural act.

Click to expand...

Except that that your own post proves you wrong:

Chimpanzees are found in secondary re-growth forests, open woodlands, bamboo forests, swamp forests, and even open savanna with bands of riverine forest and forest savanna mosaic. In these areas they seldom venture far into the savanna except to move from one forest patch to the next.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that moving from the jungle to a savannah would not be hard for apes that routinely travel through a savannah would do under the right environmental pressures. Especially one in a landmass that has massive numbers of forest-savanna mosaics.

Do you even read who or what you quote?

And again, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it unnatural.

inquiring mind said:

Well, she does have an institute named after her.

Click to expand...

Can you explain how this is relivant?

Chimps prefer to live in forests. No one is disputing this, but even your very short quote demonstrates that they don't burst into flames is they take one step onto a savanna.

Also, chimps are conveniently similar to humanity's ancestors, they are not our ancestors.

So given that you think Jane Goodall is a reliable source why don't you accept her scientific conclusions that humans and chimps have multiple behavioral patterns in common that they inherited from their common ancestor?

inquiring mind said:

The part about not going home when you're done scavenging.

Click to expand...

What I said was, "Over the generations, they might be increasingly selected for spending longer times out of the forest". I thought it would be fairly clear... my bad.

The suggestion is that there would be a selective advantage for those that were more curious, audacious, and quicker across the ground, both empty-handed towards the kill and when returning to the safety of the forest carrying booty. The latter would particularly select for bipedalism.

Once a reasonable level of bipedalism had developed, the potential for greater tool use would be available, including sticks for defence or to scare off other scavengers or even the predators from their kills. This would involve group cooperation, those with sticks enabling others to grab the booty and return to the forest.

This cooperation, together with superior bipedalism and tool use, would allow deeper exploratory incursions into the savannah, foraging.

At some point, these expeditions would find water holes allowing longer stays in the savannah and opportunities for ambush killing rather than scavenging. IOW, a transition to hunting.

Expeditions that required staying out overnight would be far safer when they had developed control of fire, but would be quite possible without it, given trees and shrubs (e.g. near water holes) for protection and cover.

Given the protection offered by fire, it would be possible for the whole group to spend days and nights in the savannah. By this time, the group would be as well, if not better, adapted to the savannah than the forest, so, assuming the savannah provided a better living, they might well find a good niche as hunter-gatherers.

Bear in mind that this would take many generations, and some phases might be far longer than others. The whole progression might be triggered by environmental (e.g. climate) changes that would tip the balance of abundance from forest to savannah - or even result in the loss of forest for savannah, requiring and selecting for an adaptation to the savannah.

This is all speculative and are probably many other potential routes from forest-dwelling to savannah-dwelling, but the point is that one can generate reasonably plausible sequences and reasons for such changes.

inquiring mind said:

An honest answer doesn't necessarily make it the correct answer. I'm just saying ask yourself what could have happened (if it actually did) other than the book answers, which would have caused such an un-natural move. The books speculate some, why can't you? What other possibilities are there... of course you won't consider any.

Click to expand...

I haven’t even consulted a book on this matter and I have to trouble imagining why our ancestors may have chosen to migrate and expand their settlements. What is it that makes this so difficult for you?