- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
No, if I want to see an ape, I have to go to the zoo.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, if I want to see an ape, I have to go to the zoo.Humans are apes. And the archaeological and biological do say that, yes.
If not knowing how old the earth was meant anything, how could he have thought in any other terms than microevolution?
No, if I want to see an ape, I have to go to the zoo.
So, even though he didn't know the age of the earth (as you mentioned before), he must have believed it was very, very old???His investigations of living and extinct species led him to the idea of common ancestry of all life on earth. That's as 'macro' as it gets.
Well, lets just say these comments never cease to keep that question in my mind:
Well, lets just say these comments never cease to keep that question in my mind:
"Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae), the "lesser apes", diverged from that of the great apes some 18–12 million years ago, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) diverged from the other great apes at about 12 million years. There are no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a still-unknown South East Asian hominoid population; but fossil proto-orangutans, dated to around 10 million years ago, may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey.[10] Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas (genus Gorilla), and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics).[11] The fossil record, however, of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited; both poor preservation—rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone—and sampling bias probably contribute most to this problem.
Other hominins probably adapted to the drier environments outside the African equatorial belt; and there they encountered antelope, hyenas, elephants and other forms becoming adapted to surviving in the East African savannas, particularly the regions of the Sahel and the Serengeti. The wet equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago, and there is very little fossil evidence for the divergence of the hominin lineage from that of gorillas and chimpanzees—which split was thought to have occurred around that time. The earliest fossils argued by some to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus."
So, even though he didn't know the age of the earth (as you mentioned before), he must have believed it was very, very old???
I even went to the trouble of making bold the phrases that lead me to question... no bs please.You could have just answered a very simple yes or no instead of just copy and pasting a whole wall of text that I don't think you've really read.
I even went to the trouble of making bold the phrases that lead me to question... no bs please.
Approximately is my point.You mean like the phrase of "Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms". You know that the evidence of evolution isn't just fossils, right?
Approximately is my point.
My point.They could be flat out wrong, they could be off by a margin of a single %.
My point.
I can think of several reasons, not mutually exclusive, and not necessarily a product of deliberative thinking; maybe curiosity/sense of adventure, or following migrating game, or environmental pressures (competition, hunger, predation, changing climate, etc.), or discovering novel foodstuffs, e.g. in coastal habitats, or inter-group warfare, and so on.... My question is really "Why would ape-like creatures even attempt life outside their norm?"
Yes, but that happens often with animals with no other transitioning to the level of humanity. Go back earlier than that and ask what sparked that desire in an animal that otherwise would not venture to take such steps and, in fact, the overwhelming majority didn’t (even if you are correct). And, on top of that those that did, as you suggest, developed the human quality??? I know there are many smart animals with feelings and emotions, but we are different. The human quality is not very explainable… and to me certainly not through randomness, twists of fate, macroevolution, etc. That’s my answer I suppose… there has to be more to it.I can think of several reasons, not mutually exclusive, and not necessarily a product of deliberative thinking; maybe curiosity/sense of adventure, or following migrating game, or environmental pressures (competition, hunger, predation, changing climate, etc.), or discovering novel foodstuffs, e.g. in coastal habitats, or inter-group warfare, and so on.
Yes, but that happens often with animals with no other transitioning to the level of humanity.
It always baffles me that they can find supposed evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils, but they can’t find enough fossil remains to tie it all together. At least they are straight-forward about it though.Is Homo erectus a human? Or an animal?
There's evidence that the species controlled fire, made complex tools (axes, spears, grinders, bowls, picks, scrapers), made (semi) permanent settlements with fixed abodes, made art, decorated objects and maybe even had religious ceremonies (open to interpretation though).
Homo erectus were clever enough to navigate through the islands of Indonesia using watercraft to end up in Java.It always baffles me that they can find supposed evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils, but they can’t find enough fossil remains to tie it all together. At least they are straight-forward about it though.
Approximately is my point.
It always baffles me that they can find supposed evidence of settlements, fire, tools and other utensils, but they can’t find enough fossil remains to tie it all together. At least they are straight-forward about it though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?