If evolution is true

[partinobodycular]

A perhaps relevant article.

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-climate-goaded-transition-nomadic-hunter-gatherers.html

 

[inquiring mind]

Initiated sure, but what happened was that animals took advantage of a situation humans caused, not just moved into human space when their environment was destroyed.

Again, I can't argue with this... you're making my point. According to macroevolution, there were no humans around to create a situation enticing apes to expand from a normal, natural lifestyle. My question still is... what did?

Humans didn't have to clear the way for rabbits and cane toads to spread across the Australian continent, they took the opportunity and ran.

Yes, I see your point (various reasons, overcrowded, food sources, etc). But, as I said before they still lived and acted like rabbits and toads (nothing influenced them enough to change their lifestyle dramatically, like stand up and start walking, or did it?). Please, no lots of time, explains nothing only speculation.

 

[Shemjaza]

Again, I can't argue with this... you're making my point. According to macroevolution, there were no humans around to create a situation enticing apes to expand from a normal, natural lifestyle. My question still is... what did?

You really aren't making a point.

Humans change environments... but environments also change from other factors.

Valleys flood, volcanoes erupt, rivers move, forests burn, earth quakes rip down mountains... all these things happen naturally and the environment can change permanently.

Humans triggering similar events are just easy examples of wild animals doing exactly what you are claiming to be confused or dubious about.

No lots of time necessary... it wasn't humans influence, it was mere opportunity.

Yes, I see your point (various reasons, overcrowded, food sources, etc). But, as I said before they still lived and acted like rabbits and toads (nothing influenced them enough to change their lifestyle dramatically, like stand up and start walking, or did it?). Please, no lots of time, explains nothing only speculation.

Chimps can stand and walk on two legs can hunt in a group, or gather peacefully... Australopithecus was just a lot better at walking on two legs.

We are smarter, more upright and much better at tool use than the other apes... but take the incrementally achieved technology and our lifestyle isn't much different from an ape.

 

[inquiring mind]

You really aren't making a point.

Well, sorry but too much work to go over it again.

No lots of time necessary... it wasn't humans influence, it was mere opportunity.

Yes, something we agree on... The amount of time has nothing to do with a reason for apes to decide to leave their natural habitat for a way of life they knew 'nothing' about. Were the ones who supposedly did, according to macrevolution, that brave... I bet all the apes that remained thought they were crazy. What would trigger such a move? Can you not see the simplicity of this question? It would not have been a natural response to any situation for them, I don't think. 'Oh, let's leave the jungle that is all we have ever known... who cares if the rest of them don't want to? We'll just stand up to walk and pick berries and stuff. It'll be okay.' Over-simplified I know... learned to stand-up and all is explained as occurring through necessity, but it would have had to be done right away. I wonder how many at that point would have said, heck with this, I'm going back? To me, it just doesn't seem to be as natural a move as macroevolutionists think.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, sorry but too much work to go over it again.


Yes, something we agree on... The amount of time has nothing to do with a reason for apes to decide to leave their natural habitat for a way of life they knew 'nothing' about. Were the ones who supposedly did, according to macrevolution, that brave... I bet all the apes that remained thought they were crazy. What would trigger such a move? Can you not see the simplicity of this question? It would not have been a natural response to any situation for them, I don't think. 'Oh, let's leave the jungle that is all we have ever known... who cares if the rest of them don't want to? We'll just stand up to walk and pick berries and stuff. It'll be okay.' Over-simplified I know... learned to stand-up and all is explained as occurring through necessity, but it would have had to be done right away. I wonder how many at that point would have said, heck with this, I'm going back? To me, it just doesn't seem to be as natural a move as macroevolutionists think.

You keep repeating yourself... but it happens to animals all the time. They change environments.

There are a mix and match of species all over the planet from varying migrations. Sometimes it works out, sometimes they die off.

With apes adapting to the savanna and eventually becoming humans we have not only the theory and evidence of relatedness, but we also have many fossils of a variety of different apes that had adapted to that environment.

All you need to trigger the move is the opportunity.

Now rabbits and toads might not have changed much in 100 years... but why would they? No one thinks they should, but it turns out they don't need to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, something we agree on... The amount of time has nothing to do with a reason for apes to decide to leave their natural habitat for a way of life they knew 'nothing' about. Were the ones who supposedly did, according to macrevolution, that brave... I bet all the apes that remained thought they were crazy. What would trigger such a move? Can you not see the simplicity of this question? It would not have been a natural response to any situation for them, I don't think. 'Oh, let's leave the jungle that is all we have ever known... who cares if the rest of them don't want to? We'll just stand up to walk and pick berries and stuff. It'll be okay.' Over-simplified I know... learned to stand-up and all is explained as occurring through necessity, but it would have had to be done right away. I wonder how many at that point would have said, heck with this, I'm going back? To me, it just doesn't seem to be as natural a move as macroevolutionists think.

Why is it such a big important issue for this question of yours to be answered? Why can't you accept the answer of "because they did"?

 

[inquiring mind]

Why is it such a big important issue for this question of yours to be answered? Why can't you accept the answer of "because they did"?

Everything in macroevolution is spread over so much time it can’t be confirmed without a doubt and some speculation. Actually, this supposed point in time so long ago can’t be confirmed either, but it is interesting to think that a group of apes would get up one morning and say ‘today is the day, we’re going to make a change, a very big change.’ If that happened, with so many other groups choosing not to… ‘why’ only remains.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Everything in macroevolution is spread over so much time it can’t be confirmed without a doubt and some speculation. Actually, this supposed point in time so long ago can’t be confirmed either, but it is interesting to think that a group of apes would get up one morning and say ‘today is the day, we’re going to make a change, a very big change.’ If that happened, with so many other groups choosing not to… ‘why’ only remains.

But why does the change have to be something they decided on? Why couldn't the change have been something beyond their control, like the loss of habitat due to forest fires or a new predator having stumbled upon their area? Why does it have to be a conscious decision by the apes?

 

[inquiring mind]

But why does the change have to be something they decided on? Why couldn't the change have been something beyond their control, like the loss of habitat due to forest fires or a new predator having stumbled upon their area? Why does it have to be a conscious decision by the apes?

That’s a valid point. But, after a week of strained posture and being lion’s food don’t you think you would hear a ‘who’s for going back to another area of the jungle?’

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That’s a valid point. But, after a week of strained posture and being lion’s food don’t you think you would hear a ‘who’s for going back to another area of the jungle?’

Again, you're focusing too much on it being a conscious decision.
Also, your claim that it's just lions and other predators in a grassland is... well, quite dumb, I'll just say simply. There are larger prey animals in the savannah than in the jungle or forest, thus meaning more to eat. Also, spending time in trees or on rocks in a largely flat area allow for look outs to work more effectively than in a forest where you'll only find the leopard sneaking up on you until it's right in your face.

 

[inquiring mind]

Again, you're focusing too much on it being a conscious decision.
Also, your claim that it's just lions and other predators in a grassland is... well, quite dumb, I'll just say simply. There are larger prey animals in the savannah than in the jungle or forest, thus meaning more to eat. Also, spending time in trees or on rocks in a largely flat area allow for look outs to work more effectively than in a forest where you'll only find the leopard sneaking up on you until it's right in your face.

I didn't claim it was just lions; I just simplified an answer that I thought you'd understand. Guess not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't claim it was just lions; I just simplified an answer that I thought you'd understand. Guess not.

No, because your comment was dumb. As I said, a grassland has a wide array of animals, both prey and predatory that change how apes would hunt and get food. I also like how you just glossed over the rest of my post too, so I'll repeat it for posterity:
There are larger prey animals in the savannah than in the jungle or forest, thus meaning more to eat. Also, spending time in trees or on rocks in a largely flat area allow for look outs to work more effectively than in a forest where you'll only find the leopard sneaking up on you until it's right in your face.

 

[inquiring mind]

There are larger prey animals in the savannah than in the jungle or forest, thus meaning more to eat.

Don't you think that would be even more frightening for the apes that had just wandered out on the savannah? You're just not making sense, to me anyway.

Also, spending time in trees or on rocks in a largely flat area allow for look outs to work more effectively than in a forest where you'll only find the leopard sneaking up on you until it's right in your face.

They were use to leopards and their hunting method I'm sure, and there were trees like three foot apart to jump or swing to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't you think that would be even more frightening for the apes that had just wandered out on the savannah? You're just not making sense, to me anyway.

If you're new to something and not used to it, it will be frightening at first. Familiarity breeds acceptance.

They were use to leopards and their hunting method I'm sure, and there were trees like three foot apart to jump or swing to.

And? Also, a lot of apes aren't tree swingers. Gorillas and chimpanzees spend a lot of their time moving around on the forest floor.

Really, you aren't going to get an answer that will satisfy you because no-one can answer your question because it's a dishonest question. You believe that it couldn't happen, so it didn't happen. It's an argument from incredulity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it is interesting to think that a group of apes would get up one morning and say ‘today is the day, we’re going to make a change, a very big change.’ If that happened, with so many other groups choosing not to… ‘why’ only remains.

That's so absurd it smells of trolling... You've had plausible suggestions, if you have a problem with them, point it out, don't attack a ridiculous straw man.

 

[inquiring mind]

If you're new to something and not used to it, it will be frightening at first. Familiarity breeds acceptance.



And? Also, a lot of apes aren't tree swingers. Gorillas and chimpanzees spend a lot of their time moving around on the forest floor.

Really, you aren't going to get an answer that will satisfy you because no-one can answer your question because it's a dishonest question. You believe that it couldn't happen, so it didn't happen. It's an argument from incredulity.

Dumb and dishonest... that's me according to TOE anyway; I don't care.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Dumb and dishonest... that's me according to TOE anyway; I don't care.

No, not according to the theory of evolution. I do not see how the theory of evolution has anything to you refusing to accept plausible answers to your question and you responding with dishonest strawmen.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's so absurd it smells of trolling... You've had plausible suggestions, if you have a problem with them, point it out, don't attack a ridiculous straw man.

So have you... why don't you answer them instead of relying on your straw man defense.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, not according to the theory of evolution. I do not see how the theory of evolution has anything to you refusing to accept plausible answers to your question and you responding with dishonest strawmen.

Ditto post #418

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So have you... why don't you answer them instead of relying on your straw man defense.

So have I what?
Why don't I answer what?
What straw man defence?

What are you talking about?