If evolution is true

[inquiring mind]

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.

I thought you would be perceptive enough to see the 'except part' of her statement that I highlighted above... guess not.

 

[inquiring mind]

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?

People arguing with me that by their own admission don't have a clue, and/or have put very little thought into it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought you would be perceptive enough to see the 'except part' of her statement that I highlighted above... guess not.

So I guess you missed the following part which said:

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 have an inability to read English?

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

Well, Jane said they were always looking for that next patch of forest... right now, I'm going with what she says.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Also, Jane Goodall is an anthropologist and a primatologist. She only works with living apes, specifically chimpanzees. She is next to worthless when discussing the history and ancestry of extinct apes.
Living apes? Go to expert. Extinct apes? Not an expert.

 

[Frank Robert]

Why not, from a faih perspective I'm not anti-science. I'm just questioning.

But you are not "just questioning" you are dismissing supported instances of direct observation, the existence of homologies and fossils, and biogeographical patterns and expect others to consider a literal interpretation of bronze age religious book as a replacement.

 

[inquiring mind]

Also, Jane Goodall is an anthropologist and a primatologist. She only works with living apes, specifically chimpanzees. She is next to worthless when discussing the history and ancestry of extinct apes.
Living apes? Go to expert. Extinct apes? Not an expert.

When I see an institute named 'warden of the storm,' I'll give that some consideration.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When I see an institute named 'warden of the storm,' I'll give that some consideration.

Right back at ya.
Doesn't disprove or invalidate what I'm saying. She is not an expert in the history, nor the evolutionary history, of apes, so Jane Goodall's comments are worthless when discussing ancient ape populations.

 

[inquiring mind]

But you are not "just questioning" you are dismissing supported instances of direct observation, the existence of homologies and fossils, and biogeographical patterns and expect others to consider a literal interpretation of bronze age religious book as a replacement.

Have you been keeping up with this thread or just join in? I've said I agree with evolution to a point, I've agreed that animals change environments, but this is exceptional. I simply ask why would they do it and here comes macro re-enforcements.

 

[inquiring mind]

Right back at ya.
Doesn't disprove or invalidate what I'm saying. She is not an expert in the history, nor the evolutionary history, of apes, so Jane Goodall's comments are worthless when discussing ancient ape populations.

Like I said, I'll stick with her on it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like I said, I'll stick with her on it.

But she's not an expert on the history of apes. You have specifically been asking about the history of apes. Jane Goodall is not an expert on the history of apes, only the current population of chimpanzees. Why are you not understanding this simple fact?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, Jane said they were always looking for that next patch of forest... right now, I'm going with what she says.

So because Jane says that the apes she studied behaved a particular way, you infer that to mean that all apes throughout history must have behaved that way? not to mention the contemporary apes that don't behave that way, such as savannah chimpanzees...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like I said, I'll stick with her on it.

What does she say about savannah chimpanzees, which don't live in forests?

 

[inquiring mind]

So because Jane says that the apes she studied behaved a particular way, you infer that to mean that all apes throughout history must have behaved that way? not to mention the contemporary apes that don't behave that way, such as savannah chimpanzees...

I could always just speculate I guess.

 

[Frank Robert]

Have you been keeping up with this thread or just join in? I've said I agree with evolution to a point, I've agreed that animals change environments, but this is exceptional. I simply ask why would they do it and here comes macro re-enforcement.

Why would it matter if we never know why? Science does not claim to know all the answers. If you are able to formulate a scientific hypothesis on how you think it happened you might be able to sway others.

 

[inquiring mind]

What does she say about savannah chimpanzees, which don't live in forests?

I'm assuming 'that only because they ran out of forests' ... don't you? That doesn't answer why they left plentiful forestation in the first place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I could always just speculate I guess.

You wanted an explanation for why apes might leave the forest for the savannah, as savannah chimpanzees did. I gave you one possibility. You're welcome to critique it.

What would be silly would be to ignore the existence of savannah chimpanzees because Jane said the apes that she studied lived in the forest.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm assuming 'that only because they ran out of forests' ... don't you?

I can't parse what you mean by this - can you rephrase it?

That doesn't answer why they left plentiful forestation in the first place.

I gave you a number of possibilities. But whatever the precise explanation, they did.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why would it matter if we never know why? Science does not claim to know all the answers. If you are able to formulate a scientific hypothesis on how you think it happened you might be able to sway others.

I don't need a scientific hypothesis and I'm really not trying to sway anyone in that area, but if I couldn't answer why chimps would leave everything they knew, and what was natural to them, in a time of no human encroachment and plenty of forestation, well, I would want to give it some thought.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can't parse what you mean by this - can you rephrase it?

Because of the quote from the Jane Goodall quote that says "In these areas they seldom venture far into the savanna except to move from one forest patch to the next." Ergo, to them, the apes just kept going and going.