One thing never evolves into something else!

[trase]

But we didn't evolve through random mutations alone. No one (but Creationists) claim this. We evolved with natural selection, mutations, and a few other bits and pieces.

Also, did you know that, mathematically speaking, an event with 0% chance of occurring can occur?

Natural selection ?? You mean like zebra and lion mating ? Please tell me what "natural" law prevents this from happening and WHY !!

 

[trase]

But we didn't evolve through random mutations alone. No one (but Creationists) claim this. We evolved with natural selection, mutations, and a few other bits and pieces.

Also, did you know that, mathematically speaking, an event with 0% chance of occurring can occur?

Natural selection ? What "natural" law prevents zebra and lion mating ? WHY ?

 

[TheInstant]

Pleeeaaassssseeee !! The next thing I will read here is that those fishes could do calculus !!!

I think zebras had plenty of time to EVOLVE into something mean and vicious and pay back the lions for all the hard times. Why haven't they ?

Populations cannot decide to evolve or guide the process of evolution.

 

[trase]

Populations cannot decide to evolve or guide the process of evolution.

Only a few "smart cookies" among them make this momentuous discision ?

 

[TheInstant]

Only a few "smart cookies" among them make this momentuous discision ?

No, none of them do.

 

[shinbits]

You mean this part:

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human

Wow. I missed that.

Who knew I could actually be faliable?

This turns all we know about reality upside down.


Made a mistake.


Well......since I missed that, I took another look at it.

The word "also" is misleading. We are not "also" human. Those differences make us completely different. On top of the fact that humans are no where near as hairy as apes, those differences don't make us "also" human. They make us human period.

Also, all apes spend at least part of thier dwelling in trees. That's ALL apes. Humans do do not do this.

ALL apes are forest dwellers. This is not true of most humans.

ALL apes are adept to hand over hand swinging in trees. This does not come naturally to humans, and only humans in top physical shape can do this comfortably. But average humans cannot do this for more then a few seconds, if they can do it at all.


Thus, humans are NOT apes.


Sorry about missing that statement in the post. And I completely apologize about using the word dishonest. Not only was I wrong, but I was out of line.

 

[Ryal Kane]

But shinbits, you're using your own personal definition of ape, not the scientific definition.

Anyway, a simple question for you.
Are you a mammal?

 

[shinbits]

But shinbits, you're using your own personal definition of ape, not the scientific definition.

These are scientific traits of apes. These shouldn't be ignored, because they further show why humans aren't apes. The definition of apes shouldn't be narrowed just to help evolution work.

Anyway, a simple question for you.
Are you a mammal?

I see where this is going, but to be fair I'll play along. But I expect the same from you in the future, if use this tactic, k?

Yes. I IS a mAmMuL.


PS: I'll answer the rest later. It's late.

 

[Apos]

The higher an organism is,

Define "higher" organism. How do you measure "highness" exactly?

the more specific and unique its traits are.

So... are you telling me that modern fish are less "specific" and have fewer "unique" traits than amphibians? How do you figure?

A fish is much, much lower then human beings or apes, which are among the highest forms of life on earth. As you up the chart to higher and more complex organisms, you are less and less able to use this example, until you finally reach apes and humans.

I don't know what example you are talking about: you seem to have careened off-subject.

The comparison of fish to human classification is an extremely poor one.

You seem confused. It was you that was supposed to try and define fish in such a way that it could exclude amphibians without arbitrarily dumping out modern fish. Again, if you think you can do it, try. But you'll find that you can't, because fish had already diverged
into many different types before amphibians appeared.

 

[Valkhorn]

The word "also" is misleading.

This should be good. Are you going to argue over the meaning of the word 'is' as well?

We are not "also" human.

According to that statement we are.

Those differences make us completely different.

They don't negate the similarities - of which there are an awful lot.

On top of the fact that humans are no where near as hairy as apes, those differences don't make us "also" human.

Some are pretty hairy. We also lost a bit of hair as well since due to clothing and warmer climates we do not need it as much.

They make us human period.

Go back and read that statement again.

Also, all apes spend at least part of thier dwelling in trees. That's ALL apes. Humans do do not do this.

Well we build our houses out of them. That's pretty similiar I'd say.

ALL apes are forest dwellers. This is not true of most humans.

Some live in the serengeti too. And, since most humans needed trees for a long time a lot did live near them. I grew up in a house in the woods, and so did a lot of people.

ALL apes are adept to hand over hand swinging in trees. This does not come naturally to humans, and only humans in top physical shape can do this comfortably. But average humans cannot do this for more then a few seconds, if they can do it at all.

But humans are capable of it once they are in shape. And those who are physically fit can do it for more than a few seconds. I guess you never watched American Gladiators.

Thus, humans are NOT apes.

The only basis for that statement was that we don't live in forests and we don't have as much hair and we don't swing through the trees as well.

That completely ignores the biological and physiological similarities.

Way to ignore facts again.

 

[Apos]

The word "also" is misleading. We are not "also" human. Those differences make us completely different. On top of the fact that humans are no where near as hairy as apes, those differences don't make us "also" human. They make us human period.

That's a bright line you can only draw if you pre-assume that there is no countinuity. But, in fact, all the differences you note between some apes (modern great apes excluding man) and other apes (man) are actually extremely minor, especially in terms of the underlying genetic changes.

I mean, really, SHORTER HAIR? You want to rest your argument on the idea that it is somehow impossible to have variation in hair length and coarseness over time? All the other features you note: even full bipediality, are no less trivial. The changes required in the basal ape skeletal frame are not even a larger degree of morphological change than we see in the degree of skeletal variation existing humans.

Also, all apes spend at least part of thier dwelling in trees. That's ALL apes. Humans do do not do this.

Again, you are confused. The point is not that there are features that some creatures share and others don't: there are outgroups WITHIN apes after all (for instance, gibbons have many features that make them an outgroup amongst all other apes). The point is to come up with a definition of "ape" that's actually fully descriptive: noting what's truly unique to apes. Lots of other animals spend part of their dwelling in trees (and actually, gorillas really don't spend much time at all in trees. Heck, some humans spend as much time in trees as gorillas)

ALL apes are forest dwellers. This is not true of most humans.

Primates are unique amongst mammals in having a region of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with a well-developed internal granular layer. It's not even that MOST other mammals lack this: ALL of them lack it, except primates. So are primates not mammals, by your logic?

ALL apes are adept to hand over hand swinging in trees. This does not come naturally to humans, and only humans in top physical shape can do this comfortably. But average humans cannot do this for more then a few seconds, if they can do it at all.

The human shoulder is certainly not as suited to brachiation as the ape shoulder. But that's because the human shoulder is slightly modified version of a shoulder structure that, lo and behold, is unique to apes. Even if it's no longer perfect for long-time swinging, it's distinctively ape, unlike any other creatures. It's developed in a different direction... but not very far.

Just like ape's have unique individual fingerprints. Just like they have molars shaped in a very unique and somewhat arbitrary way that is... well exactly like the morals sitting in your mouth right now.

 

[Apos]

Yes. I IS a mAmMuL. .

Not by your own logic. After all, ALL other mammals are illiterate. Except people.

Therefore, humans are not mammals. Right?

 

[Nooj]

Shinbits, you're classifying apes in a purely one- dimensional level, emphasising the stereotypes (hairy, lives in trees and swings around like Tarzan).

Cladistics is far more detailed. It relies on morphological and genetic evidence.

The differences between watching an animal on TV and actually looking at the bones and DNA, are massive.

 

[shinbits]

Not by your own logic. After all, ALL other mammals are illiterate. Except people.

That's not the logic I used. I didn't mention anything humans are able to do. Nothing.

I posted a list of things that fits ALL apes. Humans didn't fit any of those descriptions. I could probably post a lot more, like all apes having lots of hair as one.

Shinbits, you're classifying apes in a purely one- dimensional level, emphasising the stereotypes (hairy, lives in trees and swings around like Tarzan).

Cladistics is far more detailed. It relies on morphological and genetic evidence.

The differences between watching an animal on TV and actually looking at the bones and DNA, are massive.

Yes. This is true. And humans are infact primates. Apes are the most similar animals to humans, with only incredibly slight differences in DNA.


Even with all this, humans are not officially scientifically classified as apes. I believe that it is because of all the differences differences I've named plus many more, from movement and the ability, to vast differences in mental capacity, and other physical differences.


Who knows. Maybe one day humans will be classified as apes. I would still disagree.

 

[Edx]

These are scientific traits of apes. These shouldn't be ignored, because they further show why humans aren't apes. The definition of apes shouldn't be narrowed just to help evolution work..

By your definition of ape many birds arent really birds, and many dogs arent really dogs.

Its amazing how Creationists allow all kinds different bird or dog creatures, but still insist that they "still aint no ape".

 

[Apos]

That's not the logic I used. I didn't mention anything humans are able to do. Nothing.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that logic involves substitution. You claimed that making humans an outgroup amongst apes (which you can do either by noting something all non-human apes have and no humans do, or something that humans have that all non-human apes lack: these are logically equivalent) showed that humans aren't apes. But all apes are outgroups, unqiue in some way. If they weren't then there would be no difference between gorillas and gibbons!

You can list "living in the forest" as a characteristic that all apes have, except humans, but "living in a forest" isn't something of any particular help in defining apes. It's not that easy.

I posted a list of things that fits ALL apes. Humans didn't fit any of those descriptions. I could probably post a lot more, like all apes having lots of hair as one.

"Lots" I'm sorry, that's not how science works. Be precise. How many hair folicles do apes have? Would it surprise you to learn that, in fact, I don't have to qualify that much at all? Because humans have almost exactly the same follicular coverage as apes. It's simply shorter and finer. Which is about as big a deal, genetically, as the difference between red hair and black.

Yes. This is true. And humans are infact primates. Apes are the most similar animals to humans, with only incredibly slight differences in DNA.

So, how do you account for that, PLUS a fossil record that joins the two in a relatively progression of morphological development, plus the fact that the genetic record matches this exact pattern and history of development and that the distinctive patterns of both similarity and differences match up with this schema? It always boggles my mind how someone actually manages to avoid the convergence of so many different indepedent lines of evidence.

Even with all this, humans are not officially scientifically classified as apes.

Cladistically, sure they are. There isn't any way to describe the unique features of apes as a group amongst primates that doesn't simultaneously describe human beings. You keep claiming you've done so, but you've barely even scratched the surface of what you need to do to actually classify creatures in distinct and specific ways. "longer hair" and "live in trees, sometimes" doesn't cut it. What's characterstic about apes from other primates, or other mammals? What sets them apart as a group?

You're using "ape" in a vague way, in which it conforms to whatever you imagine a gorilla to look like. But that sort of sloppiness is useless in science. Ape is a much higher grouping than you seem to think.

I believe that it is because of all the differences differences I've named plus many more, from movement and the ability, to vast differences in mental capacity, and other physical differences.

As I've noted, ALL of these differences are actually morphologically pretty minor. In terms of the range of variation, there is arguably more morphological variation amongst domestic dogs than amongst all apes, from the range of size to color to rostrum differences and so on.

Who knows. Maybe one day humans will be classified as apes. I would still disagree.

Today's the day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes

I don't see what grounds you have to disagree though. Are the definitions of ape inaccurate? Do they describe things about these groups which are untrue, or even forced, arbitrary, or artificial?

 

[Jet Black]

sorry, you can't apply these things like that. I'll use your form of argument to demonstrate that dolphins are not mammals:

Also, all apes spend at least part of thier dwelling in trees. That's ALL apes. Humans do do not do this.


ALL apes are forest dwellers. This is not true of most humans.

ALL mammals live on land. that's ALL mammals. dolphins do not live on land, therefore dolphins are not mammals.

ALL apes are adept to hand over hand swinging in trees. This does not come naturally to humans, and only humans in top physical shape can do this comfortably. But average humans cannot do this for more then a few seconds, if they can do it at all.

ALL mammals are adept at walking, dolphins are not adept at walking, therefore dolphins are not mammals.


of course that is stupid though, isn't it?

 

[Jet Black]

we can do the same to show that apes are not primates. ALL primates have tails, that's ALL primates. great apes do not have tails, therefore great apes are not primates.

All canidae live in the wild. that's ALL canidae. Dogs do not all live in the wild, therefore dogs are not canidae.

ALL birds fly, that's all birds. Kiwi and Emu do not fly, therefore Kiwi and emu are not birds.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I said comparitavely hairless---by comparison.

Twisting my words to make a point is wrong.

Humans are not even comparitavely hairless if you got by count of hairs. We have as many as if not more hairs than other great apes. Just because they don't grow out of the follicle doesn't mean they are not there. The Mexican Hairless is comparitively hairless next to an English Sheepdog. Does than mean they are not descended from common ancestors?

 

[Silent Bob]

Only a few "smart cookies" among them make this momentuous discision ?

There is no decision made. You asked for reasons why a fish would go on land I gave you two. I am not saying that the fish made the decision to walk on land. The mutations allowing them to do so appeared, they probably never used those mutations till they were being chased by another fish and headed to the shore finding out that they can survive outside water. Those who did use this survived more often than the others who did not. It is a simple mechanism no inteligence or thinking is involved it is so simple it is brilliant!