The right selection pressure, and we would see "men" come from apes, *again*?

[Phred]

Not comparable. Some have tried to use Dogs as a comparison. "If a labrador descended from wolves, why do wolves still exist." The problem is that a labrador can mate with a wolf and get some wolf-dog breed. But if a man mates with an ape, all you get is AIDS.

If Americans came from the British why are there still British?

 

[Phred]

Not comparable. Some have tried to use Dogs as a comparison. "If a labrador descended from wolves, why do wolves still exist." The problem is that a labrador can mate with a wolf and get some wolf-dog breed. But if a man mates with an ape, all you get is AIDS.

OH, and to be clear. Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That means at one time there weren't humans OR chimps but one type of creature that doesn't exist anymore. Whatever that creature was became both chimpanzees AND human beings. So the stupid comment, "why are there still apes?" actually is answered, "those apes no longer exist."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi there,

So this is not meant to make you feel uncomfortable, but:


I mean the apes are just waiting, to be people, right? That's your contention?

No. Apes are not waiting to be people. And how can you not understand after all of these years how you are still an ape.

At best what we would see is that other apes, given the right environments, could eventually evolve intelligence similar to ours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Americans came from the British why are there still British?

I don't know, and that really bothers me at times.

Rotten British

 

[stevil]

The right selection pressure, and we would see "men" come from apes, *again*?

Humans are apes.
We didn't evolve from as we still are.

But the concept of a different line of species evolving into another already existing species is not a concept that ToE would entail.

Offspring are always of the type or species as their parents of ancestors.
Humans came from the Animal line, we are animals and our offspring will always be animals. We will never evolve into plants.
Humans are mammals, all mammals are animals. Our offspring will always be mammals. We will never evolve to be fish. Dolphins and whales aren't fish, they are still mammals even though these mammals have evolved to exist in the water.
Humans are apes, all apes are mammals, all mammals are animals. Human's offspring will always be apes, we will never evolve to be horses or cats.

So other apes such as the Chimpanzee, will never evolve to become humans even if they do evolve to look exactly like us. They will still be Chimpanzee.

 

[tas8831]

So the stupid comment, "why are there still apes?" actually is answered, "those apes no longer exist."

The question, especially in this day and age, and especially from people who want others to think they understand evolution, really is a stupid one.

 

[Strathos]

Assuming that the OP is asking that, if the right selection pressures existed, modern great apes like gorillas and chimpanzees could evolve into a new race of humans physiologically identical to the humans we have now, it would technically be physically possible, but the amount of variables involved would make it effectively impossible.

It would be like asking if you could spill a glass of water on the beach, then spill a completely different glass of water on a completely different beach and have every single water molecule in the second spill form the exact same pattern as the first one. Ironically, such a thing could only happen via divine intervention.

 

[Gottservant]

Assuming that the OP is asking that, if the right selection pressures existed, modern great apes like gorillas and chimpanzees could evolve into a new race of humans physiologically identical to the humans we have now, it would technically be physically possible, but the amount of variables involved would make it effectively impossible.

It would be like asking if you could spill a glass of water on the beach, then spill a completely different glass of water on a completely different beach and have every single water molecule in the second spill form the exact same pattern as the first one. Ironically, such a thing could only happen via divine intervention.

The confusion is that scientifically, your expectation is that the advent of mankind be "repeatable".

If it is not repeatable, it is not scientific.

Unfortunately, your insistence that the gradient move from ape to man, means that you think "the gradient" is repeatable, when that is unscientific.

There is no gradient from ape to alternative, to man - the more your stretch your scientific explantation, the less scientific it becomes.

Basically, you need to start identifying which selection pressures are forming the gradient, if there is one, or how it creates resilience in the existing species, that man is (that is, without being a gradient).

 

[Shemjaza]

The confusion is that scientifically, your expectation is that the advent of mankind be "repeatable".

If it is not repeatable, it is not scientific.

Unfortunately, your insistence that the gradient move from ape to man, means that you think "the gradient" is repeatable, when that is unscientific.

There is no gradient from ape to alternative, to man - the more your stretch your scientific explantation, the less scientific it becomes.

Basically, you need to start identifying which selection pressures are forming the gradient, if there is one, or how it creates resilience in the existing species, that man is (that is, without being a gradient).

The entire process doesn't need to be repeated exactly for it to be scientifically demonstrable.

Evolution is about the success of randomly varied traits in a population. The traits that differentiate humans and chimps for example can be demonstrated to come from their different genetics. We can demonstrate that genes can and do change over generations... and the fossil and genetic evidence can show how they did change.

 

[Gottservant]

The entire process doesn't need to be repeated exactly for it to be scientifically demonstrable.

Evolution is about the success of randomly varied traits in a population. The traits that differentiate humans and chimps for example can be demonstrated to come from their different genetics. We can demonstrate that genes can and do change over generations... and the fossil and genetic evidence can show how they did change.

When its convenient for you to say "the fossil record and genetic evidence show it", you assert that its historic, but then when it comes to what might change, you say its "scientific" - so that you then don't have to show there is any likelihood of it happening again.

I can point the difference out between science and history, but how am I going to know which way around you want to put it when it doesn't suit you? I can't know.

You want to keep me from information that would make the distinction clear?

 

[renniks]

No. Apes are not waiting to be people. And how can you not understand after all of these years how you are still an ape.

At best what we would see is that other apes, given the right environments, could eventually evolve intelligence similar to ours.

So if it happened once it can't happen again? Makes no sense.

 

[renniks]

Assuming that the OP is asking that, if the right selection pressures existed, modern great apes like gorillas and chimpanzees could evolve into a new race of humans physiologically identical to the humans we have now, it would technically be physically possible, but the amount of variables involved would make it effectively impossible.

It would be like asking if you could spill a glass of water on the beach, then spill a completely different glass of water on a completely different beach and have every single water molecule in the second spill form the exact same pattern as the first one. Ironically, such a thing could only happen via divine intervention.

Hilarious! So it can happen accidentally once but twice is impossible? If it's impossible now it's impossible then.

 

[Shemjaza]

When its convenient for you to say "the fossil record and genetic evidence show it", you assert that its historic, but then when it comes to what might change, you say its "scientific" - so that you then don't have to show there is any likelihood of it happening again.

I can point the difference out between science and history, but how am I going to know which way around you want to put it when it doesn't suit you? I can't know.

You want to keep me from information that would make the distinction clear?

Science do not require an entire series of events to be repeated to be validated.

The evolution of humans from their common ancestors with other apes is demonstrated and the validity of the individual steps can be scientifically demonstrated.

Hilarious! So it can happen accidentally once but twice is impossible? If it's impossible now it's impossible then.

Not literally impossible, just vanishingly unlikely.

Evolutionary advantages confer a statistical likelihood, not a destiny of being passed on and neutral changes are completely random in their likelihood of being passed on.

This means the odds of the exact same series of changes both being available and being advantageous in the same order is so unlikely that it's impossible.

Amusingly it would actually validate the erroneous probability arguments put forward by ID promoters and other Creationists where the particular end point is calculated as the specific and only goal of the process.

 

[renniks]

Evolutionary advantages confer a statistical likelihood, not a destiny of being passed on and neutral changes are completely random in their likelihood of being passed on.

Funny, I'm told constantly by the evolution crowd that natural selection isn't random.

 

[Shemjaza]

Funny, I'm told constantly by the evolution crowd that natural selection isn't random.

It isn't.

Statistical likelihood isn't random.

 

[Ophiolite]

It isn't.

Statistical likelihood isn't random.

It seems to me that Creationists are challenged, in some way, by the admixture of random events, direction imposed by selection pressures and general contingency. I suspect it is related to another Creationist perspective, which seems to favour binary interpretations of events and things: yes/no, right/wrong, evolution/creation. Reality does possess such binary divisions, but spectra and more complex multi-variable relationships are also abundant. If one has the binary bias, then a choice has to be made between random/non-random. It couldn't possibly be a mixture!

 

[renniks]

It seems to me that Creationists are challenged, in some way, by the admixture of random events, direction imposed by selection pressures and general contingency. I suspect it is related to another Creationist perspective, which seems to favour binary interpretations of events and things: yes/no, right/wrong, evolution/creation. Reality does possess such binary divisions, but spectra and more complex multi-variable relationships are also abundant. If one has the binary bias, then a choice has to be made between random/non-random. It couldn't possibly be a mixture!

Then why do we get answers like: "It isn't random."? Sounds pretty " binary" to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then why do we get answers like: "It isn't random."? Sounds pretty " binary" to me.

This is not difficult. If you understand language then you really should not find this difficult. Some aspects of evolution are random (e.g. mutations), some parts are non-random (e.g. natural selection). Since there are non-random elements the overall result cannot be non-random.

 

[Shemjaza]

Then why do we get answers like: "It isn't random."? Sounds pretty " binary" to me.

Selection is a non-random filtering process that acts on the randomly distributed variations that are generated by random mutations.

This combination maintains adaptation to the environment, but not in a directly predictable way.

If I roll a dice 1000 times and add the numbers together I'm pretty sure I'll get a total between 3 and 4 thousand... but that in no way means I can expect the last 5 number to be 1 4 4 3 6.

 

[Frank Robert]

So if it happened once it can't happen again? Makes no sense.

Perhaps you can understand that the conditions for the evolution that took millions of years can not be replicated. What process can you imagine that will duplicate all the random mutations that took place since the common ancestor of humans and apes?