Why are there still apes?

[Gottservant]

If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Short answer: Because apes have found a different method of survival.

[...]

A better question would be "if random mutation is true: why don't apes randomly change into other species?"

"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.

Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A better question would be "if random mutation is true: why don't apes randomly change into other species?"

"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.

Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.

The various types of apes (including us) slowly change in response to their environmental stimuli and the variation created by random mutations.

 

[Gottservant]

The various types of apes (including us) slowly change in response to their environmental stimuli and the variation created by random mutations.

So was the selection pressure that created us: "closed off", or "open ended"?

Waiting.

No predetermined response in mind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So was the selection pressure that created us: "closed off", or "open ended"?

Waiting.

No predetermined response in mind.

Don't know what you mean by these phrases, vis a vis evolution. I don't think this is standard evolutionary theory terminology.

 

[Gottservant]

Don't know what you mean by these phrases, vis a vis evolution. I don't think this is standard evolutionary theory terminology.

The term used to date (vis a vis evolution) is "Punctuated equilibrium".

My question is "was the punctuated equilibrium: more 'punctuated', or more 'equilibrium'?"

.

 

[Shemjaza]

A better question would be "if random mutation is true: why don't apes randomly change into other species?"

"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.

Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.

They have and they do.

Chimps and Bonobos are very similar species... but have clearly diverged in form and instinct from their recent common ancestor.

The term used to date (vis a vis evolution) is "Punctuated equilibrium".

My question is "was the punctuated equilibrium: more 'punctuated', or more 'equilibrium'?"

.

It's more Punctuated.

"Punctuated equilibrium" refers to a specific scenario that triggers rapid change in species.

The point is that species will mostly only vary gradually in stable environments where they are in "equilibrium". Now when the situation changes and equilibrium is punctuated that's when we get the rapid speciation.

 

[Gottservant]

They have and they do.

Chimps and Bonobos are very similar species... but have clearly diverged in form and instinct from their recent common ancestor.


It's more Punctuated.

"Punctuated equilibrium" refers to a specific scenario that triggers rapid change in species.

The point is that species will mostly only vary gradually in stable environments where they are in "equilibrium". Now when the situation changes and equilibrium is punctuated that's when we get the rapid speciation.

Thanks for sharing.

I found your response helpful.

If I may ask: does a chimp call of distress, create the same autonomic response in the chimp as the bonobo? Because they are related?

 

[Shemjaza]

Thanks for sharing.

I found your response helpful.

If I may ask: does a chimp call of distress, create the same autonomic response in the chimp as the bonobo? Because they are related?

Probably. Humans and chimps are similar enough to recognise some body language and sounds.

That said, chimps can be pretty territorial so I imagine the differences in bonobos would be met with confusion and violence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So was the selection pressure that created us: "closed off", or "open ended"?

Waiting.

No predetermined response in mind.

If you are asking if the selection pressure that created us is still there, then I would point you to the opening post. Humans evolved over millions of years in specific circumstance. Those circumstances no longer exist.

In particular, since all the intermediates between humans and other apes have been wiped out, an ape would need to start from scratch. The first stage for hominids meant coming out of the jungle and learning to adapt in the new grasslands. Anywhere in the world where they would try that today, they would be overwhelmed by humans and other species that control that environment.

Whether there is some other path apes could use to develop minds similar to humans, I don't know. If humans were to be wiped out, is it possible in the future another species could make a similar transformation? I don't know. Evolution depends on the luck of the draw. We humans drew a good hand. Whether another species would ever get that lucky, I don't know.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you are asking if the selection pressure that created us is still there, then I would point you to the opening post. Humans evolved over millions of years in specific circumstance. Those circumstances no longer exist.

In particular, since all the intermediates between humans and other apes have been wiped out, an ape would need to start from scratch. The first stage for hominids meant coming out of the jungle and learning to adapt in the new grasslands. Anywhere in the world where they would try that today, they would be overwhelmed by humans and other species that control that environment.

Whether there is some other path apes could use to develop minds similar to humans, I don't know. If humans were to be wiped out, is it possible in the future another species could make a similar transformation? I don't know. Evolution depends on the luck of the draw. We humans drew a good hand. Whether another species would ever get that lucky, I don't know.

Hominid evolution is very interesting.

Homo erectus seemed to be happily getting along and spreading over the globe... I wonder of the weird chain over events that led to the development of the Sapiens, Denesova and Neanderthal common ancestor they would have still been almost unchanged stone age cave "men" today.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"They will, it just takes millions of years," seems to be the only Evolutionist response.

Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is a genuine attempt, at science.

But that is how long evolution takes. If we go by the evidence, that is what you find. Would you rather we made up dates?

 

[James A]

That's an unjustified assumption. Existence of a creator deity, or deities, is neither axiomatic nor philosophically sufficient or necessary.

Ok, there is no harm in not assuming a deity. In fact, for this a-posteriori study, we should not be assuming anything about the nature of the cause.

If we study the diversification of life - origin of life, arrival of male and female species and their instincts, metaphysical attributes of humans etc.[*] - do we see a predesign or not ?

* I explained why these development posit creator in the previous thread.

Those are all just differing formulations of the same argument.

No they are not. Now that we are able to do this a-posteriori study without assuming god, I don't want to move forward with this sub topic.

That's nice. Does it provide any supporting evidence that can be demonstrably verified?

God who transcends space and time is not "demostrable" by definition.

Well, that's demonstrably wrong. There are all sorts of mutations in humans alone that produce conditions whereby the body ends up destroying itself. There's a reason handbooks of medicine and surgery are so thick.

Circular reasoning - I raised the point of mutation that generated the venom cannot be due to natural agents but the statement above assumes the same.

I hate to state the obvious but snakes have special glands, fangs and mechanisms in their brain to inject different dose of venom depending on the prey or enemy. I also read that some snakes have cocktails of venom.

 

[James A]

Some information on the evolutionary origins and genetic structure of instinctual behaviors.

I read those article in detail including references as much as I can. They mainly talk about the "timeline" and "operations". Does it answer the ontological questions we are talking about?

Also, I found this

Despite impressive advances, we’re still a long way from understanding the genetic and neural basis of even simple behaviors.

Cool. Show me the cause of quantum indeterminacy then.

Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?

Let us stick to the classical understanding - an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.

All it proves was that life initially had a pretty hard time get going. Although the evidence suggests that it wasn't TOO hard of a time, as like may have been around on earth as early as the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Early Earth was filled with poisonous gases and harmful radiation and it was not "too" hard for primitive life forms to survive? Not only it survived but, it advanced to higher forms!!

Also, we don't know how life started, but that doesn't mean we can't know or that its not worth trying to find out.

Actually, it is worth investigating. If God is the cause of arrival of first generation of species (arrival of life), God is the one caused the arrival of later generation of species ( diversification of life).

The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon

This article published in 1973. Let me respectfully, remind - the discussion is not about "operation" or "time line" but is about the cause.

This isn't an example of irreducible complexity.

Let us disregard the term "irreducible complexity" for a moment and discuss this - do we know if the first species to have eyes and ears had them all over the body ( because the mutation is caused by some "random, environmental changes") and only those with eyes and ears at heir right location survived by Natural Selection?

Have we thought about the first moment the heart started beating in those primitive species?

Find me a rabbit in the Cambrian, or a conifer in the Ediacaran.

Fair enough.

Let us take in to the context of pre-design. Let us think about a log (wood) and a clock. Which one do you think has a design and why?

James: It seems to me that all you do is read arguments FOR your position and then regurgitate them, rather than investigating yourself. I'd challenge you to undertake some reading of positions that are adversarial to your own, and then see if you can debunk them.

Actually, I own some of the popular titles like "origin of species", "God Delusion", "The grand Design", "Why Darwin matters", " A letter to a Christian nation" and a couple of books on Evolution which I was not able to read completely. I have been debating with atheists and Evolutionists ( who rejects pre design) for over 10 years now. The more I debate, more I am convinced there is Intelligent Design behind the arrival of species.

My support of design and designer is based on millennium old philosophical principles like " ad infinitum", "every thing begins to exists has a cause" , " an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent" etc. These are the principles upon which the foundation of Science is on and also, our daily life.

I can totally understand some people disagree with the teachings of Religions but arguing that this mathematically complex Universe and its complex life originated by nothing for nothing is too much to stand.

 

[James A]

@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch

I am able to address every single objections you raised but, in order to keep this thread within the intended context - let us not assume God. Let us do a-posteriori study without any assumptions on the nature of the cause.

 

[James A]

Understood. But that wasn't the main point of my question. You refer to the fall as an historical event.

I cited the Fall for the benefit of the believers who are reading the post. Nonetheless, I stated that the Eternal mind work on its own plan not always be comprehensible by humans whose mind is limited by space and time

 

[James A]

The default position is not "God must exist until proven otherwise". The default position is "we don't know if God exists", so your assumption remains unjustified.

The default position of God exists until proven otherwise is based on our millenniums old philosophical principles like "everything begins to exist has a cause", " ad infinitum", "no object can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent etc".

Yeah, no.

By definition, a physical object cannot develop metaphysical attribute unless acted upon by a metaphysical entity.

FYI ToE says nothing about whether or not there is pre-design, it simply explains how evolution happens.

We are on agreement here. Thanks!!

 

[James A]

But that is how long evolution takes. If we go by the evidence, that is what you find. Would you rather we made up dates?

I have read about fruit flies or something similar which have life span in terms of few days. Why would it take "millions of years" in this case to have the mutation happen?

 

[Speedwell]

Let us disregard the term "irreducible complexity" for a moment and discuss this - do we know if the first species to have eyes and ears had them all over the body ( because the mutation is caused by some "random, environmental changes") and only those with eyes and ears at heir right location survived by Natural Selection?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the first species to have some cells specialized for more light more sensitivity than the rest of the cells in its body? More sensitive to sound?

Have we thought about the first moment the heart start beating in those primitive species?

It would be hard to tell when a species began to develop a concentrated area of peristalsis in its circulatory system to the degree that you could call it a "heart."

Let us take in to the context of pre-design. Let us think about a log (wood) and a clock. Which one do you think has a design and why?

The clock, because it shows evidence of intentional human manufacture--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, etc.--from which intentional human design may be inferred. If those evidences are absent then design may be present but there is no basis for an inference. I would have no way of concluding whether the wood was designed or not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The default position of God exists until proven otherwise is based on our millenniums old philosophical principles like "everything begins to exist has a cause", " ad infinitum", "no object can escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent etc".

That is not a basis for assuming God, or any other supernatural being. Those principles have also been shown to be tenuous, if not actually false.

By definition, a physical object cannot develop metaphysical attribute unless acted upon by a metaphysical entity.

As I said last time - yeah, no.

We are on agreement here. Thanks!!

So why do you keep insisting that it denies pre-design?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?

Please don't use your misunderstandings of physics to "challenge" evolution. Quantum mechanics doesn't "say" any such thing about people (and has absolutely no relevance to legal proceedings). I could try to explain why the relative motion of two points on the Earth at no more than a few cm per year isn't going to invoke any "simultaneity" issues, but it wouldn't be useful.

None of this impacts evolution, including the evolution of apes.