An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[reitz]

<< <<

<< Why are there any apes and monkeys at all if they have evolved into man? >>


Like said before, apes and humans evolved from the same animal. >>



If apes and humans evolved from the same animal, then what is the original animal? >>

Australopithecus afarensis is a good possibility. Many evolution scientists believe Pan troglodytes have been incorrectly classified and should be a part of the homo genus.


<< Why did apes and humans take different evolutionary paths? >>

Imagine that 98% of humanity is quickly wiped out (due to disease, nuclear war, comet impacts, etc.). What would happen to Canis familiaris? They're pack animals with a highly-developed capacity for learning, widely scattered around the world, and have as a species an enormous amount of genetic diversity (sterile hybrids occasionally occur). Natural geographic boundries would isolate thousands of smaller populations, and the genetic variability would offer many potential positive adaptations to the rapidly changing environment.

Fast-forward a thousand years: Canus familiaris is quickly diverging into several different species. The geographic boundries ensure that the developing species are isolated from each other and allow the divergence to continue over a very long period of time. Fast-forward a million years: several distinct species are now present. Examine any two; it would be apparent that they are closely related, but where's the common ancestor? Would there even be a fossil record?

Use the same scenario on a much smaller scale. i.e. A common ancestor for apes and humans in a small part of Africa has a disruption in its habitat/evironment that allows for the divergence of several of its sub-populations. It could be a long-lasting environmental disaster, a major impact from a comet or meteor, or just a gradual change that isolates portions of the population (like the Grand Canyon). One of those populations might have evolved into humans, and the rest could have become the various apes (with many different distinct species along the way). The faster the environment changes, the faster species are forced to evolve, so it doesn't have to take an eternity to occur.


<< Should'nt apes possess more of the intellect that we as humans possess? >>

The intellect other primates do possess would surprise you, and keep in mind not all humans possess such a superior intellect.


<< Should'nt the original animal still be alive? If not why? >>

No, see above.


<< What other examples are there of 2 different species evolving from another? >>

Galapagos Islands finches, the squirrels on either side of the grand canyon, the northern oriole, to name a few.

 

[Ryan]

Eveyone should own this book: http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/1,4096,0130899410,00.html

It's awesome

 

[Arkitech]

Elledan - the reason I asked for a definition of the word evolution is because it tends to change. When I was more involved in the studying of evolution (quite a while ago) a lot of the explanations, theories that are spoken of in this thread were'nt documented.


Ok heres an scenario, if the planet and life on it are constantly evolving, changing and adapting what is the future for humans? So far humans have done more destruction to the planet than to benefit it, would'nt this mean that in order for the planet to survive on its current evolutionary path that humans would have to either very quickly evolve into superior creatures or would the planet have to phase humans out in order to ensure its own existence? Or I guess as a third alternative the entire planet could eventually cease to exist.

Any thoughts on that scenario

 

[killface]

<< Ok heres an scenario, if the planet and life on it are constantly evolving, changing and adapting what is the future for humans? So far humans have done more destruction to the planet than to benefit it, would'nt this mean that in order for the planet to survive on its current evolutionary path that humans would have to either very quickly evolve into superior creatures or would the planet have to phase humans out in order to ensure its own existence? Or I guess as a third alternative the entire planet could eventually cease to exist. >>


Humans wouldn't necessarily have to physically evolve to survive. Our intelligence allows us to evolve "outside" of ourselves.

 

[pyonir]

i didn't read through the entire thread, so if this has been said forgive me. it doesn't necessarily take millions of years for a species to evolve. in Minnesota the started spreading a chemical into swamps and marshes (anywhere mosquitoes were rampant) and this would someone stop the mosquito from reproducing and kill the eggs that were already laid. after about only 3 years of using this chemical they found that mosquitoes were becoming immune to it and had to change the formula. survival of the fittest. the mosquitoes that were immune reproduced and soon most were immune. it can happen in a short amount of time...(although i do agree that for a lot of species it can take millions of years)

btw: i believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[rahvin]

<< If apes and humans evolved from the same animal, then what is the original animal? >>



Based on the fossil evidence the animal is believed to have been about the size and shape of a modern lemur.



<< Why did apes and humans take different evolutionary paths? >>



Why did/didn't you have pancakes for breakfast?



<< Should'nt apes possess more of the intellect that we as humans possess? >>



Why? Why even suppose something like that. Brain mass takes massive resources to support, without extreme benefits in competition there would be no advantage to a larger brain. But you of course may be forgetting something. Up until 30 years ago one of the criteria that seperated humans from animals was our ability to manufacture and use tools. Through research and observation of chimpanzees in the wild it was witnessed that chimps in fact manufacture and use crude tools, they also exhibit some minor higher order thought.



<< Should'nt the original animal still be alive? If not why? >>



It may or may not be, it depends on how fit it was for survival in the environment. The original animal that led to the formation of humans and the great apes lived in a very different world than the one we live in. Without adaptions in behavior and structure it probably wouldn't have survived.



<< I don't think food sources would play a significant factor in this particular case, in fact apes are probably doing better with their limited food choices as opposed to humans. I'm almost positive apes don't deal with lung cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, cholestrol diseases and other problems related to improper diet. That does'nt explain why humans adapt to their surroundings better than apes. >>



Great apes in general don't suffer from those diseases because they promptly die from them. Humans would too if it weren't for modern medicine. Those apes held in captivity are fed strict diets to prevent the development of such diseases but irregardless just like how your pet fluffy can get congestive heart failure so can a great ape.

 

[Fausto]

<< i didn't read through the entire thread, so if this has been said forgive me. it doesn't necessarily take millions of years for a species to evolve. in Minnesota the started spreading a chemical into swamps and marshes (anywhere mosquitoes were rampant) and this would someone stop the mosquito from reproducing and kill the eggs that were already laid. after about only 3 years of using this chemical they found that mosquitoes were becoming immune to it and had to change the formula. survival of the fittest. the mosquitoes that were immune reproduced and soon most were immune. it can happen in a short amount of time...(although i do agree that for a lot of species it can take millions of years) >>


Right, but are these immune mosquitos a new species (ie- can they reproduce with the old non-immune ones?) Probably. The events in evolution may happen with relative suddenness, but the process as a whole still takes a really long time.

Fausto

 

[rahvin]

<< It seems to me that if humans evolved from apes into intelligent beings with vast intellectual abilities, it would stand to reason that there should be other animals on the planet as well with similar or perhaps even superior traits. Also with the technological aresenal at scientists disposal should'nt it be reasonable to conclude that they would have the ability to accurately chart the progress of evolutionary growth of certain animals or other organisms? And then there's still the issue about the amount of time it takes for organisms to evolve, if evolution is truly a valid scientific explanation for life then there should myriads of examples of changes on the planet that did'nt thousands or millions of years to happen. >>



There are two things in this comment I would like to discuss. One is your apparent skeptiscm because there aren't animals with higher intellect present. I would like to point out that dolphins are actually quite intelligent, they are believed in fact to be the second most intelligent animal on the planet. I believe your real question though is why aren't there apeslike primates that are halfway between humans and the great apes. There has been pursuit of this question and there is a growing body of evidence that shortly after homo homo sapians developed culture that extinction occured in the other surviving branches of the sapians and neadertals. This seems to indicate that shortly after humanity developed culture and group interaction we began to exterminate competing species.

The second point I would like to address is your allusion that evolution has a purpose and a course. Evolution has no direction. Evolution is a result of environmental pressures. As far as examples of speciation, please consult the www.talkorigins.org website for FAQ on a list of observed speciation events.



<< Ok heres an scenario, if the planet and life on it are constantly evolving, changing and adapting what is the future for humans? So far humans have done more destruction to the planet than to benefit it, would'nt this mean that in order for the planet to survive on its current evolutionary path that humans would have to either very quickly evolve into superior creatures or would the planet have to phase humans out in order to ensure its own existence? Or I guess as a third alternative the entire planet could eventually cease to exist. >>



Humans occupy an interesting position, we have the ability to alter our environment to satisfy our needs. Regardless of the "damage" we do to the environment we will always have the ability to build and contain an environment suitible for our survival short of a cataclysmic event that destroys the planetary structure without warning. You also don't give life very much credit, regardless if humans pass from exitence, as long as this planet remains intact life will survive. We have bacteria living on the thermal vents on the bottom of the ocean, we have obtained bacteria from core samples drilled over 5 MILES into the crust. There are bacteria that live in the sulfur vents in yellowstone (800+ ^F). Life permates this planet, humans are incapable of extinguishing it all.

 

[reitz]

<< Ok heres an scenario, if the planet and life on it are constantly evolving, changing and adapting what is the future for humans? >>

Humans have an enormous population, and have the ability to survive all but the most severe changes in environment. Immigration/emigration and the easy ability to interact with other populations limits the effects of genetic drift. Combined with the [relatively] lower genetic variability, it keeps the population homogenous. Barring some major future catastrophe, humans should continue to evolve as a single population indefinitely.


<< So far humans have done more destruction to the planet than to benefit it... >>

What benefits should humans give to the planet? My cats don't destroy much, but they sure aren't doing much for the greater good either. The damage humans have done to the earth is puny compared to the major events in the planet's history.


<< ...would'nt this mean that in order for the planet to survive on its current evolutionary path that humans would have to either very quickly evolve into superior creatures or would the planet have to phase humans out in order to ensure its own existence? Or I guess as a third alternative the entire planet could eventually cease to exist. >>

Unless we decide to tunnel to the center of the earth and detonate the post powerful bomb we can develop, we're not going to destroy the planet. We may wipe out a hundred species of frogs, turn the midwest into a desert, or destroy a rain forest, but we don't have the ability to wipe out all life on the planet. Faster, more significant changes in environment/habitat have occured many times in the past, and the earth survived it. Mass extinctions are usually followed by periods of very rapid speciation.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< Finally one other thought, can someone give me a thorough explanation of the word evolution? Does the word simply mean to change or adapt or does it mean to change or morph into something completely different? >>



That's the difference between micro and macro.

Example of microevolution - Brown monkeys and black monkeys of the same species live in a forest. Interbreeding between the two is common. But since black fur is a recessive trait to brown fur, there are many more brown monkeys running around. A predator moves in to the forest that has an appetite for brown monkeys and starts killing them off. The black monkeys keep going about their business, actually benefitting from the demise of the brown monkeys because of the increase in resources available to them. Soon you have more and more black monkeys running around. Since two black monkeys can't have brown offspring, once the last of the brown monkeys is taken out of the forest, no more brown monkeys. Well this finally happens. No genetic change has taken place, the monkees are still the same species, but now they are all black.

Example of macroevolution - For the life of me I really can't think of a good example, or at least one that doesn't sound rediculous. Macroevolution consists in some sort of genetic mutation that differentiates an indivdual from the rest of it's species in some significant way. Say if two black monkeys from the above example gave birth to a green monkey, even though genetically there is no possible way these two monkeys could create anything other than black offspring. But there are problems with this. One is that one species can't generally produce offspring with another. So if this green monkey is significantly different enough to qualify as another species, unless another green monkey with the exact same mutation and of the opposite sex available to mate with (twin sister maybe?), this species of one dies out. If this green monkey can in fact breed with the other black monkeys, and produce offspring with the same mutation (green), then the species might survive, eventhough it really wouldn't be considered another seperate species, just variation within the same. But over time these green monkeys could undergo further mutations that limit them to only breading with other green monkeys and create a truly seperate species.

But another thing about mutation is it's totally random. It's not brought about by environmental pressures. An example of this is, if giraffes had short necks at some point in the past, they didn't mutate longer ones just so they could reach their food. Either the genetic potential was already there to grow a longer neck, and the environment favored this to develop, or they just lucked up with a mutation to give them this favorable trait. That's why I really have a problem with the thought of everything (macro)evolving from one single organism. A whole, whole bunch of coincidences had to have taken place for things to be as they are now. Basically everything that seperates one species from another would be a series of random lucky mutations that were in some way fovorable enough not to be weeded out by the environment.

 

[jjones]

<< But another thing about mutation is it's totally random. It's not brought about by environmental pressures. An example of this is, if giraffes had short necks at some point in the past, they didn't mutate longer ones just so they could reach their food. Either the genetic potential was already there to grow a longer neck, and the environment favored this to develop, or they just lucked up with a mutation to give them this favorable trait. That's why I really have a problem with the thought of everything (macro)evolving from one single organism. A whole, whole bunch of coincidences had to have taken place for things to be as they are now. Basically everything that seperates one species from another would be a series of random lucky mutations that were in some way fovorable enough not to be weeded out by the environment. >>


I think macro evolution is quite reasonable when you consider that of the "lucky mutations", there was probably a million other mutations for each one of those surviving mutations that were not so lucky and therefore didn't succeed in developing. These mutations that survive over time begin to branch off from the original species through further development, and then either replacing the original due to environmental pressures or just becoming significantly different along side the original.

 

[BornStar]

To get it out of the way, I'm a creationist. I find the incredibly lucky timing regarding to evolution to be somewhat questionable. So, what we're saying is that since humans and apes/monkeys have the same ancestors, there must have been a time in history when 2 or more "humans" were born from whatever the heck they came from. Wow, what a coincidence. And since they were born at the same time, and obviously in the same area, the got together to create offspring. However, they were just strange enough that none of our ancestors wanted to procreate with them. The evolutionary arguement is based on luck. In regards to people being 40cm taller now than we used to be, that can be attributed to one thing. The earth is slowing down. Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. How does growing taller benefit man kind in any way? I'll admit that people are getting taller as I'm about a foot taller than my grandparents but I really don't see any advantages to that.

And there're my $0.02

 

[Fausto]

<< In regards to people being 40cm taller now than we used to be, that can be attributed to one thing. The earth is slowing down. Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. >>


Um...I don't even know where to start with that one. I hope the sand is nice where you are since you've apparently got your head buried in it.

Fausto

 

[rahvin]

<< To get it out of the way, I'm a creationist. >>



After reading your paragraph I'm not supprised! :Q



<< . So, what we're saying is that since humans and apes/monkeys have the same ancestors, there must have been a time in history when 2 or more "humans" were born from whatever the heck they came from. Wow, what a coincidence. And since they were born at the same time, and obviously in the same area, the got together to create offspring. However, they were just strange enough that none of our ancestors wanted to procreate with them. >>



No, what is being said is that a population of primates was seperated geographically from the other populations long enough to form different species. Lateral varation becomes new species if the two groups are isolated long enough that they take different adaptions to the environments they live in. Say for example if you isolate a group of human, do they develop new languages, new ideas of mate selection?



<< In regards to people being 40cm taller now than we used to be, that can be attributed to one thing. The earth is slowing down. Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. >>



OMG I can't believe you said something so incredibly stupid. Ok MR elementary physics, give me the equation for gravity. Then show me how this equation has any relationship whatsoever to the rate of rotation of this planet. Next in a final flurry of intelligence inspired creative physics tell me how the earth is slowing down.



<< And there're my $0.02 >>



I want a refund.

 

[Ryan]

<< To get it out of the way, I'm a creationist. I find the incredibly lucky timing regarding to evolution to be somewhat questionable. So, what we're saying is that since humans and apes/monkeys have the same ancestors, there must have been a time in history when 2 or more "humans" were born from whatever the heck they came from. Wow, what a coincidence. And since they were born at the same time, and obviously in the same area, the got together to create offspring. However, they were just strange enough that none of our ancestors wanted to procreate with them. The evolutionary arguement is based on luck. In regards to people being 40cm taller now than we used to be, that can be attributed to one thing. The earth is slowing down. Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. How does growing taller benefit man kind in any way? I'll admit that people are getting taller as I'm about a foot taller than my grandparents but I really don't see any advantages to that. And there're my $0.02 >>



LMAO! I find that harder to believe than creationism.

Bornstar18 = CRACKHEAD!

 

[Fausto]

<< Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. >>


Physics for Beginners.

Fausto

 

[Jzero]

<< The earth is slowing down. Elementary physics tells us that since the earth is slowing down, gravity is getting smaller and obviously we would grow taller if we didn't have as much pressure. How does growing taller benefit man kind in any way? I'll admit that people are getting taller as I'm about a foot taller than my grandparents but I really don't see any advantages to that. >>



Also, the population of the world DECREASES geometrically every year. This is basic mathematics--think about it.
If everyone has 2 parents and each parent has two parents, it's easy to see that you are at the bottom of an inverse pyramid. As are each of us. Thus, since for every two humans there will only be one offspring, the populations is actually IMPLODING!
It's BRILLIANT!

 

[BornStar]

Wow, for those of you who have never tried it, that was FUN. I highly suggest it sometime. What an entrance.

Anyway, the earth is slowing down. I sure hope that worked cuz that looks really backwards to me.

Physics has never really been my friend, however if the earth were slowing down, the centrifugal force would decrease, thus decreasing the difference between the pulling effect gravity has on a person and the force that's pushing them away.

 

[Elledan]

<< Wow, for those of you who have never tried it, that was FUN. I highly suggest it sometime. What an entrance.

Anyway, the earth is slowing down. I sure hope that worked cuz that looks really backwards to me.

Physics has never really been my friend, however if the earth were slowing down, the centrifugal force would decrease, thus decreasing the difference between the pulling effect gravity has on a person and the force that's pushing them away. >>


- The earth is slowing down.

- This has no effect on the gravity of the planet itself, since its mass remains unchanged.

- The 'centrifugal force' (*hears the cries of agony from the physicists in the room*) of the earth is negligible.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Wow, for those of you who have never tried it, that was FUN. I highly suggest it sometime. What an entrance.

Anyway, the earth is slowing down. I sure hope that worked cuz that looks really backwards to me.

Physics has never really been my friend, however if the earth were slowing down, the centrifugal force would decrease, thus decreasing the difference between the pulling effect gravity has on a person and the force that's pushing them away. >>

There would be less of a tendency for something to "fly" off the earth from a standstill, but that doesn't affect the amount of gravity that is pulling them down.



I take it that all plants evolved, too, right?

Crazy stuff.

 

[BornStar]

Don't think for a second that I actually meant some of that, however, I am still a creationist and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. I find attacks made against this to be very unethical as it's my religious belief. Anyway, I know that any changes in the centrifugal force would be negligable. That was the non serious portion of my post.

edit: cold fingers make for bad typing

 

[Fausto]

<< Don't think for a second that I actually meant some of that, however, I am still a creationist and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. I find attacks made against this to be very unethical as it's my religious belief. >>


*blink* *blink* </me looks for the "stupefied" emoticon>

 

[Elledan]

<< Don't think for a second that I actually meant some of that, >>


Are we still allowed to laugh?


<< however, I am still a creationist and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. >>


Read: 'I've got my head stuck in my *ss and nothing can get me out of it.


<< I find attacks made against this to be very unethical as it's my religious belief. >>


So any discussion regarding this topic in which you are involved means that you are being discriminated against?

<< Anyway, I know that any changes in the centrifugal force would be negligable. That was the non serious portion of my post. >>


You know, that's what these icons are for:

 

[ThisIsMatt]

As for recent hight being a point for evolution, I think that's pretty much BS. I would site health as being a better reason for hight increase, but then I think of generally malnurished people in Africa, for example, where there are quite a few tall people. There also seems to be little reason why tallness would be favored over medium hight people as well.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< Don't think for a second that I actually meant some of that, however, I am still a creationist and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. >>


Untrue. When you were born, you didn't have any understanding of evolution/creationism. You were taught to believe in creationism and blind faith, so it is entirely possible you can be taught scientific theory. You CAN be unconvinced, even if that isn't necessarily a goal here.