Differences between human and ape

[Glee]

Hey all. So what exactly are the differences between a human and an ape? By reducing each difference down to their component level, why is it considered by some that it is just not possible for humans to have evolved from them? What individual change cannot be the product of 'microevolution', and when does it change to 'macroevolution'?


I shall use the dog as an example for microevolution in some cases, as they all developed from the same 'kind' via 'micro'...

For example:

Skeletal structure? - The number of bones is almost identical at certain stages of development. The lengthening of certain bones and fusing of others really isn't that much of a jump to make in terms of microevolution. If a jack russel and a great dane evolved from the same animal via microevolution, how is this change any different? Same goes for size.

Skull shape? (tied in with skeletal structures)- The difference between a greyhound and a bulldog?

Hair? Really, there are a lot of really hairy people out there, and some that have no hair at all. Is it that far a strectch to image a minor genetic change that reduced the amount, or that once some ansector was that hairy?

Intelligence? See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=31235 - most of the difference in intellignece are because of different levels of hormones in the body. The hormones are all there, just different quanitites regulate the size of growth and brain development. We have many genetic conditions today which create different levels of hormones which influence intelligence, growth and development within humans already today. Is there really that much of a difference?


Is there any single change which is not possible between the two? Where is the line drawn for microevolution?

[jcrawford]

Since you can't identify that so-called "common ancestor," there is no evidence of any African ape, monkey or chimp ancestors "evolving" into humans in Africa, despite "corrected" models of primitive ape fossils being reconstructed to make Toumai look half man, half ape. Thus we are back to the old pithecanthropus concept of ape-man, and neo-Darwinist contentions that primitive African people people evolved from the ancestors of monkeys, apes and chimps are proved to be scientific racial theories about human origins in Africa.

Applying this standard of proof to ID, we would be left with no proof. Since there is no evidence of God, there is no god. Since there is no evidence of Adam or Eve, they did not exist. Since we can't find the Ark, we must conclude that there was never a global flood.

Ah, but applying the same standard of evidence to neo-Darwinism, ID, creationism and God, we do have testimonial evidence that Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the global flood existed.

There is really only a bit of evidence left over from thousands of years ago, let alone millions of years ago.

There's no evidence of anything existing millions of years ago outside of scientific imagination and testimony.

Without being able to imply what happened based on the evidence we do have, there would be no theory available AT ALL and we would have to conclude that life has always just been the same, without a beginning at all.

What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why does there have to be a "beginning at all." Why can't events be eternally cyclical? Who says time has to have a beginning since a beginning implies an end? All such human presumptions about time are religious in nature.

A strict standard like the one you propose hurts everyone, not just evolution.

No, it doesn't. It just makes one question the validity of the pre-supposed assumptions which their cosmological standards are based on.

[Glee]

Applying this standard of proof to ID, we would be left with no proof. Since there is no evidence of God, there is no god. Since there is no evidence of Adam or Eve, they did not exist. Since we can't find the Ark, we must conclude that there was never a global flood.

Ah, but applying the same standard of evidence to neo-Darwinism, ID, creationism and God, we do have testimonial evidence that Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the global flood existed.

We also have thousands of testimonials from people who have been abducted by aliens. We have testimonials that the earth was made from the body of Ymir by Odin and his brothers, and that later man was made by transforming some logs on a beach. Or testimonials that Earth was originally populated when Xenu dumped trillions of people into Earth's volcanoes and then dropped hydrogen bombs on them.

Testimonials, without evidence, are mere stories.

There's no evidence of anything existing millions of years ago outside of scientific imagination and testimony.

What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why does there have to be a "beginning at all." Why can't events be eternally cyclical? Who says time has to have a beginning since a beginning implies an end? All such human presumptions about time are religious in nature.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe that part of the movement started back in the 1500's around the time when astronomers (Tycho Brahe) observed a supernova. Which lead to the idea that the sun will not last forever, nor has been around forever, and that the earth would have been either. Since then we have determined the life cycle for stars, and can summarise that our own star follows those rules too. As well as the fact that the redshift of observable stars indicates that at one point several billion years ago, all matter was in the one location at the one time.

Da Vinci (1500's) noted that the Poe river had at least 200,000 years of sediment deposits, and that the earth would be much older than that.

Other than using the bible to gauge the age of the earth, the numbers looking at the physical evidence have always been 75,000+ years. Different attempts to determine the proper age are summarised here and here. Interesting reads. The age of the earth was questioned before evolution was even born.

A strict standard like the one you propose hurts everyone, not just evolution.

No, it doesn't. It just makes one question the validity of the pre-supposed assumptions which their cosmological standards are based on.

And when the evidence is looked at, rather than the book or testimonies, it speaks for itself

Heading into off-topic land though, so try to reign it back in in the next couple of posts...

[jcrawford]

The whole point of sexual selection is that it is that species that does the selection.

I don't see any evidence of any species having much choice in matters of sexual selection since they are bound by natural law to only propagate with members of their own species within a very limited environment.

Do you think that animals have no understanding of asthetics or beauty?

Since animals are not human, I very much doubt that they appreciate any neo-Darwinist understanding of asthetics or beauty.

How would the rest of the beauty that is in life be explained by environmental selection?

I fail to see the connection between neo-Darwinist 'selection' and human concepts of beauty, or how the environment by itself can explain anything.

btw: Are there any physical laws governing the neo-Darwinist 'science' of evolution?

Yes, the laws of physics do apply.

All the laws of physics apply.

Name one natural law that governs human evolution.

You do accept 'microevolution', don't you? Do you see 'microeveolution' breaking any physical laws? Same rules apply to evolution on the whole.

Microevolution means 'small changes' leading to random variation within a species, and remains unaccounted for by any known natural law. That's why viral mutations cannot be predicted.

There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma.

That assumption is only based on Vince Sarich's molecular data concerning the differences and origin of human races.

http://www.curledup.com/racereal.htm

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information ... ncent.html

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marek.kohn/genovese.html

The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids

Which is probably why when Jose says we need to find more fossils, we need to.

So until you and Jose dig up some more human and ape fossils in the jungles of Africa, creationists can safely assume that no human fossils in existence today may be said to demonstrate any evidence of human evolution in Africa, or out of African ape ancestors. Dang human fossils anyway, what good are they, except to put on display in public museums from time to time.

We can't make a ruling that it didn't happen though because the fossils pre 14 Ma were not the same as the hominidae that are around post 4 Ma.

Why can't we rule out human evolution in Africa now that all varieties and types of human fossils have been discovered in one great assemblage in the Pit of Bones in Spain?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_lif ... ans1.shtml

We just don't have any data from that time period.

No data = no evidence of human evolution, ancestry or origins during that time period in Africa.

They do have a nice runthrough of the rest of the fossils 4 Ma to present though, as well as 14+ Ma.

Typical neo-Darwinist picture-book story telling.

[jcrawford]

Testimonials, without evidence, are mere stories.

Testimonials with pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence make for good stories and modern myths also.

[Glee]

Testimonials, without evidence, are mere stories.

Testimonials with pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence make for good stories and modern myths also.

We're in agreement then

Man, if evoultion was based off a few pictures of pre-supposed evidence and mere testimonials then, gee, it sure would be in trouble. Lucky its not, aye?

[Glee]

They do have a nice runthrough of the rest of the fossils 4 Ma to present though, as well as 14+ Ma.

Typical neo-Darwinist picture-book story telling.

Wow, i guess you don't understand stratafication then. Maybe you believe in a method similar to, say, liquification? Which has more holes in it than swiss cheese?

Why is it that human fossils are only found in the top layers of strata while human ancestors are found lower down? Why are small rodentlike mammals found amoungst the late dinosaurs while larger mammals, which would sink much faster, be found only in the upper layers? And why are only protozoic organisims found in the lowest levels of the strata, considering that they lived in water and can swim? Surely if fish were even going to get caught in the 'liquification', they would be present though all levels of the strata, mixed in with dinoasur, human, animal remains. Any fishbones found in the 'pit of bones?' Or was that more recent than the flood?

There are scientific reasons why the fossils are ordered that way, you know.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/MunGun3.html Heres a little exercise your you to do so you can better understand how it works.

[jcrawford]

Testimonials, without evidence, are mere stories.

Testimonials with pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence make for good stories and modern myths also.

We're in agreement then

Man, if evoultion was based off a few pictures of pre-supposed evidence and mere testimonials then, gee, it sure would be in trouble. Lucky its not, aye?

If evolution has no pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence, or mere testimonials, what is it based on then? Abstract thought and day-dreams?

[Glee]

Testimonials, without evidence, are mere stories.

Testimonials with pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence make for good stories and modern myths also.

We're in agreement then

Man, if evoultion was based off a few pictures of pre-supposed evidence and mere testimonials then, gee, it sure would be in trouble. Lucky its not, aye?

If evolution has no pictures of pre-supposed and assumed evidence, or mere testimonials, what is it based on then? Abstract thought and day-dreams?

Fossil records, stratfication and the genetic similarities of all living things are three pieces of objective evidence on which the theory is based off.

Observed evolution is another.

You may call this evolution 'microevolution', but you know it has been performed in labs. The mechanics of it are fact. Change over time is observable in most living species. That is what this thread is about - we know microevolution happens. Therefore, can 'evolution' happen? Combining the observed evolution of species, with the historical record (fossils) of how life developed, with the differences in genetics, and the known amount of variation within species, the gaps can be filled in.

Filling in the gaps is what we call making 'predictions', which is part of what makes a theory a theory. When new evidence is found, or old evidence is re-examined, if it fits with the theory, then the theory stands. If it clashes with the theory, then either part of the theory has to be rethought or the whole theory is tossed out.

So what evidence that has not been discredited a thousand times before is a hypothesis like ID based off? What predictions can we make from it?

[QED]

Since animals are not human, I very much doubt that they appreciate any neo-Darwinist understanding of asthetics or beauty.

One of the simplest animal experiments going concerns observations of male and female birds where a cage is split in two by a window and on one side of the window the remaining half is divided by a wall. In each of these compartments is placed a male (I saw a children's TV science show do this with Chaffinch's last Christmas). One male is chosen to look fit and healthy by our standards and the other is chosen for the opposite attributes. A female is then observed as she moves about in her half of the cage from where she can see both males. The amount of time spent in front of each male is measured over multiple runs and the correlation is clear. The more attractive looking male is undoubtedly the lucky one when it comes to the ladies. Except there's no luck involved. Animals clearly do appreciate aesthetics and beauty.

I wonder what you would have been thinking about if you had read my comments about sexual selection in Peacocks? I can only assume that you understand them to be indifferent to each others looks -- looks that have been deliberately taken to the brink of practicality purely for our viewing pleasure?

[Jose]

Why can't we rule out human evolution in Africa now that all varieties and types of human fossils have been discovered in one great assemblage in the Pit of Bones in Spain?

You get funnier every day! That's a good one!

Uhhh...have you, by any chance, actually read any of those references you've given us about the Pit of Bones? You initially cited Stringer's 1993 News and Views in Nature (vol. 362 p.501) as evidence for your statement. Now you cite the BBC's discussion of it. Have you noticed yet that even Stringer, who identifies features similar to H. sapiens, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis, finds that these different features are not on different individuals? We're talking about one flavor of people here (if you like the term "people" better than "species"), not three different kinds. They have what creationists dislike, a "mosaic" of characteristics.

This is the problem with relying on people like Lubenow and Behe as your "experts." They start out with a pre-conceived answer, and then misrepresent the facts to make it look like their answer is right, and science is wrong.