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]

Quite often the pressures to be practical while maintaining a breeding partners interest come into conflict. Peacocks would be a good example of this. That sexual selection based on arbitrary aesthetic criteria plays a big role in shaping the individuals of a species is also supported by the dramatic differences seen between male and female birds. In this case the female's the one dong all the choosing so what they look like is of lesser consequence. The males are the ones who's appearance is driven the most.

Yes, but what role would sexual attraction and selection play in determining which random genetic mutations were more influential in our longer, stronger legged grassland chimps who now must lower their ears, develop an protruding nose and lose a little facial hair in order to start looking a little more human? I mean, we can't have the first 'species' of humans on earth in Africa looking more ape-like than human. Do you think an enlarged cranial capacity might be more useful in attracting and inducing certain chimps to select members of the opposite sex than the normal one they are used to? What environmental event in the life of African chimps might genetically precipitate cranial capacity enlargement in the first place? Another climate change?

We've already been evolutionaryily traumatized by deforestization. Perhaps the grasslands become defoliated and a drought ensues. Long legged chimps are forced to change their diet and start using their noggins in order to figure out how to survive. Think. Deprived of their natural habitat by random acts of nature, long legged chimps are suddenly forced to think for themselves and to ignite the spark that will eventually transform them into complete human beings one day according to neo-Darwinist speculations. Slowly and gradually, the first thoughts and ideas about how to survive in a barren jungle, devoid of forests and grasslands, force their cranial cavities to enlarge, and over eons of time, their ears are lowered.

Now, how do we get rid of that unsightly facial hair and those loose flabby lips and big teeth? What could cause our nose cartilage to grow? After all, we don't want to look too ape-like when we step out onto the neo-Darwinist stage of human evolution in Africa for all the world to see.

[jcrawford]

If the mutation is so severe that they are shunned and cast out of the main group, then this can lead to evolution as well. Isolation is another accepted factor that can drive evolution, and as long as this 'mutant' has male/female company and survives to have children, all decendants will have those genes.

Yes, of course. Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are premised on the unfounded belief that non-human animals have the potential to mutate into people.

[jcrawford]

Are you suggesting that the chimps with the longer and stronger legs which enabled them to stand up longer in the tall grass found each other more attractive than shorter chimps and naturally selected those whose more developed legs resembled their own to mate with? It seems to me that the male chimps with longer stonger legs would go after the female chimps with shorter, weaker legs because they could catch them easier.

How would sex appeal alter the facial physiognomy of chimps to look more human though? And why would chimps with less facial hair, smaller and lower ears, smaller jaws and teeth, protruding noses and bigger brained skulls necessarily have more sex appeal than less evolved chimps? Why wouldn't they be regarded as mutants to the lesser evolved chimp community and be shunned or cast out of the main group?

Would all chimp facial features gradually evolve into more human ones all together equally at the same time or would some chance genetic mutation first cause the nose to become more prominent in the first generations to be followed by smaller and lowered ear adjustments in subsequent generations? After all, a chimp with a human nose might look like a freak to the rest of the chimp family especially if it spent more time standing up on it's hind legs than ambling around on all fours.

Why do you speak of chimps turning into humans?

The thread is about the differences between humans and apes. I'm human and chimps are apes. How do you account for apes turning into humans?

Neo-Darwinists like to show the similarity of chimps and humans, so why not use chimps as examples of what neo-Darwinsts are trying to say about their common ancestry? If you have a another species of ape which you think is a more suitable candidate for human ancestry, then by all means, let us know.

Till then, we'll call that common ancestor of humans and chimps more chimp than human, since chimp-like animals existed before people according to neo-Darwinsit race theories. Any objections?

Now, do you have anything constructive to add to our scientific investigation and account of how human beings developed and were eventually created out of African chimpanzees?

[Jose]

Why do you speak of chimps turning into humans?

The thread is about the differences between humans and apes. I'm human and chimps are apes. How do you account for apes turning into humans?

Well, yes, but you have spoken of chimps evolving into humans. That sure makes it sound like you mean animals that look like present-day chimps evolving into present-day humans. I'm just trying to be sure I know what you mean.

Neo-Darwinists like to show the similarity of chimps and humans, so why not use chimps as examples of what neo-Darwinsts are trying to say about their common ancestry? If you have a another species of ape which you think is a more suitable candidate for human ancestry, then by all means, let us know.

Well, the thinking is that there was this creature, see, and his/her descendents ended up in two separate groups, one of which gave rise to humans, and the other of which gave rise to chimps. It would seem to me that this would make it as different from us as it is from chimps.

The only fossil known from the time period thought to be around the time of divergence is Toumai:

The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique says

Toumaï doesn't look like a chimpanzee, neither a gorilla nor the more recent fossil hominids currently described.

Till then, we'll call that common ancestor of humans and chimps more chimp than human, since chimp-like animals existed before people according to neo-Darwinsit race theories. Any objections?

The objection is quite simple. The ancestor is not a chimp. I rather doubt that evolutionary biologists consider the ancestor to be more chimp-like than human-like. I think we should simply refer to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and not imply that chimps evolved into humans.

Yes, but what role would sexual attraction and selection play in determining which random genetic mutations were more influential in our longer, stronger legged grassland chimps who now must lower their ears, develop an protruding nose and lose a little facial hair in order to start looking a little more human? I mean, we can't have the first 'species' of humans on earth in Africa looking more ape-like than human...

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? I'm curious to know why you'd think that the first humans, or pre-humans should have to look human-like rather than ape-like. Is there a rule about this? I'd guess not, since it's so hard for people, including creationists, to determine which skulls are "human" and which are "ape" when given a line-up.

But to answer your question seriously, it seems that it's pretty obvious. The random mutations that would be more influential would be those that happened to produce facial features that the other sex found attractive. That's kinda the definition of selection by mate choice. It's a self-amplifying kind of thing, though. The features that are "attractive" are chosen by individuals whose brain-wiring finds them "attractive." This simultaneously selects for particular features and for brain wiring that is compatible with those features. Since random mutations occur in every gene now and then, there will always be variation in both the features and the brain-wiring (at least, those parts that are genetically controlled), so these kinds of self-amplifying selection systems can go pretty quickly from "no particular features are interesting" to "certain features are strongly favored." They can also change with time, so that the favored features end up being different in different populations.

[jcrawford]

The only fossil known from the time period thought to be around the time of divergence is Toumai:

The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique says

Toumaï doesn't look like a chimpanzee, neither a gorilla nor the more recent fossil hominids currently described.

Behold your common ancestor! The "corrected" reconstructed model of that crushed, shattered and distorted chimp-like cranium and jaw looks like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4416757.stm

The debate over whether Toumai was human or ape looks like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2313695.stm

More neo-Darwinist confusion here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1234006.stm

Till then, we'll call that common ancestor of humans and chimps more chimp than human, since chimp-like animals existed before people according to neo-Darwinsit race theories. Any objections?

The objection is quite simple. The ancestor is not a chimp.

It's obviously more chimp-like than human at that date.

I rather doubt that evolutionary biologists consider the ancestor to be more chimp-like than human-like.

Of course not. They're in the business of making humans out of monkeys, and vice-versa.

I think we should simply refer to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and not imply that chimps evolved into humans.

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.

[jcrawford]

Yes, but what role would sexual attraction and selection play in determining which random genetic mutations were more influential in our longer, stronger legged grassland chimps who now must lower their ears, develop an protruding nose and lose a little facial hair in order to start looking a little more human? I mean, we can't have the first 'species' of humans on earth in Africa looking more ape-like than human...

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? I'm curious to know why you'd think that the first humans, or pre-humans should have to look human-like rather than ape-like. Is there a rule about this?

Yes. The rule is Jose, that there are no "pre-humans" outside of the incredible imaginations of neo-Darwinist race theorists who, if they are not busy associating and pre-humanizing 'primitive' African people with monkey, chimp and ape ancestors, are just as busy de-humanizing the real human ancestors of Arabic, Hamitic, Islamic and Semitic people living in Africa today.

I'd guess not, since it's so hard for people, including creationists, to determine which skulls are "human" and which are "ape" when given a line-up.

That's only because most of the human fossil skulls naturally selected and presented by paleoanthropologists in the evolutionist "line-up" are reconstructed and reassembled from bone fragments to look morphologically more ape-like than human. Why else put them in a progressive line-up comparing human skulls to African apes?

Since random mutations occur in every gene now and then, there will always be variation in both the features and the brain-wiring (at least, those parts that are genetically controlled), so these kinds of self-amplifying selection systems can go pretty quickly from "no particular features are interesting" to "certain features are strongly favored." They can also change with time, so that the favored features end up being different in different populations.

Why should more human features be 'naturally or sexually' selected by randomly mutating 3 foot hairy primates rather than naturally or sexually rejected? Is there some evolutionist law governing selective choice in chimp-like mating and reproduction?

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

[Jose]

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.

You certainly have an interesting notion of what defines "proof." It seems to me that you are laboring under the misconception that a concept is false unless every bit of evidence imaginable is available. (You are also laboring under the misconception that if a concept is false, your particular image is the default truth; but that's a different thread.)

Now, with one fossil from that time period, it is most likely that it is of a sibling species rather than the exact ancestor. It is very unlikely that the fossil is that of the one individual whose genes were passed on to our lineage. According to your misconceptions, these would disprove all of evolutionary theory and default to racism. Alas, your default is imaginary. The fossil provides one candidate for an ancestor; to learn more, we need more fossils. Eventually, more will be found. Fortunately, the theory of evolution rests on far more than the occasional fossil.

Why should more human features be 'naturally or sexually' selected by randomly mutating 3 foot hairy primates rather than naturally or sexually rejected? Is there some evolutionist law governing selective choice in chimp-like mating and reproduction?

Do you really not know the answer to this question? No wonder you have so much trouble with this topic. By definition if one variation of a trait is selected for, other variations are selected against. Furthermore, as most creationists point out so gleefully, most mutations are deleterious--which means that for most traits, most genetic variation is selected against.

I am forced to conclude that you are being intentionally obstinate here. Your question is "how do you account for the features that now exist?" The answer is "they were selected for." Why weren't they selected against? Well, they were selected against in the chimp lineage. That's why chimps don't look exactly like humans. There is no rule that says evolution must produce humans. If you look around at the other species there are, you'll see that most of the time, it didn't.

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

Yes, the laws of physics do apply.

[jcrawford]

The fossil provides one candidate for an ancestor; to learn more, we need more fossils. Eventually, more will be found.

That's what neo-Darwinists have been saying for more than 100 years now. We need more fossils. Toumai is not a candidate for human ancestry any more than Dubois' pithecanthropus was an ape-man. No fossil evidence of human evolution in Africa equals 100 years of neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins in Africa.

Why should more human features be 'naturally or sexually' selected by randomly mutating 3 foot hairy primates rather than naturally or sexually rejected? Is there some evolutionist law governing selective choice in chimp-like mating and reproduction?

Do you really not know the answer to this question? No wonder you have so much trouble with this topic. By definition if one variation of a trait is selected for, other variations are selected against. Furthermore, as most creationists point out so gleefully, most mutations are deleterious--which means that for most traits, most genetic variation is selected against.

Selection is after the fact though, and cannot be genetically predicted since it's causes are based on chance occurances. Therefore neo-Darwinst "selection" is not scientific because simply saying that natural "selection" did it, is equivalent to saying that a supernatural agent did it.

I am forced to conclude that you are being intentionally obstinate here. Your question is "how do you account for the features that now exist?" The answer is "they were selected for." Why weren't they selected against? Well, they were selected against in the chimp lineage. That's why chimps don't look exactly like humans.

Oh, I see. Chimps don't look like humans because they were not 'selected' to look like humans and humans do look like humans because they were not 'selected' to look like chimps but were instead 'selected ' to look like humans. We sound like the chosen people in this selection process. Who or what is making the logical and intelligent selections, Jose? Intelligent neo-Darwinist theorists or intelligently coded DNA instructions naturally designed to perform selective functions regarding genetic mutations?

There is no rule that says evolution must produce humans.

That's good because their can be no law of physics governing human evolution out of another species then, and neo-Darwinism is reduced to a racial theory of human evolution in Africa.

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

Yes, the laws of physics do apply.

Which laws of physics, Jose? Neo-Darwinist principles of human evolution?

[Glee]

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.

Sound like a plan?

There is really only a bit of evidence left over from thousands of years ago, let alone millions of years ago. 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. A strict standard like the one you propose hurts everyone, not just evolution.

[Glee]

Oh, I see. Chimps don't look like humans because they were not 'selected' to look like humans and humans do look like humans because they were not 'selected' to look like chimps but were instead 'selected ' to look like humans. We sound like the chosen people in this selection process. Who or what is making the logical and intelligent selections, Jose? Intelligent neo-Darwinist theorists or intelligently coded DNA instructions naturally designed to perform selective functions regarding genetic mutations?

The whole point of sexual selection is that it is that species that does the selection. Do you think that animals have no understanding of asthetics or beauty? How would the rest of the beauty that is in life be explained by environmental selection?

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

Yes, the laws of physics do apply.

Which laws of physics, Jose? Neo-Darwinist principles of human evolution?

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


As a side note, i found a site (from talk origins) talking about the fossil record of the evolutionary process - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... art2a.html ... they do note that there is a gap::

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

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