|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2011 : 12:47:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Or, that different races of humans developed separately and independently. Kil mentioned convergent evolution which might explain why there exist common traits even though the ancestor are unspecified or unknown as in which specific ape is whose ancestor. Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes.
|
You seem to lack something that is common knowledge to most people: species that look alike because of convergent evolution cannot reproduce with each other. It's impossible.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 13:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by justintime
Or, that different races of humans developed separately and independently. Kil mentioned convergent evolution which might explain why there exist common traits even though the ancestor are unspecified or unknown as in which specific ape is whose ancestor. Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes.
|
You seem to lack something that is common knowledge to most people: species that look alike because of convergent evolution cannot reproduce with each other. It's impossible.
|
Maybe I should used have used Kil's parallel evolution. He brought both up. I can appreciate Kils participation. You are more like some side show. Even CRUX had to dismiss you unceremoniously as a stealth mod and turned down your offer to engage him.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 16:15:14 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | Maybe I should used have used Kil's parallel evolution. He brought both up. I can appreciate Kils participation. You are more like some side show. Even CRUX had to dismiss you unceremoniously as a stealth mod and turned down your offer to engage him. |
 Whether you invoke convergent or parallel evolution, the result is the same: two different species that cannot produce viable offspring. It is still a biologically impossible explanation for the human races. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/09/2011 16:16:08 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 18:00:19 [Permalink]
|
| Hows so? Same biological traits, some morphological differences, some questionable common but morphological different ancestors. Geographical differences are not enough to explain migration theories. Maybe the existing theories are to confining. It has gone beyond a simple monkey theory that most modern monkeys reject now that it includes some rational humans in the mix. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 20:09:57 [Permalink]
|
justintime, there is no known example, and no evidence that a discreet species ever evolved more than once. It doesn't matter how many times extremely similar species have evolved separately. Those similar species are still unable to produce viable offspring with each other. And their distant relationships with each other are evident in their genome. The human genome is incredibly uniform. We (as in all the races of humans) are recently evolved and all very closely related, despite what might seem like prominent physical differences.
Maybe you've watched too much Star Trek where aliens who evolved on totally different planets can interbreed with each other just because they both happened to evolve into bipedal, sentient beings of similar size. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/09/2011 20:12:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 21:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Two dogs, Miniature Terrier and Mastiff. Look very different, but can produce fertile offspring and very closely related both genetically and in recent common ancestry.
Sugar glider and flying squirrel. Look very similar, but totally different species separated by millions of years of evolution:
 The sugar glider is in fact more closely related to all other marsupials than it is to the flying squirrel. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 22:54:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by justintime
Or, that different races of humans developed separately and independently. Kil mentioned convergent evolution which might explain why there exist common traits even though the ancestor are unspecified or unknown as in which specific ape is whose ancestor. Our ancestors had to be different because we are morphologically different and so are the apes.
|
You seem to lack something that is common knowledge to most people: species that look alike because of convergent evolution cannot reproduce with each other. It's impossible.
|
Maybe I should used have used Kil's parallel evolution. He brought both up. I can appreciate Kils participation. You are more like some side show. Even CRUX had to dismiss you unceremoniously as a stealth mod and turned down your offer to engage him.
|
What I was talking about were a few morphological similarities between orangutans and humans that could have something to do with climate, diet and other common environmental factors. That doesn't mean the species are closer together genetically. And that's the problem with looking at similarities in morphology and ignoring the DNA which tells a truer story about relationships. That's the mistake Schwartz makes. And even he would tell you what Marf has told you. Two different species cannot produce viable offspring. And humans couldn't have evolved independently of each other from different ancestors creating different races. Again, that's just dumb. (And racist.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 08:02:02 [Permalink]
|
It has already been established humans are apes. So how does it become racist when the question is simply which apes (since there are many kinds) are whose ancestors. If the finger was pointing to some humans not being apes while others are. That would be unwarranted.
If you look at the changes and modification in taxonomy. There are several representation of them over time and the shuffling of outgroups which in the earlier charts distanced humans from apes. You will also notice orangutans are outgroup to humans where chimpanzees are closest to humans. But modern DNA findings put orangutans closer to humans than chimpanzees.
Check link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#History_of_hominoid_taxonomy
There is just too much diversity in the human race to point to a single black woman in Africa the evolutionary EVE. Then consider the inbreeding that had to take place to populate the continents.
The simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions is often the best explanation. I am confident the answer is a lot simpler than what we are expected to believe. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 08:57:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
which apes (since there are many kinds) are whose ancestors |
Racism may be the charge simply because there's no other way to account for your inability to understand this very basic point.
It only makes sense to talk about which ape species was the ancestor to all humans. If people had evolved from multiple species of apes, there would be multiple species of people. There aren't.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 09:25:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Two dogs, Miniature Terrier and Mastiff. Look very different, but can produce fertile offspring and very closely related both genetically and in recent common ancestry.
Sugar glider and flying squirrel. Look very similar, but totally different species separated by millions of years of evolution:
The sugar glider is in fact more closely related to all other marsupials than it is to the flying squirrel.
|
Are you suggesting our common ancestors are closer to dogs than monkeys. Since from your example dogs like humans look different but are closely related and can crossbreed just like humans.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 10:20:01 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | It has already been established humans are apes. So how does it become racist when the question is simply which apes (since there are many kinds) are whose ancestors. |
“Apes” are not a classification of species. They are a classification of family. That classification, if accurate, means that all apes have a common ancestor who is not the ancestor of non-ape species. That common ancestor went extinct a long time ago. From the article you referenced: | Genetic analysis shows that hominoids diverged from the Old World monkeys between 29 million and 34.5 million years ago.[20] The gibbons split from the rest about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happened 14 mya (Pongo), 7 mya (Gorilla), and 3-5 mya (Homo & Pan). |
Homo erectus don’t appear until 2 million years ago, so even if multiregional hypothesis for modern human origins (which are repeated contradicted by genetic studies) were true, that still doesn’t allow for different groups of humans to be evolved from different living great apes. And of course the genetic evidence that has been piling up for over 2 decades now shows Homo sapiens to appear out of Africa a mere 200,000 years ago.
You ask how do the claims that different human races evolved from different living apes become racist? They are racist because they are claims without evidence and which are absurd and impossible on their very face, and so it is sensible to assume that the only reason anyone would propose such claims is because they dislike other races so strongly that they desperately want to believe they are more related to a chimp than black and Asian people.
Look, I don’t know if you are a racist. I don’t care. I care that you keep making false claims and idiotic arguments.
| If you look at the changes and modification in taxonomy. There are several representation of them over time and the shuffling of outgroups which in the earlier charts distanced humans from apes. You will also notice orangutans are outgroup to humans where chimpanzees are closest to humans. |
And this supports your claims how?
| But modern DNA findings put orangutans closer to humans than chimpanzees. |
Your memory sucks; Dave, Kil, and I already explained to you how that claim is false. The article you liked to claimed that orangutans are closer based on morphology, not DNA findings, and it was explained to you why we and most anthropologists consider molecular evidence to be superior to morphological evidence. The DNA findings showed that while some parts of orangutan genome are more similar to humans, overall the genomes of chimps and humans are more similar than that of orangutans and humans.
| There is just too much diversity in the human race to point to a single black woman in Africa the evolutionary EVE. Then consider the inbreeding that had to take place to populate the continents. |
For nearly two decades molecular evidence has been showing that humans are not a very diverse species. In fact, our lack of genetic diversity in comparison to other apes supports the idea that there were several bottlenecks (the inbreeding you mentioned) as we spread out across the continents.
| The simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions is often the best explanation. |
Yup. But you aren’t offering that. You are offering a bunch of falsehoods and poor reasoning.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/10/2011 10:23:50 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 10:32:10 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
There is just too much diversity in the human race to point to a single black woman in Africa the evolutionary EVE. Then consider the inbreeding that had to take place to populate the continents. |
Says who? That's an argument from incredulity. A logical fallacy. What you aren't taking into account are phenotypical changes that happen due to climate and such things that the genotype allows for. Those changes are very superficial. When it comes down to it, there isn't the amount of diversity in our species that you are suggesting. We are all one species!
I strongly recommend that you watch the following series of video's, produced by a biologist:
Do Human Races Exist?
Genetic Bucket Chain, Part 1
Genetic Bucket Chain, Part 2
justintime:
But modern DNA findings put orangutans closer to humans than chimpanzees. |
Are you still on that? Not even those people you have linked to say that. They can't because it isn't true. In one ear an out the other... 99% chimp. 97% orangutan. Got it?!
And you wonder why we lose patients with you? If you refuse to learn, why bother even talking to you?!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 10:38:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
But modern DNA findings put orangutans closer to humans than chimpanzees. |
No, they do not.Yup:...comparing humans to all three other hominid genera showed that African "apes" (chimpanzees and gorillas) and humans are more closely related to each other than any of them are to orangutans. | There is just too much diversity in the human race to point to a single black woman in Africa the evolutionary EVE. |
How have you determined this alleged fact? What studies have you done to show that diversity cannot increase as much as it has in the last 200,000 years?| Then consider the inbreeding that had to take place to populate the continents. |
Um, that can actually increase diversity in the world population.| The simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions is often the best explanation. I am confident the answer is a lot simpler than what we are expected to believe. |
Well, you're going to need more to show that than Wikipedia and a popular-press article about research on which you refuse to do follow-up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 10:38:32 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | Are you suggesting our common ancestors are closer to dogs than monkeys. |
No. Are you five years old?
| Since from your example dogs like humans look different but are closely related and can crossbreed just like humans. |
Yes. You have made the claim that there is a great deal of diversity among humans. Superficially that is true. We come in a fairly wide variety of sizes and shapes, skin, eye, and hair colors, and hair textures. But is that sort of diversity evidence for genetic diversity? No. Is that sort of diversity evidence for the claim that different populations of humans being relatively unrelated? No. No more than the morphological similarities of the sugar glider and flying squirrel are evidence for those two species being closely related. No more than the wide variety of characteristics among dog breeds are evidence for Canis lupus familiaris having wide genetic diversity or very old evolutionary origins.
This is once again why the arguments that orangutans are closer to humans than chimps on the evolutionary tree fall short - they are based on morphology, not DNA. And morphology alone can obviously be highly misleading:
Oh, and just so you don't get confused again, the above picture is not meant to imply that humans are more closely related to sharks, ichthyosaurs, or dolphins than monkeys. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 12:46:21 [Permalink]
|
marfknox wrote:
This is once again why the arguments that orangutans are closer to humans than chimps on the evolutionary tree fall short - they are based on morphology, not DNA. And morphology alone can obviously be highly misleading:
|
But that is where you are wrong. I have provided links that point to DNA influence and not just morphology.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm
What is very puzzling from your examples and what I am trying to establish which apes are whose ancestors. Implying our diversity might be associated with parallel, convergent, or futuristic theories on ape evolution.
You are just compounding the problem by introducing other variables such as our canine friends, dogs. We now have to accommodate religion, dogs and simians in the natural process of sexual selection.
Kinsey institute on human sexuality might easily conclude. Doggy style, missionary position and gorilla brute force are evolutionary trends closely associated with the evolutionary period to which we owe our sexual development and the propagation of the species. That these methods are still prevalent in modern practices suggest their contributions favored natural selection.
More research might be required since women are not necessarily the best source for sexual selection theories and erotica with women is yet an unproven measure of sexual stimulation which can vary from a feather to a baseball bat.
I say we pause here. You might have new insights.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 10/10/2011 12:52:55 |
|
|
 |
|
Evolution Questions
