What happen to the chimps, since 8 million years

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by timojin, Jun 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Dave C thank you for your diagram.

    I see a problem with the diagram. Since human are the younger pf the ape , yellow line should continue the green line were the specie A is located and specie A should branch out from the spot were it is
    otherwise such graph is convenient way to argue the present theory . This theory does not takes into account that apes are older then Man
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,708
    Better map where distance between branches represents degree of genetic difference.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The evolutionary line that ultimately resulted in our species broke off from the chimpanzee evolutionary line about 7MYA. The first fossils found of Ardipithecus (the first breakoff of humans from chimpanzees) has anatomical features that clearly set the stage for a new kind of ape.
    • Only one prehensile toe on each foot, instead of five. This allows the animal to scurry up into the trees to flee from danger, but it does not give him the ability to perform the amazing gymnastic feats that chimpanzees are capable of.
    • But what it DOES do is reconfigure the shape of the feet, which makes full-time bipedal walking practical. The males can walk off into the woods and come back with armloads of food: primarily leaves, with the occasional small animal that adds protein to the diet, allowing the brain to grow a bit larger. Meanwhile the females and their babies can stay close to the forest canopy where they're relatively safe from predators.
    • At this point a major problem develops. The human brain is enormous in proportion to our bodies. For a human baby to be born with a brain at the same level of development as a baby chimpanzee, dog, or most other mammals, the mother's uterus would be so large and massive that she would be almost immobilized--certainly not capable of walking through the forest with a baby or two on her back, looking for food. The result of this is that human babies are born at a much more primitive level of development than all the other primates, primarily because their brains are at a minimal level of operation--just enough to be able to breathe and swallow. At the other extreme, a newborn giraffe will only take a few minutes to learn to operate his legs and run away from lions.
    • A newborn human is almost completely helpless.
    Thank Ardipithecus for all of this.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,812
    Yours.
    I do not need analogies, I understand evolution.
    And both humans and the other apes have a common ancestor.
    All fruit trees have a common ancestor. All trees have a common ancestor. Trees and humans have a common ancestor.

    I guess you do not want to understand evolution. I suppose believing evolution would force you to question your religion - to bad, if there is a God I assume he/she/it would not be adverse to the truth, but I certainly do not know for sure.
     
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,812
    What is that suppose to mean? Are you trying to argue that apes evolved before man? Gorillas and chimps did not evolve before man, if that is what you are implying. Gorillas and chimps are evolving right now, as are we and so are armadildos for that matter!
     
  9. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,630
    The term "common ancestor" for a single species doesn't have much meaning. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. So do humans and chimpanzees, and that is a different common ancestor, since the split between chimpanzees and humans is more recent.
    Uh - right. The tree diagram is a metaphor. Humans are not really branches of a tree.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,093
    No it is you who are - as so often - confused. I was giving another example of you saying self-contradictory things.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,928
    C'maaan. If Timojin has an agenda, he can reveal it if he wishes. At the moment, he's simply asking to understand evolution. Let's stay on-topic and off flaming shall we?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2016
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,928
    Modern apes are not older than man. All apes have evolved in the 10 or so million years since our common ancestor. No ape species alive today existed more than a million years ago or so. And none of our common ancestors are alive today.
     
  14. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,708
    The beginning is represented by the arrow.
     
  15. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    DaveC could you check
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
    I would start for human in home erectus as fare age.
    A new method of DNA sequencing has shown that the male-specific Y chromosome in humans has more in common with gorillas than chimpanzees in many ways.

    Using two different sequencing technologies – one which produces massive amounts of very short reads, the other that binds them together into long reads – Penn State researchers claim to have developed a “new, less expensive, and faster method” of studying the Y chromosome in all species.
     
  16. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,708
    Humans are literally a form of ape.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,928
    What's your point?
     
  18. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    WHY Not say, we are mammals
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,630
    Why not say we are animals, or primates, or vertebrates, or chordates, or eukaryotes? All those are accurate as well.
     
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,708
    Because it annoys theists who don't want to acknowledge our ape origins.
     
    PhysBang likes this.
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,093
    Steady on. Most "theists", at least those in the Western world that go by the name of "Christians", fully acknowledge all this and have done for over a century.

    There is an informative paper on all this, by an Anglican clergyman who is also a geologist, here:

    http://scibel.com/scibel/print - paper_genesis_and_geology_unearthed_history.html
     
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,708
    I specified the ones that don't want to acknowledge our ape origins. And by the way, many of them say they believe in evolution, but when you drill down you find out they just mean "micro-evolution".
     
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    IT DOES not bother me, is just the word common ancestor is a useless word were atheists hide himself. I know we are a multicellular organism .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page