Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

Have read the references to the protective nature of heterozygotic thalassaemia. However what is the reproductive capacity of thalassaemics or sickle-cell anaemics likely to be? I would guess low.

Can't Believe in Human Evolution From Chimps

No, I don’t

cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

Hum well like any other species of the animal kingdom we come a long way compare to chimps or apes.

Finally, if human adaptation gave us a selective advantage, why are there still chimps about nowadays?

Because they are a different species.

evolve
verb evolved, evolving
tr & intr
1. To develop or produce gradually.
Thesaurus: progress, develop, mature, grow, expand, increase.
intr
2. To develop from a primitive into a more complex or advanced form.
3. chem.
To give off (heat, etc).
Etymology: 17c: from Latin evolvere to roll out or unroll.

Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection."

www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

Without taking into consideration, the religious pushing on eliminating the Darwin Theory for a more bible related one . . .

The truth is that Darwin theory has become debatable due to the advances we have on molecular biology today.

DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity

www.allaboutscience.org...

Like everything in science what we learned in the past can be now prove or disprove , the same way that in the future all that we are learning now can also come under attack as we get better and more advance researches.




[edit on 6-5-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Heronumber0 Excessive intelligence leads to aberrant behaviour.

Beg to differ, here. Geniuses are not the ones running off and shooting up neighborhoods as a rule. Geniuses are off creating music, creating art, working puzzles, teaching, creating engines and other devices. They're too busy exploring the world.

In primitive societies, they are often the shamans; the ones who contact the gods. Or they're the specialized creators who learn to make pottery glazes that nobody else thought of (or cooks who learn to prepare unusual foods.) Or explorers.

Our most intelligent people do not conform to normal behaviour.

Again, there's no correlation with psychoses or schizophrenia and intelligence. Joe Cocktailsauce is just as likely to get it as Einstein. Ditto depression or any other condition.

Chimps are intelligent but not capable of recursive thought - e.g. 'I think you thought I was angry' An extra intelligent chimp with aberrant behavoiur would not survive in the social milieu of other chimps.

You might like to read up on chimp behavior. Jane Goodall's study of "David" provides just one of a host of counterexamples to your statements.

Darwinian theory is not in crisis, no matter what your creationnists sites want to make you believe. Genetics and molecular biology support it. A cell is not irreducibly complex...

I don't think you should use that web page as an argument, Marg.

Originally posted by marg6043
The truth is that Darwin theory has become debatable due to the advances we have on molecular biology today.

On the contrary, what we've found through molecular biology confirms evolutionary theory. When we say that chimps and humans are closely related, that information comes from studying the DNA changes and from the science of molecular biology.

The bits about DNA are purposely misstated (or at least are so tweaked that they pretend to give you real information when they're just presenting you with selected facts. It'd take a long lecture to tell you just why (I can, if you like) but they're really showing you 2 or 3 pieces of info and leading you to a conclusion that almost no scientist supports.

Their other pages are equally bad.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
The whole point about the evolution of extra organs is mot valid. Please prove to me about the benficial nature of small mutations because the overall case is AGAINST them conferring a survival benefit to humans. Nothing has been proved to me yet to counteract this case.

So far, no one really knows why or how. There is, however, a very reasonable theory put forth by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan "Acquiring Genomes", that explains these ideas in depth. It's a good book and a good read.
Here's an excerpt:
"Microbes have uniquely capable complete genomes. They, not selfish genes or combative male mammals, are the engines of revolutionary change."

As stated above, it's the microbes that actually change things. There are so many mutations and at least one of them has to survive, because that's how life works, everything strives to survive. SOMEONE has to survive, so the odds are 100% that a mutation will work and survive. Hope that makes sense.

I am surprised no one has mentioned Kanzi the Bonobo chimp. He would be a good example of an Einstein ape. If you look at photos of him he is the only bonobo at his facility that clearly looks into the camera like a human and his skull is larger, especially the forehead than the other bonobos there.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.iowagreatapes.org...

It has already been mentioned that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that we evolved from them. They are simply our cousins not our ancestors.

Another thing that hasnt been mentioned though is I have read at some point humans, probably pre homo sapiens, bred with chimps. Modern chimps and humans both share DNA from from breeding in the past. What I wonder is are hybrids viable today? I dont want to be the one involved in that experiment. Maybe thats how Kanzi came about.

www.boston.com...

Forget the "Einstien Ape". A small mutation to an ape would be an ape who is "slightly" smarter than the rest. This slightly more intelligent ape has an advantage over the rest -- he's less likely to become prey, and he's more likely to become the "alpha male" of his clan, and thus get more mates (and he gets to pick good mates -- good meaning genetically desirable). it's not just size and strength that can make an ape into the leader of his clan -- intelligence helps, too. This "slightly" more intelligent ape is more likely to have more intelligent offspring, possibly slightly more intelligent than the father himself. Thus the cycle will continue.

BTW, besides intelligence, there are other small mutations which would likely cause this ape to become the alpha male get more mates: size, strength, better eyesight, better hearing, better sense of smell. All of thes small mutations will help him/her avoid predators and be around longer to produce more offspring with these same genetic traits.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Animals don't throw out a member of their tribe just because they're a little smarter than the rest. As was mentioned in the above post, the smarter ones usually become the alpha.
Animals with throw out a member because the member doesn't get along with the rest of the group and/or is being unncessarily violent. As stated before, the smartest ones mate with others of "high quality" genes, thus improving the quality of the gene pool.

Byrd

Thanks for the information I didn't took the time to see where the page was coming from.

After all I a pro science, anti creationsim, Id, pro stem cell resarch person.

My biologist and cell bio major daughter will kick my but for posting a place like that.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
However what is the reproductive capacity of thalassaemics or sickle-cell anaemics likely to be? I would guess low.

Why? Something like 80% of the population in certain areas carry these genes, they seem to survive OK. It's only a fraction who develop the real problems, most are just carriers.

In a region with a high risk of malaria, it is likely this protection would aid survival and reproduction. It is trade off against the negative effects of major thalassaemia in a fraction of descendents and protection in most, against no protection and a high rate of death due to malaria. Which is more negative?

However, once these people are not at high risk of malaria, then the genes are likely less beneficial, highlighting the importance of environment-gene interactions.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by forestlady
Animals don't throw out a member of their tribe just because they're a little smarter than the rest. As was mentioned in the above post, the smarter ones usually become the alpha.
Animals with throw out a member because the member doesn't get along with the rest of the group and/or is being unncessarily violent. As stated before, the smartest ones mate with others of "high quality" genes, thus improving the quality of the gene pool.

If anyone would of looked at Kanzi's info you would of seen he is indeed the Alpha Male of his Bonobo community.

I have read some of the links and now change my view on intelligent apes. I AM willing to accept that intelligence can aid survival. However, I am not convinced that recursive thought is present in bonobos/chimpanzees.

That being the case, I want you to explain how consciousness and language came about because I have had no sufficient explanation for that except for accidental mutations and I think the gradually accumulated mutation nonsense has been adequately covered in the previous comments.

However, of all the mutations in DNA that are debilitating, which fraction are damaging. deleterious. LOW!

Originally posted by Heronumber0
That being the case, I want you to explain how consciousness and language came about because I have had no sufficient explanation for that except for accidental mutations and I think the gradually accumulated mutation nonsense has been adequately covered in the previous comments.

I think you need to start a new thread if you want to move the discussion the the topic of Evoulution of Consciousness and launguage

A quote from Darwin himself.

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Link

[edit on 6-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
A quote from Darwin himself.

Which is 150 years old, at a time we didn't know how the eye evolved. Now we do

Originally posted by thehumbleone
A quote from Darwin himself.

"Creationist in Quote-mine Shocker!"

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
That being the case, I want you to explain how consciousness and language came about because I have had no sufficient explanation for that except for accidental mutations and I think the gradually accumulated mutation nonsense has been adequately covered in the previous comments.

Actually, there is the aquatic ape theory that might help explain how language developed.

The theory basically says that at some point during the evolution of humans, an ancestor of ours lived on, or near the water, and survived on aquatic food, like shell fish, and such. These foods being high in Omega-3 fatty acids actually aided our mental development. Brain food as it were.

Another part of the language thing that came along was the need for our ancestors to hold their breath while diving. This is something that other apes can't do. So it stands to reason that the ones with a slight mutation allowing them to hold their breath would survive better, acquire more food, and be a better mate for females to pass along this trait to their offspring.

The key to language is the ability to control one's breath. If the aquatic ape theory is true, then this would explain how human language began to evolve.

I'm not sure how the aquatic ape theory holds up to current evolutionary theory, but there are a lot of things about it that make you wonder.

en.wikipedia.org...

deleted. post already answered.

btw the 'allaboutscience' website isn't about science at all. It's a creationalist site.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by riley]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I have read some of the links and now change my view on intelligent apes. I AM willing to accept that intelligence can aid survival. However, I am not convinced that recursive thought is present in bonobos/chimpanzees.

That being the case, I want you to explain how consciousness and language came about because I have had no sufficient explanation for that except for accidental mutations and I think the gradually accumulated mutation nonsense has been adequately covered in the previous comments.

However, of all the mutations in DNA that are debilitating, which fraction are damaging. deleterious. LOW!

Can you define what you mean by consciousness? Humans arnt the only species who are self aware. If you mean soul that would be hard to quantify. There does seem to be something "human" in the bonobo Kanzi's eyes. Looking at his pictures I didnt feel like I was looking at an animal but something sentient. I didnt get the same impression from his family though.

As for language did you look at his level of language comprehension? Its amazing. I dont think language is a sure sign of sentience. Ground hogs have their own language, with specific sounds for human, male, female, hair color, and clothing.

Even tool making is not a sure sign of sentience.

"Once, Savage-Rumbaugh says, on an outing in a forest by the Georgia State University laboratory where he was raised, Kanzi touched the symbols for"marshmallow"and"fire."Given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick."

www.smithsonianmag.com...

The only thing I can think of that might be a sure sign of sentience may be religion. As far as I know no animal has adopted that yet. It would be interesting to try to explain the concept to a Gorilla or Chimp through sign language and see if they can comprehend it. Kanzi understands human speech well so maybe we could just ask him.

[edit on 6/5/07 by MikeboydUS]