Questions for Evolutionists

[tolbiny]

"but is was our common ancestor also extinct at the time?"
Our common ancestor with neanderthalensis was probably erectus which was spread throughout Africa asia and parts of europe- The european population gave rise to neaderthals (there is an intermediary step in here though)and the African population gave rise to humans. When sapeins moved from africa to europe they out competed neaderthals. The youngest neanderthal fossils are around 27,000 years old, and sapiens moved into europe around 120-150k years ago, so it wasn't immediate at all.

"I guess I can see how a species like [censored] sapien may never evolve again."

There are two schools of thought on evolution. One is gradualism, that is species evolve slowly over time and at some difficult to determine period they eventually become a new species. The other is puntuated equilibrium (PE)- where an event "triggers" massive changes in a species over a short period of time. The trigger is usually an environmental stres- drought, or a wether pattern change, or a new predator. Something that won't kill of the species immediately, but will alter their habitat so they are no longer super efficient and any wierdos in the herd will have the opportunity to experience better reproductive fitness. Humans are a lot less suceptible to these stresses, so it is less likely that you will see dramatic changes in the population. (i personally suscribe to the belief that both effect evolution).

"But is it possible there will be some apes in Africa that will learn how to use fire?"

Not likely- the use of fire (in fact our entire evolution) was percipitated by bipedality- that is walking on two legs. That niche is filled now, there isn't any advantage to chimps coming down from the trees again.
Dogs aren't likely to evolve bigger brains either- their birth canal wouldhave to be much wider to pas out a bigger head- something very difficult (actually virtually impossible for a quadraped to give birth to a child with a body to brain ratio that we have) for a quadraped.

My background- my dad teaches and does reasearch on genetics so i grew up around biology alot. As for human evolution i just finished a class called "human evolution, the physical evidence" which is focused on the physical changes that took place to get from our common ancestor with chimps to where we are now.

[joel2006]

Borodog, you're right, but what i meant was that we didn't evolve from chimps, orangs, bonobos, or gorillas, which is what creationists have led most people to think that evolution says hapened.

[Lestat]

Fascinating stuff! I wish I knew what you knew. I still have one nagging question:

Why did our anscestor erectus become instinct? And if he didn't... Would he still be churning out versions of early man? In other words, (and I think this is what Jeff V is asking), why is there no defined demarcation point? If the lemur gave rise to erectus, and erectus gave rise to homosapiens and neanderthals, why aren't they still doing do? Or did you answer this in your previous post. Sorry, I'll have to re-read it. This stuff is new to me.

I do understand your point about giving birth to a large head. It is my understanding that this is why humans are born so pre-mature and animals are basically born ready to go. It's a trade off. An animal can't wait 9 months to learn how to walk. But if the human incubation period were long enough so that we could walk on day one, the female body would not be able to give birth due to our large craniums. Do I have that at least partially right?

But domestic dogs (in time), will not need to be so fully developed if they continue living in domestication. This should allow for the evolution of a larger brain if that somehow became beneficial to the species, no?

I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman). They don't run on all fours like a lion or deer, or even a bear might. Any idea where I can learn more about this? I used to watch Discovery, but they don't have a lot of science on there any more.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman). They don't run on all fours like a lion or deer, or even a bear might. Any idea where I can learn more about this? I used to watch Discovery, but they don't have a lot of science on there any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm repeating myself but I think you would really enjoy the Ancestors tale by Richard Dawkins.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I'm repeating myself but I think you would really enjoy the Ancestors tale by Richard Dawkins.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I just picked it up this morning, it is working its way in my "TO READ" stack.

I'll let you know

MidGe

[Lestat]

You convinced me! I'll read it. I also want to re-read The Blind Watchmaker in detail. Any suggestion on which to read first?

[tolbiny]

"Or did you answer this in your previous post"

I have tried to answer this- we filled the same niche as erectus, and so we ate all his food and drank all his wine and he decided that existance just wasn't worth it without those finer things and faded away.

"I'd also like to understand more about the bipedal niche you talked about. Why is it filled? There are certainly enough quadropeds on the planet. Isn't their room for a few more bipeds if it facilitated the species? Monkeys seem almost in the midst of transition to me. How awkard to be trapped between a biped and a quadroped. They certainly seem to be more biped (to a layman)."

This is a hefty topic. Firstly the apes are quadrapeds, you are correct.
Secondly we are the only stridngly bipedal mammels (knangaroos are bipedal but the hop) and there is a reason for this. Being bipedal SUCKS ASS!!! Its slow, we are much slower than quadrapeds. Its inefficient- we use more energy to travel the same distance. And you are much more likely to trip and not be able to regain balance when being chased by a predator. So why are we bipedal? a couple of thoeries, the best i have heard (imo) that seems to have other evidence to support it goes like this-
8mya primates spread across the globe- they were highly successful, largly because of oppasble thumbs (and in some cases big toes as well). Very adaptable creatures were all over Europe, africa, asia, south america, north america. All over the place. The climate waas perfect for them- tropical jungles all around. Then the climate changed as it was want to do, and vast tracks of the forests died off, and food became scare in a lot of areas.
The vast majority of male apes don't help with child rearing at all, male chimps don't even know which kid is theirs. The apes that could survive in the low food environment were the ones where both the male and female provided for their young. This is the beginning of monogomy in humans. Primates already had opposable thumbs which helped them to carry food, but the males who were the best providers were the ones who could walk upright further than the others, using their hands to carry more food at a time, and having to make fewer trips.

"But domestic dogs (in time), will not need to be so fully developed if they continue living in domestication. This should allow for the evolution of a larger brain if that somehow became beneficial to the species, no?"

A large brain requires a ton of adaptations to occur- most of which occured in humans for other reasons, but eventually allowed for a large brain, and it also requires a huge amount of energy to run.

Regarding my earlier post mentionning having just gotten Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale on my "TO READ" stack, given the number of discussions on this topic on OOT, I decided to re-prioritze a bit and at least read the introduction titled "The conceit of hindsight". It is so well written, makes a case that should NOT be obnoxious to theists, albeit it probably will be to creationists, that I really wished I could post just that intro here. Unfortunatly Amazon did not have the full intro, only the first page. However looking at Orion, the original publishers, there is a dwonloadable pdf of the firsts 105 pages of the book which includes and goes well beyond the intro. So here is the link for those that think they may, and those that thing they may not, be interested, and want some form of confirmation.

On this Orion - Dawkins - The Ancestor's tale page, just click the "extract" link (top left of page) and you will have a 105 pages pdf available.

Enjoy and thanks again, Chez,

MidGe

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How many fossils have been found that show transition from one species to the next?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thousands. You can start just with horses (and their ancestors) here.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is macro-evolution science?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are waterfalls science? The question doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If you answered yes to #3 then where's the tangible, testible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
You can start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

[Jeff V]

I was just asking questions. It's funny that the fact I asked means I have a "religionist" agenda to some people- It works both ways I s'pose.

Why is evolution still theory, and not fact? If the case for evolution is so strong, as some claim here why is ID given a second thought by anyone in any school system anywhere??