If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

[Brother Jeffrey]

hmm... my University has basic "gen-ed" requirements like a general Science cource, general English, and eaven Physical Education.

Natural selection is not killing off the Tigers, humans with guns and a misplaced sence of "apreciating beauty" are. Left to live naturally they are in no danger of extinction.
(the Cheeta on the other hand is having problems due to its specalized nature)

wa:do

Human Psych 100 covers the requirement for "gen sci" without touching 'pon natural selection, genetics, or the books of TORAH. Left to live in the "wild" many species are 'pon the verge of extinction. If their is no intervention on Humanity's part, they will die. What I was asking is, from the scientific point of view, why intervene at all?

 

[Sunstone]

Left to live in the "wild" many species are 'pon the verge of extinction. If their is no intervention on Humanity's part, they will die. What I was asking is, from the scientific point of view, why intervene at all?

The reason we know that certain species are on the verge of extinction in the first place is because scientists are studying those species.

In the second place, those same scientists have in many cases isolated precisely why many of those species are on the verge of extinction, and the answer often is human intervention in the form of hunting, habitat destruction, pollution, etc. So, why shouldn't humans intervene to save them, since they have already intervened to threaten them?

Lastly, science in itself doesn't make decisions whether to intervene or not. Science merely provides information. The decision whether to intervene or not is made separately. That is, there is no such thing as a scientific point of view that says, "Don't intervene" or "Do intervene".

 

[michel]

The reason we know that certain species are on the verge of extinction in the first place is because scientists are studying those species.

In the second place, those same scientists have in many cases isolated precisely why many of those species are on the verge of extinction, and the answer often is human intervention in the form of hunting, habitat destruction, pollution, etc. So, why shouldn't humans intervene to save them, since they have already intervened to threaten them?

Lastly, science in itself doesn't make decisions whether to intervene or not. Science merely provides information. The decision whether to intervene or not is made separately. That is, there is no such thing as a scientific point of view that says, "Don't intervene" or "Do intervene".

I couldn't agree more! We are the most likely reason they are dying out. Nice post!

 

[Brother Jeffrey]

If humans are animals, and some other species are competing with us for living space (let's say), according to natural selection-type thinking, the "better" adapted, devloped (strongest) species will win out, no?..why drag it out. Why not just finish 'em off?...making room for human populations to thrive, and evolve?

 

[Sunstone]

If humans are animals, and some other species are competing with us for living space (let's say), according to natural selection-type thinking, the "better" adapted, devloped (strongest) species will win out, no?..why drag it out. Why not just finish 'em off?...making room for human populations to thrive, and evolve?

You haven't been listening, have you?

 

[finalfrogo]

If humans are animals, and some other species are competing with us for living space (let's say), according to natural selection-type thinking, the "better" adapted, devloped (strongest) species will win out, no?..why drag it out. Why not just finish 'em off?...making room for human populations to thrive, and evolve?

We're not competing with animals for living space. The competition ended long ago, when humans began dominating the world. It is out of compassion and respect for nature that we preserve the animals and nature.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

If Itanian-Americans came from Italy, why are there still Italians?!

Bruce

 

[Brother Jeffrey]

human populations do or do not encroach on wildlife populations living space?
It seems to me they do indeed. I have not been advocating the destruction of certain animal life. I have tried to demonstrate why I don't accept nonsense like natural selection, because of the "survival of the fittest" belief.
As a Nazarene I believe that everything in creation, especially living things, and particularly human-life is precious.

 

[mr.guy]

It is out of compassion and respect for nature that we preserve the animals and nature.

That's part of the problem. It should be done out of self-interest.

I have tried to demonstrate why I don't accept nonsense like natural selection, because of the "survival of the fittest" belief.

Am i safe in assuming that "survival of the fittest" should mean that only one species should exist at any time for evolution to be vilified in your eyes?

 

[Brother Jeffrey]

That's part of the problem. It should be done out of self-interest.

Am i safe in assuming that "survival of the fittest" should mean that only one species should exist at any time for evolution to be vilified in your eyes?

Yes and no, you would be safe, and actually, no you would not be accurate in assuming that. I meant/said that "survival-of-the-fittest" was nonsense, that radical departure from that type of man-is-an-animal thinking is needed in order to truly sustain our planet/creation. A vital network of life exists on this planet. It is implicit that we should (as the dominant form of life) act, in order to sustain that network. The link between all things, especially living things is vastly more inricate, and beautiful than any science can imagine. Natural-selection seems to suggest that the weak will (and why not,should?) die out.
If life exists as science suggests, why are we outraged when evil occurs, perplexed when bad things happen to good people ( or to us)? should not the weak suffer and die under the oppression of the more-powerful, who are in-turn at the mercy of hurricanes, disasters, disease and death? such "reasoning" does not provide us with a reason to preserve life, rather it suggests that some life is unworthy. I mean to say that such cold, heartless science will not be part of how I believe.

 

[mr.guy]

I meant/said that "survival-of-the-fittest" was nonsense, that radical departure from that type of man-is-an-animal thinking is needed in order to truly sustain our planet/creation.

How especially is the view of man being an animal destructive to our planet? Plenty of folk convinced of our specie's divinity have contributed to environmental degredation; i see no definate correlation between the two.

It is implicit that we should (as the dominant form of life) act, in order to sustain that network.

Sustenance is not required from us. A cessation of hostilities to surrounding species would be more than adequate.

If life exists as science suggests, why are we outraged when evil occurs, perplexed when bad things happen to good people ( or to us)?

I'm not aquainted with any scientific theories within (or without) evolution that cover "evil". Where's the contradicion?

should not the weak suffer and die under the oppression of the more-powerful, who are in-turn at the mercy of hurricanes, disasters, disease and death?

They do.

such "reasoning" does not provide us with a reason to preserve life, rather it suggests that some life is unworthy.

I don't understand; how exactly is science supposed to provide the "reasoning" to make any such decisions? It's a little like saying "i've seen water seperated through electrolysis; thus i should be nice to my mother." You're dismissing empericalism with unrelated moralism, and what incentives are offered are subsequent appendments (if even) to the facts; they don't define them.

I mean to say that such cold, heartless science will not be part of how I believe.

I don't "believe" in science. To be fair, i don't believe in german, either.

 

[Opethian]

If humans are animals, and some other species are competing with us for living space (let's say), according to natural selection-type thinking, the "better" adapted, devloped (strongest) species will win out, no?..why drag it out. Why not just finish 'em off?...making room for human populations to thrive, and evolve?

Because of humans increased intelligence, they have made numerous inventions to help them survive. If we didn't have our technology, we would be one of the most vulnerable animals on the planet. Humans have evolved together with their technology (including medicine) and are now dependant upon it to remain the dominant species. Because of our inventions, we have also changed the habitats of almost every other species on the planet, and caused their environment to change much faster than it would normally if we didn't intervene. This is the reason many species are becoming extinct: their environment is changing more rapidly than they are able to adapt to it. Because we have heavily accellerated the process of natural selection, we have thrown it far off balance, and if we continue in this way, we will end up destroying the entire planet including ourselves. You say why not finish them off? Because the entire planet we live in is a delicate balance of interactions between species, and because of our "unnaturally" fast changing and destroying of environments, we are eliminating this balance. Thus, if we just kill off all the species that are close to extinction, we are taking away essential parts of the balance, and this will result in an ever increasing (exponential) rate of extinction of species, since the balance is thrown off more and more, and more and more species will face a rapidly changing environment, because other species which they normally interact with and are dependant on will become extinct. Because all the species on this planet are linked to one another, the extinction of one, will rapidly and negatively (either short term or long term) affect others. And it may not seem that obvious, but in the end, we too are dependant on all those little critters on our planet, and if we lose them, we too will eventually be destroyed.

human populations do or do not encroach on wildlife populations living space?
It seems to me they do indeed. I have not been advocating the destruction of certain animal life. I have tried to demonstrate why I don't accept nonsense like natural selection, because of the "survival of the fittest" belief.
As a Nazarene I believe that everything in creation, especially living things, and particularly human-life is precious.

You seem to not realise that natural selection is just the description of a process that goes on in nature all the time. It's not some moral idea, it's just a scientific undeniable process. Whereas on a planet without humans (or similar intelligent organisms) this would result in a balance between all life, our increased intelligence has caused us to accellerate the process to the point where it has lost all balance. Natural selection is not nonsense, it's a scientifical fact.

Yes and no, you would be safe, and actually, no you would not be accurate in assuming that. I meant/said that "survival-of-the-fittest" was nonsense, that radical departure from that type of man-is-an-animal thinking is needed in order to truly sustain our planet/creation. A vital network of life exists on this planet. It is implicit that we should (as the dominant form of life) act, in order to sustain that network. The link between all things, especially living things is vastly more inricate, and beautiful than any science can imagine. Natural-selection seems to suggest that the weak will (and why not,should?) die out.

Natural selection does not suggest this. It simply implies that species will only thrive and survive in environments they are well adapted to. It's not up to you to decide if you think survival of the fittest or natural selection is nonsense, all you can do is accept it, because it is a fact.

If life exists as science suggests, why are we outraged when evil occurs, perplexed when bad things happen to good people ( or to us)? should not the weak suffer and die under the oppression of the more-powerful, who are in-turn at the mercy of hurricanes, disasters, disease and death? such "reasoning" does not provide us with a reason to preserve life, rather it suggests that some life is unworthy. I mean to say that such cold, heartless science will not be part of how I believe.

I think you are really misunderstanding the whole idea.

 

[Atheist_Dave]

:clap Frubals my hard rockin' amigo.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I didn't read all of the pages (way too many), but to answer your question humans did not evolve from apes. Human and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[painted wolf]

well...we did evolve from apes... but not any of the ape species that are our contemperaries.

wa:do

 

[GloriaPatri]

well...we did evolve from apes... but not any of the ape species that are our contemperaries.

wa:do

No, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was not an ape, but something like an 'ape-man'. They think that Pierolapithecus catalaunicus might be that common ancestor.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes and no, you would be safe, and actually, no you would not be accurate in assuming that. I meant/said that "survival-of-the-fittest" was nonsense, that radical departure from that type of man-is-an-animal thinking is needed in order to truly sustain our planet/creation. A vital network of life exists on this planet. It is implicit that we should (as the dominant form of life) act, in order to sustain that network. The link between all things, especially living things is vastly more inricate, and beautiful than any science can imagine. Natural-selection seems to suggest that the weak will (and why not,should?) die out.
If life exists as science suggests, why are we outraged when evil occurs, perplexed when bad things happen to good people ( or to us)? should not the weak suffer and die under the oppression of the more-powerful, who are in-turn at the mercy of hurricanes, disasters, disease and death? such "reasoning" does not provide us with a reason to preserve life, rather it suggests that some life is unworthy. I mean to say that such cold, heartless science will not be part of how I believe.

I think that this is a common fallacy based largely on the imprecise way that we use language. The problem lies with the use of the word “should”. This would is often used to mean what we expect to happen in a certain situation, and other times it is use to mean what we want to happen.

If I were to throw a water balloon off my balcony, it “should” fall to the ground. If my aim is good it “should” hit the man standing below right on the head. The balloon “should” burst, and the man “should” then get wet.

In this sense I am using the word “should” to mean what I would expect to happen.

I then get a knock on my door and there is a very wet and very angry man standing there. He tells me that I “should” not throw water balloons off of my balcony. He tells me that he “should” be able to take a walk without things being thrown at him. He tells me that I “should” be locked up.

He is using the word should to express what he desires, the way he wishes things were.



When you say, “Natural-selection seems to suggest that the weak will (and why not, should?) die out” this is correct. But in this case the word “should” is used the way I used it, as in “the water balloon should fall”. Just as gravity predicts that things will fall (in the Newtonian sense), Evolution predicts that species will under certain circumstances die out.

It does not mean that this is what “should” happen in the sense of it being what anyone wants to happen. It is merely a statement of what some people, including myself, believe is a natural law, much like gravity. It does not mean that it is a good thing, any more than it is a good thing for me to throw water balloons off of my balcony.

Evolution has no more “moral” content than does the theory of Gravity. It is an attempt to understand what is, the moral part comes when we decide how we are going to react.

 

[painted wolf]

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is the earliest of the Great apes found yet, not an "ape-man".

It is admitidly a very primitive great ape, but the ribcage, lower back, sholders and wrists, were more like those of great apes than monkeys.
It isn't likely to be a direct ancestor of apes and humans, but one of several species in a group that gave rise to the later.

again, humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor... that ancestor was still an ape. A primitive ape, but still and ape.

wa:do

 

[GloriaPatri]

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is the earliest of the Great apes found yet, not an "ape-man".

It is admitidly a very primitive great ape, but the ribcage, lower back, sholders and wrists, were more like those of great apes than monkeys.
It isn't likely to be a direct ancestor of apes and humans, but one of several species in a group that gave rise to the later.

again, humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor... that ancestor was still an ape. A primitive ape, but still and ape.

wa:do

Ape - Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

This does not include extinct 'ape-like' creatures. Hence, they are not apes.

The common ancestor was not an ape, but something similar to an ape. A human is similar to a chimpanzee - you don't hear people calling chimpanzees a type of primitive human (we only differ from chimpanzees 4%, genetically).

 

[painted wolf]

it isn't 'apelike' it is a basal ape. Apes have features of the ribcage, lower spine, sholders and wrists that make them distinct from monkeys. All these features are present in Pierolthecus.

Gibbons are not a part of Pongidae, they are Hylobatidae, but they are still apes.
Humans, gorillas and Chimps are nested together within Hominidae.
Pongidae is for the Orangutan not the African Great Apes.
Pierolapithecus is phylogenically placed at the base of the great ape lineage long after the split between the Hylobatidae and the Hominidae and after the Pongidae split.
Making Pierolapithecus closer related to chimps, gorillas and humans than the Organutangs.

The common ancestor between humans and chimps would HAVE TO BE an ape, as both humans and chimps are classed as "great apes" and the Gibbons are apes but more primitive than the "great apes". Both humans and chimps shared the closest common ancestor, but we share a more distant ancestor with Gorillas (a great ape), Orangutangs (another ape) and eaven further back Gibbons (an ape):bonk:

here are some links I hope will help:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5719/203c
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5719/203c/FIG1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15550663&dopt=Abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierolapithecus_catalaunicus
ape phylogeny in particular:
http://www.whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatephylogeny.htm
http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

anywho, the reason we still have chimps are 1) humans didn't evolve from chimps but from a common ape ancestor... and 2) and this is the biggest one... chimps are adapted to a very different lifestyle and environment than humans are. We can't fill thier eccological niche anymore than they can fill ours. There was no pressure from us to drive them extinct. (untill now unfortunatly)

wa:do