1. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    317131
    05 Mar '12 05:45
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html

    Watched this episode on TV last night. It described two fossils, called "Lucy" and "Selam", and clearly explained the evolutionary process, tracing them from earlier fossils which still exhibited many similarities to ape fossils of the same period. They also showed the fundamental differences between the normal skeletal structure of apes and the evolved skeletal structure of the early bipeds, along with a suggestion that the change in stance could have been caused both by environmental changes (less vegetation, requiring more upward reaching for food) and energy conservation (walking is apparently more efficient energy-wise than the original ape posture). Allowing for the normal selective process to make the whole exercise interesting and entertaining, it seemed to explain many things quite well. Looking forward to Episode 2...
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    05 Mar '12 05:56
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html

    Watched this episode on TV last night. It described two fossils, called "Lucy" and "Selam", and clearly explained the evolutionary process, tracing them from earlier fossils which still exhibited many similarities to ape fossils of the same period. They also showed the fundamental differen ...[text shortened]... entertaining, it seemed to explain many things quite well. Looking forward to Episode 2...
    It is just science fiction, like Planet of the Apes.
  3. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    317131
    05 Mar '12 08:07
    How would you know? You think everything to do with scientific knowledge is fiction, so you're not qualified to make judgement on anything.
  4. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    05 Mar '12 11:50
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html

    Watched this episode on TV last night. It described two fossils, called "Lucy" and "Selam", and clearly explained the evolutionary process, tracing them from earlier fossils which still exhibited many similarities to ape fossils of the same period. They also showed the fundamental differen ...[text shortened]... entertaining, it seemed to explain many things quite well. Looking forward to Episode 2...
    If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '12 12:17
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
    "Ape" is the name we have chosen to give to a particular sub-group of primates. All apes (Man included) have a common ancestor, which we also classify as an ape, because it shares characteristics with all its descendants. Biological classification systems are hierarchical, so, however much we, or other apes evolve, we, and they, will still be apes. We may create further sub groups (and, in fact, have done so), but will never split the group as a whole and say "this branch of descendants are no-longer apes".
  6. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    05 Mar '12 16:34
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    "Ape" is the name we have chosen to give to a particular sub-group of primates. All apes (Man included) have a common ancestor, which we also classify as an ape, because it shares characteristics with all its descendants. Biological classification systems are hierarchical, so, however much we, or other apes evolve, we, and they, will still be apes. We may ...[text shortened]... ll never split the group as a whole and say "this branch of descendants are no-longer apes".
    I don't mean to pettifog, I may simply not understand how taxonomic classification works, but hypothetically couldn't enough evolution occur to where a certain lineage of ape is not longer classified as an ape? For instance, the dinosaurs were considered under the class reptilia, however their descendants, the aves, are not. Could something like this not happen again?

    Or is my understanding of taxonomy completely antiquated?
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    05 Mar '12 18:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    "Ape" is the name we have chosen to give to a particular sub-group of primates. All apes (Man included) have a common ancestor, which we also classify as an ape, because it shares characteristics with all its descendants. Biological classification systems are hierarchical, so, however much we, or other apes evolve, we, and they, will still be apes. We may ...[text shortened]... ll never split the group as a whole and say "this branch of descendants are no-longer apes".
    There was no evolution unless you define God's mind evolution. After God
    created other creatures, including the apes, He decided to make another
    visible creature in the image of the invisible Creator. It just so happened
    that He used some of the visible characteristics of apes for this new creature.
    We are told about it in the Holy Bible which you call fairy tales. However,
    you have no problem with the evolutionary fairly tales that man evolved by
    itself from slim to a worm or some other creature on its way to becoming
    mankind.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    05 Mar '12 18:07
    Originally posted by amolv06
    I don't mean to pettifog, I may simply not understand how taxonomic classification works, but hypothetically couldn't enough evolution occur to where a certain lineage of ape is not longer classified as an ape? For instance, the dinosaurs were considered under the class reptilia, however their descendants, the aves, are not. Could something like this not happen again?

    Or is my understanding of taxonomy completely antiquated?
    The first problem with your understanding is that birds were created before
    any other land animal. That includes what you call reptilia. And twhitehead
    probably has no idea what you are talking about. But I am interested to
    see what his reply will be. 😏
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '12 18:50
    Originally posted by amolv06
    I don't mean to pettifog, I may simply not understand how taxonomic classification works, but hypothetically couldn't enough evolution occur to where a certain lineage of ape is not longer classified as an ape? For instance, the dinosaurs were considered under the class reptilia, however their descendants, the aves, are not. Could something like this not happen again?

    Or is my understanding of taxonomy completely antiquated?
    Our classification system has varied over time. However, modern classification is tending towards a hierarchical one, and birds should be considered reptiles, and man should be classified as a monkey.

    According to Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
    Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    05 Mar '12 19:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Our classification system has varied over time. However, modern classification is tending towards a hierarchical one, and birds should be considered reptiles, and man should be classified as a monkey.

    According to Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
    Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
    These can change as easily as man's mind. 😏
  11. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    05 Mar '12 20:132 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Our classification system has varied over time. However, modern classification is tending towards a hierarchical one, and birds should be considered reptiles, and man should be classified as a monkey.

    According to Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
    Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
    Thank you for the clarification.

    I will read my old evolution text on cladistics and the wiki on this when I have some more time.
  12. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    06 Mar '12 05:51
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
    alleluia
  13. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    317131
    06 Mar '12 06:02
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
    If a tree grows several branches, and one branch differs from the next branch, do all branches except one have to die off? Duh ...
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    06 Mar '12 06:08
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If a tree grows several branches, and one branch differs from the next branch, do all branches except one have to die off? Duh ...
    A tree is a plant and is created to have branches. Duh ...
  15. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    06 Mar '12 06:29
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If a tree grows several branches, and one branch differs from the next branch, do all branches except one have to die off? Duh ...
    do you see any apes from the zoo evolving it to humans..? Duh
Back to Top