05 Mar 12
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...
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by KewpieIt is just science fiction, like Planet of the Apes.
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...
Originally posted by KewpieIf man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
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...
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by utherpendragon"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".
If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI 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?
"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".
Or is my understanding of taxonomy completely antiquated?
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere was no evolution unless you define God's mind evolution. After God
"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".
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.
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by amolv06The first problem with your understanding is that birds were created before
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?
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. 😏
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by amolv06Our 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.
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?
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
Additionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
05 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThese can change as easily as man's mind. 😏
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/ReptileAdditionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
05 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you for the clarification.
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/ReptileAdditionally, birds are included in Reptilia under phylogenetic definitions.
I will read my old evolution text on cladistics and the wiki on this when I have some more time.