Jump to content

Why are our supposed ancestors extinct?


Recommended Posts

How is it hard to understand? Say I have 100 rabbits, who can produce 100 more rabbits a month. If I kill 90 rabbits a month, the total number of rabbits will increase. But if I kill 110 rabbits per months, the total number will decrease until there's none. It doesn't mean they aren't breeding, just that I'm killing more rabbits than are born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it hard to understand? Say I have 100 rabbits, who can produce 100 more rabbits a month. If I kill 90 rabbits a month, the total number of rabbits will increase. But if I kill 110 rabbits per months, the total number will decrease until there's none. It doesn't mean they aren't breeding, just that I'm killing more rabbits than are born.
That CONCEPT is not hard to understand, but there is no proof that the hominids of the past or much of the other species went extinct from being killed before getting a chance to reproduce.

 

Does it make sense to you that it is possible that I can climb on top of a house and pee off of the roof? Does the possibility mean that this actually happened in the past?

 

It makes sense. That doesn't mean it is true.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Actually, we know a lot about it. But you'd have to ask a paleontologist about that.

 

 

 

If by "transit another species" you mean evolve into something different, then yes. By definition, our "ancestors" didn't go extinct, because we're still here.

 

 

 

That isn't what happened. It was artificial selection. Only the least aggressive foxes of each generation were permitted to breed. Over many generations, they became naturally much friendlier towards humans. The changes in their appearance were unexpected, the result of genes tied to the ones that made them less aggressive.

 

 

 

I don't see how this is related to the rest of this thread. Please explain.

While in captivity, pups were being born with less and less instinctual aggression towards human beings while also having fur that was less and less able to blend in to their parents' native environment. That was a hell of a coincidence.

 

I believe that mutations are not entirely random and evolution is more directed, then current theory suggests.

 

Why would I not want to have sex with women I have no care for if I like having sex and I find the women attractive? Why do I have to ask questions?

 

I could just wake up, live my life, and let my brain lead me. Why do I have this feeling that my body and my mind are separate from me? Who am "I"? Why do I feel detached from the material world around me?

Edited by Improvision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That CONCEPT is not hard to understand, but there is no proof that the hominids of the past or much of the other species went extinct from being killed before getting a chance to reproduce.
They did reproduce. just not enough.

 

Does it make sense to you that it is possible that I can climb on top of a house and pee off of the roof? Does the possibility mean that this actually happened in the past? It makes sense. That doesn't mean it is true.
Current theories regarding human evolution and evolution in general arent just because a bunch of scientists fancifully concocted some idea that made sense then said it was true. They found the evidence that indicated what happened in the first place then explained it. Completely different concept than whatever you just said.

 

While in captivity, pups were being born with less and less instinctual aggression towards human beings while also having fur that was less and less able to blend in to their parents' native environment. That was a hell of a coincidence.
the same thing was seen in foxes in a fairly recent domestication experiment. The same gene can perform different functions or at least influence other characteristics. Choosing for traits that nature doesn't select for can cause other traits that don't tend to show up regularly in nature to manifest.

 

I believe that mutations are not entirely random and evolution is more directed, then current theory suggests.
Why? The evidence itself points in the opposite direction. Edited by AzurePhoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

lol, enlighten me..

 

we were monkeys A

 

monkeys A evolved into humans.

 

there were our buddies monkeys B..

 

they liked it how it was...(?)


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ooooooops:embarass:

 

so, that ansastor would be?

 

neanderthals?

 

why are they (monkeys) not as complex as we?

Edited by forufes
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it goes back way before neanderthals.

 

back to before austrolopithicus(sp?)

 

they aren't really any less complex. they evolved to fit their niche (swinging around in trees eating fruit and the like) and we evolved to fit our new niche or living on the plains of africa after our ape like ancestors habitat died out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it goes back way before neanderthals.

 

back to before austrolopithicus(sp?)

and that hasn't been decided yet?

they aren't really any less complex. they evolved to fit their niche (swinging around in trees eating fruit and the like) and we evolved to fit our new niche or living on the plains of africa after our ape like ancestors habitat died out.

mmm..

we ARE more complex than them, you can't deny that..we are capable of tasks they can't even dream of..

 

 

WOW, take it easy, i'm not a bio student..

 

i'm taking it easy here, if you can't take it simple than leave me alone, if you all wanna talk in your half a line words i'll leave you alone too.

 

i don't mind learning, you know..

 

Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

it is a bliss:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but why are monkeys still alive then?:confused:

 

how can they exist in the same time frame as us?

Look, basically some populations of our primate ancestors evolved into other forms of primates, such as into us, while some populations of those same "ancestral" species evolved into other forms of primates while some other populations of those same species stayed relatively unchanged over the aeons. Make sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but why are monkeys still alive then?:confused:

 

how can they exist in the same time frame as us?

You have been duped by a false argument, forufes.

 

A question: They say most North Americans are descended from Europeans. By why are Europeans still alive then? If you can answer this question, you will have the answer to why apes and monkeys are still alive now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, basically some populations of our primate ancestors evolved into other forms of primates, such as into us, while some populations of those same "ancestral" species evolved into other forms of primates while some other populations of those same species stayed relatively unchanged over the aeons. Make sense?

yup, makes the image clearer, though i still have a lot of missing parts, i mean you've answered the "how can we and monkeys coexist in the same age" but i still can't get to the "why"..why would they be different, why didn't they all become humans? i would understand if they were monkeys out of the movie "planet of apes", i.e reasonably as complex as we are..so once upon a time we went a way and they went one, and so we became different,but the problem is that evolution is a function of time,it's always happening,, verity is understandable, but this huge gap in complexity is not...it's like either all animals stop evolving at a certain point(which explains one celled creatures living till today), or they started late to humans,meaning they don't all have the same origin..

 

i'm real lost here, any clarifications?:confused:

You have been duped by a false argument, forufes.

 

A question: They say most North Americans are descended from Europeans. By why are Europeans still alive then? If you can answer this question, you will have the answer to why apes and monkeys are still alive now.

EXCELLENT example,i see your point, but my point is:

 

north Americans are as different from their European origin as modern Europeans are, and even if they are not, the difference is way much closer than that between humans,monkeys, and their shared ancestor.

so even though north Americans evolved from old Europeans, so did new Europeans.

 

but relatively speaking,; even though humans evolved from their common ancestor.monkeys did not, again,relatively speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXCELLENT example,i see your point, but my point is:

 

north Americans are as different from their European origin as modern Europeans are, and even if they are not, the difference is way much closer than that between humans,monkeys, and their shared ancestor.

so even though north Americans evolved from old Europeans, so did new Europeans.

 

but relatively speaking,; even though humans evolved from their common ancestor.monkeys did not, again,relatively speaking.

You got the point. Europeans still exist because not all of them migrated to North America. Only a tiny fraction did that. The rest lived on as Europeans. Some but not all Asians similarly migrated to the Americas 15 thousand years ago or so.

 

When a sub-population splits off from a large population that sub-population and its parent population can follow separate evolutionary paths. The sub-population evolves into something else. The common ancestor of the apes and monkeys was most likely something different from apes and monkeys. We don't know what that common ancestor looked like; it happened too long ago and the fossil record is too sparse. Whatever it was, its descendants followed different paths, some becoming monkeys, some apes.

 

In comparison, the last common ancestor of humans and other apes was an ape. That pre-human ape came out of the forest. Just because our ancestor came out of the forest did not force all apes to do so. Most stayed in the forests where their descendants still live to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup, makes the image clearer, though i still have a lot of missing parts, i mean you've answered the "how can we and monkeys coexist in the same age" but i still can't get to the "why"..why would they be different, why didn't they all become humans? i would understand if they were monkeys out of the movie "planet of apes", i.e reasonably as complex as we are..so once upon a time we went a way and they went one, and so we became different,but the problem is that evolution is a function of time,it's always happening,, verity is understandable, but this huge gap in complexity is not...it's like either all animals stop evolving at a certain point(which explains one celled creatures living till today), or they started late to humans,meaning they don't all have the same origin..

 

All of this can be explained by the fact that we humans are not, in fact, "more evolved" than our cousins. We have the largest brains in the family, but not by much, and larger brain /= more evolved. Evolution is not some track on which an organism inevitably follows, progressing from squirrel-like thing to monkey-like thing to human-like thing or whatever, and human beings are not the pinnacle of anything. It's a bit like saying, "Why am I the smartest member of my extended family? All my siblings and cousins have had the same number of generations to improve on their parents!"

 

So, monkeys will not become more human-like unless becoming more human-like happens to immediately improve their chances on an individual level of having more offspring (and having their offspring survive), and other possible directions don't accomplish this better. That's what makes evolution work. And that's all it is, not some drive towards a human notion of "more evolved" (which, interestingly, looks an awful lot like a human!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup, makes the image clearer, though i still have a lot of missing parts, i mean you've answered the "how can we and monkeys coexist in the same age" but i still can't get to the "why"..why would they be different, why didn't they all become humans?
Sigh... go to this link, it gives a general overview of how speciation occurs and species diverge from common ancestors and why those ancestors don't necessarily all become other things -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation. Basically it boils down to the fact that circumstances are different for different populations. Or if two of those populations are separate, even if the circumstances are exactly the same, they can evolve down completely different paths due to such things as random mutational variations (they won't just coincidentally get all the same mutations). Etc etc etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup, makes the image clearer, though i still have a lot of missing parts, i mean you've answered the "how can we and monkeys coexist in the same age" but i still can't get to the "why"..why would they be different, why didn't they all become humans? i would understand if they were monkeys out of the movie "planet of apes", i.e reasonably as complex as we are..so once upon a time we went a way and they went one, and so we became different,but the problem is that evolution is a function of time,it's always happening,, verity is understandable, but this huge gap in complexity is not...it's like either all animals stop evolving at a certain point(which explains one celled creatures living till today), or they started late to humans,meaning they don't all have the same origin..

Think about this question:

 

Why does your Aunty not have the same surname as you?

 

The reason is that she married someone with a different surname.

 

Your Aunty and your Mother both share common ancestors (your grandmother and grandfather), but because they do not have the same genetic history as you, they have a different surname.

 

The genetic history of Humans (and the forces on them to evolve) are different than the genetic history (and the forces on them to evolve) of other apes.

 

So while one person might be a "Smith", their cousins, although they share the same common ancestors, might be a "Jones".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note title

 

I'd guess that as evolution occured and speciation occured, the new species would have had an advantage over the original species. The two species would have likely competed for the same resources and therefore the new species which had evolved to suit the conditions better would have had an advantage and therefore they survived where as the originals didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got the point. Europeans still exist because not all of them migrated to North America. Only a tiny fraction did that. The rest lived on as Europeans. Some but not all Asians similarly migrated to the Americas 15 thousand years ago or so.

 

When a sub-population splits off from a large population that sub-population and its parent population can follow separate evolutionary paths. The sub-population evolves into something else. The common ancestor of the apes and monkeys was most likely something different from apes and monkeys. We don't know what that common ancestor looked like; it happened too long ago and the fossil record is too sparse. Whatever it was, its descendants followed different paths, some becoming monkeys, some apes.

 

In comparison, the last common ancestor of humans and other apes was an ape. That pre-human ape came out of the forest. Just because our ancestor came out of the forest did not force all apes to do so. Most stayed in the forests where their descendants still live to this day.

yes i know, but what i'm saying is that, when a branch goes off the trunk, the trunk doesn't have to disappear,nor does the branch has to be the spitting image of the trunk, what i'm saying is they should both have the almost same amount of length (evolution) from since they parted, the human branch is way much longer (more evolved) than the monkey trunk.

also again, relatively speaking.

All of this can be explained by the fact that we humans are not, in fact, "more evolved" than our cousins. We have the largest brains in the family, but not by much, and larger brain /= more evolved. Evolution is not some track on which an organism inevitably follows, progressing from squirrel-like thing to monkey-like thing to human-like thing or whatever, and human beings are not the pinnacle of anything. It's a bit like saying, "Why am I the smartest member of my extended family? All my siblings and cousins have had the same number of generations to improve on their parents!"

 

So, monkeys will not become more human-like unless becoming more human-like happens to immediately improve their chances on an individual level of having more offspring (and having their offspring survive), and other possible directions don't accomplish this better. That's what makes evolution work. And that's all it is, not some drive towards a human notion of "more evolved" (which, interestingly, looks an awful lot like a human!).

you are raising three matters here, two of which are two faces of one;

 

1-humans aren't more advanced orevolved than monkeys.

i have to heavily disagree, by all accounts and pointsof view,we are more evolved,which is matter three.

 

2-for monkeys to evolve, they don't have to become like humans.

i totally agree, they can be as monkeyishly evolved as they want, but evolved none the less.

 

3-evolution is a subjective term when used by humans.

i partially agree, as we can't discuss it with someone who isn't human, so we can't understand aspects of evolution outside the human scope..

 

buti still think that no matter any scope you choose, humans will always be far away more evolved than monkeys.

Think about this question:

 

Why does your Aunty not have the same surname as you?

 

The reason is that she married someone with a different surname.

 

Your Aunty and your Mother both share common ancestors (your grandmother and grandfather), but because they do not have the same genetic history as you, they have a different surname.

 

The genetic history of Humans (and the forces on them to evolve) are different than the genetic history (and the forces on them to evolve) of other apes.

 

So while one person might be a "Smith", their cousins, although they share the same common ancestors, might be a "Jones".

notify family is the only one which started life.

 

there was no other surname on earth for my aunt to marry from.

 

you follow me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i know, but what i'm saying is that, when a branch goes off the trunk, the trunk doesn't have to disappear,nor does the branch has to be the spitting image of the trunk, what i'm saying is they should both have the almost same amount of length (evolution) from since they parted, the human branch is way much longer (more evolved) than the monkey trunk.

 

Don't take the "tree" analogy too literally. Evolution makes no distinction between the "trunk" and the branches. Instead of a tree, think of a bunch of forking paths, neither fork being the "main" path. Each path continues to evolve, at a rate determined by its environment.

 

you are raising three matters here, two of which are two faces of one;

 

1-humans aren't more advanced orevolved than monkeys.

i have to heavily disagree, by all accounts and pointsof view,we are more evolved,which is matter three.

 

We may have evolved further from apes than apes have evolved away from each other. However, in the context of evolution no species is considered "advanced", as evolution does not imply a direction.

 

 

3-evolution is a subjective term when used by humans.

i partially agree, as we can't discuss it with someone who isn't human, so we can't understand aspects of evolution outside the human scope..

 

I want to know what non-humans have been discussing evolution :confused:

 

Evolution is a pretty non-subjective term. Basically, you have reproduction with occasional heritable variation; where if the variation provides a reproductive advantage, then over sufficient time that variation will mathematically come to dominate.

 

What aspects can we not understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i know, but what i'm saying is that, when a branch goes off the trunk, the trunk doesn't have to disappear,nor does the branch has to be the spitting image of the trunk, what i'm saying is they should both have the almost same amount of length (evolution) from since they parted, the human branch is way much longer (more evolved) than the monkey trunk.

also again, relatively speaking.

 

No, we're not more evolved, because there's no such thing as "more evolved." And there is no "trunk" vs. "branches," it's just a split. And modern monkeys are about as different from our common ancestor as we are. However, there's no reason they "should" be. There's no reason different species can't change at different rates. Horseshoe crabs have changed very little in the last 450 million years, presumably because very few incremental changes have been especially useful to them, and the population has been large enough to even out most random drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.