Evidence for evolution, Installment 2: Cytochrome c

by seattleniceguy 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  What could KoKo do that would give us cause to nudge her ability closer to homo sapiens?
  

  Sapien is defined by the sapien themselves.

  Clearly there is human bias toward human achievement; I'll grant you that.

  However, seems to be chalk and cheese here. Apples and orangoutans.

  KoKo is bright for an animal but, doesn't register on the scale by human achievement.

  Is the problem with the viewer or in the analysis? Or is the chasm dividing human from ape simply too vast to build a bridge of comprehension?

  We see humans, after all, experimenting on apes; but, we never see the reverse.

  http://www.gorilla.org/
• 

  Terry

  The direction that you ar taking it isn't the point at all. I'm surprised that you failed to get the point. That principle has been the basis of evolution for millenia.

  S

  Right you are, Satanus!

  I don't get the point at all.

  Can you help me to understand while addressing my question at the same time? I'd appreciate the help.

  Thanks,

  Terry
• 

  Satanus

  Terry

  We see humans, after all, experimenting on apes; but, we never see the reverse.

  How do you know that? They do like to party and raise hell w humans.

  A gang of monkeys near an Indian village stole a liquor made of marijuana leaves, went back into the woods, got drunk off of it, then went back into the village to raise some hell.

  http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=EntertainmentStoryPage&ItemID=8317077&

  ServiceID=8&filterid=345221&searchid=234672&category=1

  S
• 

  Terry

  The three steps in Darwin's argument are, first, that man differs only in degree from the other animals;
  

  second, that man's origin can be like that of other species;

  and third, that if man's origin were like that of other species, then missing links must have existed and may be found.

  The first step is crucial!

  The whole argument rests on the first proposition, that man differs in degree only from other animals.

  The argument does not rest, as many people seem to think, on the discovery of fossil remains, which will then show the existence of missing links. There cannot be a missing link if there are no intermediate varieties possible between man and apes or other mammals.

  The hub of the argument rests on this possibility.

  T.
• 

  Satanus

  Terry

  No prob. The point is that most animals do have certain priorities in selecting a mate, especially the females. For instance, among certain sparrows the males' ability/quality of song singing is carefully judged by the female sparrows. That selection affects the singing abilities of future generations, and of course the rest of that particular sparrow species in that whatever the females' musical tastes are will be guaranteed to be continued on. Poor singing abilities among male sparrows will tend to fall off as they fail to make the grade, so to speak. See the point?

  S
• 

  Satanus

  Terry

  I have a collection of 6 files w evidence that animals have some human traits such as laughing, thinking about thought, holding grudges, etc. If you are interested, i could zip them and email them to you.

  S
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Terry,

  I'll offer another intelligent but somewhat uninformed opinion:

  Imagine a chimp that thru some happy mutation is slightly more intelligent than his peers. He has the ability to reason out ways to get to food that others can't. So he's able to survive, and produce offspring. Among his peers' children, his will likely prosper, since they can always find food that others must leave behind. As the population grows, it splits geographically, with the more intelligent chimps migrating towards the food they don't have to compete for. But now they are all on an equal footing, they ALL have the intelligence to get the more-complicated-to-obtain food. The most intelligent among the group now has the best possibility for survival/reproduction.

  Each migration (or other form of environmental split, including extinction of less-intelligent sections of the population) leads to a further refining of this characteristic of intelligence. Meanwhile, their unintelligent peers are still enjoying their easy to obtain food and are instead evolving greater strength or climbing ability. A gulf is growing between the original population and the one that split off.

  I could carry this out, but you see the idea. Each step along the way allows for another level of increased survival/reproduction in comparison to the other members of the population in the environment. As all members of the population begin to have the advantage, it isn't an advantage anymore. As the environment changes, the group naturally decides to go where their skills allow them to survive most easily. The gulfs grow and grow so long as there is an advantage to be had in doing so.

  Does all of this address your question, or am I just singing the same old song and not really breaking out of the "it's true because it's true and if it were false then it wouldn't be, but it is" circle?

  Dave
• 

  Satanus

  Further to that sparrow story, i just remembered that the little vixen will slip out from it's mates presence, have a little triste w a better male singer sparrow, then slide on home, keeping the whole thing secret. Now, i ask you, how human is that?

  S
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Terry,

  I'm not an expert in human evolution, but there is certainly evidence that sibling species to humans did exist and were quite intelligent. Research Neandertals when you get a chance. They were not human and did not interbreed with humans (we have DNA from at least 8 specimens now), but they had a culture that rivaled that of humans, including advanced tool making. There is evidence that they had speech as well. Here's an article I wrote on Neandertals: Evidence for evolution, Installment 3b: Neandertals and Mitochondrial DNA

  I think this may be a source of some of the continuity you seek.

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  To further pursue the logical line that Dave started above, imagine that humans and Neandertals live in the same general area at the same time. They are reproductively isolated - no interbreeding takes place. They are separate species, each at the top of the food chain. At some point, humans and Neandertals wage war. As it happens, the humans win and drive the Neandertals to extinction. Later on, the humans look back and wonder why there are no creatures similar to them in intelligence.

  See how this scenario could play out? This is an excercise - I do not know if the actual reason for Neandertal exinction is known - but I think it should illustrate the concepts.

  SNG