Fenrir wrote:

Wortfish wrote:Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas increased their brain size over the last 8 million years but ours have tripled?

Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas lost their baculum over the last 8 million years but our dicks have tripled?

Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas become bipedal over the last 8 million years while our muscles have become weak and woosy?

The other hominids stayed in the trees (even savannah chimps don't venture out of them for long). We humans made the brain-brawn trade-off that was only possible by ceasing to be brachiatiors/tree-climbers.

"Evolutionary progress" is a non-sequitur.

True, but that has nothing to do with the rest of your post. Evolution is about adapting to changed circumstances if they persist for long enough for the different beneficial mutations associated with non-tree-climbing to become fixed.

Fenrir wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
"Evolutionary progress" is a non-sequitur.

Darwin himself called evolution "progress".

DavidMcC wrote:The other hominids stayed in the trees (even savannah chimps don't venture out of them for long). We humans made the brain-brawn trade-off that was only possible by ceasing to be brachiatiors/tree-climbers.

There is nothing to stop them from constructing/occupying a different niche for themselves that is purely terrestrial as our own ancestors did.

zulumoose wrote:Human survival and the spread of humans into a variety of ecosystems has been enabled by the use of tools and technologies to protect us from environment, climate, food shortages, and all forms of threats and dangers, and the passing on of the required skills and knowledge through language is the key enabler. Chimps and gorillas have largely remained within their natural environments, and have not been able to pass on much from generation to generation that is learned, so the ability to pass on and process extra knowledge has not been a deciding factor in determining survival.

But surely chimps and gorillas face changes in the environmment, climate, foodd shortages etc? Why haven't they adapted and evolved to become adept tool-users with bigger brains? Are you suggesting that they are just lazy?

They have. Chimps are starting to understand and use fire.

http://www.livescience.com/5946-chimps-master-step-controlling-fire.html

They also use tools, and have now started using weapons.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting/

laklak wrote:They have. Chimps are starting to understand and use fire.

http://www.livescience.com/5946-chimps-master-step-controlling-fire.html

They also use tools, and have now started using weapons.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting/

Chimps in captivity can do interesting things, but in the wild they are essentially no different from their ancestors of old.

Wortfish wrote:...
Chimps in captivity can do interesting things, but in the wild they are essentially no different from their ancestors of old.

That might depend on how old you mean in the vague term , "ancestors of old". For all I know you might be referring to such old ancestors that they were significantly different from modern chimps in their behaviour, but I assume you meant not THAT old.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The other hominids stayed in the trees (even savannah chimps don't venture out of them for long). We humans made the brain-brawn trade-off that was only possible by ceasing to be brachiatiors/tree-climbers.

There is nothing to stop them from constructing/occupying a different niche for themselves that is purely terrestrial as our own ancestors did.

Perhaps I should have said "extant" instead of "other", because some of the extinct hominids probably did. What is your point?

Wortfish wrote:

laklak wrote:They have. Chimps are starting to understand and use fire.

http://www.livescience.com/5946-chimps-master-step-controlling-fire.html

They also use tools, and have now started using weapons.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting/

Chimps in captivity can do interesting things, but in the wild they are essentially no different from their ancestors of old.

Except both of the articles describe behavior in the wild.

Erik wrote:A male squirrel and female squirrel copulate and a baby squirrel comes out, not a turtle or whatever. A squirrel and a turtle copulate, nothing comes out. Does not look like an observable barrier to macroevolution?

If evolution aims at the thing called reproductive success, then why is breeding an intra-species thing? If all species are all related as if cousins, why doesn’t breeding occur regardless of species? Why this arbitrary counter-productive restriction? What is the evidence or reasoning that this restriction is merely an apparent barrier to macroevolution and not really there?

Ahh, the old "I don't need to know anything about the theory of evolution to refute it" argument. Well played.

The readers of Viz Comic in the UK seem to have a better handle on the processes of Evolution than the fool quoted in the OP.
From the Letterbocks section of the latest issue:

"What came first, the chicken or the egg? It's clearly the egg. One weird bird-like animal shagged another weird bird-like animal and had a mutant bird baby, which was a chicken. Case solved."

Wortfish wrote:There is nothing to stop them from constructing/occupying a different niche for themselves that is purely terrestrial as our own ancestors did.

You're not stopping to ask yourself why this would happen.
If you spent more time thinking rather than asking vacuous questions purely intended to reinforce your assumed conclusion, you might actually learn something.

Calilasseia wrote:Apparently, this wanktard is too dumbfuck stupid to work out, that the whole fucking point of macroevolution, is the emergence of reproductive barriers between diverging populations.

Was he born this dribblingly palsied, or did he take SAT tests to achieve this?

What do you mean by 'the point'? It's tempting to slip in some teleological attributes for evolution, but isn't this supposed to be some mindless process with no end goal?

mingthething wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Apparently, this wanktard is too dumbfuck stupid to work out, that the whole fucking point of macroevolution, is the emergence of reproductive barriers between diverging populations.

Was he born this dribblingly palsied, or did he take SAT tests to achieve this?

What do you mean by 'the point'? It's tempting to slip in some teleological attributes for evolution, but isn't this supposed to be some mindless process with no end goal?

I think amongst non-teleologically-inclined folks, it's all right to use such words. We know they are not intended to surreptitiously influence the conversation. However, yes, one must be careful when speaking to a wider, perhaps less-than-non-teleologically-inclined audience.

mingthething wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Apparently, this wanktard is too dumbfuck stupid to work out, that the whole fucking point of macroevolution, is the emergence of reproductive barriers between diverging populations.

Was he born this dribblingly palsied, or did he take SAT tests to achieve this?

What do you mean by 'the point'? It's tempting to slip in some teleological attributes for evolution, but isn't this supposed to be some mindless process with no end goal?

Calilasseia meant the point of naming the process.

Indeed, it's the name biologists have chosen to apply to the process, which has been observed taking place and documented in the literature so frequently now, that summary dismissal thereof is no longer a credible creationist option.

That's how allopatric speciation works, and is accepted by biologists as a valid evolutionary process. For a creationist to try and suggest, that the emergence of reproductive barriers between speciating lineages somehow magically constitutes a refutation of evolutionary ideas, as opposed to being an evolutionary idea, is what I was referring to as palsied in the extreme.

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, it's the name biologists have chosen to apply to the process, which has been observed taking place and documented in the literature so frequently now, that summary dismissal thereof is no longer a credible creationist option.

That's how allopatric speciation works, and is accepted by biologists as a valid evolutionary process. For a creationist to try and suggest, that the emergence of reproductive barriers between speciating lineages somehow magically constitutes a refutation of evolutionary ideas, as opposed to being an evolutionary idea, is what I was referring to as palsied in the extreme.

Creationists, including Ken Ham, accept both micro and macroevolution if the latter is defined as speciation only. What they dispute is that the "created kinds" (which they see as anything between a genus and an order) as not sharing a common ancestry. I don't think any creationist would deny that chimps and bonobos have a common ancestor or sheep and goats because they are sister species of the same "kind". So, creationists are evolutionists up to a point.

Wortfish wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, it's the name biologists have chosen to apply to the process, which has been observed taking place and documented in the literature so frequently now, that summary dismissal thereof is no longer a credible creationist option.

That's how allopatric speciation works, and is accepted by biologists as a valid evolutionary process. For a creationist to try and suggest, that the emergence of reproductive barriers between speciating lineages somehow magically constitutes a refutation of evolutionary ideas, as opposed to being an evolutionary idea, is what I was referring to as palsied in the extreme.

Creationists, including Ken Ham, accept both micro and macroevolution if the latter is defined as speciation only. What they dispute is that the "created kinds" (which they see as anything between a genus and an order) as not sharing a common ancestry. I don't think any creationist would deny that chimps and bonobos have a common ancestor or sheep and goats because they are sister species of the same "kind". So, creationists are evolutionists up to a point.

In short, they're engaging in desperate twisting of the facts to fit their mythology fetish.

The mere fact that it's possible to construct a molecular phylogeny for the entire tree of life, destroys their wishful thinking. Because if their assertions were something other than rectal products, the data in question would not even exist.

Calilasseia wrote:

In short, they're engaging in desperate twisting of the facts to fit their mythology fetish.

The mere fact that it's possible to construct a molecular phylogeny for the entire tree of life, destroys their wishful thinking. Because if their assertions were something other than rectal products, the data in question would not even exist.

They would argue that molecular phylogeny is made possible only because of a common genetic design rather than a common ancestry. They would also argue that the "kinds" can be proved by the fact that interbreeding is possible between species of the same kind but not between species of different kinds.

Wortfish wrote:

They would argue that molecular phylogeny is made possible only because of a common genetic design rather than a common ancestry.

They are still left having to explain ERVs.

Wortfish wrote:They would also argue that the "kinds" can be proved by the fact that interbreeding is possible between species of the same kind but not between species of different kinds.

That's completely circular and doesn't explain what a "kind" is at all. Not to mention different species can't interbreed by definition, even if they are of the same "kind", whatever that means.

I mean even you're using "kinds" to mean "genus" (like "Canis") you're still left with the problem of why those kinds (Genus) further belong to a Family, which encompasses other kinds. Orders, which encompass that Family along with other Families and their Genera. Why that Order is lumped into a Class with other Orders, their Familes and respective Genera. And back through Class, Phylum, Kingdom, and Domain.


Both ERVs and phylogeny are MASSIVE problems for creationists.