Anthropologists Trace Human Origins Back To Large Extinct Goat

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Anthropologists Trace Human Origins Back To Large Extinct Goat

 

February 17, 2011 | ISSUE 47•07

 

NEW YORK—An international team of anthropologists announced Monday it had traced the lineage of Homo sapiens back to a single large Pliocene-era goat.

"We have mapped out each of the diverse branches of the human family back to the dawn of our species," Douglas Ochs of Columbia University said, "and found that the common ancestor of all living humans was an immense and cognitively advanced goat that roamed the earth 15.4 million years ago."

Funded by a grant from the Smithsonian Institution, the 17-year inquiry into the origins of the human race brought together 12 top anthropologists from around the world to pursue the single-large-goat theory.

The landmark study culminates in this week's release of a 270-page report explaining the structure of prehistoric humans' short, upturned woolly tails and identifying the roots of early Indo-European† language in goat bleating.

"There may be some slight inconsistencies in a few of our results, but I assure you these bone samples and behavioral analyses are all, well…look, I'm not going to stand here and tell you they're not a little ridiculous-looking," said Regina Hubbard-Price, associate director of the American Anthropological Association. "Obviously, with hindsight, yes, it's somewhat odd that our theory presupposes complex hunter-gatherer societies composed of large, 250-pound bipedal goat-men. But a lot of thought went into this, I swear."

"Maybe we should have listened to Cliff [Geertz] back at the beginning when he kept emphasizing that humans don't look like goats," Hubbard-Price added.

As their colleagues huddled together and whispered behind them, researchers from Australia and Japan explained how one 6-foot-tall goat with a hominid skeletal structure spawned numerous goat-human hybrids over a period of 1.8 million years. In a series of PowerPoint slides, they then showed that our ancestors used their prehensile upper lips to perform basic agricultural tasks and stomped out crude pottery with their cloven feet, theories that team members stopped reading aloud to the assembled audience almost immediately after reaching the words "cloven feet."

"Okay, so I'm reading this now, and it says, 'After trotting out of Africa nearly 2 million years ago, our earliest ancestors used their strong hooves and hindquarters to climb up steep mountain slopes in search of delicious moss,'" said British anthropologist Oliver Cranmore, reading from the report and shaking his head. "The thing is, I think I actually wrote that part. And I remember feeling very confident and excited about it at the time. This is weird."

After opening the floor to questions, researchers said they were now able to pinpoint what should have been warning signs that their findings were problematic, such as the moment 10 years ago when none of them could account for why present-day humans don't have horns, or the realization in the spring of 2004 that goats today exhibit virtually no humanlike characteristics whatsoever.

In spite of such incongruities, most of the scientists maintained that much of the physical evidence appeared to corroborate the goat- human connection, from countless Paleolithic cave paintings of goats, to the fact that many of man's earliest gods and demons took the form of goats, to colleague Lou Samedi's narrow, pointy beard.

"You know what? This might actually still be right," said University of California professor Han Choi, leafing through printouts of data. "Some male goats can reach almost 160 pounds, and that's pretty close to a normal-sized man."

"So, if you think about it," Choi added before trailing off. "Hold on, sorry."

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 That explains why my hoof

 That explains why my hoof twitches every time I see a female goat... thank you for enlightening us Smiling *scratches horn

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's

 

the Onion. Did not want to give the game away so removed references to preserve the tiniest element of doubt until Par 4 or 5...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
That looks like a monster

That looks like a monster out of Diablo II....


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:That

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

That looks like a monster out of Diablo II....

I was so addicted to that game for a few months.  Diablo III should be out soon.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
This is a joke right? I

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:This is

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ymalmsteen887

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I am I

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

Whether it is actually true or not, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about not believing everything you hear. That's clearly a break from that old religious thinking that we were discussing on another thread. Good for you.

Congratulations, your well on your way to deconversion from religion and shedding that old dogmatic thinking. thumbs up

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not a random fossil, no.

 

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

 

But the fossil of an ancient mammal, possibly, and the fossil of a giant bipedal goat, assuredly.

BTW, I am the only one who thinks that lab assistant is hot?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:BTW,

Atheistextremist wrote:

BTW, I am the only one who thinks that lab assistant is hot?

 

My standards are so low my opinion is practically meaningless.  But yea, she's hot.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Ktulu

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

BTW, I am the only one who thinks that lab assistant is hot?

 

My standards are so low my opinion is practically meaningless.  But yea, she's hot.

hehe, I agree, she don't looka like a man. She is hot.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

It's either the notebook, the HB pencil or the ponytail. Or all three.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

It's the notebook, the HB pencil or the ponytail. Or all three.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:This is

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

 

It is from The Onion - an online satirical  news website.  Which means the entire thing is a joke.  And people are being silly.  As usual.

As for the lab assistant - any thing in skirts - you want to bet she is some air head actress?

Yeah, I'm jealous - not of her looks, but of her age.  I'd really like to be twenty-something again.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Naw

cj wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

 

It is from The Onion - an online satirical  news website.  Which means the entire thing is a joke.  And people are being silly.  As usual.

As for the lab assistant - any thing in skirts - you want to bet she is some air head actress?

Yeah, I'm jealous - not of her looks, but of her age.  I'd really like to be twenty-something again.

 

 

Any written news service is on the cheap. She's a subbie, a journo, a graphic designer or some wag's girlfriend/mate.

And yes, I'd like to be that age again, too.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ymalmsteen887

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

Actually I am quite aware of the Evolution being more tree like than linear I dont see a pronlem with there being monkeys I think if you go back far enough to both(chimps and us) are great great etc.. grandparents we would look neither human nor chimp but arent goats on a seperate part of this tree you are talking about. I think if you go back far enough in the evolution of us and goats to our common ancestor it would have been neither goat nor human, just another mammal like creature unless scientists say that mammals evolved more than once which I doubt?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There are definitely goats in our

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

Actually I am quite aware of the Evolution being more tree like than linear I dont see a pronlem with there being monkeys I think if you go back far enough to both(chimps and us) are great great etc.. grandparents we would look neither human nor chimp but arent goats on a seperate part of this tree you are talking about. I think if you go back far enough in the evolution of us and goats to our common ancestor it would have been neither goat nor human, just another mammal like creature unless scientists say that mammals evolved more than once which I doubt?

 

ancestry. The branch was forked. If you read noted christian apologist C.S. Lewis' Narnia books you can see the concestor of humans and goats in the form of Mr Tumnus. Lewis was close friends with the curator of the British Museum in London and it's possible he gained access to these amazing fossils during private research.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This is a joke right? I didnt see this creature in that evolution sequence, you know the one with carl sagan.

Of course it's not a joke, you don't believe in evolution now? it sounds reputable... and the original report had a LOT of pages... 

Yes of course it's a joke, but it also has more explanation and science in it then most creationist arguments.

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

Actually I am quite aware of the Evolution being more tree like than linear I dont see a pronlem with there being monkeys I think if you go back far enough to both(chimps and us) are great great etc.. grandparents we would look neither human nor chimp but arent goats on a seperate part of this tree you are talking about. I think if you go back far enough in the evolution of us and goats to our common ancestor it would have been neither goat nor human, just another mammal like creature unless scientists say that mammals evolved more than once which I doubt?

 

ancestry. The branch was forked. If you read noted christian apologist C.S. Lewis' Narnia books you can see the concestor of humans and goats in the form of Mr Tumnus. Lewis was close friends with the curator of the British Museum in London and it's possible he gained access to these amazing fossils during private research.

 

 

 

 

I cant tell if youre joking or mocking me and if youre joking is what I said correct?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

I thought you were teasing, ymalm.

Look - goats and humans are both mammals and all mammals have a common ancestor but it would be some weeny scurrying beastie just as you suggest. I'm not sure where the caprid (goat/antelope) branch of the mammalian tree sits but there would certainly be evolutionary links between caprids and us.

Interestingly, humans are genetically much more closely related to rats than to hooved mammals or carnivores. Our closest genetic relatives are chimps/bonobos and we diverged from a concestor about 5 million years ago, which is not particularly distant in evolutionary terms. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Ktulu

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

Actually I am quite aware of the Evolution being more tree like than linear I dont see a pronlem with there being monkeys I think if you go back far enough to both(chimps and us) are great great etc.. grandparents we would look neither human nor chimp but arent goats on a seperate part of this tree you are talking about. I think if you go back far enough in the evolution of us and goats to our common ancestor it would have been neither goat nor human, just another mammal like creature unless scientists say that mammals evolved more than once which I doubt?

Sorry I thought that's what you were asking when you said " I  mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" "

So what do you find weird if everything makes sense?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: But yea,she's hot.

     Are you kiddin me ? Hot ? she looks like she's 15 or so, a student , unless you're a very young person, you shouldn't see her as hot, in my opinion.  

Signature ? How ?


Tadgh
atheist
Tadgh's picture
Posts: 125
Joined: 2010-08-29
User is offlineOffline
The first thing I thought of

The first thing I thought of when I saw the word 'goat' was Satan.

I cannot wait until some creationist cites this article.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:     Are you

Ken G. wrote:

     Are you kiddin me ? Hot ? she looks like she's 15 or so, a student , unless you're a very young person, you shouldn't see her as hot, in my opinion.  

You have to see an ID card before deciding if someone is hot?

 

Does this finding prove that Stevie Nicks is the missing link?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ymalmsteen887

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Yes creationism is silly you dont have to point that out.

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

I think that is exactly what you're asking.  Why are there still monkeys?.... people that ask that think of evolution as a linear 'Evolution Poster' depiction.  The truth is we are just as evolved as monkeys, or apes, or dogs.  We happen to have a very distant common ancestor with monkeys (every other animal as well but more obviously with monkeys).  The other thing you need to consider is the vast amount of time that this has taken.  

Evolution is more like a tree.  Think of the tips of the branches on the same Time Line pointing upwards.  Every current living animal is on the same time line, and hence as evolved as everything else.  So where the "common ancestor" splits into two branches (lets say us and monkeys) the common ancestor or 'a stage in our development' will continue to evolve into the two branches. 

In this overly simplified example, us and monkeys, had this chimpanzee-human ancestor.  Lets call it chiman.  What you're asking is why aren't there any chimans around, correct?  And the answer is, we, and monkeys are chimans, just evolved.  Chimps are one branch and we are the other.  Of course this is just a concept, the details are a lot more complicated.  Follow the links from that wiki link above, you may learn something.

Actually I am quite aware of the Evolution being more tree like than linear I dont see a pronlem with there being monkeys I think if you go back far enough to both(chimps and us) are great great etc.. grandparents we would look neither human nor chimp but arent goats on a seperate part of this tree you are talking about. I think if you go back far enough in the evolution of us and goats to our common ancestor it would have been neither goat nor human, just another mammal like creature unless scientists say that mammals evolved more than once which I doubt?

Sorry I thought that's what you were asking when you said " I  mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" "

So what do you find weird if everything makes sense?

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I am

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ymalmsteen887

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

I am saying we shouldnt find animals alive today that look like a stage in our development of long ago.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:I am

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

I think it would be quite the opposite. In the tree of evolution of life, almost all branches are dead ends, nearly every species and breed becomes extinct. So nearly every ancient fossil found would be distant cousin of humans or other animals, not a direct descendant.

I'm pretty skeptical of find a fossil of human ancestor. It's wishful thinking and the people that find it get more fame and money by claiming it is. When they found Lucy, they first thought she was our ancestor, but it turns out she was a distant cousin of our ancestors who lineage became extinct. But that is to be expected. Finding a human ancestor fossil is finding a needle in a haystack.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Ktulu

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

I am saying we shouldnt find animals alive today that look like a stage in our development of long ago.

That's better English, but I'm still not sure what you mean.  Let's take the 'chiman' we mentioned earlier (not a term, something I made up, the common ancestor between chimps and humans).  The reason we branched off the original ancestor was because of a mutation that benefited us in our environment.  The same environment could, in theory,successfully support both species simultaneously.  If that's the case, we can continue to evolve into today's humans while the chiman would still be around eating fruit or what have you.  Evolution works on 'just good enough' to survive the environment.  If the environment doesn't change dramatically, and the species can reproduce, there is very little change.  Look at Crocodylidae (crocks and family).  They have been around since before dinosaurs, also sharks.  Maybe I'm reading your question wrongly, I hope my rant helps.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ymalmsteen887

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

I am saying we shouldnt find animals alive today that look like a stage in our development of long ago.

That's better English, but I'm still not sure what you mean.  Let's take the 'chiman' we mentioned earlier (not a term, something I made up, the common ancestor between chimps and humans).  The reason we branched off the original ancestor was because of a mutation that benefited us in our environment.  The same environment could, in theory,successfully support both species simultaneously.  If that's the case, we can continue to evolve into today's humans while the chiman would still be around eating fruit or what have you.  Evolution works on 'just good enough' to survive the environment.  If the environment doesn't change dramatically, and the species can reproduce, there is very little change.  Look at Crocodylidae (crocks and family).  They have been around since before dinosaurs, also sharks.  Maybe I'm reading your question wrongly, I hope my rant helps.

If the chimps were in the same environment wouldnt they also be breeding with us?

There is no way that crocodiles looked like they do now back then they may have had the same basic shape but they probably looked different.(By the way how do we know that crocks looked the same?)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:     Are you

Ken G. wrote:

     Are you kiddin me ? Hot ? she looks like she's 15 or so, a student , unless you're a very young person, you shouldn't see her as hot, in my opinion.  

I'm *fairly* certain 18-20 year old women (that would be my guess, she looks like a college student to me) are going to be attractive to me for the duration of my life.

 

I could be wrong, I'll let you know if it changes.  And I'm fairly young, I just turned 27.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Ktulu

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

I am saying we shouldnt find animals alive today that look like a stage in our development of long ago.

That's better English, but I'm still not sure what you mean.  Let's take the 'chiman' we mentioned earlier (not a term, something I made up, the common ancestor between chimps and humans).  The reason we branched off the original ancestor was because of a mutation that benefited us in our environment.  The same environment could, in theory,successfully support both species simultaneously.  If that's the case, we can continue to evolve into today's humans while the chiman would still be around eating fruit or what have you.  Evolution works on 'just good enough' to survive the environment.  If the environment doesn't change dramatically, and the species can reproduce, there is very little change.  Look at Crocodylidae (crocks and family).  They have been around since before dinosaurs, also sharks.  Maybe I'm reading your question wrongly, I hope my rant helps.

If the chimps were in the same environment wouldnt they also be breeding with us?

There is no way that crocodiles looked like they do now back then they may have had the same basic shape but they probably looked different.(By the way how do we know that crocks looked the same?)

There definitely are species which have changed very little for a very long time, sharks and crocodiles are examples.

If a species has become well adapted to an environment which has not changed very much, it will tend to stay the same.

We can tell this by finding similar fossils dating all the way back.

No one just finds a 'random fossil' and claims it is an ancestor of some modern species, they would base any such claim on comparing it with existing fossil specimens dated to intermediate times up to the present.

We branched off, possibly as a group of 'the ancestral species which found itself in slightly different environment and began to 'evolve' in different direction. This allowed some of the group to spread to even more different environments, such as the savannah. Some of our ancestors may well have gone back to live in the same environment as the chimps, but if they had evolved away enough, there would be no mating, and they would be exploiting the environment in slightly different ways by then.

There would be no selection pressure to evolve back into the chimp life-style, since that would mean competing with chimps who were already well-adapted to that niche

The common ancestor of goat and human would still be a mammal, not 'mammal like' - we aren't that far apart.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am saying after all this time wouldnt there be plenty of change that no where on the tree we look we shouldnt find an animal that looks like a stage in our development.

Sorry, that's very unclear... Do you mean "At any one point that we look on the tree we should find changes." or "We are not finding those changes that the theory of evolution is predicting."  Is English your second language?

I am saying we shouldnt find animals alive today that look like a stage in our development of long ago.

That's better English, but I'm still not sure what you mean.  Let's take the 'chiman' we mentioned earlier (not a term, something I made up, the common ancestor between chimps and humans).  The reason we branched off the original ancestor was because of a mutation that benefited us in our environment.  The same environment could, in theory,successfully support both species simultaneously.  If that's the case, we can continue to evolve into today's humans while the chiman would still be around eating fruit or what have you.  Evolution works on 'just good enough' to survive the environment.  If the environment doesn't change dramatically, and the species can reproduce, there is very little change.  Look at Crocodylidae (crocks and family).  They have been around since before dinosaurs, also sharks.  Maybe I'm reading your question wrongly, I hope my rant helps.

If the chimps were in the same environment wouldnt they also be breeding with us?

There is no way that crocodiles looked like they do now back then they may have had the same basic shape but they probably looked different.(By the way how do we know that crocks looked the same?)

There definitely are species which have changed very little for a very long time, sharks and crocodiles are examples.

If a species has become well adapted to an environment which has not changed very much, it will tend to stay the same.

We can tell this by finding similar fossils dating all the way back.

No one just finds a 'random fossil' and claims it is an ancestor of some modern species, they would base any such claim on comparing it with existing fossil specimens dated to intermediate times up to the present.

We branched off, possibly as a group of 'the ancestral species which found itself in slightly different environment and began to 'evolve' in different direction. This allowed some of the group to spread to even more different environments, such as the savannah. Some of our ancestors may well have gone back to live in the same environment as the chimps, but if they had evolved away enough, there would be no mating, and they would be exploiting the environment in slightly different ways by then.

There would be no selection pressure to evolve back into the chimp life-style, since that would mean competing with chimps who were already well-adapted to that niche

The common ancestor of goat and human would still be a mammal, not 'mammal like' - we aren't that far apart.

Yeah but wouldnt random mutations still cause them to drift away from their current form even if there is no need to change wouldnt they just change to something else also sutied to the enviroment or even better adapted.

I still dont understand how we developed seperate from the other chimps. Based on what youre saying we developed in an isolated area from them, which means all primates would have to be isolated from each other is this the case does every primate species how its own part of the earth it occupies.

I know it was still a mammal, I was saying it was neither goat nor primate.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Yeah but

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Yeah but wouldnt random mutations still cause them to drift away from their current form even if there is no need to change wouldnt they just change to something else also sutied to the enviroment or even better adapted.

We know that never happen, climate change has always been occuring and species adapted to the change.

But assuming there was an environment without climate change, you'd still see changes occuring because of competition. Giraffes with long neck won out of those with short necks because they could get more fruit. These changes would occur with or without climate change. Climate change speeds up change in many cases.

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I still dont understand how we developed seperate from the other chimps. Based on what youre saying we developed in an isolated area from them, which means all primates would have to be isolated from each other is this the case does every primate species how its own part of the earth it occupies.

Maybe the fusing of human chromosone #2 prevented our ancestors from beeding with other primates. If this is the case, there didn't need to be a geographic seperation from the other primates in Africa. Maybe they lived along side all the other primates but were not very different genetically.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey EXC

EXC wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Yeah but wouldnt random mutations still cause them to drift away from their current form even if there is no need to change wouldnt they just change to something else also sutied to the enviroment or even better adapted.

We know that never happen, climate change has always been occuring and species adapted to the change.

But assuming there was an environment without climate change, you'd still see changes occuring because of competition. Giraffes with long neck won out of those with short necks because they could get more fruit. These changes would occur with or without climate change. Climate change speeds up change in many cases.

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I still dont understand how we developed seperate from the other chimps. Based on what youre saying we developed in an isolated area from them, which means all primates would have to be isolated from each other is this the case does every primate species how its own part of the earth it occupies.

Maybe the fusing of human chromosone #2 prevented our ancestors from beeding with other primates. If this is the case, there didn't need to be a geographic seperation from the other primates in Africa. Maybe they lived along side all the other primates but were not very different genetically.

 

There's a story in the latest New Scientist called Evolution's X Factor. Tried to post it but can't get a copy on the net. It discusses findings that a single chromosome is responsible for species' inability to breed. Once this genetic switch is activated drift and selection push species apart. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
BTW, their is a claim that a

BTW, their is a claim that a 'horned' 7 foot humanoid skull was found in Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread476058/pg1

 

Sounds pretty phony, but you never know.

 

 

"A seven foot tall guy who's horny?

Sounds like the NBA to me."
 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:BTW, their is a

EXC wrote:

BTW, their is a claim that a 'horned' 7 foot humanoid skull was found in Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread476058/pg1

 

Sounds pretty phony, but you never know.

 

 

"A seven foot tall guy who's horny?

Sounds like the NBA to me."
 

LOL the skull has a fucking hat on.  And some head ornaments... wtf? 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

I am I just so supposed to believe everything I hear. I mean I just find it weird that there is a creature still alive today that resembles a stage in our development and please dont say what im saying is similiar to "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" I find evolution fasinating but dont understand how people come to thiese conculsions. I mean if I found some random fossil of a creature can I just declare that ii is one of our ancestors?

Whether it is actually true or not, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about not believing everything you hear. That's clearly a break from that old religious thinking that we were discussing on another thread. Good for you.

Congratulations, your well on your way to deconversion from religion and shedding that old dogmatic thinking. thumbs up

YOuve been really helpful harleysportster but ive been an athesit for a long time i am not in the middle of a deconversion even when i was a christian i didnt agree with it and never thought what someone said was the truth just because they said it. I was one of those chritians who didnt go to church and would occasionally try to "get right" with god and stuff but would always fall away cause of depression i guess and because the church i went to was crazy and full of people yelling horribly and shaking theywould say stuff like everyone needs to get right with god and stuff and i was like whos doing something wrong,  I was always afraid someone was going to pull me up there and make me dance with them. I knew like one athesit in high school and I would always argue with him even if i didnt agree with what i believed i guess it was just something i thought was obvious to everyone. I still havent developed a secular world view well i have but im still kinda paronoid about it.

I guess what i am saying is ive decoverted but i still carry the christian mentallity around, could you check out the blasphemy thread i started i would like for you to respond over there as well?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol

 

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

The church i went to was crazy and full of people yelling horribly and shaking.

 

I've been to this church....

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck