Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?

[Dave Hawkins]

While I am waiting for Zadok and waiting for everyone to decide on an appropriate radiometric dating test, I thought I would pose a thought question ...

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not? And of course, the ToE teaches us that modern humans and modern apes have both descended from a common ancestor several million years ago, right? Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?

Any insights into this?

EDIT: This question is primarily directed at someone who is considered to be knowledgeable about the ToE, such as Martin B.

[RAFH]

While I am waiting for Zadok and waiting for everyone to decide on an appropriate radiometric dating test, I thought I would pose a thought question ...

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not? And of course, the ToE teaches us that modern humans and modern apes have both descended from a common ancestor several million years ago, right? Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?

Any insights into this?

Yes, there is are a number of ape clans using fire. Total they number about 6 billion.

But your comments about the ToE and it being logical there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep, dark jungle somewhere that resemble gorillas but have managed to figure out how to use fire is highly indicative of someone who is either incredibly naive with regard to ToE and Evolution in general or is a troll trying to distract from the answers he's failed to address in dozens of forums around the internet.

For a fact, you are not waiting on Zadok, he is waiting on you. That was the arrangement, that you convince him, as a blank interested person with no point of view on the subject, YEC is anything other than a complete and total load of bullshit.

As for the testing protocol, several have been suggested and offered up yet you have neglected to offer any opinion or response.

In short dave hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters (not even a tiny bit), the ball is in your court. It's up to you to do something. Either provide Zadok with his first lesson in YEC or comment/commit to the experimental regimens offered/suggested.

Meanwhile, if you want to post to a forum dedicated to evolution and origins, it would help immensely if you familiarized yourself with the subject. Not by skimming through a few scientific papers on limited subjects that you believe you can mine some quote from or somehow twist to your paradigm based upon your obsessive literal interpretation of a Bronze Age myth, and badly done at that but by actually reading a book on the modern science of evolution. I realize this might tax your intellect and perhaps cut into your trolling activities or your precious little blog nobody, not even YECers care about, but it would help you to make a little less of a fool of yourself whenever you choose to express yourself on evolution, geology, biology, astronomy, physics or cosmology in particular and science in general.

Then again, since your primary function in life is to be our chew toy as well as a public awareness announcement for the horrors of FUNDAMENTIA, maybe you should just keep with the STOOPID. It'll be a lot less stressful on your brain, especially the cognitive and comprehensive functions.

[Fathermithras]

Something being theoretically possible does not mean it has happened or is expected. As long as you understand that I suppose the question is sound. But the fact this hasn't happened isn't a problem for evolution and you understand that, right Dave?

[Dave Hawkins]

I'm perfectly capable of running my discussion with Zadok ... But thanks for the offers to help.

And I do understand the basics of evolutionary theory.well enough to know that if what you say is true, then it is perfectly reasonable that we should expect some ape clans somewhere to be experimenting with fire.

Why should they not be?

[hecaterin]

I'm trying to think through what's wrong with this, as an exercise.

1. Humans are apes, already, so yes. Us.
2. Evolution is not teleological. Humans are not the goal of evolution; there's no reason to suppose other apes should evolve to become more like humans.
3. On the contrary, there is reason for other apes to evolve to be *less* like humans - our (very broad) niche is already very very full and we are fierce competitors.
4. Other primates have a lot in common with us already. This isn't just physical, but mental. Rudimentary tool use and language are found in non-human apes. One more similarity wouldn't make any major difference one way or the other.

[Dave Hawkins]

I'm trying to think through what's wrong with this, as an exercise.

1. Humans are apes, already, so yes. Us.
2. Evolution is not teleological. Humans are not the goal of evolution; there's no reason to suppose other apes should evolve to become more like humans.
3. On the contrary, there is reason for other apes to evolve to be *less* like humans - our (very broad) niche is already very very full and we are fierce competitors.
4. Other primates have a lot in common with us already. This isn't just physical, but mental. Rudimentary tool use and language are found in non-human apes. One more similarity wouldn't make any major difference one way or the other.1. OK. I'll play along with that for now. 2. Ditto. I'll play. 3. Do you mean if we saw an ape clan out there in some jungle getting civilized, we might exterminate them so they don't gain the upper hand or something? 4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?

[deadman_932]

I like what someone once asked Professor YEC when he brought up "why did writing only appear recently if humans are 100,000 years old?" --

He was simply asked why humans didn't have computers 4000 years ago.

Not that bright, but he thinks he's clever. At best, he's merely mustelid.

[deadman_932]

Quit opening threads intended to distract.

I'm requesting this thread be closed until you deal with the turkey and water you're having forced down your throat.Quit using one of the standard anti-creationist tactics to try to avoid an embarrassing question for your theory. It's old. It doesn't work. And it makes you look ridiculous.
The illogic of it should embarass YOU, but you're too dull to see that. You may as well ask why lemurs don't engage in chess and the lively arts. You really live in some kind of cartoon-world.

[ericmurphy]

Quit opening threads intended to distract.

I'm requesting this thread be closed until you deal with the turkey and water you're having forced down your throat.Quit using one of the standard anti-creationist tactics to try to avoid an embarrassing question for your theory. It's old. It doesn't work. And it makes you look ridiculous.

What's embarrassing about it, specifically, Dave? Can bacteria start fires? How about dogs? Dolphins, maybe?

There are no other apes with humans' cognitive abilities. Worse, for your little thought experiment, all great apes other than humans live in tropical rainforests, not the best places to learn how to start and use fires.

What specific part of evolutionary theory do you think has difficulty explaining why other hominids have not mastered the use of fire?

You have no idea, do you? Because you don't even know what evolutionary theory says, do you?

Here's an embarrassing question for your theory, Dave: why do genetic differences among apes trace out the same phylogenetic tree as morphological differences do? And why does the same (the "twin nested hierarchies") hold true throughout all life on earth?

Now that's an embarrassing question.

[Dave Hawkins]

Quit opening threads intended to distract.

I'm requesting this thread be closed until you deal with the turkey and water you're having forced down your throat.Quit using one of the standard anti-creationist tactics to try to avoid an embarrassing question for your theory. It's old. It doesn't work. And it makes you look ridiculous.
The illogic of it should embarass YOU, but you're too dull to see that. You may as well ask why lemurs don't engage in chess and the lively arts. You really live in some kind of cartoon-world.No actually it's quite logical. YOU say that the apes are much closer to humans in intelligence than lemurs are. AND YOU SAY that there existed at one time all these ape/men societies that eventually evolved into modern humans.

It's a crock. And the fact that there are no "in-betweens" anywhere on earth (in spite of early evolutionists pretending that pygmies and aborigines were such) SHOULD be a large neon flashing sign that your theory is seriously flawed.

[deadman_932]

Yep. My brain-damaged worst would be superior to your best. You asked this question on another thread:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins
Deadman, I'm still waiting to see if you can support this statement ...
Quote:
How the karst and dolomitic formations of the Ozark Plateau formed, and how old such structures are, contributes heavily to our understanding of porosity, permeability, friability, fracture...that in turn affect groundwater sources used to fuel local industry.

I don't see how knowing how old they are makes any difference. Please explain this. http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1134&page=32

I explained it. There's "differences" that you need to address in that thread. You're avoiding that. Why?

[ericmurphy]

No actually it's quite logical.
How? How is it logical, Dave? What's "logical" about assuming that because humans have learned how to use fire, other organisms should learn how, too? How does one follow from the other?

YOU say that the apes are much closer to humans in intelligence than lemurs are.

What does that have to do with whether chimps should learn to use fire? Just because chimps are closer to humans in intelligence than lemurs are, how does it follow that they should know how to use fire? Dogs are closer to humans in intelligence than sea cucumbers are; does that mean dogs should know how to use fire, too?

AND YOU SAY that there existed at one time all these ape/men societies that eventually evolved into modern humans.

No, Dave, no one says that. YOU claim that if evolutionary theory is true, there should be societies of hominids intermediate between humans and other apes. There's nothing in the theory that predicts anything remotely like that. What part of evolutionary theory predicts that, e.g., there should have been "societies" of habilines, or Australopithecines? There's nothing in evolutionary theory that predicts any organism at all will develop "societies."

It's a crock. And the fact that there are no "in-betweens" anywhere on earth (in spite of early evolutionists pretending that pygmies and aborigines were such) SHOULD be a large neon flashing sign that your theory is seriously flawed.

Where is there a prediction anywhere in evolutionary theory that there should be living organisms intermediate between humans and chimps, Dave? Where is there a prediction anywhere in evolutionary theory that there should be living intermediates between humans and any other organism? Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about what kinds of intermediates must have existed in the past. It makes no predictions about which of those intermediates should still be alive.

it would help if you knew something about evolutionary theory before you tried to criticize it, Dave.

[Dlx2]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.

[hecaterin]

I'm trying to think through what's wrong with this, as an exercise.

1. Humans are apes, already, so yes. Us.
2. Evolution is not teleological. Humans are not the goal of evolution; there's no reason to suppose other apes should evolve to become more like humans.
3. On the contrary, there is reason for other apes to evolve to be *less* like humans - our (very broad) niche is already very very full and we are fierce competitors.
4. Other primates have a lot in common with us already. This isn't just physical, but mental. Rudimentary tool use and language are found in non-human apes. One more similarity wouldn't make any major difference one way or the other.1. OK. I'll play along with that for now. 2. Ditto. I'll play. 3. Do you mean if we saw an ape clan out there in some jungle getting civilized, we might exterminate them so they don't gain the upper hand or something? 4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?3. Could you doubt it? Look what we're already doing to gorillas, chimps, orangutans etc. For 99% or more of endangered species, the actual danger comes from us.

As to 4, yes and no. It's a matter of historical contingency; not necessity. And says nothing either way about evolution as a whole.

It's absolutely possible for very smooth transitions to exist. Check out the black backed gull ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) for an exceptionally smooth transition. But it's not a requirement. For some species, the closest relatives are wildly different - the elephant and rock hyrax are the classic example. Our own closest relatives still existing (now the Neanderthals and hobbits are gone) are chimps, and they are pretty close. We've seen them make tools and learn sign language. What difference would it make if they also used fire?

[fredbear]

Any insights into this?

EDIT: This question is primarily directed at someone who is considered to be knowledgeable about the ToE, such as Martin B.

As a mildly interested observer who has recently come upon Mr Hawkins' postings, I am somewhat perturbed by his absolute refusal to engage in anything resembling a rational exchange of ideas. He starts threads asking for insight and when or if he does return, seems capable only of one line responses that invariably address none of the points that have been raised or answer any of the questions that have been asked. Is this what passes for witnessing these days? The JWs I remember from childhood seemed to have a bit more...spark.

Nevertheless, against my better judgement, I'll ask a question of my own. I'll be overjoyed to receive a substantive response but I will not be holding my breath. Here goes nothing:

If we were to take a small child and place him with a colony of chimps in the middle of the rainforest, and that child fails to develop the ability to start a fire, what does that say about the validity of YECism?

[Mike PSS]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.
I know this is feeding the Davetroll but...

The extant apes have not undergone selective pressure in their environment to even provide for a cultural impetus for fire adaptation. Fire is around them in the savannah but the ape tribes exhibit no need for fire.

Dave, again, misses the whole selection side of evolution. Even cultural evolution in this case.

[Dave Hawkins]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.Thanks for the kind words. However, I realize that fire use is cultural. Do you not believe that modern apes have 'culture'? Primitive culture, yes, but culture nonetheless. Why should not some of these 'cultures' have begun to use fire. Heck, some of them even have observed humans using fire. That should give them quite the kick start don't you think?

[Dlx2]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.
I know this is feeding the Davetroll but...

The extant apes have not undergone selective pressure in their environment to even provide for a cultural impetus for fire adaptation. Fire is around them in the savannah but the ape tribes exhibit no need for fire.

Dave, again, misses the whole selection side of evolution. Even cultural evolution in this case.

Fire has all sorts of uses. There's no real reason why a chimpanzee, which already uses spears and other such tools, shouldn't tame fire. At the same time, it's not necessarily going to have the cultural opportunity to figure it out. I mean, we've had the opportunity to domesticate all sorts of organisms which we never chose to do. Why did we domesticate dogs and not hyenas? Why did we domesticate cats, but not mongoose? Why did we domesticate cows, but not various antelope? There are many other organisms we didn't domesticate, and many other tools we didn't figure out for thousands of years. Why should we expect chimpanzees to have figured everything out? Hell, why do we expect that they don't have, say, cultural taboos against fire?

[Dlx2]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.Thanks for the kind words. However, I realize that fire use is cultural. Do you not believe that modern apes have 'culture'? Primitive culture, yes, but culture nonetheless. Why should not some of these 'cultures' have begun to use fire. Heck, some of them even have observed humans using fire. That should give them quite the kick start don't you think?

Culture has a number of aspects. Opportunity is part, but not the entire thing. I don't disagree that modern apes have culture, and that they even have social structure, law, and hierarchy. I'd even forward the idea that some chimpanzees have war, murder, and possibly even religion. The fact that they don't have fire could be a limitation of opportunity, a limitation of existing culture, or a limitation of historical accident. I mean, shit, there are whole groups of humans out there that have never figured out basic biological concepts like the theory of evolution. Does this mean that humans as a whole are incapable of understanding biology? Of course not. It simply means that there's a stupid cultural taboo in some human cultures that limits their access to skills and knowledge.

[deadman_932]

"neccesity is the mother of invention" There's little need for fire, even in the savannah, if you're primarily an herbivore. In the rainforests, well, it's just a stupid question in regard to chimps.

[ericmurphy]

Fire use is a cultural rather than biological event. This has nothing to do with biological evolution OR naturalism. Or are you trying to prove the existence of Prometheus?

Dave, this is exceptionally retarded, even for you.Thanks for the kind words. However, I realize that fire use is cultural. Do you not believe that modern apes have 'culture'? Primitive culture, yes, but culture nonetheless. Why should not some of these 'cultures' have begun to use fire. Heck, some of them even have observed humans using fire. That should give them quite the kick start don't you think?


Maybe they're just not smart enough to figure out how to use fire, Dave. Has that possibility occurred to you? They also haven't figured out internal combustion engines, or mechanical flying machines, or pencil sharpeners, for that matter.

Do you actually have a point here, or are you just marking time while you avoid the hundreds of questions you've had pending, in some cases for almost two years?

[Dlx2]

Maybe they're just not smart enough to figure out how to use fire, Dave. Has that possibility occurred to you? They also haven't figured out internal combustion engines, or mechanical flying machines, or pencil sharpeners, for that matter.

That's not fair to the chimps. I mean, shit, even creationists manage to use fire.

[Dave Hawkins]

"neccesity is the mother of invention" There's little need for fire, even in the savannah, if you're primarily an herbivore. In the rainforests, well, it's just a stupid question in regard to chimps.My wife's sister is an "herbivore" also, but boy is she missing out! Maybe if we would take one of those chimps out to eat at Hereford House, they'd catch the vision of eating nice, juicy steaks, grilled to perfection over an open flame. Has anyone tried this? (Taking a chimp to Hereford House?)

[Dlx2]

"neccesity is the mother of invention" There's little need for fire, even in the savannah, if you're primarily an herbivore. In the rainforests, well, it's just a stupid question in regard to chimps.My wife's sister is an "herbivore" also, but boy is she missing out! Maybe if we would take one of those chimps out to eat at Hereford House, they'd catch the vision of eating nice, juicy steaks, grilled to perfection over an open flame. Has anyone tried this? (Taking a chimp to Hereford House?)

Chimpanzees eat meat in the wild. It is almost always part of a ritual hunt (where they kill and eat colobus monkeys), and sometimes a part of war, where they practice ritual cannibalism. Their carnivory is what we could consider 'religious' or at least culturally-ingrained. It is not present in all chimpanzee populations, and bonobos and gorillas certainly don't engage in such practices.

[deadman_932]

I said "primarily" Dave. I know full well they eat meat, including what they hunt. I also know that raw meat is better than none at all, and will do quite well.

I also know that you're trying SO hard to avoid relevant threads ...which is a big part of WHY your shit site has no supportive comments from other creationists that I've ever seen.

Also why you don't get support from creationists...wait, you got "Ghost of Paley," an evolutionist posing as a creo..to back you. Good for you!

It means even other nutty creos see that you're pretty much a waste.

[Dlx2]

I said "primarily" I know full well they eat meat, including who they hunt

Fixed it for you.

[deadman_932]

Hmmm, I dunno I'd call just any chimp a "who " without being properly introduced. Say, Professor YEC...what's your name again?

[Dave Hawkins]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? For that matter, what will the descendants of modern humans look and act like? Any predictions?

[deadman_932]

Chimps'll be creationist fundamentalists in mere decades. There's not that much distance to cover cognitively.

[Coleslaw]

I like what someone once asked Professor YEC when he brought up "why did writing only appear recently if humans are 100,000 years old?" --

He was simply asked why humans didn't have computers 4000 years ago.

Not that bright, but he thinks he's clever. At best, he's merely mustelid.

Do we know for a fact that writing only appeared recently? Is it at all possible that writing appeared and disappeared over those 100,000 years using media that would not have lasted long enough to be discovered?

[Constant Mews]

Yes. Pre-YEC writing was done on leaves, but the few extant samples we have were destroyed by being radiometrically tested.

[Coleslaw]

Yes. Pre-YEC writing was done on leaves, but the few extant samples we have were destroyed by being radiometrically tested.

I'm serious. What reasons do we have to believe the oldest writing we know of is the oldest writing there is? There may be very good reasons for all I know. I'd just like to know what they are.

[Dlx2]

The oldest writing pre-dates the YEC estimates of the age of the world by a good 2000 years at the very least.

[Coleslaw]

That doesn't really answer my question.

[ericmurphy]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? For that matter, what will the descendants of modern humans look and act like? Any predictions?

Not from evolutionary theory. Can you tell me why, Dave? Do you know enough about the theory itself to tell me why the theory makes no predictions about what organisms alive today will evolve into?

[Dlx2]

That doesn't really answer my question.

No, it doesn't, but at the same time, the oldest writing we have is highly representational. Non-representational writing is much more recent. So, while it's likely there is older writing that was not preserved, it's reasonable to assume that where we see glyphic writing, we're looking at a society where writing originated relatively recently, whereas the appearance of syllabic writing, and later phoenetic writing, suggests that an extensive writing history has been lost.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Yes. Pre-YEC writing was done on leaves, but the few extant samples we have were destroyed by being radiometrically tested.

I'm serious. What reasons do we have to believe the oldest writing we know of is the oldest writing there is? There may be very good reasons for all I know. I'd just like to know what they are.
We don't know for sure, but we have evidence of earlier simpler human made symbols (pictograms) representing abstract things like numbers which appear to be precursors or proto-writing.

Where we draw the line between the earliest scratched hieroglyphs and "writing" is a debatable point of course.

[Pappy Jack]

^ And once closed, maybe we could start a new thread: Are There Any Creationist Clans Capable of Opening a Textbook and Evaluating Evidence Free of Their Pre-existing Theological Assumptions Based on a Narrow, Idiosyncratic, Selectively Literal Interpretation of Their Big Book of Myths?

[Jet Black]

Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?


I am missing the logic behind this. I am really not sure where the logical progession fits, could you detail it?

[Febble]

I've moved the posts asking Dave to address several outstanding issues first to The Compost Heap (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363). However I have also locked this one temporarily, until at least some of those issues have been addressed.

Thanks for your patience.

ETA: on this thread:

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years? (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324&page=2)

which was cleared of other most posters at your request, Dave, Michael Tuite has a post for you to respond to.

[Febble]

OK, unlocked again, now that Dave has promised a response to Michael Tuite.

Please keep to the topic, guys, which is a potentially interesting one.

Thanks.

[Pappy Jack]

This link may be of peripheral interest:

Apes making fire (http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=3043)

ETA: This NYT (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DB1E3BF932A35751C1A96E9482 60) report on the discovery of fossil evidence for the use of fire by both Home erectus and Australopithicus robustus some 1m-1.5mya may also be appropriate to Dave's inquiry, especially as my understanding is that he believes the remains of early hominids such as these to be those of apes unrelated to rather than ancestral cousins of Homo sapiens.

[Febble]

4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?

Yes. But remember that fire-making is cultural. You probably know the story of the Japanese macacques (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml):

When researchers studying these monkeys left sweet potatoes out on the beach for them to feed on, they witnessed one female taking the food down to the sea to wash the sand away. After a while, other macaques started to copy her behaviour. This trait was then passed on from generation to generation, until eventually, all except the very old members of the troop were washing their food in the sea.

So if it did happen that a troupe of chimpanzees figured out how to make fire (or even preserve wildfire, and make use of it), then you might expect a very rapid transition to a "fire-using" culture (as with the potato-washing macaques). But it's not clear to me that any currently existing apes have a lifestyle for which this would be a very advantageous skill (and fire-making is pretty difficult - have you ever tried it?)

So no, I wouldn't expect it, especially.

[Monad]

Bonobo's using fire (http://www.asimovs.com/discus/messages/2/6556.html?1193950330)

[hecaterin]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.

[VoxRat]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.Well, Dave... given the trend in chimpanzee population numbers, how likely do you think it is that there will be any descendants of modern chimps in 5 million years?

[Monad]

4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?

Yes. But remember that fire-making is cultural. You probably know the story of the Japanese macacques (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml):

When researchers studying these monkeys left sweet potatoes out on the beach for them to feed on, they witnessed one female taking the food down to the sea to wash the sand away. After a while, other macaques started to copy her behaviour. This trait was then passed on from generation to generation, until eventually, all except the very old members of the troop were washing their food in the sea.

So if it did happen that a troupe of chimpanzees figured out how to make fire (or even preserve wildfire, and make use of it), then you might expect a very rapid transition to a "fire-using" culture (as with the potato-washing macaques). But it's not clear to me that any currently existing apes have a lifestyle for which this would be a very advantageous skill (and fire-making is pretty difficult - have you ever tried it?)

So no, I wouldn't expect it, especially.

Capuchins are more likely imho, to develop this sort of tool use. Already they are capable of tasks that involve multiple stages over periods of several days and are capable of planning ahead. For example they will deliberately store certain types of nuts until they have hardened enough to be taken to special rocks where they can be cracked open using a hammer and anvil technique. This is an order of conceptual complexity above how chimps do it in that chimps do not process their nuts prior to use or store them. They also use a similar technique to open shellfish. If they could get hold of fire they could use that to harden the nut shells so they could be cracked more readily and to make the shellfish open up so they can be extracted more easily. One can see how this could have happened in this sort of way with human ancestors. You have to try and visualise the sort of stages fire use would have gone through though. Initially it wouldn't have been making fire- it would have been noticing that where fire occurs naturally it burns and hardens things like nut and seed shells, tree bark, kills and semi cooks animals and drives out potential prey, and makes some plants easier to eat and harvest - and having observed that, exploiting it. This would initially involve seeking out and following places where natural fire has recently occurred and exploiting that. Deliberately using fire would come later than that and making fire later still. Capuchins are capable of the first stage already I think. They merely lack the opportunity at the moment in their natural habitat (but that could change).

[Dave Hawkins]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?

[fredbear]

I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?

I have a question for you, Dave. It's a pretty stupid question, but I hope you'll take a crack at answering it anyway.

If you took a small child into the rainforest and allowed it to be raised by chimpanzees, and that child failed to develop the ability to make fire, what does that say about YEC 'theory'?

[Monad]

More on Bonobo's using fire (http://www.ejmagazine.com/2006b/kanzi_extra.htm)

[Dave Hawkins]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

[Mike PSS]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?
Which part is bunk? The mutation part? Genetic Drift? Selection? Plasticity?

I know you've agreed with evolutionary principles before so just saying "It's bunk" is really lame.

And SINCE you know some evolutionary theory, do you understand HOW your question is meaningless to evolutionary science? Maybe a good fiction story, but not science.

[Mike PSS]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Ummmm.... Could you show a plausable genesis from human to centaur please?

Or a maybe use your limited evolutionary knowledge to show how cyclopsianism (??) is a BENEFICIAL TRAIT that would be SELECTED by the population over existing stereo vision?

Just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks is what they're doing at RnR. So maybe this question should be shunted over there.

[Monad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM7vTrIIis&feature=related

Kanzi having a converstion

[Monad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLLFSUaQsp4&feature=related

Bonobo playing Pac Man

[deadman_932]

With videogame-playing chimps already, I predict confidently that in mere decades Pan troglodytes will enter into the Young Earth Creationist phase of cognitive evolution.

Got that? Write it down, Professor YEC!

[Monad]

Bonobo toasting marshmallows on a fire it made and lit itself (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/speakingbonobo.html)

[RAFH]

4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?

Yes. But remember that fire-making is cultural. You probably know the story of the Japanese macacques (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml):

When researchers studying these monkeys left sweet potatoes out on the beach for them to feed on, they witnessed one female taking the food down to the sea to wash the sand away. After a while, other macaques started to copy her behaviour. This trait was then passed on from generation to generation, until eventually, all except the very old members of the troop were washing their food in the sea.

So if it did happen that a troupe of chimpanzees figured out how to make fire (or even preserve wildfire, and make use of it), then you might expect a very rapid transition to a "fire-using" culture (as with the potato-washing macaques). But it's not clear to me that any currently existing apes have a lifestyle for which this would be a very advantageous skill (and fire-making is pretty difficult - have you ever tried it?)

So no, I wouldn't expect it, especially.

Actually, fire-making is really simple. You should see someone who knows how. Some of the performers up at the Polynesian Cultural Center can climb the tree, get the coconut, husk it (the husk is comprised of an outer rind, which can be used for many purposes because it is relatively flexible when green, but water-tight, yet dries to a very hard shape, and the fibrous mantle, which serves as a source of fibre which is used in rope making, cloth making, as a filter and as kindling for starting a fire. Then they use a special stick they have, usually a very hard wood, like kao or kiawe, and a plank of soft wood into which they work a groove with the hard stick. They repeatedly move the hard stick back and forth in the groove of the plank with a lot of weight bearing, this works up both a bit of wood dust and a lot of heat, which ignites the dust in short order, perhaps a minute or less, the smoldering wood dust is then poured into a twist of the coconut fibre and blown on, it is high is resin content and catches quite easily with just a bit of breath. The whole process takes maybe 10 minutes, much of which is spent getting up and down the tree. I've been at the beach at night at parties when somebody wanted to light something and didn't have matches or a lighter and the local kids will get it lit in maybe 5 minutes at most, again, most of that is finding the materials.

Oh yeah, the rest of the husk fibre is used to filter and squeeze the meat for its milk. The juice inside is already sterile and clean and can be drunk directly, but the milk which when fresh like that is about the most ono-licious stuff there is has to be squeezed out of the meat. Which is also quite good when fresh. Somebody who has never had fresh, just opened ripe coconut has no idea of what real coconut tastes like.

[ericmurphy]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?

Dave, you do, in fact, have an unjustifiably teleological view of evolutionary theory, whether you "believe" in it or not. You still have this idea that human beings are some sort of end goal of evolution, because in your own view, humans are an end goal.

The problem, Dave, is that you don't even know what evolutionary theory says, regardless of whether you believe it's true or not. If you understood what evolutionary theory was about, you wouldn't be asking questions like, what does evolutionary theory say about other organisms learning to use fire. You'd understand that it doesn't make any predictions about the matter at all.

[ericmurphy]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Not exactly, Dave. The descendants of modern humans will still be humans, just as the descendants of the first amniotes are still amniotes. They most certainly will not be winged horses.

Can you tell me why that is, Dave?

No?

[Monad]

4. Agreed. But they are very different also. Why would we not expect a smooth transition of differences among living species?

Yes. But remember that fire-making is cultural. You probably know the story of the Japanese macacques (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml):

When researchers studying these monkeys left sweet potatoes out on the beach for them to feed on, they witnessed one female taking the food down to the sea to wash the sand away. After a while, other macaques started to copy her behaviour. This trait was then passed on from generation to generation, until eventually, all except the very old members of the troop were washing their food in the sea.

So if it did happen that a troupe of chimpanzees figured out how to make fire (or even preserve wildfire, and make use of it), then you might expect a very rapid transition to a "fire-using" culture (as with the potato-washing macaques). But it's not clear to me that any currently existing apes have a lifestyle for which this would be a very advantageous skill (and fire-making is pretty difficult - have you ever tried it?)

So no, I wouldn't expect it, especially.

Actually, fire-making is really simple. You should see someone who knows how. Some of the performers up at the Polynesian Cultural Center can climb the tree, get the coconut, husk it (the husk is comprised of an outer rind, which can be used for many purposes because it is relatively flexible when green, but water-tight, yet dries to a very hard shape, and the fibrous mantle, which serves as a source of fibre which is used in rope making, cloth making, as a filter and as kindling for starting a fire. Then they use a special stick they have, usually a very hard wood, like kao or kiawe, and a plank of soft wood into which they work a groove with the hard stick. They repeatedly move the hard stick back and forth in the groove of the plank with a lot of weight bearing, this works up both a bit of wood dust and a lot of heat, which ignites the dust in short order, perhaps a minute or less, the smoldering wood dust is then poured into a twist of the coconut fibre and blown on, it is high is resin content and catches quite easily with just a bit of breath. The whole process takes maybe 10 minutes, much of which is spent getting up and down the tree. I've been at the beach at night at parties when somebody wanted to light something and didn't have matches or a lighter and the local kids will get it lit in maybe 5 minutes at most, again, most of that is finding the materials.

It may seem simple but if you analyse the activity using task analysis techniques and considering particularly the cognitive components it's a relatively complex task compared to the range of tasks most chimps carry out at the moment (such as cracking nuts with 2 rocks or fishing for termites). That's why I would posit a series of stages of development starting with observation of the effect of fire on items of importance (such as nut shells and other food items) and exploiting that natural occurrence, moving from that to actively seeking out natural fire and possibly even placing items in the fire's path and waiting for it to "process" them, from that to finding ways to move fire bearing sticks etc from one place to another and learning to handle fire, and only then to actively making it (and even then this would take several stages).

The point is the first stage is certainly within, or at least close to, the range of capabilities of chimps and also, I suspect, capuchins. What they lack however is practical experience and opportunities - the sort of rainforest habitats they live in have far less opportunities to observe fire and it's effects compared say to a savannah or brush habitat.

[RAFH]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?

Why guess? There's no point in guessing, unless one has no other choice and one must have an answer. Of what good is a wild ass guess of the eventual evolution of humans and monkeys or other apes five million years from now? Especially given the effect man and his technological culture has had and will continue to have, virtually dominating natural processes in the short term. As noted, there may not be any other apes or monkeys around in five million years. There may not be humans around either.

And that's the point dave hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters.info (neither true nor infomative), evolution, because it is so heavily based on the environment doing the selection of what survives and what doesn't, and with the example of what effects one species can have on an environment (and I don't just mean humans, there are other very strong examples where runaway growth of a given highly successful organism has radically changed the environment) plus the long cycle periods involved, it's not possible to even guess what will directions a given lineage will take. Certainly not with something like 400,000 generations of time. Remember, nearly all mutations are random. They could be nearly anything. Selection just culls the options that fail. Evolution is like history, it may help you figure out what is going to happen short term in very specific instances, like maybe a specific species or a group of interactive species closely tied to a specific highly isolated environment like an island. But can you, using history, predict much of what the political makeup of Chile will be 50 years from now? I mean, shit, get realistic.

As noted by others, your questions and statements throughout this thread so a naivete of evolution that is difficult to believe in an adult that can read and use the internet and hopes to discuss the subject in a rational manner.

[RAFH]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

No, dave hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters.info (neither true nor informative) we've been through that hexapod thing before, or don't you remember? While it is theoretically possible for a tetrapod to develope a third set of limbs, the chance of that being not only functional but a successful mutation that spreads to the population is very, very, very, very slight. First off, imagine if you can, the effects of a functional third set of limbs on the mother during pregancy. As to your other example, a cyclops with webbed feet, while the webbed feet might provide some adaptive advantage, monocular vision is substantially less effective than stereo vision. It would be even more unlikely to be a surviving trait than hexapodism given it has obvious negative characteristics. Of course, with humans tinkering with the construction set, anything is possible.

Again, davey, have you learned nothing at all? Or are you just so filled with the STOOPID of FUNDAMENTIA that you can't learn?

[RAFH]

You're still really hung up on the teleological notion that there's some sort of directionality in evolution that leads to us. It's not a one-way street. It's a tangled bush.I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?
Which part is bunk? The mutation part? Genetic Drift? Selection? Plasticity?

I know you've agreed with evolutionary principles before so just saying "It's bunk" is really lame.

And SINCE you know some evolutionary theory, do you understand HOW your question is meaningless to evolutionary science? Maybe a good fiction story, but not science.

Well, SINCE davey says he knows some evolutionary theory, perhaps he could explain why it's bunk. After all, that's what good scientists do, explain their opinions and assertions. That's what good posters on a science oriented forum do.

[socle]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.
How about this analogy, Dave: Suppose you are standing on a street in the middle of a large city. Flip a fair coin; if it comes up heads, walk 1 block north. If it comes up tails, walk 1 block south. Repeat 100 times. Can you predict exactly where you will end up relative to your starting point?

[VoxRat]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.Really.
And what is it [you think] you know about ToE that makes this prediction? Whose explanation of ToE leads you to this "guess"? Anything you've ever actually read from a recognized scholar of evolutionary theory? Or are you extrapolating from what your fellow creationists told you about ToE?

Because to this biologist, your guess sounds pretty ludicrous.

[RAFH]

Yes. But remember that fire-making is cultural. You probably know the story of the Japanese macacques (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/212.shtml):



So if it did happen that a troupe of chimpanzees figured out how to make fire (or even preserve wildfire, and make use of it), then you might expect a very rapid transition to a "fire-using" culture (as with the potato-washing macaques). But it's not clear to me that any currently existing apes have a lifestyle for which this would be a very advantageous skill (and fire-making is pretty difficult - have you ever tried it?)

So no, I wouldn't expect it, especially.

Actually, fire-making is really simple. You should see someone who knows how. Some of the performers up at the Polynesian Cultural Center can climb the tree, get the coconut, husk it (the husk is comprised of an outer rind, which can be used for many purposes because it is relatively flexible when green, but water-tight, yet dries to a very hard shape, and the fibrous mantle, which serves as a source of fibre which is used in rope making, cloth making, as a filter and as kindling for starting a fire. Then they use a special stick they have, usually a very hard wood, like kao or kiawe, and a plank of soft wood into which they work a groove with the hard stick. They repeatedly move the hard stick back and forth in the groove of the plank with a lot of weight bearing, this works up both a bit of wood dust and a lot of heat, which ignites the dust in short order, perhaps a minute or less, the smoldering wood dust is then poured into a twist of the coconut fibre and blown on, it is high is resin content and catches quite easily with just a bit of breath. The whole process takes maybe 10 minutes, much of which is spent getting up and down the tree. I've been at the beach at night at parties when somebody wanted to light something and didn't have matches or a lighter and the local kids will get it lit in maybe 5 minutes at most, again, most of that is finding the materials.

It may seem simple but if you analyse the activity using task analysis techniques and considering particularly the cognitive components it's a relatively complex task compared to the range of tasks most chimps carry out at the moment (such as cracking nuts with 2 rocks or fishing for termites). That's why I would posit a series of stages of development starting with observation of the effect of fire on items of importance (such as nut shells and other food items) and exploiting that natural occurrence, moving from that to actively seeking out natural fire and possibly even placing items in the fire's path and waiting for it to "process" them, from that to finding ways to move fire bearing sticks etc from one place to another and learning to handle fire, and only then to actively making it (and even then this would take several stages).

The point is the first stage is certainly within, or at least close to, the range of capabilities of chimps and also, I suspect, capuchins. What they lack however is practical experience and opportunities - the sort of rainforest habitats they live in have far less opportunities to observe fire and it's effects compared say to a savannah or brush habitat.

I was responding to Febble's question as to has one tried making fire, it's not that easy. But I agree with you, it is a complicated task involving as I described, a number of what would seem like unrelated activities. How would one associate getting coconuts with making fire? How would one associate a sharp stick of hard wood being rubbed on a plank of soft wood with making fire. Just the act of opening a coconut to get at the juice, milk and meat inside which all are highly nutritious and very abundant, is a real chore. Do not try hitting them with a hammer or such, even a machete can fail to open the nut, bouncing back at the wielder. But I've seen them opened with just a tiny rock with barely an effort, just the right touch at the right place. It's not an intuitive process. So yeah, what makes those local kids making fire seem so amazing is that we normally can't imagine those steps coming together with that outcome.

As for the potential of other apes developing fire as an asset, I agree with you, their environment is probably the biggest hurdle. Humans learned to make fire out on the savanah where a lightning strike on an isolated tree would leave a fire burning for quite a while, long enough for the curious to investigate. About the only opportunity for the forest apes to see a constant source of fire would be from a soft volcanic eruption, one with a lava flow running through the forest. They do that, I've read accounts of early travelers to Big Island that witnessed some of the big flows that almost took out Hilo, and the last 5 or 6 miles were running through thick jungle. The narrator tells of having gotten nearly stranded in a kipuka and literally leaping from tree branch to tree branch to escape. That would provide a fire source that could be readily available for weeks or even months, as well as the potential of game, both land animals and fowl, downed by fumes and cooked by the heat.

Once fire was captured, it would then have to be preserved. Which would take a few generations to get that skill down. But eventually they would, once a dependency had built up for having it and then the volcano died down and the usual source vanished. All the advantages fire provides would stimulate a lot of brain cells attention on the problem of how to have a ready source of it.

[VoxRat]

EDIT: This question is primarily directed at someone who is considered to be knowledgeable about the ToE, such as Martin B.Considered... by whom?
You?
Well, who knows whom you consider knowledgeable? And - more important - who cares?

But, being trained in biology, albeit not in a subdiscipline with "evolution" in its title, I consider myself plenty knowledgeable enough to tell you why your question is nonsensical.
..."Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not? And of course, the ToE teaches us that modern humans and modern apes have both descended from a common ancestor several million years ago, right? Well, not quite. Let's phrase that more carefully: "modern humans and modern non-human apes all descended from a common ancestor millions of years ago", since - as has been explained to you more times than I can count - humans are apes. Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?Sure. It's quite logical that there might have been. However (1) it's certainly not a prediction of ToE that such clans must have existed, and (2) no doubt you're aware that most of the other great apes have been driven to extinction or near extinction, so the fact that they're not out there at this moment toasting marshmallows and roasting chestnuts over an open fire is hardly a surprise, or failed prediction of ToE.

[ck1]

Interesting article in today's Washington Post:

MONKEY SEE
Animals and Us, Not So Far Apart

For years, scientists believed that the parts of the human brain that supported complex thought and language had only recently evolved. The mental life of animals was treated as primitive and utterly distinct from ours. But an explosion in animal research is showing that many components of human thought are shared with other species. Evidence shows that parrots can understand numbers, crows make tools, elephants and hyenas live in complex, rule-governed societies, and chimpanzees make sense of the world in many of the same ways we do. The implication is indisputable: Humans are not unique.

The irony of the cognitive comeuppance for our species is that it also holds the key to a groundbreaking understanding of ourselves. When we examine the mental overlap between us and many other species, we can more cleanly pick apart what elements of thought are special to us, what elements are shared with a few other animals and what is common to many. This also means that we can begin to map the trajectory of the mind's evolution through millions of years. Not only does this deepen our understanding of our own species, it puts evolution in its rightful place -- as the Big Idea that is the foundation for all other research.

The article deals with language, counting, culture and use of tools (no fire) in various species.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103329.html

[Autodidact]

While I am waiting for Zadok and waiting for everyone to decide on an appropriate radiometric dating test, I thought I would pose a thought question ...

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not? And of course, the ToE teaches us that modern humans and modern apes have both descended from a common ancestor several million years ago, right? Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?

Any insights into this?

EDIT: This question is primarily directed at someone who is considered to be knowledgeable about the ToE, such as Martin B.

No. Where do you get these ideas? Do you know anything at all about evolution? Actually, what modern biology teaches us is that modern humans are in fact apes. I don't know why you can't grasp this; it's not that complicated.

[Autodidact]

double post.

[Autodidact]

I'm perfectly capable of running my discussion with Zadok ... But thanks for the offers to help.

And I do understand the basics of evolutionary theory.well enough to know that if what you say is true, then it is perfectly reasonable that we should expect some ape clans somewhere to be experimenting with fire.

Why should they not be?

No special reason, but also no reason why they should. Do you see why? Or to put it differently, either outcome is consistent with ToE. In fact I believe at one time there was another species of ape that did use fire, but it is now extinct.

[Autodidact]

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? No way to know, any no way to know whether there will be any. Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? For that matter, what will the descendants of modern humans look and act like? Any predictions? No way to tell.

[Autodidact]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

I'm going to be really nice and give you a chance to retract this before you look like an ignorant moron pretending to understand ToE. Otherwise you would know that if ToE is true, we will never see a centaur or a winged horse, or a humanoid cyclops.

[BracesForImpact]

No fire chimps yet, but we do have spear wiedling ones! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080411-spear-video-wc.html)

[Monad]

No fire chimps yet,

Yes there are

[Cath B]

Great video BFI

[Pappy Jack]

After all the whining and threats arising from the temporary locking of this thread, one would have at least expected the whiner and threatener to have made some sort of substantive post on a topic he obviously regarded as so important and to which he's been given a number of considered replies and relevant links. But what do we get:
I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?
But hasn't Dave told us before that he fully acknowledges micro-evolution occurs on a pretty damn massive scale? Doesn't he have to think this in order to account for the species-explosion after duh Ark grounded after YOGF and disgorged its limited cargo of 'kinds'? Yet now he says that he thinks 'it's all bunk.' C'mon, Dave, what's the official story from Daveworld at the moment?

And then we get this piece of tard, which I see has already been shredded:
Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.
Now if Dave had said the descendants of modern Creationists might well be anything, that I could have believed. :D It seems Dave isn't as committed to this thread as he led us to believe.

[RAFH]

After all the whining and threats arising from the temporary locking of this thread, one would have at least expected the whiner and threatener to have made some sort of substantive post on a topic he obviously regarded as so important and to which he's been given a number of considered replies and relevant links. But what do we get:
I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?
But hasn't Dave told us before that he fully acknowledges micro-evolution occurs on a pretty damn massive scale? Doesn't he have to think this in order to account for the species-explosion after duh Ark grounded after YOGF and disgorged its limited cargo of 'kinds'? Yet now he says that he thinks 'it's all bunk.' C'mon, Dave, what's the official story from Daveworld at the moment?

And then we get this piece of tard, which I see has already been shredded:
Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.
Now if Dave had said the descendants of modern Creationists might well be anything, that I could have believed. :D It seems Dave isn't as committed to this thread as he led us to believe.

Nope, davey hasn't been committed and that's a damned shame.

[Lucretius III]

I'm not hung up on any particular version of evolution. I think it's all bunk. I simply asked a question.
Do you have a guess at the answer?


Henry Ford once famously said "History is bunk " and that still didn't stop history being true and Dave is a nobody compared to Ford

[Febble]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Well, no. Don't you remember all those threads on RnR about chimeras?

The descendents of modern humans won't be anything like a "winged horse", although it's just possible they may have wings. It is extremely unlikely that they will have six limbs.

They will, in fact be apes. An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape. It's possible, however that we may evolve into an ape with wings and/or webbed feet.

[Lucretius III]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Well, no. Don't you remember all those threads on RnR about chimeras?

The descendents of modern humans won't be anything like a "winged horse", although it's just possible they may have wings. It is extremely unlikely that they will have six limbs.

They will, in fact be apes. An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape. It's possible, however that we may evolve into an ape with wings and/or webbed feet.


Febble this is a different forum so Dave can quite easily ignore anything that was said to him elsewhere :)

AFDave's Sixth law: Any claim AFDave posts on a new discussion board invalidates the refutations of the same claim he has already seen and acknowledged on previous discussion boards.

When I was about 5 a school mate of mine had webbed fingers and toes by the way but they removed them by surgery ,only really because he kept getting cuts on the webs between his fingers and as the skin was almost constantly moving it was difficult for them to heal (plus aesthetic reasons I guess)

[Martin B]

While I am waiting for Zadok and waiting for everyone to decide on an appropriate radiometric dating test, I thought I would pose a thought question ...

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not? And of course, the ToE teaches us that modern humans and modern apes have both descended from a common ancestor several million years ago, right? Sooo ... wouldn't it be quite logical that there might be some "apeman" clans in the deep dark jungle somewhere who perhaps resemble gorillas very closely but have managed to figure out how to use fire?

Any insights into this?

EDIT: This question is primarily directed at someone who is considered to be knowledgeable about the ToE, such as Martin B.

Well, since I was mentioned by name...

Depends on what you mean by "apeman". You mean a living sister group of Homo sapiens that is very ape-like but is nonetheless closer to us than are chimpanzees? If that's what you're talking about, then yes, in principle, it's possible that such an organism exists and plays with fire (maybe also pees its bed at night, too).

A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? For that matter, what will the descendants of modern humans look and act like? Any predictions?

Chimps in 5 million years? Almost certainly extinct with no descendents. That seems to be par for the course with the great apes.

[Lucretius III]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins
A related question ... 5 million years from now, what will the descendants of modern chimps look like? Will they use fire? Will they paint Van Goghs? Will they play violins? For that matter, what will the descendants of modern humans look and act like? Any predictions?

Highlighted part
Well only if they start giving themselves names and one of those names is Vincent Van Gogh :D

[Martin B]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Well, that's not what hecatarin's statement implies at all. Your question was loaded with teleological assumptions, particularly that apes (or perhaps even all organisms) are following a trend towards an ideal human-like form. No evolutionary biologist believes this. Certainly none would gain the respect of their colleagues by espousing such a view. Hecatarin replied to you by noting that there is no pre-conceived direction for evolution, no intended goal or ideal, except a tendency to evolve towards local optima of fitness. Two distinct lineages, even if closely related, needn't move through the fitness landscape (or even 'design space') along identical trajectories or even similar ones. In fact, this is extremely unlikely, in most cases.

It actually doesn't follow from this idea that centaurs and pegagasi(?) are plausible descendents of apes. In fact, they're extremely unlikely under such assumptions.

[Jet Black]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

what the hell?

[Lucretius III]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

what the hell?

My initial response to this was

"I'll have a smoke/pint of what Dave's been having " :D

[Obd]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

what the hell?

My initial response to this was

"I'll have a smoke/pint of what Dave's been having " :D

It's not all that surprising. Creationists tend to have a weird way of deriving complete non-sequiturs. In this case "no predefined goal" seems to imply "Anything is possible" or even "every theoretical possibility is equally likely".

[Martin B]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

what the hell?

I'd like to label this "Exhibit A: The Correct Response"

[SAWells]

Thinking more about what Hecatarin said ... I guess if the ToE is true, then the descendants of modern humans and modern apes might well be anything ... Maybe a centaur or a winged horse ... Perhaps some sort of humanlike cyclops with webbed feet.

Well, that's not what hecatarin's statement implies at all. Your question was loaded with teleological assumptions, particularly that apes (or perhaps even all organisms) are following a trend towards an ideal human-like form.

Since chimps spend a bunch of time dashing around in trees, a behaviour for which a human-like form is not advantageous, if would be more reasonable to expect chimps to tend towards an ideal chimp-like form.

Oh, look.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape.Wait just a minute here.

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.
You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?
You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different? I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

[deadman_932]

Apes will not become fish. Or horses. They *can* become something that is new/different.

Your view, as you have been told many times, is simply majickal thinking...the kind that convinces you that snakes can talk and demons flit around your world and that men can live in the bellies of giant sea creatures.

I guess that logic also escapes YECs. Unsurprisingly.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

The absolute valid and correct answer to your final question is
Yes

Anything else?

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin, who is quite sure dave won't "get it"

[Obd]

Febble ... An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape.Wait just a minute here.

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.
You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?
You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different? I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

That statement has to do with biological classification and the concept of a tree of life Dave. Any descendant of a eukaryote will still be grouped within the eukaryotes, any descendant of a primate will still be grouped within primates, etcetera. This does not mean an 'ape' in the distant future will look anything like present apes either morphologically or genetically.

[Martin B]

Febble ... An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape.Wait just a minute here.

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.
You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?
You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different? I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

This is just a question of nomenclature, not biology. The terms "single-celled" and "invertebrate" are paraphyletic taxonomies. That is, "single-celled" organisms aren't a natural group, nor are "invertebrates". The reason being that some single-celled organisms share more in common with certain multicellular groups than they do with other single-celled critters (same with some "invertebrates" and vertebrates). Because of this, the feature of being "single-celled" or without a backbone does not define a grouping.

Eukaryotes have never evolved into anything else, other than more eukaryotes (plants, fungi, animals, paramecia, choanoflagellates, amoebae).

Animals have never evolved into anything other than other animals, same for plants.

Vertebrates have never evolved into anything else other than more vertebrates.

Apes will not evolve into anything else other than more apes. Dogs, more dogs and so on...

Truths by definition.

[Jet Black]

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?


what the hell?

will any of your descendants leave your family line?

[Febble]

Febble ... An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape.Wait just a minute here.

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????



Aha! No, it can't.

Why not?

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.

A single celled organism can (and did) evolve into an ape. But a modern bacterium did not, nor were the single-celled organisms from which apes evolved bacteria, even ancient ones. Bacteria AND apes evolved from single-celled organisms, but those single-celled organisms were NOT bacteria.

This is a really crucial point, so I'm really glad you raised it.

You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?

I think that vertebrates and invertebrates descended from a common ancestor, if by "invertebrates" you mean the group of organisms called "invertebrates". I think that both "invertebrates" and "vertebrates" evolved from a common ancestor (several) that did not have a backbone.

If this is confusing, think about the term "mammal" - all descendents of mammals will be mammals. All descendents of tetrapods are tetrapods. All descendents of vertebrates are vertebrates. All descendents of apes are apes. All descendents of people will be people.

Longitudinal labels work differently from cross-sectional ones, just as you can move from a twig to the branch it sprouts from, and from there to the trunk, but you can't move from twig to twig without jumping. Once you have a branching, every descendent will be on that branch, however many twigs are produced.

You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?

Yup. But the operational part is the "like", and it's not helped by confusion in common usage of the term "fish" which is used both longitudinally and cross-sectionally.

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different?

Well, sometimes terminology IS confusing (see above) - but look carefully at the scientific names - the common ancestor of us and modern fish may have resembled a fish more than it resembles us, but it is no more closely related to modern fish than it is to us.

I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but

Actually, short answer is simply no. Long answer is: depends what you mean by teleology. If you are a Dennettite teleofunctionalist (as I am!) the answer is yes.

Great set of questions, Dave! Hope someone else can weigh in.

ETA: I see Martin B already has.

[ck1]

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.
Apes and their most recent single-celled progenitors are eukaryotes and their descendants will all still be eukaryotes.

You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?
Vertebrates and invertebrates are classed as Animalia as will their descendants.
You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?
Apes and their fish-like progenitors are vertebrates and their descendants will be vertebrates also.

As new species appear we give them new names, but they still retain their old connections. Owls, crows and parrots are still birds (and vertebrates, and animals and eukaryotes.)

Get it, now? Remember previous discussions of the Nested Hierarchy?

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different? I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

What a species can evolve into is limited by what it already is.

[Martin B]

Why is it that creationists seem to think that evolution is/would be fundamentally non-genetic? What would be the point of proposing any type of common ancestry to explain the distribution of similarities among living things if there were transformations occurring willy-nilly irrespective of ancestry?

[Febble]

What a species can evolve into is limited by what it already is.

(In before quote-mine....)

Which is why the creationist mantra that "perhaps a dog can evolve into a different sort of dog, but it can't evolve into a cat" is true.

But that doesn't mean that "macroevolution" can't occur. It simply means that all evolution proceeds by tiny steps, and that the probability of the series of steps that would lead from a dog to something identical to an existing animal on another "twig" is vanishingly small.

Just as the drunkard left at a lamp-post is highly like to end up a long way from the lamp-post, given enough time, but is extremely unlikely to end up at home.

[Dave Hawkins]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

[Jet Black]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

when you use the word "ape" just replace it with mammal and see how silly your sentence sounds.

"Could we become more mammal-like" for example. We can't become more ape-like because we are apes.

and the likelihood of the scenario depends on there being selective pressures for decreased intelligence and ability to climb in trees.

[Ray Moscow]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

Our descendents could of course evolve to be less intelligent. Since they are apes already, this wouldn't be more "ape-like".

However, in general forms that die out do not return, and so it's unlikely they would ever be indistinguishable from chimps (or something that looks like chimps).

BTW, we didn't evolve from chimps, anyway -- we both evolved from a common ancestor.

[Lucretius III]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

I think Dave has been reading H.G. Wells The Time Machine (or more likely watching the film)

[Ray Moscow]

Maybe Planet of the Apes, in which humankind had lost its speech, dexterity, etc.?

[Jet Black]

I think Dave has been reading H.G. Wells The Time Machine (or more likely watching the film)

I doubt it. 110 year old books are pretty advanced stuff for creationists.

[Obd]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

More ape-like is a meaningless comparison considering we ARE apes. You could ask the question whether we would be more like other apes, for instance chimpanzees. Considering the processes responsible for generating biodiversity "virtually indistinguishable from chimpanzees" seems quite unlike given the vast amount of possibilities. Could humans become "more chimp-like"? Well there might be circumstances under which more body hair is favorable, so that's an aspect in which we might become "more chimp-like" for instance.

[Febble]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

Well, assuming "your" is plural, here's my response.

First off, "devolve" isn't a word that is applicable to evolution. Evolution means change - whether in the direction of greater or lesser complexity, greater or lesser intelligence, or even greater or lesser speed. All organisms alive today are equally "evolved".

Second, we can't become "more-ape-like" - we ARE apes. There is no reason to think our descendents will be more "chimp-like" than chimps, and every reason to think they will be less "chimp-like" than we are, because they will be less-closely related to chimps. Just as your great grandchildren by your first child will be less like your second child than your first child is - because they will be less closely related.

Both these points may seem trivial, but they are crucial to understanding what the ToE proposes.

But to take your main point: yes, we could easily evolve to be less intelligent in the future if reduced intelligence increased our chances of breeding successfully. Which may well even be the case right now.

That doesn't mean that the descendents of the current human population will be more like chimps. But it may be that they will be better suited to breeding and less concerned with figuring out the ToE. Alternatively, we may simply go extinct, leaving a lot of valuable habitat for species who don't suffer from the reproductive disadvantage of having brains big enough to figure out how to make the planet uninhabitable for their offspring.

ETA: but yet again, great questions! :)

[Jack the Bodiless]

Dave, what do you think of human cultures that were unable to make fire, such as the Andamanese?

If even some humans can't make it, why do you imagine chimps (with their much lower brain capacity) should be able to?

[Ian Nerr]

I was trying to think of selection pressures toward reduced intelligence. The easiest example is if the fundies had their way and set up a fundamentalist theocracy.

[Martin B]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "devolve". Do you mean return to exactly the same animal as our last common ancestor with a chimpanzee, or simply a reasonable facsimile of that animal? Could we follow a pathway directly back to a chimp-like form, exactly like the one that was taken from that "point"? Well, yes in principle, but not very likely. It's sort of like why you can walk down the same street every day for your entire life, but never take exactly the same footsteps in any two journeys. There are so improbably coincidences. Nevertheless, you can travel over similar distances each time.

The question might be answered in a more meaningful way if we think about it in relative terms.

Suppose you had to take an organism and make a series of small random changes to it in order to turn it into another organism. Supposing you wanted a chimpanzee (or a reasonable facsimile) as your end result, and you could choose between a human or a giraffe as your starting point. Which one would you choose to get you to your end point the fastest?

[Note: This isn't meant to be a complete analogy for how evolution works, because we didn't come from a chimpanzee, or a giraffe, and neither one comes from the other]

[Jet Black]

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not?



Homo Erectus used fire, and they weren't human.

[ericmurphy]

Febble ... An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape.Wait just a minute here.

"An ape can't evolve into anything except an ape."????

Why not?

Dave, this question exposes a profound ignorance of how common descent works. You really, really, REALLY need to learn something about common descent if you're going to criticize evolutionary theory, and it's clear you know nothing about it. Nothing at all.

You think a single-celled organism (probably looks like a modern bacterium) can evolve into an ape.
You think that all vertebrates descended (indirectly) from invertebrates, do you not?
You think that all apes descended (indirectly) from some fish like creature, right?

No. Not indirectly. There's no such thing as "indirect" evolution, in the way you mean it. Dave, all humans are apes. All apes are primates. All primates are eutherians. All eutherians are synapsids. All synapsids are amniotes. All amniotes are tetrapods. All tetrapods are vertebrates. All vertebrates are metazoans. All metazoans are living organisms.

Do you get that last paragraph? Do you understand what it means? Because I just answered your question about why it is is that apes cannot evolve "into" anything other than apes. That's how nested hierarchies (remember them?) work.

But I don't expect you to understand that. A man cannot be made to understand something if his entire worldview depends on his not understanding it, to paraphrase Upton Sinclair.

How is this different from the prospect of a modern ape evolving into something completely different? I thought you guys are telling me that evolution is not teleological. Well is it or isn't it?

No matter what it evolves "into," Dave, that something will still be an ape. I explained to you why that is. Did you get the explanation? Here, I'll repeat it for you, in bold and everything:

Dave, all humans are apes. All apes are primates. All primates are eutherians. All eutherians are synapsids. All synapsids are amniotes. All amniotes are tetrapods. All tetrapods are vertebrates. All vertebrates are metazoans. All metazoans are living organisms.

[ck1]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

We are apes (as others have noted), but for humans to become indistinguishable from chimps we would have to lose all the mutational changes that have contributed to "humanness", those changes would have to become fixed, and then we would have to acquire and fix the chimp-ness genes.

And unfuse chromosome 2!

Unlikely, don't you think?

As Obd pointed out, there are perhaps some key genetic changes for more superficial features (hairiness, brain size, bipedalism, etc.) that could produce humans with a more chimp-like appearance.

[Martin B]

I wonder what Dave's getting at. I wonder if his point is that if you can't get from point C to point A by way of point B, then how could you get to point C from point A at all? Perhaps it's a "why can it only go one way?!?!"

I guess the simplest analogy is that evolution isn't on rails. Genetic changes aren't pre-determined. The environment and random events guide the population-level changes in gene frequencies. There is so much stochasticity influencing the walk through morphospace that repetitions of exactly the same events are exceedingly unlikely.

The winds may blow the leaves off the trees every year, but the leaves will never fall exactly the same way. One event (leaves being blown off branches in the fall) is somewhat determined. It has a very high likelihood of happening. Conversely, the exact position of each fallen leaf is underdetermined, though it is known that they will most likely fall.

There are some generalities about future evolution that might be predicted, either by extrapolating trends or through actual measurements of the fitness values of certain traits in populations under certain circumstances. In all, however, we can't really predict the precise nature of what is to come in the future. Only vague generalities that are somewhat uninteresting from a scientific perspective.

Alternatively, the MacGuffin is that if anything is possible in the future, then why wasn't anything possible in the past? If that's the case, then there is no reason to suppose that a violation of a nested hierarchical pattern would falsify evolution.

The point about nested hierarchies is that, in their absense, the evidence for common ancestry collapses to nothing. The theory of common ancestry depends on the existence of nested hierarchies with law-like regularity. Known exceptions are almost exclusively genetic material across groups that are known to be capable of horizontal genetic transfer. Under these conditions, the law may logically be relaxed. But, say, for vertebrates (or most animals) the case is certainly quite different. If nested hierarchies do not exist as objective properties of the natural world, then there is no evidence for the common ancestry of the organisms concerned.

[SteveF]

Homo Erectus used fire, and they weren't human.

That's partly what my PhD is about!

actually Homo heidelbergensis, not erectus in my case

[Pappy Jack]

"Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?"

My understanding is that use of fire is uniquely human, is it not?



Homo Erectus used fire, and they weren't human.
Which was the point I was trying to make to Dave with the link to the NYT article. Given Dave's well known dislike of argument by link (:rolleyes:), here are some relevant extracts from that article:
Archeologists (sic) in South Africa have turned up the earliest direct evidence of the use of fire: fossilized animal bones apparently charred in ancient campfires from 1 million to 1.5 million years ago

......burned bones were found in several distinct layers of limestone that at various levels contained the remains of both Homo erectus, a direct ancestor of modern humans, and a somewhat less advanced hominid known as Australopithecus robustus that Dr. Brain describes as a ''large ape man.'' This line is believed to have died out about a million years ago.

''For a long time,'' he said, ''these hominids used the cave, and there's no evidence of fire.'' The charred bones showed up in a stratum that represents a relatively brief 100,000 years of prehistory and appeared in succeeding layers. ''Once they started making fires, they did it repeatedly,'' said Dr. Brain. ''We have up to 20 levels, one upon the other.''
From here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DB1E3BF932A35751C1A96E9482 60).

Again, we know Dave will not like the dates involved nor the suggestion that Homo erectus is ancestral to Homo sapiens, but as he appears to define anything that is not Homo sapiens as an entirely unrelated ape, his question about 'ape-clans' using fire is resoundingly answered with an emphatic 'Yes'.

[Dave Hawkins]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "devolve". Do you mean return to exactly the same animal as our last common ancestor with a chimpanzee, or simply a reasonable facsimile of that animal? Could we follow a pathway directly back to a chimp-like form, exactly like the one that was taken from that "point"? Well, yes in principle, but not very likely. It's sort of like why you can walk down the same street every day for your entire life, but never take exactly the same footsteps in any two journeys. There are so improbably coincidences. Nevertheless, you can travel over similar distances each time.

The question might be answered in a more meaningful way if we think about it in relative terms.

Suppose you had to take an organism and make a series of small random changes to it in order to turn it into another organism. Supposing you wanted a chimpanzee (or a reasonable facsimile) as your end result, and you could choose between a human or a giraffe as your starting point. Which one would you choose to get you to your end point the fastest?

[Note: This isn't meant to be a complete analogy for how evolution works, because we didn't come from a chimpanzee, or a giraffe, and neither one comes from the other]I put "devolve" in quotes because I am quite familiar with your objections to the "devolve" idea. I simply meant "change."

So I think the answer to my question is "Yes." Next question would be "Could those human-descendants-which-are-closer-to-chimp-like-creatures (HDCC's?) in turn, change over time into something more 'lemur-like'? And in turn, those 'lemur-like' critters change into something more 'whatever-like'? Do you see where I am going? I will eventually end up at a single celled organism. If I keep going here, I think your answers will continue to be "Yes, it's possible" and "Yes, it's just as likely as some other pathway." Am I correct?

BTW ... New fun thread at IIDB entitled "Absence Of Clouds Caused Pre-human Supergreenhouse Periods (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5272200#post5272200)"

[ericmurphy]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

There's no such thing as "devolution," Dave. This is where teleology hangs you up. The term has no meaning in evolutionary theory, because it assumes a directionality (towards an "ideal" form) that doesn't exist.

Organisms always evolve towards a local maximum of adaptiveness, but local maxima change over time as the environment changes. The only way the descendants of modern humans could evolve into something that resembles modern chimps would be if that particular conformation were a better adaptation to the current environment than the conformation modern humans currently possess is.

Dave, you could hardly be more lost when it comes to evolutionary theory.

[Jet Black]

Which was the point I was trying to make to Dave with the link to the NYT article. Given Dave's well known dislike of argument by link (:rolleyes:), here are some relevant extracts from that article:


well I have seen and have taken some photos of the remenants of the fires made by Homo Erectus.

[Jet Black]

BTW ... New fun thread at IIDB ...



is IIDB still going?

[SteveF]

well I have seen and have taken some photos of the remenants of the fires made by Homo Erectus.

Where?

[Lucretius III]

Hairiness is of course still very much a variable in "humans" as it is ,when I used to play rugby there was a bloke on the team, who we used to say looked like a badly shaved chimp.
Brain size can again be reduced due to Microcephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly)

So it is as far as I know not impossible that a particular group of "humans" could exist that have a relatively hairy body and suffer from Microcephaly.
But it is a long way from "not impossible " to "likely" or even to the conclusion that they would be "more chimp like"

[RAFH]

OK, let me break this up in bite size chunks ...

In your view, could humans "devolve"? IOW could they, over time, become less intelligent, become more ape-like? Could our descendants at some point in the future be virtually indistiguishable from chimps which live today? If so, do you think this is a likely scenario? Why? or why not?

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "devolve". Do you mean return to exactly the same animal as our last common ancestor with a chimpanzee, or simply a reasonable facsimile of that animal? Could we follow a pathway directly back to a chimp-like form, exactly like the one that was taken from that "point"? Well, yes in principle, but not very likely. It's sort of like why you can walk down the same street every day for your entire life, but never take exactly the same footsteps in any two journeys. There are so improbably coincidences. Nevertheless, you can travel over similar distances each time.

The question might be answered in a more meaningful way if we think about it in relative terms.

Suppose you had to take an organism and make a series of small random changes to it in order to turn it into another organism. Supposing you wanted a chimpanzee (or a reasonable facsimile) as your end result, and you could choose between a human or a giraffe as your starting point. Which one would you choose to get you to your end point the fastest?

[Note: This isn't meant to be a complete analogy for how evolution works, because we didn't come from a chimpanzee, or a giraffe, and neither one comes from the other]

And, there's no evidence of any intellect steering the process. So there is no "you taking an organism and make a series of small random changes to it in order to turn it into another organism. There's no you wanting a chimpanzee (or a reasonable facsimile) as its end result, and there's no you choosing between a human or a giraffe as its starting point. Nor is there any one who would choose to get to its end point the fastest?"

[ericmurphy]

So I think the answer to my question is "Yes." Next question would be "Could those human-descendants-which-are-closer-to-chimp-like-creatures (HDCC's?) in turn, change over time into something more 'lemur-like'? And in turn, those 'lemur-like' critters change into something more 'whatever-like'? Do you see where I am going? I will eventually end up at a single celled organism. If I keep going here, I think your answers will continue to be "Yes, it's possible" and "Yes, it's just as likely as some other pathway." Am I correct?

You're going nowhere, Dave. It's not impossible that your descendants will end up as a single-celled organism (you never will, without dying in the process). It is, however, vastly unlikely. It's not "just as likely as any other pathway." It's possible a television could quantum-tunnel to the other side of the planet—nothing in quantum physics prevents it from happening, and if the universe lasts long enough, it will inevitably happen.

But would you like to compute the odds of it happening?

But the point is, these ruminations are going nowhere in terms of being a valid criticism of evolutionary theory.