[_ Old Earth _] If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

[Crying Rock]

VenomFang expresses doubt:
I doubt if they would have their job very long if they were giving mere opinion and stating it as supported evidence. Being biased leads to ignorance which is a tragedy if not a calamity.

Then, young grasshopper, you have much to learn. Strive for a critical mind!

That's what he just did. And you found it objectionable.

Welcome to science.

 

[Crying Rock]

[quote="The Barbarian":3lb77zzm]VenomFang expresses doubt:
I doubt if they would have their job very long if they were giving mere opinion and stating it as supported evidence. Being biased leads to ignorance which is a tragedy if not a calamity.

Then, young grasshopper, you have much to learn. Strive for a critical mind!

That's what he just did. And you found it objectionable.

Welcome to science, VenomFangX [/quote:3lb77zzm]

Science, by nature, in it's purest form is in constant flux by new evidence.

 

[VenomFangX]

Science, by nature, in it's purest form is in constant flux by new evidence.

This is an elliptical statement analytic a priori, and seems to mean very little though sounding somewhat impressive. However, knowledge is built on previous knowledge and modified to fit the facts.
It is not so much the facts that are wrong but our interpretation of those facts which usually are in error.
New evidence usually means modification of a theory which often enables the glitches to be more fully understood.
A true scientist needs to be impartial and not think of the world with pre-conceived notions of how the world should be, but look at the world as it really is.
yours
VFX

 

[Crying Rock]

A true scientist needs to be impartial and not think of the world with pre-conceived notions of how the world should be, but look at the world as it really is.

There you go. Now take it to heart.

 

[lordkalvan]

A true scientist needs to be impartial and not think of the world with pre-conceived notions of how the world should be, but look at the world as it really is.

There you go. Now take it to heart.

Perhaps you would be better employed replying thoughtfully to VFX's considered reply to your previous one-liner, rather than trying to suggest that he is failing in the scientific duty of striving towards impartiality.

 

[Crying Rock]

From the man that is convinced that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals. Sheesh!

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/20 ... -graph.jpg

 

[VenomFangX]

Why not? We appear to evolved from sea dwelling creatures. Nice to think that my distant relative was a trilobite or something.

 

[lordkalvan]

From the man that is convinced that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals. Sheesh!

Non sequitur from the man who declines to share with us at all his thoughts on the origins of whales.

 

[coelacanth]

Video #3 is about whale evolution (from PBS website)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educa ... ideos.html

 

[lordkalvan]

Video #3 is about whale evolution (from PBS website)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educa ... ideos.html

Thanks for the link.

 

[coelacanth]

Video #3 is about whale evolution (from PBS website)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educa ... ideos.html

Thanks for the link.

No problem. I've found the one about tuberculosis and the hummingbird one to explain natural selection very well. Overall, good videos.

 

[Crying Rock]

Why not? We appear to evolved from sea dwelling creatures. Nice to think that my distant relative was a trilobite or something.

There's absolutely no directly observable evidence that humans evolved from sea dwelling creatures.

We can't even say with certainty what/if humans evolved from anything prior to Homo ergaster:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/a_tree.html

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/ ... nt-design/

 

[Crying Rock]

ttt

 

[lordkalvan]

There's absolutely no directly observable evidence that humans evolved from sea dwelling creatures.

What do you mean by 'directly observable evidence'? What evidence would you find persuasive of such a relationship?

We can't even say with certainty what/if humans evolved from anything prior to Homo ergaster...

Lack of certainty about the ancestral species from which Homo ergaster is directly descended is not the same thing as being certain that no such ancestral species exists. I doubt you can trace your ancestors directly to the time of Augustus, but it is quite certain that someone was alive then from whom you are directly descended: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

What's a tail for? Swinging around in trees.

Once we came out of the trees and started to use tools we had no use for tails, and thus they were removed.

See a tail? Only tree-faring apes have tails.

 

[coelacanth]

[quote="Dave Slayer":q2dt0ker]If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

What's a tail for? Swinging around in trees.

Once we came out of the trees and started to use tools we had no use for tails, and thus they were removed.[/quote:q2dt0ker]

That sounds a little Lamarckian. Also, a tail need not be prehensile to be useful. I get what you're saying but for the readers it should be noted its possible that an appendage that was metabolically costly to maintain was a liability, thus being selected against, or also possible that mutation and genetic drift caused the loss as well because it did not serve an important function. There are several hypotheses as to why apes do not have tails, and it was probably some combination of them that led to the loss of a tail amongst the apes.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

[quote="Dave Slayer":1skx7f4x]If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

What's a tail for? Swinging around in trees.

Once we came out of the trees and started to use tools we had no use for tails, and thus they were removed.

That sounds a little Lamarckian. Also, a tail need not be prehensile to be useful. I get what you're saying but for the readers it should be noted its possible that an appendage that was metabolically costly to maintain was a liability, thus being selected against, or also possible that mutation and genetic drift caused the loss as well because it did not serve an important function. There are several hypotheses as to why apes do not have tails, and it was probably some combination of them that led to the loss of a tail amongst the apes.[/quote:1skx7f4x]

My mistake lol, I'm no expert, those were just my thoughts.

 

[Crying Rock]

Ya' think? What parts of creationism have you defended, LK?

 

[Barbarian]

That sounds a little Lamarckian. Also, a tail need not be prehensile to be useful. I get what you're saying but for the readers it should be noted its possible that an appendage that was metabolically costly to maintain was a liability, thus being selected against, or also possible that mutation and genetic drift caused the loss as well because it did not serve an important function. There are several hypotheses as to why apes do not have tails, and it was probably some combination of them that led to the loss of a tail amongst the apes.

In old world monkeys, the tail is an organ of balance. And apes, having diverged from monkeys, became larger. Instead of running along the tops of branches, apes began to rely almost exclusively on brachiation, swinging along from arm to arm, the balance of which, depended on the pendulum-movement of the whole body. As such, the tail became less important, and as Lord Kalvan suggests, the metabolic cost of maintaining a tail worked against it.

In fact, some monkeys that no longer spend a lot of time running along branches (such as the Barbary ape, which is actually a monkey) and primarily surface-living baboons, have greatly shortened tails.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ya' think? What parts of creationism have you defended, LK?

I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean or what it is a response to. Happy New Year, by the way.