ForumGarden

If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

They see what "man" has to go through during his lifetime, and said, "no thanks...we'll pass."





:D

Because we didn't evolve from monkeys and apes.

We're 2 degrees different.

Same genus, different sub-species. :-6

It's really important to avoid thinking in linear terms when it comes to evolution. Think in terms of branches on a tree rather than a line.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... evo_toc_01

Rapunzel;1277940 wrote: Because we didn't evolve from monkeys and apes.




In your opinion, what did we evolve from?

As far as I am aware, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, with the split occurring about 15-20,000,000 years ago. I believe the oldest definitely hominid fossils we have are Ardipithecus Ramidus, which date from around 4.5 million years ago, but there is a possible older ancesor about a million years older, but with only a few teeth and bone fragments it is hard to be sure.

Inteestingly, "Ardi", although walking on two legs, still had a gripping foot and was a good climber. "Lucy" (Australopithecine, dated 3.5 mill years ago) has a recognisably modern human foot. This suggests that either:

1) The modern human foot evolved between 4.5 and 3.5 million years ago

OR:

2) "Ardi" is in fact not a human ancestor but another branch of the hominid tree (like the later Neanderthals) and "Lucy" is the oldest human ancestor we definitely have.

Clodhopper;1277945 wrote: As far as I am aware, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor


What common ancestor are you refering to and may I please see a link that would educate me that proves humans did not evolve from monkeys and apes? I love to learn new things and would appreciate such a link.

Jazzy;1277943 wrote: In your opinion, what did we evolve from? It really isn't a matter of opinion, Jazzy. The evidence is actually quite overwhelming. If you just click on the link I've provided you can get a very good easy to understand lesson on biological evolution. The subject itself is very engrossing. Try it.

We all, me included, want to know the quick answers to everything but with this, it really is more of a mindset understanding, and since we are heavily indoctrinated through religious filters, we think contrary to evolutionary reasoning.

Think in terms of descent with modification. When you look in the mirror you probably see certain features of your parents and grandparents, well evolution is like that, ancestral. When you see pictures of people way down the lineage of your family tree, you may look completely different than all of them, or you may notice some common features, but over time from the process of procreating with people outside your family, you take on features of the other family and so on. Dominant features remain and get put forward and others fade away.

In evolution the same occurrence happens, but the dominant features that remain are those that provide greater survival and reproduction abilities. Thats what natural selection is in a nutshell.

Every living thing you see everyday in your life has for at least one reason or another out survived, as a species, millions of other species and sub-species. Its quite remarkable really. So you see, humans are really no greater than any other living thing, we just have by chance been equipped with the most tools for survival purposes. One of those is a conscientiousness that provides an ability to reason which we really need to get a better grip on. We are so far from harnessing this very powerful ability it's frightening.

Jazzy;1277957 wrote: What common ancestor are you refering to and may I please see a link that would educate me that proves humans did not evolve from monkeys and apes? I love to learn new things and would appreciate such a link. :)Link already provided.

Ahso!;1277960 wrote:

Every living thing you see everyday in your life has for at least one reason or another out survived, as a species, millions of other species and sub-species.


Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement due to the fact: Cloning describes the processes used to create an exact genetic replica of another cell, tissue or organism. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a clone. The most famous clone was a Scottish sheep named Dolly.

There are three different types of cloning:

Gene cloning, which creates copies of genes or segments of DNA

Reproductive cloning, which creates copies of whole animals

Therapeutic cloning, which creates embryonic stem cells. Researchers hope to use these cells to grow healthy tissue to replace injured or diseased tissues in the human body.

Jazzy;1277965 wrote: Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement due to the fact: Cloning describes the processes used to create an exact genetic replica of another cell, tissue or organism. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a clone. The most famous clone was a Scottish sheep named Dolly.

There are three different types of cloning:

Gene cloning, which creates copies of genes or segments of DNA

Reproductive cloning, which creates copies of whole animals

Therapeutic cloning, which creates embryonic stem cells. Researchers hope to use these cells to grow healthy tissue to replace injured or diseased tissues in the human body.

Glad you agree with everything else. that at least answers your query.

Ahso!;1277966 wrote: Glad you agree with everything else. that at least answers your query.


Good! Can I have a banana now? :yh_rotfl

Jazzy;1277957 wrote: What common ancestor are you refering to and may I please see a link that would educate me that proves humans did not evolve from monkeys and apes? I love to learn new things and would appreciate such a link. :)Here's your banana. Show me a link to a reputable source that proves people did evolve from monkey's and apes!:) Think you can do that?

What common ancestor are you refering to and may I please see a link that would educate me that proves humans did not evolve from monkeys and apes? I love to learn new things and would appreciate such a link.


Think Ahso has helped with most of your questions. Short answer to the common ancestor question is that the common ancestor has not yet been found. Given how fragile a 4.5 million year old fossil partial skeleton is, and how lucky they were to find that, the chances of finding much of a 15,000,000 year old skeleton are pretty remote. This is particularly true since hominids were smart creatures and don't turn up in tar pits (which trapped so many species) and their bodies tended to be scavenged to bits after death. But still, advances in technique occur and lucky finds still happen and who knows what we may be able to discover in 20 years time?

I should also point out that it is very likely that some of what I have said will turn out not to be true in the light of later discoveries and/or better interpretations of existing data.

Jazzy, apes and humans are more like distant cousins, not parent/children. We are still primates, just slightly more rational.

As a challenge, what thing does a primate's body have, that a human body doesn't have? Eyes, ears, fingers, fingernails, body hair ... what major difference is there? The only thing is our brain is a little bigger, and physically we are weaker. We are geeky primates

There's nothing in evolution that says a species can't have a good run either. I believe the most successful animal might be the shark. It pre dates the dinosaurs and is now the top predator in the ocean. They may go extinct now though, because humans are actively killing them all off now.

Eventually, humans might be unique in evolution, in winning a "Darwin award" as an entire species. We are just smart enough to cause a lot of of damage to ourselves. It's not smart to kill off a top predator that's been such a fundamental player in regulating the oceans (which are effectively the lungs of the planet). This behaviour seems to extend in almost every direction.

yaaarrrgg;1277997 wrote: It's not smart to kill off a top predator that's been such a fundamental player in regulating the oceans (which are effectively the lungs of the planet). This behaviour seems to extend in almost every direction.


It's not smart hunting any species to extinction.

How do you think sharks 'regulate' the oceans? Can you explain your meaning more clearly?

Sorry to be picky, but also the oceans are not the lungs of the planet, the forests are.

We breathe in Oxygen and breathe out Carbon Dioxide.

Trees breathe in Carbon Dioxide and breathe out Oxygen.

Destroying the rain forests is literally destroying ourselves.

At the moment we're in balance, with more Oxygen in our atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide.

If enough rainforests are destroyed, and they are being destroyed at an exponentially growing rate, then we will eventually have a negative balance with more Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere than Oxygen.

At that point, every living thing on the planet will quickly suffocate and die.

George Bush never cared about the destruction of the rainforests. He preferred to make money instead. His money will be worthless once all life on earth has been destroyed. This is a basic concept that he just couldn't seem to understand. :-5:-5:-5

Rapunzel;1278029 wrote: It's not smart hunting any species to extinction.

How do you think sharks 'regulate' the oceans? Can you explain your meaning more clearly?

Sorry to be picky, but also the oceans are not the lungs of the planet, the forests are.

We breathe in Oxygen and breathe out Carbon Dioxide.

Trees breathe in Carbon Dioxide and breathe out Oxygen.

Destroying the rain forests is literally destroying ourselves.

At the moment we're in balance, with more Oxygen in our atmosphere than Carbon Dioxide.

If enough rainforests are destroyed, and they are being destroyed at an exponentially growing rate, then we will eventually have a negative balance with more Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere than Oxygen.

At that point, every living thing on the planet will quickly suffocate and die.

George Bush never cared about the destruction of the rainforests. He preferred to make money instead. His money will be worthless once all life on earth has been destroyed. This is a basic concept that he just couldn't seem to understand. :-5:-5:-5


The forests also part of the lungs of the planet, and I agree they are getting destroyed as well. The oceans though are the largest carbon sink, and algae also converts CO2 to O2.

Sharks are top-level predators. If we kill them off then their prey (e.g. plankton feeders) will increase in population. Then the things they eat will decrease in population. Since they are at the top, the effects will ripple through multiple layers. Problem is the little things like plankton and algae populations then get screwed up.

Knocking out a species like shark is extremely foolhardy, because most everything else evolved in unison with them, or after them, creating a fairly complex system of dependency that no one completely understands. Like killing off bees, it will also harm the plants they pollinate, which in turn, harms the things that eats the plants.

The system will all eventually balance out, regardless what damage we cause of course, but that may be with or without humans existing in the long run (if we manage to destroy the very things sustaining us). Humans dying off might just be part of the overall balance of things

yaaarrrgg;1278056 wrote: The forests also part of the lungs of the planet, and I agree they are getting destroyed as well. The oceans though are the largest carbon sink, and algae also converts CO2 to O2.

Sharks are top-level predators. If we kill them off then their prey (e.g. plankton feeders) will increase in population. Then the things they eat will decrease in population. Since they are at the top, the effects will ripple through multiple layers. Problem is the little things like plankton and algae populations then get screwed up.

Knocking out a species like shark is extremely foolhardy, because most everything else evolved in unison with them, or after them, creating a fairly complex system of dependency that no one completely understands. Like killing off bees, it will also harm the plants they pollinate, which in turn, harms the things that eats the plants.

The system will all eventually balance out, regardless what damage we cause of course, but that may be with or without humans existing in the long run (if we manage to destroy the very things sustaining us). Humans dying off might just be part of the overall balance of things


I agree that interfering with any food chain will damage it and there are always unexpected knock-on effects. We currently live in balance with our planet but we, the humans, are destroying that balance.

I also agree that Mother Nature will probably be unable to restore that balance until most, if not all, humans have been wiped from the face of the planet.

We're supposedly the most complex and intelligent species and yet we've done more to destroy our domain than any other species on earth!

It's madness!

Good post yaaarrrgg. :-6

yaaarrrgg;1277997 wrote: We are still primates, just slightly more rational.


Convince me.



Terror of the Atomic Bomb,Hiroshima Nagasaki

Nomad;1278097 wrote: Convince me.



Terror of the Atomic Bomb,Hiroshima NagasakiNo one said it was all sound reasoning.

Jazzy;1277936 wrote: If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?


What logic suggests that monkeys and apes should no longer exist?

Take a group of primates consisting of, say, a hundred individuals covering two species. (illistration only, this is not meant to be accurate to life).

Within one of the species a mutation occurs in one breeding pair and the offspring are viable. You now have three species. The original species continue to grow and evolve in their own way. The new species evolves in a different direction.

Put it another way. Mrs Smith down the road gives birth to a child with six fingers. That child's descendants breed true and all have six fingers. Does this mean that the five fingered population ceases to exist?

Why does the branching of one line within a community mean that all of the other lines must die out?

Bryn Mawr;1279833 wrote: Why does the branching of one line within a community mean that all of the other lines must die out?


IMO there's been a movement in the U.S. that's done a great job sabotaging the education about evolution.

Evolution (in the States at least) is often understood as simply "survival of the fittest," which of course causes people to wonder if of two things, why the "least fit" would survive when the species branches out.

Though that particular idea of Evolution is what's causing the misunderstanding. Because fitness is really a circularly defined concept in this context, if it's defined in terms of what survives.

yaaarrrgg;1280108 wrote: IMO there's been a movement in the U.S. that's done a great job sabotaging the education about evolution.

Evolution (in the States at least) is often understood as simply "survival of the fittest," which of course causes people to wonder if of two things, why the "least fit" would survive when the species branches out.

Though that particular idea of Evolution is what's causing the misunderstanding. Because fitness is really a circularly defined concept in this context, if it's defined in terms of what survives.


What is fittest in one area is not necessarily fittest in another. If in one part of Africa the tree cover died out changing the survival requirements for the species living there it does not mean that the trees died out over the whole of Africa. If your neighbours can outfight you in the lower branches you might be lighter and more able to use the higher branches.

Seeing evolution as an on-off switch is wrong. Each species has a whole range of attributes and abilities which benefit or hamper them in different ways for different survival strategies in different environments. That a new competitor comes along that is slightly better than them in one way does not mean that they automatically die out, they only need to be able to survive in one niche within one environment to continue. It could be that they die back in one part of their range but survive in another or that they themselves change to fill a different niche in the ecosystem.