Theory of Evolution

[DominoKett]

I dont understand how people argue that humans evolved from apes when there are still apes. like this an example of evolution: a bird lives on an island and then the air gets smoky for hundreds of thousands of years. so over time the flying birds start walking on the ground more and get stronger legs and looses the ability to fly becoming a "new creature".

now how do people argue humans come from apes when for example apes are living in the jungle then no major events happan to challange the apes way of living (or normal ape would be extinct). apes are still around and in the same, so how would humans have evolved from them cause apes wouldnt needed to have evolved and if anything did evolve from them then the missing link between humans would have killed out the obsolete apes.

[Th0r]

Ever thought of different times?

I think it is plausible that apes could evolve in years to come. Provided we don't force them into extinction...

And some things evolve slower because of environmental factors.

Plus when people say humans are descended from apes they are not saying we descended from the apes around today. They are talking about a different species of ape.

[headcase]

For a species to evolve in two different directions (like early ape did to modern ape and man), you need to divide the population. For example, say there's a tribe of early apes living in sub-saharan Africa. Half the population decide the migrate north in search of better hunting grounds, the rest remain. After a year or two, the two populations are seperated by the Sahara desert and are essentially independant. They could now evolve in two completely different directions.

In my arbitrary example, the apes that remained would be under little "new" evolutionary strain. They would probably remain as apes, although evolve to modern ape. Those that travelled north though are under very different conditions. They evolve to Man.

Again, this is an arbitrary, simplified example off the the top of my head. It demonstrates the widely held belief though that if a population is to diverge, it must be seperated.

A more obvious example would be Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. The reason they were divergent was because the islands were seperated. Had the species been able to interbreed then it would not have diverged. Every evolved trait would remain within the wider population through breeding.

[odin_dax]

As headcase said...

In short, we didn't evolve from the ape species that is alive today. Darwin's finches adapted to different fruits on different parts of the island(s). Some developed short, thick beaks and some developed long, thing beaks -- all depending on the fruit's skin/shell.

[DominoKett]

ya that makes sense, i guess i never thought of that

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Another thing, don't we share something like 80% DNA with chimps??
Sorry 94% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimps#Taxonomic_relationships

[odin_dax]

Another thing, don't we share something like 80% DNA with chimps??
Sorry 94% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimps#Taxonomic_relationships

We share a lot with banana, too.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

True?

[odin_dax]

True?

Over 50%. I'm not sure of the exact number offhand.

[headcase]

I wouldn't mind reading an extended article on that. Remember; only 2% of your genome is coding DNA. 38% is non-coding and a massive 60% is repetitive DNA.

Given that all DNA everywhere is made up of the same four building blocks (A, T, G, C), that repetitive DNA is unavoidably similar in every living organism. Is that counted when comparing human DNA to other organisms? It probably shouldn't be.

To be honest, given how highly variable DNA is, I don't know how you'd compare the DNA of different organisms properly. I've no doubt that somebody does, but the question is how honest are they being when they give us figures of 98% or 50%.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Over 50%. I'm not sure of the exact number offhand.

Got any sources. Sounds interesting.

[odin_dax]

My source was an interview of a man working on the Human Genome Project on some educational program (I forgot which one). A quick Google search provided this good link: http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Hey man that shit is interesting.

[headcase]

That article is fine for kids interested in genetics, but a lot of it is fairly questionable. Also, my genetics professor said don't read anything by Steve Jones :smile:.

[odin_dax]

Well, I've seen many texts and heard many interviews over the years stating the same about a banana. I don't know about all that other stuff, but the banana and fruit fly I've heard many times. I trust the words of the American scientists.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Didnt mean the genetics part. Just the site in general is ok.

[DominoKett]

For a species to evolve in two different directions (like early ape did to modern ape and man), you need to divide the population. For example, say there's a tribe of early apes living in sub-saharan Africa. Half the population decide the migrate north in search of better hunting grounds, the rest remain. After a year or two, the two populations are seperated by the Sahara desert and are essentially independant. They could now evolve in two completely different directions.

In my arbitrary example, the apes that remained would be under little "new" evolutionary strain. They would probably remain as apes, although evolve to modern ape. Those that travelled north though are under very different conditions. They evolve to Man.

Again, this is an arbitrary, simplified example off the the top of my head. It demonstrates the widely held belief though that if a population is to diverge, it must be seperated.

A more obvious example would be Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. The reason they were divergent was because the islands were seperated. Had the species been able to interbreed then it would not have diverged. Every evolved trait would remain within the wider population through breeding.

ok but what would cause an ape to evolve into the form of a man. like lets say the monkeys split, some stay in jungle and stay the same, and then the ones that go to a new place evolve. but the thing is the intellignence level we are at now would of come way down the road of their evolution timeline, so they need bodies that are best suited for animal life which is eating, sleeping, gathering resources, getting away from predators, and things along those lines, so why would they evolve into human shape? human form is slower and less agile. humans cannot climb trees as welll and climbing tree ability would be a plus. do you see what im saying. its kinda hard for me to write, but in summare why would apes evolve into a human form when an ape form is more suitable for pretty much any environment. (and this is intelligence aside cause that has nothing to do with this cause for example if we had the same intellagince we have today but had the bodies of monkies i think we would be a more succesful race)

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

Planet of the apes anyone?

[ZionBlack]

For a species to evolve in two different directions (like early ape did to modern ape and man), you need to divide the population. For example, say there's a tribe of early apes living in sub-saharan Africa. Half the population decide the migrate north in search of better hunting grounds, the rest remain. After a year or two, the two populations are seperated by the Sahara desert and are essentially independant. They could now evolve in two completely different directions.

In my arbitrary example, the apes that remained would be under little "new" evolutionary strain. They would probably remain as apes, although evolve to modern ape. Those that travelled north though are under very different conditions. They evolve to Man.

Again, this is an arbitrary, simplified example off the the top of my head. It demonstrates the widely held belief though that if a population is to diverge, it must be seperated.

A more obvious example would be Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. The reason they were divergent was because the islands were seperated. Had the species been able to interbreed then it would not have diverged. Every evolved trait would remain within the wider population through breeding.

this^

[Esophagus]

ok but what would cause an ape to evolve into the form of a man. like lets say the monkeys split, some stay in jungle and stay the same, and then the ones that go to a new place evolve. but the thing is the intellignence level we are at now would of come way down the road of their evolution timeline, so they need bodies that are best suited for animal life which is eating, sleeping, gathering resources, getting away from predators, and things along those lines, so why would they evolve into human shape? human form is slower and less agile. humans cannot climb trees as welll and climbing tree ability would be a plus. do you see what im saying. its kinda hard for me to write, but in summare why would apes evolve into a human form when an ape form is more suitable for pretty much any environment. (and this is intelligence aside cause that has nothing to do with this cause for example if we had the same intellagince we have today but had the bodies of monkies i think we would be a more succesful race)Not everything comes down to environment. A large part of this is also intelligence and the activities they need to take part in. We're talking apes here, not little lemurs are anything, so they already had the predator part under control. What began evolving is intelligence. They taught themselves to use different items as tools to survive, which taught them new food sources, which teaches them new hunting methods, and slowly this all amounts to the intelligence required to walk upright and invent the wheel.

A helpful way to think of this is to not think of it as Ape ---> Human. Each step in the middle was something new.

Look at it this way:
Primate ---> Homo Habilis ---> Homo Erectus ---> Neanderthals ---> Homo Sapiens

Theres a whole bunch of less important subspecies left out of that chain, as well. We didn't just one day wake up with apes carrying cellphones.

[headcase]

You might want to revise that lineage. Homo Sapians didn't evolve from Neanderthals.

H. Habilis --> H. Ergaster/Erectus --> H. Antecessor/Mauritanicus --> H. Rhodesiensis --> H. Sapian.

(We think)

[Esophagus]

My understanding has always been that Homo neanderthalensis was (possibly) before H. Sapiens.

I have no more than a passing interest in this stuff, though. Sounds like you know more of what you're talking about.

[odin_dax]

My understanding has always been that Homo neanderthalensis was (possibly) before H. Sapiens.

I have no more than a passing interest in this stuff, though. Sounds like you know more of what you're talking about.

I don't know the scientific name but our "ancestors" killed off all the Neanderthals, from what I remember.

[headcase]

That's a theory to explain the mass extinction of Neanderthal. It seems to be the most logical but it's difficult to provide any proof one way or the other.

[Esophagus]

From Wikipedia:H. neanderthalensis lived from about 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: there is ongoing debate over whether the 'Neanderthal Man' was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA sequencing indicates that little or no gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species.You are indeed correct.

[OdiousMember]

I dont understand how people argue that humans evolved from apes when there are still apes. like this an example of evolution: a bird lives on an island and then the air gets smoky for hundreds of thousands of years. so over time the flying birds start walking on the ground more and get stronger legs and looses the ability to fly becoming a "new creature".

now how do people argue humans come from apes when for example apes are living in the jungle then no major events happan to challange the apes way of living (or normal ape would be extinct). apes are still around and in the same, so how would humans have evolved from them cause apes wouldnt needed to have evolved and if anything did evolve from them then the missing link between humans would have killed out the obsolete apes.

Your question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection. It also shows a misunderstanding of biology. A problem shared by most people who deny or cant understand the theory. Humans didnt ''come from apes,'' rather modern apes and humans [humans merely being another species of modern ape] share a common ancestor.

"Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan...is an excellent read on the subject of human evolution and the evolution of human intelligence. Also a recent Scientific American podcast, based on data from the HGP analyzing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA/RNA, asserts a 98-99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps. Humans are more closely related to chimps than any other living species as chimps are more closely related to humans than any other species.

[M_Rommel]

Not sure if it's a consensus among Evolutionists that humans "evolved from apes," as said in the OP. I believe it's more accurate to say that apes and humans shared a common ancestor that both groups are descendants of.

[.VX]

I've heard that Chimps and Humans share 99.4% of their DNA and that when a section of said 'common ancestors' were isolated from their own species for whatever reason, they found easier sources of food, which meant that there was not as much of a need for muscle developement (especially the jaw muscle), so more energy went towards increasing our brain size. And another example would be our lack of fur compared to chimps. This could be explained by either our migrating closer to the equator, or, with our increased intelligence, we developed to technology to flay other creaters, and use their skins as clothing, therefore increasing warmth and lessening the need for fur.

[Mr.A]

I totally believe that human beings probably evolved from some species of monkey or ape. For something to evolve it first must be presented with a reason. The thoery I like is apes or monkey's in africa evolved to have larger brains because of their diet. Which was, in some areas, primarily fish. Some fish are high in omega-3,6,9's fatty acids. It's primarily the 3's and 6's I'm thinking. Some fish are higher in omega's than others. Omega's are nortorious for "helping" brain function across the board. Look it up.

Another interesting theory is the Aquatic Ape Theory. It's not really regarded too seriously by many modern scientist, but thats because there is no proof....like there could be. haha..

Sorry no links, I'm a lazy human. You guys all have access to Google too though.