Apes and Evolution
20 Comments - 1085 Views
Ape's descendant
Submitted By Rswanson72 on 09/03/07
FreeHovind, Rswanson72, Creation and Evolution, Apes and Evolution
A lot of people would like to know, if we descended from Apes. My Big question is: Where did Apes or Monkeys descend from? They descended from somewhat there own kind. We desended from Homo Sapeins. That makes Evolution somewhat a fact; however, I'm not saying that we are from Apes or Monkeys. That is another whole talk show.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Isabella (WWDD)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/03/07 - 21:57 GMT
A phylogenetic tree would probably give you a more clear representation of the answer to that question, but I’ll do my best to summarize it. The entire primate family shares a common ancestor. That ancestor diverged into more distinct groups, including monkeys and apes. The ape group then diverged further, producing (in increasing order of relatedness to humans) gibbons, orang-utans, gorillas, and chimps.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Thanks! I think you misunderstood my question. I'll look up Phylogenetic and see if that is any help. I'm trying to find out what did Monkeys, Apes, Orang-utans, and ect. use to be, before the primate era. Perhaps, it's an unknow kind that don't exist no more. I don't know.
I'm working on a theory that all speice came from there own kind. Meaning that we are not descendants from Apes or Monkeys, but through Homo Sapeins and so on down to a very special virus, that may be no longer active, these days.
I think all speices descended from there own kind. Examples: Did wolves come from a cow, or did cats come from an opossums, or did rats come from opossums or vise-versa, or did chickens come from monkeys, or from all of the above, or none of the above?
I get the feeling, that if we are from Apes or monkeys, then Apes or monkeys should have all evoled to humans, meaning that Monkey and Apes would not exist now, due to evolution. I could be very wong, but working on it.
If my theory is not true, then why do Monkeys and Apes still exist, but Homo Sapiens don't? You would think, if Monkeys and Apes still exist, so would Homo Sapiens.
I'm working on a theory that all speice came from there own kind. Meaning that we are not descendants from Apes or Monkeys, but through Homo Sapeins and so on down to a very special virus, that may be no longer active, these days.
I think all speices descended from there own kind. Examples: Did wolves come from a cow, or did cats come from an opossums, or did rats come from opossums or vise-versa, or did chickens come from monkeys, or from all of the above, or none of the above?
I get the feeling, that if we are from Apes or monkeys, then Apes or monkeys should have all evoled to humans, meaning that Monkey and Apes would not exist now, due to evolution. I could be very wong, but working on it.
If my theory is not true, then why do Monkeys and Apes still exist, but Homo Sapiens don't? You would think, if Monkeys and Apes still exist, so would Homo Sapiens.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
evolution works via branching. so when our commen ancestor "split" into apes and protohumans. now the apes evolved a different way to humans, because their mutations were efficent to their environment. we evolved a different way because our mutation where efficient to our enviroment.
this is easily explained by the fact that ape ancecors lived in forests, while proto humans lived on the savannah.
two legs were handy for us, 4 arms were handy for apes.
But i get your way of thinking. you are thinking that "if everything evolves into it's most efficient form, why didn't all children of our comen ancestor evolve into humans?" there you are making a HUGE assumption.
1) humans or the most effecient life form out of the primate family.
2) branching only aplies when you have something more effecient.
both of these are not the case.
1) for obvious reasons. what is most effecient depends on your environment.
2) as long as the selective pressure is low enough, even uneffecient "designs" live to reproduce, the only time you see the greatist changes is during a mass instiction , when the selective pressure shoots throught the roof, lots of species die out and lots of new niches open up for new species, which evolve from the surviving ones.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
The main problem with your line of thinking here is that you’re making it sound as though many of the species we see alive today came from other species that are alive today. Your comment “Did wolves come from a cow, or did cats come from an opossums” illustrates this problem. Wolves, cows, cats and opossums are all related by a common ancestor. The ancestor would have displayed all the characteristics that they have in common (it was a mammal, it had fur, ect) but the ancestor was a unique species that is no longer alive today. Also, there are different degrees of relatedness. You can probably tell just by appearance that a cat and a wolf are more closely related to each other than to a cow. They would have shared a carnivorous ancestor with claws and sharp teeth.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
You can argue descendency and get away with it, look at all the variance in skulls and skeletons of living primates. Look at Charlies skull for example. Im not making fun of him. I think he was very wise but just look at it for distinguishable marks and characteristics you will find several branches right there like you will with most of us. Its a little harder to argue relativity though. Were all one big happy family but your right relativity does not equal dependancy or descendency. Its one of the indicators that cant be proven. Its quite possible several related species co-existed without a jump to a new species.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Huh? I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. Is your point that there’s no proof we have a common ancestor? There is proof, based on DNA analysis.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Apes evolved from chimps and so did humans. Before then we evolved from smaller tree monkeys. But we first evolved from carrots. Carrots, I understand, have very similar DNA to humans. After that we evolved from these creatures...(I forgot the scientific name but here's the picture). http://thehonestlyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kp-koala-bear-21.jpg
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
"Apes evolved from chimps and so did humans. Before then we evolved from smaller tree monkeys."
several major flaws in our evolutiory reasoning.
- chimps are modern apes.
- humans are also modern apes
- apes (order is primates) is a genus ( i think) not a species, like you imply.
- you imply we evolved from current tree monkies which is impossible because they are current form.
what you statment SHOULD have read was:
" humans and chimps share a commen apelike ancestor, that ancestor shared a common monkeylike ancestor which presumable live in trees"
now i'not gonna get into your carrot statement as in the long billions of years ago, our common ancestor shared a commen ancestor with the common ancestor of the original carrot plant, (we chanced tht original carrot to it's current form through selective breeding).
and then you try to humor us by showing a picture of a koala, which is a marsupial. and related to us furter back than we would be related to pigs (at least it would appear to me since pigs aren't marsupials)
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
You say, "Apes evolved from chimps". Why not - vise-versa? We all evolved from a special virus of its own kind or orgine. If Monkeys evolved to humans then Monkey would not exist. Since, we did evolved from Homo Sapeins, that is why they don't exist, which means, that we did not come from Monkeys or Apes. We evolved from our own kind or seed. If all specise was all kinds, then all kinds would be all specise of the same kind.
You may have to read that a few times, to get my point.
You may have to read that a few times, to get my point.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
"You say, "Apes evolved from chimps". Why not - vise-versa?"
LOOOL .are you TRYING to strawmen us?
apes is the name of familiy. this family (taxanomic catagory) comprises of gorilla's chimps bonobos, oerangatangs and humans.
we humans SHARE a COMMON ancestor with chimps (and further back monkies), THAT is what we are saying.
"If Monkeys evolved to humans then Monkey would not exist"
2 things
1) you suggest we evolved from current monkey species. which we do not claim, evolution doesn't say that either. must we keep repeating this?
2) depending on enviromental factors, a commen ancestor can coexist with it's new "offspring". so even IF we evolved from current monkies, we could still exist in the same eperiod of time. remeber evolution works via BRANCHING and ADAPTATION. NOT succession and increasing complexit.
the increase in "complexity" explained by evolution is a misleading term. a better temr is specialization.
eg: a specific butterfly can ONLY feed on 1 type of flower. now you can call that butterfly really complex, but the correct term would be specialized.
imo the way we describe us humans as "one of the most complex forms of life" has more to do with tthe hubris our intellect seems to bestow on us, then with actual biologicla complexity.
"we did evolved from Homo Sapeins, that is why they don't exist, which means, that we did not come from Monkeys or Apes."
again this arguemnts relies on your misunderstanding of evolutionary process AND taxonomy.
TECHNICALLY, we are a SUB SPECIES of Homo sapiens. our "sub species" was just better at adapting then other "sub species" of the homo sapiens species. causing us to live (apperently our increased intellect and tool use was a advantage over the rest) and the "less adapted ones" (or in darwinian terms, weaker) to die out.
now i HOPE that you understand the process of evolution a bit better now, so we don't have to clear up your misunderstandings of it, again...
LOOOL .are you TRYING to strawmen us?
apes is the name of familiy. this family (taxanomic catagory) comprises of gorilla's chimps bonobos, oerangatangs and humans.
we humans SHARE a COMMON ancestor with chimps (and further back monkies), THAT is what we are saying.
"If Monkeys evolved to humans then Monkey would not exist"
2 things
1) you suggest we evolved from current monkey species. which we do not claim, evolution doesn't say that either. must we keep repeating this?
2) depending on enviromental factors, a commen ancestor can coexist with it's new "offspring". so even IF we evolved from current monkies, we could still exist in the same eperiod of time. remeber evolution works via BRANCHING and ADAPTATION. NOT succession and increasing complexit.
the increase in "complexity" explained by evolution is a misleading term. a better temr is specialization.
eg: a specific butterfly can ONLY feed on 1 type of flower. now you can call that butterfly really complex, but the correct term would be specialized.
imo the way we describe us humans as "one of the most complex forms of life" has more to do with tthe hubris our intellect seems to bestow on us, then with actual biologicla complexity.
"we did evolved from Homo Sapeins, that is why they don't exist, which means, that we did not come from Monkeys or Apes."
again this arguemnts relies on your misunderstanding of evolutionary process AND taxonomy.
TECHNICALLY, we are a SUB SPECIES of Homo sapiens. our "sub species" was just better at adapting then other "sub species" of the homo sapiens species. causing us to live (apperently our increased intellect and tool use was a advantage over the rest) and the "less adapted ones" (or in darwinian terms, weaker) to die out.
now i HOPE that you understand the process of evolution a bit better now, so we don't have to clear up your misunderstandings of it, again...
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Lets just say that there was a "Restraint" on humans, at the end of the universe. That does not mean, that it is, the end of the Universe. The Universe is not based on how it is "restraint", but, perhaps by the perceiver.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Dont be inacurate Big Dog these boys confuse real easy.
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
eehm Kent i beleive you ment to say:
"don't misreprisent or strawman bigdog, they can tell and they'll expose you."
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
I thought he meant "don't act like a jerk, bigdog, its not ok"
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
How many words do you know? I hear strawman a lot. like how many times did you watch old reruns of the wizard of oz. Im beginning to see the source of your theory. He wasnt a wizard was he?
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Isn't the Wizard theory yours?
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
"How many words do you know? I hear strawman a lot. like how many times
did you watch old reruns of the wizard of oz. Im beginning to see the
source of your theory. He wasnt a wizard was he?"
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2003
read kent. before you EVER post a comment again. you pathetic attempt to shift attention fails in front of any 13 year old with a little sense of critical reasoning. and if you ever claim not to know what a strawman arguement is.
HERE, I TOLD YOU!
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
How many words do you know?
The red herring - an excellent choice, sir.
I hear strawman a lot.
That's probably because the majority of your posts here have contained strawman arguments. Ever hear the expression "calling a spade a spade"?
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
Hello. I have been reading some of the posts that have been made about this subject, and they sound interesting. The problem is that evolution has come from the Big Bang Theory: Cosmic Evolution, Stellar Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Planetary Evolution, Organic Evolution, Macro Evolution, and Micro Evolution. In Cosmic Evolution something exploded or microscopic particles of protein were put together, etc. The question is how did the explosion start in the first place? It's not possible for an explosion to happen unless there is already something existing. So how does the Big Bang start?
» Reply to CommentRe: Apes and Evolution
"Hello. I have been reading some of the posts that have been made about
this subject, and they sound interesting. The problem is that evolution
has come from the Big Bang Theory:"
WRONG
big bang deals with an entirely different thing then evolution. this a creationist misconception.
as i explaine dbefore with my 4 general event arguement, even IF god incited the big bang, or even IF he created the first singel cell, then evolution can still ring true.
the theory of evolution mean ONLY 1 THING!!
and not , like hovind states:
Cosmic Evolution: (? you must be speaking about formation of galaxies and solarsystems, big bang theory and gravity)
Stellar Evolution (? formation of stars is what you are referring too? nothing to do with living organisms and mutation)
Chemical Evolution (fusion and decay maby? this is nuclear physics and not evolution)
Planetary
Evolution (formation of planets, gravity, not evolution)
Organic Evolution,(you probalbly are referrign to abio genesis, which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it has to do with the formation of organic compounds and ultimately a self replicating strign of RNA with simple organic compounds and a katalyst)
Macro Evolution, (just many times micro evolution)
Micro Evolution (mutations passed on trough natural selection, part of ACTUAL selection)
see the word evolution CAN be used in the contexts you provided, but then they have nothign to do with the theory of evolution. they just rely on the defenition of the word evolution in the sense of:
"1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
and NOT " Biology
a. Change in the genetic
composition of a population during successive generations, as a result
of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals,
and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution
oh and for the people (kent) who don't know what a strawman argument is:
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1]
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the
"straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the
original position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
and if you don't like wiki
"an argument which is intended to distract the other side from the real
issues or waste the opponent's time and effort, sometimes called a "red
herring" (for the belief that drawing a fish across a trail will
mislead hunting dogs)."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+argument
SO QUIT USING THEM ALREADY!
Legal: none of this site's content is copyrighted unless it specifically says otherwise.
