It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Greggers

Call it what you will, but was it you or your brother who quoted Sagan? because that guy says bang

lol


Unless by "me or my brother" you mean "someone else in this thread totally unrelated to me" (which indeed might be what you mean, given your previous posts), then the answer is No.

And yeah, you can call it whatever you want. It still wasn't an explosion. And it still refers to the direct empirical observations that prove the universe is expanding outward.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: secretboss
Why are there still monkeys? Shouldnt they have all "evolved" into humans, or human-like beings by now?

How come chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other types of monkeys aren't building their own primitive civilizations? Where are their cave paintings?



If evolution was true, shouldnt monkeys be resembling primitive cavemen by now?




Humans didn't evolve from Monkeys. Humans are a species of Ape. Apes do not have tails. The apes and present-day monkeys had a common ancestor. When breeding populations are divided, lets say for example, by continental drift, then each of the separate populations are now in different environments, and natural selection favors the traits in one population that may not be particularly advantageous in another. Keep that process going for several hundred thousand or even millions of years, and you've two new species. Monkeys have prehensile tails that assist them in holding onto tree branches, staying out of reach of predators and giving them easier access to food. In Africa, where tall grasses are prominent, a species that stands up on two legs and can spot predators from above is definitely more likely to survive to pass on their genes to children. Likewise, in certain environments, higher intelligence can do the same. A chance advantageous mutation in one population may come about in one population and not in another population with which it does not breed. Monkeys and other apes are not "less evolved" than humans. If I put you naked in a cage with an angry, hungry gorilla, and one banana, who do you think is going to eat? One-on-one fight - who would win that? Gorilla. You can tell the Gorilla that his species is inferior to man as he kills you.

Finally, you're assuming convergent evolution, such that every species will eventually come to resemble bipedal humans. It's fairly arrogant to believe that our form is the perfect form that all others should aspire to become. Not too long ago we were the prey. Without the tools we made, we're hairless apes that could not survive a northern winter. Polar bears and penguins don't need these tools because they earned their right to survive in this harsh environment through natural selection.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: andrewh7




Humans didn't evolve from Monkeys. Humans are a species of Ape.


again?

who originally wrote that line?

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

"ape" is included in "monkey"




When breeding populations are divided, lets say for example, by continental drift,


All continents have people, Australia doesn't have monkeys

also, the australopithecus who can play didgeridoo does not have a chimpanzee skeleton
neither did he evolve from a kangaroo as was printed in newspapers at the time of the genocide



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: eeyipes

originally posted by: Abysha
Saying humans evolved from monkeys is like saying that Pugs evolved from Labradors.

That's not how it works, at all. Pugs and Labradors both evolved from prehistoric wolves. Just like humans and monkeys both evolved from a distant ancestor. We are technically apes, you know.


Except pugs didn't evolve from wolves. The only reason we have pugs is because an intelligent designer interfered with natural breeding selection to make pugs.

Interesting, no?


Selective breeding is evolution dictated, sped up and controlled by man. The mere fact that man selectively bred the species to favor certain traits and appearances in the last couple hundred years doesn't change the fact that the species has a wolf ancestor.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers


Ergo, evolution is one of the best supported models in the history of science.

Evolution like religion, bases its theories on precepts, even political agendas. I disagree, my theory is life was brought here and managed, that fills all the theoretical gaps. There are witnesses to other world beings and their craft, you know. What you call empirical evidence is as 'true' there, too.

Because your model has no explanation for origins, it can't be accepted even as a theory. My theory has origins explained. And I don't mean to allude to religious dogma, either.


Abiogenesis is a different thing altogether. The model of abiogenesis is incomplete. We can produce RNA in a laboratory from organic compounds present on the early earth, but we cannot create a living cell -- not yet.

Did you just use the words 'create' and 'genesis' in your model, too?

Again, not inferring a religious perspective.


Your theory has no empirical evidence, and is in fact contradicted by empirical evidence in the form fossils and genetic testing showing a common ancestor. You do understand that making up a theory without scientific evidence and demanding others disprove it is a logical fallacy. As the one asserting it, that's your burden.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: andrewh7




fossils and genetic testing showing a common ancestor.


fossils don't show common ancestry, just common source
genetic testing can show common ancestry between representatives of a species, but that's it



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol


If you are correct why are the vast majority of scientists lying?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Asking why we are a different type of primate than others is like asking why a octapus is different than cuttle fish. Shared ancestry that branched off to suit different survival methods.

Cuttle fish are amazing by the way.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol

originally posted by: peter vlar


1.How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle?

2. You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.

3. For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.

4. So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.


Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.


No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.


And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.





1. You can disprove any point before it's made, watch carefully:

man: " It seems that based on our science of geography, and the accounts, measurements and maps brought forth by our geographers, that our city is closer to the beach than it is to the mountains"

woman, later: " I think our city is closer to the mountains than it is to the beach"
man: "your theory has been preventively disproven, you're welcome to measure again"




Before I take my leave of this thread, I just wanted to quote the above because it clearly illustrates what Wisvol is doing in this thread. At least now you are aware.
edit on 13-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: andrewh7




Humans didn't evolve from Monkeys. Humans are a species of Ape.


again?

who originally wrote that line?

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

"ape" is included in "monkey"


No, according to your citation "ape" is not included in "monkey". Both monkeys and apes are primates, but the two are not synonymous with or interchangeable with one another. It would certainly be far more accurate to say that humans are Hominids than to say we are apes but Hominids, Monleys and Apes are all separate entities grouped together as Anthropoids. Anthropoidea is a suborder of the order Primates.

While it is fair to state that both monkeys and apes share certain morphological characteristics, there are numerous differences delineating the two. Unlike monleys, no apes have tails. Apes, with the exception of Gibbons, have considerably more mass than any monkey does.

Each has evolved to a specific ecological niche. Monkeys, with their prehensile tails being used as a fifth limb, are far better suited to life among the tree tops whereas apes have settled into their niches at ground level or in some cases, lower parts of large trees while monkeys, due to their much smaller size and lesser mass as well as their prehensile tails, are able to stay far above the highest points apes are able to climb where the branches no longer can support their weight.

A few morphological differences are that apes have arms longer than their legs while monkeys arms are equal to or shorter than,the length of their legs. The way apes shoulder blades sit, they are able to swing from branch to branch far easier than monkeys who make up for this by having, yes... Prehensile tails. Monkeys have a chest that is longer than it is broad, apes are the opposite with chests much wider than they are long. One exception that is important to note is that Gibbons are arboreal and can achieve speeds of about 35 mph while swinging nearly 50 ft through trees. While an ape, they are however not considered one of the great apes(gorillas, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan and humans). Apes have rounded nasal openings like us where monkeys nasal opening are slits.

In regards to intelligence, monkeys are much closer to the intelligence of the primitive prosimians while apes are much closer to humans. Apes make tools, can learn sign language and are able to communicate and express their own thoughts and feelings and they display problem solving skills far beyond that of monkeys.

Genetically, the great apes share an exceptional amount of genes with humans, 98% on average. Monleys are not as closely related sharing on average, 93-95% of our genes.

Do you still feel that there isn't much difference and that using monkey and ape interchangeably isn't a bit dishonest? I don't doubt that you can find sources where the two terms are used interchangeably but in sciemce, specifically Biology, Primatology and Anthropology it would be incorrect to do so.







When breeding populations are divided, lets say for example, by continental drift,


All continents have people, Australia doesn't have monkeys


Continental drift didn't separate or isolate people. By the time humans settled in Australia, sea levels were considerably lower and there were land bridges connecting today's S. East Asia with Indonesia and Australia and New Guinea were also connected making travel by boat relatively short and safe 45-60 KA.

A good example of fast changing geography driving evolution occurred about 1.5 MA when the Congo River basin came into existence and separated two groups of chimpanzees. On the North side of the river the inhabitants evolved into today's modern chimpanzee. On the Southern side of the river the other group evolved into today's Bonobos. The end result is differing morphologies and drastically different cultures. The Chimpanzees fashion tools and weapons and actually hunt for meat. The Bonobos in contrast, developed a matriarchal society where the females run the show and displays of lesbianism, masturbation and grooming as ways to maintain social hierarchy are part of every day life.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
One of the things that causes change over many generations is a change in the environment that they live in. Whether it is competition or pressure from other species, different challenges in obtaining food, absense of trees, etc.

Then from changes in the environment, natural selection kicks in. Variations in offspring naturally occur due to various reasons and only those with variations that are likely to survive continue to exist.

It's possible for organisms to stay living in pretty much the same environment, making them less likely to change over time / multiple generations.

Some of the most primitive living organisms all still exist similar to the way they existed when they were our actual ancestors. For example fish and horseshoe crabs still exist without having changed so much. Yet the progeny of some horseshoe crab like creatures also developed into different forms over many generations.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




No, according to your citation "ape" is not included in "monkey".


You tried this before, it didn't work then, still doesn't now.

Words have meanings, you may have opinions about those meanings but it changes them not.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Genetically, the great apes share an exceptional amount of genes with humans, 98% on average


You're not serious about arithmetics: you have 46 chromosomes, your closest relative of the other gender has one chromosome that doesn't even look alike without zooming in to the actual code: there is your 2%

and tobacco has 46 chromosomes so it must be the missing link between monkeys (48) and man

Someone posted a video saying monkeys have more chromosomes because these chromosomes fused a million years ago to make out own, and to these guys I say: repeating bull# is not the same as actually doing telomeric polychain decoding, which yields far more interesting conclusions.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




If you are correct why are the vast majority of scientists lying?


Only on television/censornet: visit a genetics lab and ask around

also, money (high school biology beats janitoring, but you just can't tell'em about god, just the exploding monkey that came from soup)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   
i dont think we evolved from Monkeys personally. but based on your question. Maybe its ike humans evoling intellectually lots out there. But some really dumb people still being born

i have always wondere and is always the biggest question to evolution "why have they suddnely stopped evoling" - for thisi have no factual answer



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: secretboss

More importantly what's the next evolutionary jump going to look like or would we even recognize it?


Can't resist but I guess Humans are gonna evolve into Trolls giant Trolls ...



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Is the frog prince thing from Hovind? Sounds like his propaganda.


Brothers Grimm actually




Small changes add up. It's really that simple. I understand that this conflicts with your religious views. But that's just because your religious views are wrong. There's no shame in being wrong. Unless you are someone like Hovind who misleads people for profit.


Linear regression is not smart in complex systems: July is colder than August this year, therefore in a million years temperature in Florida will reach -7800° Celsius"

No, and red hair + albino + blind = penguins is even more retarded

this isn't about religion, it's about logic



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
That's a lot of stars for so called ignorant people, people don't post against evolution as much because their tired of being ridiculed for their belief, I don't post on this topic like I used to because, I have said my piece on ATS.

All I will say is that evolution will be exposed as a fraudulent science this century.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: wisvol


If you are correct why are the vast majority of scientists lying?


Since when is universal truth measured in mass appeal?


originally posted by: andrewh7

Your theory has no empirical evidence, and is in fact contradicted by empirical evidence in the form fossils and genetic testing showing a common ancestor.


Genetics does not prove evolution. Of course phenotypically similar organisms are going to have similar genetic code.

Which of the 3 would have the most similar coding: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and a garage door opener?

Obviously a MacBook Air and MacBook Pro would have similar hardware/software, but this doesn't mean MacBook Air evolved into MacBook Pro - rather, it required a Computer Programmer.

As for fossils, this may come as a shock, but this is all we have of Lucy: Lucy Fossil (Australopithecus)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: georgeglass

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Not even close to how it works...

Where are you from?


Really?

Please educate the ignorant.


Ignoring the fact we didn't evolve from monkeys for the moment...

If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join