Evolution misconceptions.

Humans are not decended from chimps or apes.. we share a common ancestor.

This has been said before.. yet still this is the common reaction:

"We wouldn't come from dirty apes!! ".. at which point it usually goes around in circles.

Proof that humans and other primates is in our shared DNA.

It keeps getting repeated and corrected and some apparently do not understand the concept of human evolution.. or perhaps it keeps getting repeated because it sounds denograting to the evolution argument.. in any case this myth just needlessly complicates and retards discussions rather than progressing them.

I hope I have clarified this fact once and for all.

If any one has any other frustrating misconceptions about evolution they'd like clarified.. feel free to add them on.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by riley]

I'm not sure if this is really a problem still, but I ran into a reference to Lamarkian evolutionary theory on this board awhile back. Some people thought that Lamark's ideas were the one's us evolutionists were supporting, but this theory has been proved wrong.

For those of you who don't know, Lamark's theory involves the wrongful presumption that organisms evolve in their lifetimes and pass down their traits to their offspring. This is in contrast to Darwinian theory which involves random mutations, some harmful, some beneficial, and the animals best suited to their environment due to beneficial mutation survive.

The common example of Lamarks theory which you might remember from high school is given with the giraffe. Lamark thought that the giraffe, when moving into a new area with high leaves on trees just grew a longer neck over time because he used it more, and passed this trait down to its offspring.

Lamarck developed two laws:

In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

In Darwin's theory, the smaller necked giraffes were not suited to their new environment and died out. Those with longer necks survived to reproduce, and over many generations the giraffe developed its characteristic long neck. When debating evolutionry theory, it is Darwin's theory we are using, not Lamarks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by zhangmaster
For those of you who don't know, Lamark's theory involves the wrongful presumption that organisms evolve in their lifetimes and pass down their traits to their offspring.

Yeah.. a 'chimp' giving birth to a human being would be a little implausable.. the 'chimp' would probably kill/leave it to die straight away for being deformed anyway which happens in nature.

Thanks for that.. I've never really heared Lamark's take on evolution before.

edit turned into a double post?

[edit on 7-7-2005 by riley]

Humans didn't evolve from modern chimps, but rather there was a very chimp-like animal that lived in east africa, some of its populations evolved along one path, and are modern chimps, other populations were under different selection pressures, and evovled into man. If we saw that common ancestor running around, we'd say 'haha look at that chimpanzee, flining its poo'. But I don't think its entirely inaccurate to say that man evovled from apes, indeed, man is one of the great apes.

Depending on who your source is Chimps and humans share between 90% and 99% of their DNA. Even sharing that much DNA the differences between the two species is huge, in intelligence, outward appearance, and internal structures. So one must beg the question what does it mean to share a large quantity of DNA? Does it really mean anything or does it just happen to be that way?

I don't know the answer to the question but here is something else to think about.

mice share around 85% of their genes with humans. Yeast shares 46%. Those tiny annoying fruit flies that descend on overripe bananas share 60%. Oh, and the banana itself shares about 50%.

www.mindfully.org...

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Depending on who your source is Chimps and humans share between 90% and 99% of their DNA. Even sharing that much DNA the differences between the two species is huge, in intelligence,

Actually there intelligence is estimated to be equivelent of a five year old

outward appearance, and internal structures.

They don't actually look that drastically different.. their mouths are different.. their height, arm length, body hair [shave one and see what it looks like ] ..you can definently see a resembelence.

So one must beg the question what does it mean to share a large quantity of DNA? Does it really mean anything or does it just happen to be that way?

It means we are definently related.

mice share around 85% of their genes with humans. Yeast shares 46%. Those tiny annoying fruit flies that descend on overripe bananas share 60%. Oh, and the banana itself shares about 50%.

I haven't heared the specifics on the others but last I heared the banana is about thirty-forty% [tv documentry]?.. do you have a more science based source with the same figures? Admittedly it still is quite alot.. something that would be expected when all organisms on the planet are decended from a single cell.


[edit on 7-7-2005 by riley]

Actually there intelligence is estimated to be equivelent of a five year old

How can you measure intelligence? We can't even define what intelligence is in the first place...

I think that Riley means something in terms of an IQ test for a chimp. It wouldn't be anything like "baseball is to pitcher as feces is to _____" but a test that a 5 year old human might take involving puzzles and object recognition. Of course intelligence is still 'undefined' for the most part, but with an IQ test I guess a chimp would measure out to be around the intelligence of a very young child.

Originally posted by riley
I haven't heared the specifics on the others but last I heared the banana is about thirty-forty% [tv documentry]?.. do you have a more science based source with the same figures? Admittedly it still is quite alot.. something that would be expected when all organisms on the planet are decended from a single cell.

"Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee."

Mural, R.J., et al., Science, v. 296, May 31, 2002, p. 1661.

A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes with the banana."

May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000


[edit on 7-7-2005 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by BlackJackal
"Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice,

mice share around 85% of their genes with humans.

Your previous evidence said 85%.. now it's 97.5%? I was hoping you could validate it not contradict it.

and only 1% different from a chimpanzee."

Mural, R.J., et al., Science, v. 296, May 31, 2002, p. 1661.

I did try hunt down this article.. however I was unable to find it in it's original context and was hoping you could provide it. All I could find was the same reference you provided on creationalist sites and forums. Thanks anyway.

A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes with the banana."

May, R., Quoted in Coglan & Boyce, New Scientist 167 (July 1):5, 2000

I tried to find the original article in New Science as well.. but it seems to have been removed from their archives.. [older articles remain] I did however find this response to it:

The 50 per cent figure for people and bananas roughly means that half of our genes have counterparts in bananas. For example, both of us have some kind of gene that codes for cell growth, though these aren't necessarily made up of the same DNA sequences.

www.newscientist.com...

Going by this it is likely we share a comparable amount ['50%'.. incidently 'half' as a scientific term is kind of vague] of base dna with many other living things on ther planet.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by zhangmaster
I think that Riley means something in terms of an IQ test for a chimp. It wouldn't be anything like "baseball is to pitcher as feces is to _____" but a test that a 5 year old human might take involving puzzles and object recognition. Of course intelligence is still 'undefined' for the most part, but with an IQ test I guess a chimp would measure out to be around the intelligence of a very young child.

Thankyou.
I think it's also based from observations on captive chimps.. however if we tried to live in their settings.. they'd prove alot smarter so it is relative.

Originally posted by zhangmaster
I think that Riley means something in terms of an IQ test for a chimp. It wouldn't be anything like "baseball is to pitcher as feces is to _____" but a test that a 5 year old human might take involving puzzles and object recognition. Of course intelligence is still 'undefined' for the most part, but with an IQ test I guess a chimp would measure out to be around the intelligence of a very young child.

Yes,but IQ tests don't measure intelligence.

For example,each time you do one your have a different IQ each time

[edit on 9-7-2005 by DarkSide]

Yes,but IQ tests don't measure intelligence.

For example,each time you do one your have a different IQ each time

So anything that's not 100% accurate isn't valid? Sorry, but IQ tests don't claim to have 0 error bars. If people were consistently registering IQs that varied wildly, only then would your argument be a reasonable one.

Originally posted by utrexSo anything that's not 100% accurate isn't valid? Sorry, but IQ tests don't claim to have 0 error bars. If people were consistently registering IQs that varied wildly, only then would your argument be a reasonable one.

The concept of intelligence changed through time.Today intelligence is logic and mathematics.But that's only our interpretation of intelligence.

Okay, that's a completely different argument than saying that it isn't valid because you can get different results from multiple observations.

Bumped up to educate and to save repeating myself.

we not come for apes. we come from more primitiv humans. human apes, apes dont have the ability to create tools. and ide for the future.
and all that that the human can do

So we dont come from apes.
We come from something else

Is it your contention that this homowhaterian is the original life form?

I mean... I dont really care if its apes, chimps, gorillas.... I want to know what was the very first 'whatever' and where did it come from.

What does evolution say?

we call it human ape.
its a sort of ape..


i #t up my explanation,,,


[edit on 27-7-2005 by HDD09]