I cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

If humans are just chimps with more mutations in their DNA then where the heck is the survival advantage? If you tell me that greater height is a survival advantage for seeing further for food -I don't buy it! This is not a life or death situation.

If you tell me that humans accumulated gradual DNA mutations and then get selected by environmental/climatic factors, I don't buy that either.

How come most DNA mutations are harmful and even life threatening to humans, e.g. Thalassaemia, Motor Neurone Disease, Huntington's Disorder. The only incidence of a mutation that is advantageous seems to be sickle cell anaemia which still debilitates sufferers.

Heck if we consider that brain size or intelligence gave us a survival advantage then think of people like Einstein and others who are INCAPABLE of interacting with other human beings to give themselves a survival advantage.

Finally, if human adaptation gave us a selective advantage, why are there still chimps about nowadays?

Humans did NOT evolve from chimpanzes.

Humans AND chimpanzes are beleived, at some point in evolutionary history, to have shared a genetic ancestor that was neither human nor chimp, but a precursor to both species.

Though woefully imprecise, think of it this way: Although niether you, nor your sister are clones of either of your parents, you both share your parents genes.

Biology can be interesting, If you pay attention in class.

Good point but the basic premise is the same. Genealogical splits still need mutations which still need Natural selection which still need survival advantage.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I cannot see how humans can evolve from chimps.

They didn't, humans and apes have a common ancestor, altough this primitive ancestor would look like a primitive ape.

If humans are just chimps with more mutations in their DNA then where the heck is the survival advantage? If you tell me that greater height is a survival advantage for seeing further for food -I don't buy it! This is not a life or death situation.

The genetic differences in between humans and apes are a lot more complex "than a bunch of dna mutations".

How come most DNA mutations are harmful and even life threatening to humans, e.g. Thalassaemia, Motor Neurone Disease, Huntington's Disorder. The only incidence of a mutation that is advantageous seems to be sickle cell anaemia which still debilitates sufferers.

So what? it doesn't mean a beneficial mutation can not happen. Yes most are harmful, no matter what species you take into account.

Heck if we consider that brain size or intelligence gave us a survival advantage then think of people like Einstein and others who are INCAPABLE of interacting with other human beings to give themselves a survival advantage.

einstein died of old age didn't he?

Survival advantage doesn't matter anymore with humans because even people with genetic disorders or diseases live longer than they would 20 000 years ago in a natural state. Because we have developped elaborate socieites , medical care , etc. We have lost our ancient culture and knowledge of nature that hunter & gatherers needed to survive. Put 20 modern humans in a rainforest and they will most likely die off.

Finally, if human adaptation gave us a selective advantage, why are there still chimps about nowadays?

Because humans are adapted to open savannah's, while chimps are adapted to forests. Both evolved from the same common ancestor.

Nice reply. However, the whole premise of Darwianian or neo-Darwinian evolution presupposes gradula accumulated mutations. EACH of which has to have a selective advantage. Explain how Huntington's disorder or Thalassaemia has a selective advantage? It is a dead-end mutation (no disrespect intended) which would be naturally not passed on under natural circumstances. If it is not passed on no evolution occurs Darkside that is the whole point.

The point about increased brain size and intelligence is that in species, including bonobos and Barbary apes, any member of the species which shows abereant behaviour is ostracised and dies from the ostracism. One intelligent ostracised ape would not be able to mate.

Explain how Huntington's disorder or Thalassaemia has a selective advantage? It is a dead-end mutation (no disrespect intended) which would be naturally not passed on under natural circumstances.

I never said that that a genetic disease had selective advantages. But some mutations have, obviously not the ones that condemn you to premature death and organ disorders..

The point about increased brain size and intelligence is that in species, including bonobos and Barbary apes, any member of the species which shows abereant behaviour is ostracised and dies from the ostracism. One intelligent ostracised ape would not be able to mate.

In what way is intelligence an abearant behaviour? The ape would still conform to their social structure. Modern apes ARE intelligent.

Darkside, I have got you man! If mutations do not have a selective advantage then NO evolution can occur. Excessive intelligence leads to aberrant behaviour. Our most intelligent people do not conform to normal behaviour. Chimps are intelligent but not capable of recursive thought - e.g. 'I think you thought I was angry' An extra intelligent chimp with aberrant behavoiur would not survive in the social milieu of other chimps. Please excuse the solipsistic arguments.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, I have got you man! If mutations do not have a selective advantage then NO evolution can occur.

No...

The mutations you quoted are genetic disorders, they don't have selective advantages. However there are mutations that give a being advantages, point.

Excessive intelligence leads to aberrant behaviour. Our most intelligent people do not conform to normal behaviour. Chimps are intelligent but not capable of recursive thought - e.g. 'I think you thought I was angry' An extra intelligent chimp with aberrant behavoiur would not survive in the social milieu of other chimps. Please excuse the solipsistic arguments.

So, this einstein ape, dies. What does that prove?

If we didn't have a common ancestor, you better have a good explanation of why humans and apes are so similar, in appearance,behaviour and genetic make up.



[edit on 6-5-2007 by DarkSide]

If the Einstein ape dies there is no increased intelligence and therefore no evolutionary advantage. The reason for genetic make up of apes and humans is difficult to address I admit. However 50% of the genetic make up of humans is shared by a banana. That WOULD explain the origin of our world leaders but not the rest of humanity.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
If the Einstein ape dies there is no increased intelligence and therefore no evolutionary advantage. The reason for genetic make up of apes and humans is difficult to address I admit. However 50% of the genetic make up of humans is shared by a banana. That WOULD explain the origin of our world leaders but not the rest of humanity.

You don't need einstein's to increase a species intelligence. Einstein had children does that mean in 5 000 years we'll all be geniuses?

This hypothetical einstein doesn't prove anything.

And yes if you go back in time long enough, you'll find a common ancestor in between homo sapiens and the banana tree, sad but true.

My point is that somewhere in time, probably in eastern africa a part of a giant forest was progressively turned into savannah by climate change, and the pre-ape population that lived in this part managed to adapt to open lands where bipedal locomotiont is a great advantage. Most apes even modern ones are able to walk on their legs but for a limited amount of time, however some are better at it because they probably have slightly different hip configuration or something. It's the ones that were the most prone to bipedalism that adapted the best to the savannah like envirronment.

Of course most of the forests still remain today and that's why we have modern apes.

The point is that alll living organisms chare certain genes because these are needed for essential functions, e.g. respiration or photosynthesis.
Bananas and humans and bacteria must share certain genes.

However, with reference to your savannah argument, which is well stated, which DNA mutations do you know of which can facilitate bipedal movement? That being the case, you would need at least two mutated individuals to mate as a minimum, like Adam and Eve I suppose. Then their progeny would have to stabilise the mutation. All the while each mutation would have to give a selective advantage. Point mutations in DNA (affecting a single base pair) do not seem to give selective advantage.

To further frustrate the issue, but also to partially halp your argument, mutations in non-coding DNA tend to be neutral.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
The point is that alll living organisms chare certain genes because these are needed for essential functions, e.g. respiration or photosynthesis.
Bananas and humans and bacteria must share certain genes.

These genes are shared because of a common acestor. Genes do not appear when they are needed.

However, with reference to your savannah argument, which is well stated, which DNA mutations do you know of which can facilitate bipedal movement? That being the case, you would need at least two mutated individuals to mate as a minimum, like Adam and Eve I suppose.

I'm no geneticist, but I assume there are genes that control how the hips are positionned etc.

And adam and eve never existed, the first "apes" to walk in the savannah were still genetically similar enough to reproduce with any "ape" of the time.

Dogs are a morden evolution of the wolf, the dog species did not exsist until man came along to domestictise the wolf and with selective breeding of mutant strains created the many breeds of dogs today.

There are many mutant dog breeds alive today cannot have evolved to this stage because they simiple because they cannot suvive in nature on their own without human aid. The chihuahua, saugage dog and many others are dog breeds that nature did not nurture or evolved to be that way on their own.

Viruses evolve much faster then creatures of higher complexity but that does not mean the creatures of higher complexity do not evovle. They just take a longer time.

I think that scientist cannot find the large missing gap/link between the mordern humans and the most advanced ape in the past because the mordern man was geneticly tampered with by the star gods for a specific task/reason.

The evidence is how fast mordern humans developed advanced civilzations all over the planet without coming into contact with one another. Example the Chinese civilzation was likely most advanced empire in the past, yet the Egyption , Mayan etc. etc. was almost just as advanced, and yet they could not have come into contact withone another to share ideas, not at that time with their kind of technology and distance involved

In the writings of most of these ancient empires, it was the "Star Gods" that brought civilzation to them. This does suggest that mordern humans could have their genes tampered with.

Want another example? Try birds, they did not appear suddenly, their ancestors dinosaurs could only glide, it was the mordern bird that truly achieved powered flight. The links between morden birds and their dinosaur ancestors are easier to find.... evolution by nature with little or no "outside" tampering I think.....

[edit on 6-5-2007 by ixiy]

Get it through your pointy little head... humans did not evolve from apes... Darwin never said or claimed that.... he said we share a common ancestor.... a huge difference, one I doubt that you will make the mental effort to understand based on the title of this thread.

which brings us to the common ancestor theory.
Right or wrong?
I say wrong.

Evolution is not something simple that happens overnight. It takes millions of years even just to see tiny changes.

When you think about human design, it is kind of a wonder that they survived. Very little body fur, rather small frame, few defenses (weak teeth and nails, etc). The thing that made them really stand out was bipedalism, which it is believed leads to intelligence and eventually complex language. Also, it seems only predatory animals, or at least ones that eat meat, can evolve into intelligent species. Animals need to have eyes on the front of their head. These animals are capable of formulating plans of how to kill their prey. Animals such as rabbits with eyes in the sides of their heads are simply programmed to run without thinking when they have such an encounter.

Animals only evolve if it will help them, because only the animals with good "mutations" will make it to mate. If it helps you to have two extra arms because you can collect food faster, it will be encorporated into the species most likely. But if you only have one arm and it slows you down, you likely won't be able to fight over mates and get the right to pass on your genes. The only exception is modern humans and their ability to keep the mentally challenged, handicapped, and chronically diseased alive when (as terrible as it sounds,) they wouldn't be alive in nature.

which brings us to the common ancestor theory.
Right or wrong?
I say wrong.

Well it's either "evolved alongside monkies" or "spontaneously created by a deity from dirt overnight". Take your pick .

Don't even get me started on the possibility of alien intervention and cross-mixing their own DNA with the common ancestor found on Earth.

Originally posted by ixiy
I think that scientist cannot find the large missing gap/link between the mordern humans and the most advanced ape in the past because the mordern man was geneticly tampered with by the star gods for a specific task/reason.

We can't find the missing link because bones do not fossilize well or at all in rainforests, not because we were spawned by a star god.

which brings us to the common ancestor theory.
Right or wrong?
I say wrong.

Evidence please. Fairytale books do not constitute evidence.

The whole point about the evolution of extra organs is mot valid. Please prove to me about the benficial nature of small mutations because the overall case is AGAINST them conferring a survival benefit to humans. Nothing has been proved to me yet to counteract this case.