reply to post by Melissa101
Someone brought up a very good point on another thread and I think it deserves being brought up again. Why would you think humans evolved from our
complete opposite?
Complete opposite? Wut?
- From AronRa's 10th FFoC.
“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid,
bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting
to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and
premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal
skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable
thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic
fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
Our similarities far outstrip our differences. Further, humans are a species of Great Ape and, while descended from monkeys, to skip that phylogenetic
clade introduces far more differences between human and monkey than between human and ape - our closest relatives. (I.E. tail to coccyx transition)
However, there is no trait diagnostic to all monkeys which all apes do not also possess either fully or vestigially. Further, there is no diagnostic
trait universal to all apes which humans do not also share either fully or vestigially.
Humans do not have body hair like a monkey, monkey’s do not have facial or head hair like humans.
Monkeys also live and subsist in shaded trees with much smaller brains that use up far less daily calorie intake as well as outputting less heat as a
result. In humans, the loss of hair is a means for the sweat glands to help more efficiently cool the body by providing greater skin/sweat contact
area - rather than having the sweat run off onto long fur where it would only insulate heat. The reason we kept hair on our heads is for insulation of
heat during the cool Savannah nights - also explaining why we kept pubic hair, to help insulate and regulate the temperature of our reproductive
organs (in males, among other mechanisms). Women have also kept their pubic hair, but lost the thick facial hair. However, it can still grow rather
thick on some women in old age or with certain body chemistry.
The AAH has some ideas on how and why humans lost their hair as well, but there is far too little evidence at this point to verify or validate it's
claims.
Yes if monkey’s evolved into humans then the monkey would not longer be. Why would a creature need to evolve if to only stay in their current
state?
Er, populations diverge. The more divergent and isolated segments of the population become - the faster evolution works upon those isolated
populations because unique mutations spread faster in smaller gene pools.
Apes, and by extant hominids, represent populations who diverged into new environments favoring new and different mutations.
If monkey’s evolved then would we not have to assume that all monkeys evolved, why did some evolve and not all?
They all have. There is no monkey species alive today which was around when monkeys and apes split.
Animals did not evolve from sea creatures so there is no need to discuss why some still exist.
lol, check the fossil record.
Evolution is a theory which is defined by an educated guess that is not fact and is not based on any tangible evidence.
Evolution is a fact. It's been demonstrated not only in animal and plant husbandry over thousands of years, but has also been demonstrated in the lab
with single-celled microbes.
Just because I do not believe the same theory as you does not make me uneducated.
Your mischaracterization of evolution suggests otherwise.
No I fully believe in science.
Science isn't a methodology which is to be "believed". It's conclusions are "accepted" tentatively by preponderance of evidence.
what you think is science
Define science for us please. In your own words, not copy/pasted from an outside source, and one which allows for the support of your conclusions.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by Lasheic]
It has nothing to do with being evolved from apes the
problem becomes it would invalidate the bible.When someone believes something religiously (every pun intended) there is no way they can allow anything
to counter there beliefs.
