If we evolved from monkeys and evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys today?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 07:23 AM by amantine
Claim CC150: If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"

Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim [AIG n.d.].


17 INDICATORS THAT EVOLUTION DIDN'T HAPPEN (WITH REBUTTALS):

Scientists have been trying to explain for over a century that humans did not evolve from apes. Rather, humans and apes share an ancient, common ancestor. Unfortunately, there are still some promoters of creation science that are spreading confusion by misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

It is generally believed by life scientists that new species develop out of isolated colonies of an existing species. For examples, an isolated colony of the human-ape common ancestor could have become separated from the main body of common ancestors. Genetic mutations happened which changed the colony in the direction of "humanness". This had survival value. Perhaps the change was a higher intelligence, which came in handy because the colony's environment was more challenging. A new species was born which further evolved into modern man over an interval of millions of years. Meanwhile another isolated colony of human-ape common ancestors also become isolated. Genetic mutations happened which changed the inhabitants in the direction of "apeness." For them, this had survival value. Perhaps the change made them more effective tree climbers, which came in handy because they happened to live in a more densely forested area. They also evolved further into apes.

In short, humans and apes are still around because each has found its own niche where it survives better than its competitors.


In the future, you might want to post threads about evolution in the Science & Technology. Evolution is a science (at the moment) and we have more people with knowledge about evolution in that forum.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by amantine]


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 08:02 AM by amantine
Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist.


A transgenic species is a spieces that has had part of another species genome transferred into its own genome through genetic engineering. There is no fossil evidence of transgenic species, because genetic engineering hasn't existed long enough for any remains to fossilize.

I think you meant transitional fossils. Theoretically, those do not exist in evolution, because animals are always evolving. A transitional species is a species by itself. There are transitional species between transitional species, which are also species by themselves, etc. But let's leave that aside for this discussion, we'll just define transitional species as the species were involved in the evolution from one clearly defined species to another clearly defined species. Do you just want to talk about hominid transitional fossils or also about other transitional fossils?

You say apes split off and evolved on their own. That we share a common ancestor. Why haven't they advanced to be intelligent.


Those that evolved into intelligent species either found a good niche that didn't select much on intelligence (e.g. Gorilla gorilla), became part of the group that involved into humans, or became part of group that died out later on (e.g. Home sapiens neanderthalis).

Scientinsts have tried endlessy to get species especially those with short life cycles to evolve in the lab. Such as fruit flies. They have never succeded.


Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

[edit on 31-8-2004 by amantine]


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 08:56 AM by amantine
Originally posted by Gazrok
How about that humans and chimps share 99% of the same DNA?


I'd be careful with that. I still remember the 37-page evolution debate where a few pages where dedicated to the different papers estimating the amount of similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. It really depends on the way you estimate it.

Fujiyama et al. 2002 they use a few different ways and just look at the difference:

The BESs mapped with high confidence (13) were used to calculate the difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes at the nucleotide level. The number of sites in valid alignments (nucleotide sites that have PHRED quality values q => 30) was 19,813,086. Out of this number, 19,568,394 sites were identical to their human counterparts for a mean percent identity of 98.77.

We found that 48.6% of the whole human genome was covered by the chimpanzee BACs (Table 2). One of the reasons for this apparently low coverage is that we used rather stringent conditions for the calculation; that is, BAC clones were incorporated into the calculation only when they had two sequenced ends in the same NT contig with the correct orientation.


There's a lot of difference 48,6% and 98,77% similarity. In one test they used BESs and in the other BACs. BAC and BES are explained in the article:

In this report we present the construction and analysis of a first-generation human-chimpanzee comparative genomic map based on the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences (BESs) to human genomic sequences obtained from the public databases.


Anyway, the generally accepted similarity is in the range 80-100%.


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 08:57 AM by masterp
If this is true why are there still species around that we supposedly evolved from in this unadvanced state?


Because some of the species stop evolving. Evolution is about mutation: a species mutates due to environmental issues. Some other similar species in a distance may not mutate.

If evolution is true wouldn't nature seek out to make these creatures more like us since we are the most highly evolved species on earth.


No. Nature has a reason about why species mutate. It's either by accident (for example a DNA mutation) or because of the environment. Not all species could have evolved like humans.

The answer is we were created by intelligent life. God in other words.


Nope. The answers to your simple questions are simple enough not to require God as the solution.

You may have said that God created all the mechanisms for the Universe to involve, including creatures of Earth.

The process that make the child, use the dna available to it provided by the parents.


DNA mutates. At the exact moment a child is created (and DNA from father and mother is mixed), a random mutation is inserted by chemical means. This mutation may lead to an organism that lives on or dies early in its life.

You have to understand that mutations happen suddently, not over a big period of time.

To further complicate your mind, apes have more complex DNA and more chromosomes that us. They should have been more complex than us, right? but they aren't.

Finally, if you have watched any documentary about apes' social life, you will see that 95% of behaviours are the same with humans.

This is a basic fallacy of creationist arguement... We did NOT evolve from MODERN apes.... Humans and modern apes SHARE a COMMON ancestor. It's really just as simple as that.


Well, maybe, but that does not mean evolution is not correct.

Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist.


There are plenty: fish with lungs, for example; birds with snake characteristics; various types of apes in various phases of evolution.

I don't understand creationists. Why shouldn't evolution exist? it's not a crime for things to evolve. Evolution does not eliminate God: it may have been God that started the Universe, created the physical laws that allow evolution, etc.


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 09:20 AM by Simcity4Rushour
You know If people would just Except that we evolved and are JUST another animal and NOT special then mabby we wouldent be so aregant as to belive we have the RIGHt of destiany to assume TOTAL control over this little rock we live on.
Just mabby we could learn to live with the earth instead of trying to change it orcording to our desines wich are so VERY flawed.
Ill go one better and at the same time say its probly to late even if we changed. If we dont CHANGE we will surly Destroy our selfs and a entire line of earths evolutinary history. In the time its taken me to wright this post 4 more animals have going extinct 2 more plants have going extince
2 blocks of rain forest have been destroyed 1000s of people have been MERDERD were killing our selfs and everthing else we touch.
so you think your special well your right we are. The first life form on earth that is causing its own extiction through destroying its own envierment it needs to live. Made by god are we? well you tell me why god would creat such a destroctive life form? and why he alowas it to destroy the very place he worked so hard to make?
Intelligent are we? Yea just enough to destroy everthing we touch but not enough to see the out come of our destrouction.
I pity such a sad creacher that is call man.And am ashamed to be one knowing ill be getting in my car to poluit more and farther the death of this world that has no NICH for a creatcher that is so desrtoctive.


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 09:55 AM by LadyV
This is one of the most unintelligent questions that keeps popping up......I personally believe that we were helped along by mutating an already evolving spices....
Simcity4Rushour
I agree with you .....half the time I am embarrassed to be a human. Compare your skeletal system to a cheetah's here
. Whose skeletal system is superior? Not yours. Actually, by the description, it looks like a cheetah has a superior pulmonary (quick air intake), circulatory (large heart), and endocrine (large adrenals). I'm also willing to bet some neural pathways in brain are more developed than their human counterparts, but not the brain on the whole.

This is basically what you see when you compare and look at all species. You see which of their systems are superior to the same systems in other species. It's not too often that you see a system that is superior to a human's, but it does happen. Ask Crush the Sea Turtle how many U.S. presidents he's lived through.

What makes humans the most powerful animal rulers on earth? Superior brain ability when it comes to three crucial areas: memory, analysis of memories, and communication. However these superior brain traits would be considerably lessened if the tools that we use for sense - the ears, eyes, nose, tongue, nerves under the skin, nerves on the heart - were of lesser quality. Hair's a good tool. It lets us know which way the wind is blowing before we stick our wet finger in the air for confirmation.

So we're superior rulers of the earth. No doubt. But we're not absolutely superior. We just have the most successful combinations. Of course, you wouldn't know it, considering some of the inferior things we do.

Evolution is not some magical force that happens simultaneously in all members of a species at once, it happens in small, isolated groups.

The evidence all points to humans not evolving from monkeys, but apes.

Africa's Sahara desert is expanding and overtaking some rainforest area. You have a group of small apes (very chimpanzee like, or infact chimpanzees) which lived in the rainforest and spent most of their lives in the trees. Due to the expanding desert, there's less food and things which normally didn't prey on chimpanzees began to. Some chimpanzees left the jungle in order to not be eaten and started living in the grasslands. In the grasslands, the chimpanzees who were taller or could stand up the straightest had the best chance of spotting a predator and then running from it and therefore surviving to breed longer than the shorter, more hunched over chimps. The taller and more erect chimps lived longer and bred more, their offspring did the same, and pretty soon, the whole population of this small group og grassland chimps were relatively taller and more erect than the chimps which stayed in the rainforest.

That's just how it all got started, I could go into it way more, but that would take scores of thousands of typed characters, and I'm not in the mood to type that much now.

Aside from that, look at the flu, every year it evolves an immunity to last years vaccine and a new one must be developed. Unless of course, god is giving the flu virus upgrades each year

FACT: Over time, an insect population will build up a resistance to a pesticide used on it. This is because those few members of the population who are genetically able to survive the pesticide will live and pass those genes to their offspring, while those who are susceptible will die and not reproduce. This is called natural selection.

FACT: Evolution is not a mechanism, it is a series of changes. One of the mechanisms through which these changes occur is called "natural selection", described above.

FACT: Evolution of life forms happens, through a variety of mechanisms.

Oh...and you may want to do a search as there are a lot of threads on this topic....









[edit on 8/31/2004 by LadyV]


reply posted on 31-8-2004 @ 10:48 AM by jumpspace
I read the article at:

www.religioustolerance.org...

Interesting read.

I was bought up to believe that we decended from apes and the shows currently shown on TV still say that! The shows even say that we come from neanderthals! LOL.

In the article (from the same site):

www.religioustolerance.org...

they say that Apes, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens came from this "super species", however at the following link:

www.trussel.com...

they say "...that neither sequence showed any close relationship to modern European populations." (referring to neaderthals).

More good reading:

www.nytimes.com...

So, if this "super species" also produced Neanderthals (as claimed) and Neanderthals have no resemblance to modern humans' DNA then someone's telling fibs!

Who's right?

We can discover ape, neanderthal, dinosaur fossils etc etc but this mysterious "super species" that scientists are basing their whole (new) theory around is conveniently missing!

What a joke! Scientists basing a theory on no evidence at all! And they then cast doubt on the theory of Christians etc etc because there is no proof! How arrogant!

Aahhh...it's amazing how the scientific community can dance together when needed...much like politicians really

I can guarantee, as soon as a new "test" of sorts is done to disprove this "new" theory then another "tango" will happen to come up with another theory...but I must admit that this "new" theory is rather broad and can pretty well cover any "upsets".

Show me a "super species" DNA sample with homo sapien links and I'll then believe it

Cheers

JS

[edit on 31-8-2004 by jumpspace]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags