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 and evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys today?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I have heard a lot of people that belive in evolution. They belive man decended from apes. Apes descended from all the other species before them and we all originally came from the same one celled orginism. If this is true why are there still species around that we supposedly evolved from in this unadvanced state?

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. These species such as apes have been in existence longer than humans for the most part. Why is there only one advanced species on earth out of the billions there are?

The answer is we were created by intelligent life. God in other words. What he is I don't know but he obviously is real given the complexity of life. Evolution cannont exist. When we have children they are made up of our dna and our spouses. The process that make the child, use the dna available to it provided by the parents. So how could a species develope into another if it can only choose the dna available to that creature?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Hoppinmad1]




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Yeh but monkeys are different. They can be taught to do alot of human things, they are very close to us. They evolved a different way from a different species I imagine.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Why are we the only ones so advanced. If humans are the most advanced result of the evolution of primates why wouldn't they be as advanced as us. They have been in existince longer than us so why haven't they evolved to be intelligent. What you said about them was key. They can be TAUGHT to do what humans do. We are born primed to do the things we do. I don't teach my children half the things they do. They learn it from watching and trial and error. Why can't apes do this?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
When we have children they are made up of our dna and our spouses. The process that make the child, use the dna available to it provided by the parents. So how could a species develope into another if it can only choose the dna available to that creature?


Because the mixing of DNA from the parents leads to a new DNA in the child. An example of modern evolution is height. In general people have become taller over the years. In roman times the average male was around 5 feet tall. Over the years though, since tall men are generally seen as more attractive to women, they have tended to to become more successful in reproduction, hence, more tall men are born.

That doesn't mean small men cease to exist though, and the same goes for apes. you are forgetting that evolution is a slow, incremental process over thousands of generations, not an overnight occurrence (unlike plain old reproduction !
)

Another good example is dog breeding. Many years of selective reproduction have created a huge range of breeds, utterly different in physical appearance, but all descended from the wolf/dingo/Jackal type wild dogs humans first domesticated.



[edit on 31/8/04 by muppet]

[edit on 31/8/04 by muppet]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   

I have heard a lot of people that belive in evolution. They belive man decended from apes. Apes descended from all the other species before them and we all originally came from the same one celled orginism. If this is true why are there still species around that we supposedly evolved from in this unadvanced state?


See Amantine's comments...

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.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist. As far as the dna for being short or tall or fat or thin in humans. That doesn't make us a different type of creature.

You say apes split off and evolved on their own. That we share a common ancestor. Why haven't they advanced to be intelligent. They have existed longer than humans if humans apparently evolved from the same ancestor why haven't they became intellegent themselves. 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. That is because you only have genes of a fruit fly not some other creature therefore it can't evolve into another totally sperate animal.

Why are there no other creature on earth that has reached our level of intelligence. We are the most evolved species on earth. None has even came close to our intelligence although many have existed much longer. Sure you might be nicely adapted to your enviroment but why not intelligent?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Hoppinmad1]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
HoppinMad, just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean others don't. I don't understand the process of atomic fission, that doesn't mean nuclear weapons don't exist.

If you're looking for fossil evidence of early humans/hominids, here's a link that should get you started.

www.archaeolink.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I've always been curious to hear the creationist arguement on these earlier species of man. We know they were intelligent. They used tools, built shelters, made cave paintings, etc.

So, if these early men were created in God's image, what are we then? If we didn't evolve from them? Answer me that!
Even with modern men...why are some black, some red, some white, etc.?

As for evolution...I suppose you've never seen a butterfly or a frog? One goes from a worm, to a flying insect, another goes from a small fish to a land animal with legs, and all in the span of a lifetime... Is it really so hard to believe that other creatures evolve over thousands of years?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The great apes ARE intelligence. Compared to other mammals, or even to other members of the same order (primate), Chimps, Gorillas and other great apes are vastly more intellgent than other animals they are related to. Just because they don't have technology, communication, or a society that YOU categorize as "intelligent" or on the same level as homo sapiens does not make them any less superior to other animals.

The great apes were able to exploit their habitat better than any competitors, and part of that exploitation was developing basic social and communication skills. However, evolution doesn't mean giant leaps in short periods of time. The great apes are still evolving. Just like humans. It just so happens that on the evolutionary board of life, we got a better dice roll and are evolving faster that other primates. Some people just can't reconcile this fact.

And just become something exists for a very long time does not automatically mean it WILL evolve. The conditions have to be right for change, and the changes have to be successful and add to the survivability and superiorness of the newly-evolved creature. Sharks have been with us in their current form for MILLIONS of years, much longer than even the most basic, primitive primate, yet they are only a fish that cannot reason. If time had anything to do with intelligence, sharks would be god-like by now.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Hoppinmad1,

While your argument of why are there still Apes around if thats who we evolved from is somewhat valid it is so old that evolutionists often discount it. The idea that if we were evolved from apes or monkeys then why are they still around was one of the first rebuttals to Darwins Origin of the Species almost 130 years ago. Since then this argument has been discarded for several reasons but the main one is that we both descended from a distant, as of yet undiscovered, ancestor.

Evolution can be argued on many fronts, however this is not one of the best angles of attack.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   

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


Archeopteryx comes to mind... Creature has clearly reptillian features, and yet also feathers... There is a clear connection with birds and their reptillian ancestors. Heck, just look at a bird's talons, and then an iguana claw...

Then of course, you have vestigal leg bones in whales...vestigal tails on humans, etc. Even our own nails are evidence....from when they used to be claws. How about that humans and chimps share 99% of the same DNA?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

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%.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
You obviously have alot of misconceptions about evolution. you should read a little more on the subject, and not from a source that sets out to discredit evolution from the get go. Apes did not just turn into men, earliest people were a species related to the apes that had something different going on. They could walk upright, which freed up hands for tool using and the care of young. No scientist worth his or her salt has said the fossil record is complete. As far as a convergent species- no a definitive one has yet to be found, but a progression in development is evident. Now my interest in this is more along dinosaurs and not human development, but the process is the same. The line that eventually gave rise to the birds brok away from reptilians so far back that it's not fair or accurate to say that dinos turned into birds, the same is true of humans. Monkeys/apes are still here because they developed along a separate line than humans.


And for the record.... I believe in God- I think that evolution is just a small part of the "mechanism" of God's universe.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   


Show me fossil evidence of one transgenic species. They never have and don't exist. As far as the dna for being short or tall or fat or thin in humans.


show me complete proof of god. I am not saying I don't believe in god, but you are being hypocritical now. Why did you start this topic. It has been around for a while, the contreversies between creationists and evolutionists. I believe you just read a book and took it from that as it seems to be spoon fed, and also in many books.

The way these books present knowledge is one sided. They leave out the rebuttals, but trick you by contradicting earlier knowledge. I don't mean only Creationists look like this, but almost all. It is human nature to only believe what you want until the sub concious cannot compute it.

It seems you posted this because it some doubt, you feel you are wrong. You want to PROVE to others, so it is proven to yourself.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
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]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join