Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Monkey to Man


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 URAIN

URAIN

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:14 AM

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))
  • 0
Your's is energy, mine is space.


WWW.SPACEANDCONSENSUS.WORDPRESS.COM

http://baseforreinca....wordpress.com/


I have to understand the Physics and being get related with Physics.

Thanks to all who are guiding me.

#2 insane_alien

insane_alien

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 10,094 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:44 AM

The process of evolution IS still running.

The only problem is that it is a slow process. It is more easily observable in species with a short generation time such as fruit flies.

Monkeys do not and will never give birth to humans. Evolution and fossil evidence say they share the same common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The species of this common ancestor no longer exists but its offspring such as monkeys, great apes and us still exist. we are cousins.

Evolution works by small, almost insignificant changes that acumulate over the generations. just as if you were to look at more distant cousins of your family, they may share a common ancestor in your family tree but the resemblance will get less and less the further out you go.

If you want examples of fast evolution, you turn to bacteria and viruses, there is a reason we get flu every year and are worried about a new mutation, that is evolution in action! also, in european humans there is a genetic mutation among some of them that helps protect against the plague thatcan't be found in DNA from before it became a huge problem in europe.
  • 0
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

#3 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,878 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:17 PM

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))


Not monkeys. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor. Both humans and the other apes are not the same species as the common ancestor; all of the species have evolved.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#4 michel123456

michel123456

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 4,405 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:11 PM

(...)If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.
(...)


It is not true and the process is still running.
  • 0

Michel what have you done?


#5 Myuncle

Myuncle

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 08:05 PM

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))



Evolution is slower now, everything you see around you has been more or less influenced by men (sea, mountains, forests), there is not the same degree of competition like before, if there are too many rabbits we kill them. The passage from ape to man has been very slow, so slow that the first human being never existed, what existed was just a monkey with a bigger brain and especially a bigger muscle in the thumb, how did it happen? Thanks to a simple genetic modification. Every animal that you see is just a branch from the same tree, is the result of millions of years of accidental genetic mutations, some of them are positive and make you thrive, and some of them are negative (deseases that kill the species).
Monkeys can't speak like us just because their larynx is not low enough, but if you train them they can speak very well through sign language. Check the documentary about Koko on youtube, is very interesting, you see the gorilla using sign language, it's quite funny the scene when the woman gives Koko a bottle to feed a doll, and Koko tells her that the bottle is empty...
it's in 8 parts:

  • 0

#6 kitkat

kitkat

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 225 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:23 PM

The gorilla can understand human words by translating it into sign language but is unable to speak words due to biological barriers. Our pets, cats and dogs also can understand human words but are restricted of using speech due to biological barriers. It reminds me of a time when my two cats got out of the house through a broken window and I couldn't find them. I told my third cat to go find the other two cats and bring them in. I was on the phone and when I said that to her, I really didn't think she understood me.

When I got off the phone, my third cat came into the room with the other two cats, I was shocked and amazed that she was able to understand me. The other two cats were not very happy with her the entire day since they hissed at her all day long letting her know they were pissed that they were forced to come back into the house. That was the only day in the entire time I have had all 3 cats that they hissed at the third cat. Coincidence, maybe, I don't think so and I believe she understood every word I said to her. The proof is what actually occurred that day.

So while you may point to the slow process of evolution, it still allows cross communication between different species even though they possess traits they do not have in common.
  • 0

#7 Arete

Arete

    Biology Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 1,063 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:43 PM

OP - Humans did not come from monkeys. Human and monkeys share a common ancestor.

As an analogy - you and your cousins share the same grandparents. You are related, but you did not come from your cousin nor would you expect your cousin's children to gradually start looking more like you.

Evolution is slower now...


No it isn't. Given the process is not universal, it is impossible to characterize rates of evolution across all biota. Also, I'd say there is extremely strong evidence that anthropogenic impacts on the evolution of most other organisms has a destabilizing rather than stabilizing effect - there's evidence of rapid directional selective sweeps (e.g. peppered moths http://en.wikipedia....i/Peppered_moth, cane toads http://www.canetoads...devolution.html), population expansions (e.g. rats http://onlinelibrary...09.02228.x/full) adaptive radiations (e.g. dogs http://www.sciencedi...16895259390122X) and extinction events (do I really need an example?).

Personally I find it difficult to think of an organism undergoing stabilizing selection due to anthropogenic circumstances - and would have to conclude that if there is an overall trend in overall evolutionary rates as a result of humans, it's an acceleration of the process.


Coincidence, maybe, I don't think so and I believe she understood every word I said to her. The proof is what actually occurred that day.


Anecdote =/= proof. It's quite plausible that the situation you describe was due to coincidence than the assumptive cause/anthropomorphism you ascribe

Edited by Arete, 27 December 2011 - 10:25 PM.

  • 0

#8 kitkat

kitkat

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 225 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:24 PM

The common ancestor is believed to be a squirrel type species so neither man or ape had any resemblance to each other at the time of the split that both went their respective ways.

OP - Humans did not come from monkeys. Human and monkeys share a common ancestor.

As an analogy - you and your cousins share the same grandparents. You are related, but you did not come from your cousin nor would you expect your cousin's children to gradually start looking more like you.



No it isn't. Given the process is not universal, it is impossible to characterize rates of evolution across all biota. Also, I'd say there is extremely strong evidence that anthropogenic impacts on the evolution of most other organisms has a destabilizing rather than stabilizing effect - there's evidence of rapid directional selective sweeps (e.g. peppered moths http://en.wikipedia....i/Peppered_moth, cane toads http://www.canetoads...devolution.html), population expansions (e.g. rats http://onlinelibrary...09.02228.x/full) adaptive radiations (e.g. dogs http://www.sciencedi...16895259390122X) and extinction events (do I really need an example?).

Personally I find it difficult to think of an organism undergoing stabilizing selection due to anthropogenic circumstances - and would have to conclude that if there is an overall trend in overall evolutionary rates as a result of humans, it's an acceleration of the process.




Anecdote =/= proof. It's quite plausible that the situation you describe was due to coincidence than the assumptive cause/anthropomorphism you ascribe


And then again maybe it wasn't!
  • 0

#9 Arete

Arete

    Biology Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 1,063 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 28 December 2011 - 12:14 AM

The common ancestor is believed to be a squirrel type species so neither man or ape had any resemblance to each other at the time of the split that both went their respective ways.


The ancestral simian was likely a lemur-like animal - http://www.scienceda...90519104643.htm but the ancestral hominid (ancestor of modern apes and humans) was unequivocally
\ rather more ape than squirrel like - http://en.wikipedia....ithecus_kadabba http://en.wikipedia....opus_tchadensis http://en.wikipedia....orin_tugenensis


And then again maybe it wasn't!


In the interests of logical honesty - the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion. There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars etc. http://en.wikipedia....ssell's_teapot. Since your positive assertion is supported only by a single anecdotal event, it's speculative at best.
  • 0

#10 Myuncle

Myuncle

    Lepton

  • Senior Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:36 AM

Yes, that's what I remember, the common ancestor of the lemur was a squirrel-like or mouse-like creature. In fact if you look at the mice, their paws resemble so much our hands.
  • 0

#11 Appolinaria

Appolinaria

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 854 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:55 AM

Can't believe how similar Ida is to modern day lemurs, and she lived 47 million years ago. Wtf.
  • 0


#12 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 8,385 posts
  • LocationSouth Eastern North Carolina

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:25 AM

Our common ancestor? Humans are apes which are a subset of monkeys yada yada yada eventually back to bacteria which also had more primitive or possibly more accurately simpler ancestors, I don't see any reason to deny our relationship to the natural world other than the words written by bronze age goat herders. I'll go with deep time and evolution for the win...
  • 1
Life is the poetry of the Universe
Love is the poetry of life

You do not possess belief, belief possesses you...

I'm always open to new ideas, I just don't let them crawl into my skull and take a dump... 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson

Check out my YouTube channel here.



If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->

#13 pippo

pippo

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 5 January 2012 - 01:34 AM

Our common ancestor? Humans are apes which are a subset of monkeys yada yada yada eventually back to bacteria which also had more primitive or possibly more accurately simpler ancestors, I don't see any reason to deny our relationship to the natural world other than the words written by bronze age goat herders. I'll go with deep time and evolution for the win...


regarding man from monkeys, I heard that at least one disadvantage from apes evolving to upright bipedals was that man gets way more backaches that apes/monkeys. Lower back aches/pain (the kind Im feeling right now) is a cost of walking upright, even though many advantages of bipedalism are clear. Is this true, people?

Thanks

Edited by pippo, 5 January 2012 - 01:34 AM.

  • 0

#14 questionposter

questionposter

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 1,568 posts

Posted 5 January 2012 - 02:22 AM

Basically, humans didn't come from monkeys, they came from a species slightly similar, and as you go down the line of common ancestry, the ancestors of humans become more and more similar to "monkeys" unless you reach a species that actually did mutate from the said monkey species. Its a very slow built on slight random changes.
  • 0

#15 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,761 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 5 January 2012 - 03:41 AM

I heard that at least one disadvantage from apes evolving to upright bipedals was that man gets way more backaches that apes/monkeys. Lower back aches/pain (the kind Im feeling right now) is a cost of walking upright, even though many advantages of bipedalism are clear. Is this true, people?

Although it's tough to measure whether or not an ape or monkey is having backaches (they don't exactly tell us, or go grab something from a medicine cabinet when it happens), I think the answer is most likely, yes.

We evolved on all fours... Before apes we were rat like creatures, and before them we were amphibious creatures, and fish before that... etc. In all of those animals, the weight is displaced across four limbs (except for the fish, who is buoyant in water). When we started standing upright, it put a lot of extra pressure on our lower backs, and our hip bones had to shift, and that often results in pain. Every step we take is like a hammer to our skeleton... from the ground, through the heel, through the knees, the hips, and into the spine. If we were on hands and knees, the force of those hammer blows on each limb would be cut in half... dispersed.

I would love for a person better versed in anatomy and evolution than me to jump in here, but I'm rather certain that the basic idea you are sharing is quite correct.
  • 0

#16 questionposter

questionposter

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 1,568 posts

Posted 5 January 2012 - 06:37 AM

Although it's tough to measure whether or not an ape or monkey is having backaches (they don't exactly tell us, or go grab something from a medicine cabinet when it happens), I think the answer is most likely, yes.

We evolved on all fours... Before apes we were rat like creatures, and before them we were amphibious creatures, and fish before that... etc. In all of those animals, the weight is displaced across four limbs (except for the fish, who is buoyant in water). When we started standing upright, it put a lot of extra pressure on our lower backs, and our hip bones had to shift, and that often results in pain. Every step we take is like a hammer to our skeleton... from the ground, through the heel, through the knees, the hips, and into the spine. If we were on hands and knees, the force of those hammer blows on each limb would be cut in half... dispersed.

I would love for a person better versed in anatomy and evolution than me to jump in here, but I'm rather certain that the basic idea you are sharing is quite correct.


No, your giving the wrong impression, don't say "we were" or "we are", that's a large part of where the misunderstanding comes from. Humans were never anything other than humans, and any species isn't anything other that the specific species that it is.

What happens is one species gives birth to a slightly mutated member, and the genes in that member might make it better for surviving, which would make that particular member survive more which means it has a greater chance to pass that mutation on, and then that mutation might mutate into something slightly different again and become successful and etc. These mutations are usually very gradual in survival as most mutations are harmful or don't do much, a monkey would never actually just give birth to a human, and a fish would never just give birth to an amphibian, that's just too big of a change to even have a chance of happening.

Edited by questionposter, 5 January 2012 - 06:41 AM.

  • 0

#17 Sorcerer

Sorcerer

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 754 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 5 January 2012 - 07:55 AM

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))


This is a very common question from people who have not learnt evolutionary theory, generally this question is taught in schools with a religious agenda. It is supposedly a rhetort to evolutionary theory, but a very weak one, perhaps you will catch a layman up in this trap.

During the evolution of humans from their ancestors there were very specific selective processes and the niches for them to fill. (I really can't find the words to put it simpler, sorry I can see by your post that your english isn't very good). In order for any modern apes (for example chimpanzees/bonobos) to be forced to apapt in a similar way, so as to evolve a larger cerebral cortex, these selective processes would need to be repeated. Unfortunately, humans currently fill this niche, chimpanzees/bonobos population is small and even if their environment is forcing them into a similar place, humans will outcompete them.

So why aren't they evolving (or havent evolved) into smarter lifeforms, because they don't have the specific selective factors and the available niches that our ancestors did.

In other words they are more sucessful (produce more offspring) the way they are now. Perhaps if you manage to survive a few million years (LOL) you could answer your own question.

As for history, look at homo erectus, before homo sapiens migrated out of africa there were many populations of homo erectus adapted to niches throughout eurasia and what's now indonesia. We outcompeted them and interbred with them. You could equally ask why they didn't evolve larger brains, well they probably were, it just happened we had the edge.

Edited by Sorcerer, 5 January 2012 - 08:10 AM.

  • 0
Hi

#18 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,761 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 5 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

No, your giving the wrong impression <snip> These mutations are usually very gradual in survival as most mutations are harmful or don't do much, a monkey would never actually just give birth to a human, and a fish would never just give birth to an amphibian, that's just too big of a change to even have a chance of happening.

I appreciate the clarification, but I'm well aware of these things. Hopefully, people older than 10 years old are, too.
  • 0

#19 JustinW

JustinW

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 688 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 5 January 2012 - 06:10 PM

I had heard somewhere of a theory that said, the mutation that seperated humans from apes had something to do with a sugar produced in the body to fight off malaria. I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it though. But interesting non the less.
  • 0
"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)

#20 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,761 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 5 January 2012 - 06:50 PM

Small point of clarification... Humans never separated from apes, but actually ARE themselves a type of ape. I'd be curious to read more on the sugar/malaria thing, though.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users