blackhole123 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Its not that i dont agree with evolution i just dont know the answer to this question. There are still tons of apes around, so where are the in between stages? Did they die out? And if they did why wouldnt the apes die out also? Because it seems like if there can still be things like apes around why wouldnt we also have a bunch of big foots running around? This may seem a little repetative but why are there still apes. Im assuming its because there were two groups and one evolved and one didnt. Why wouldnt this happen with all other stages leading up to humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkworm Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Every generation is in transition. Every organism is a link, missing or not. There are many fossils showing this transition in the fossil record. Evolution does not require that the parent species die out, and, anyway, the evolution of man is not in direct lineage with modern apes, we're cousins not ancestors. Yes, apparantly all of the hominid species died out - for one reason or another. It's not required though. Gigantopithicus is the closest thing to a big foot. I don't know the explaination for its extinction. Also, in evolution an entire species does not have to speciate together. A population of this species is what ends up speciating. I hope that points you in the right direction and answers all of your questions (I'm very tired sorry). The best way to understand how this works is to take a basic biological anthropology course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olifhar Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Its not that i dont agree with evolution i just dont know the answer to this question. There are still tons of apes around' date=' so where are the in between stages? Did they die out? And if they did why wouldnt the apes die out also? Because it seems like if there can still be things like apes around why wouldnt we also have a bunch of big foots running around? This may seem a little repetative but why are there still apes. Im assuming its because there were two groups and one evolved and one didnt. Why wouldnt this happen with all other stages leading up to humans?[/quote'] Links. (Not missing, hopefully.) Homepage of the Human Evolution course I took last semester, with outlines and readings. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/difiore/humanevolution/ Wikipedia article on Human Evolution and human homonin ancestors... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Very cool site: "Becoming Human". http://www.becominghuman.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 The human ancestral line split off from the ancestral line leading to our closest cousins (chimps and bonobos) about 6 million years ago. It has been estimated that the average lifetime of a species is one million years. After, either the species has evolved into one or more new species, or has gone extinct. In fact, it is estimated from the fossil record that over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Add to the 6 million years, with an extinction or change every million, and you will see that the line leading to humans has a lot of intermediate species - not truly ape, but not truly human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scicop Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 If you want the link, just look at the DNA. 99% of it is identical to humans. The origin of species variation is suggested to involve the non-coding regions, regions that are extremly important for determining gene expression, both spatially and temporally. So there is your link, we don't need no stinking fossils. Molecular evolutionist/ geneticist/molecular biologist have enough to suggest a common ancestory among us primates. Again..bible idiots can't even understand a basic biology 101 book, which in my opinion is like 4th grade biology. So if they do open a bio book, the bible holding idiots have biology knowledge of a 4th grade student..which is really none at all. Evolution skeptics..should worship god someplace..or better yet, swallow a bullet so they can be closer to their "god". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apologia Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Its not that i dont agree with evolution i just dont know the answer to this question. There are still tons of apes around' date=' so where are the in between stages? Did they die out? And if they did why wouldnt the apes die out also? Because it seems like if there can still be things like apes around why wouldnt we also have a bunch of big foots running around? This may seem a little repetative but why are there still apes. Im assuming its because there were two groups and one evolved and one didnt. Why wouldnt this happen with all other stages leading up to humans?[/quote'] Evolution theory does not say we evolved from apes, but that we share a common ancestor, solely based on similarity. Look into the missing link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Evolution theory does not say we evolved from apes, but that we share a common ancestor, solely based on similarity. Look into the missing link. Actually it doesn't say we evolved from MODERN apes that are still around. We broke off of the non-human ape-line straight from a crossroads with the chimpanzee's immediate ancestor, well after orangutans and gorrilas has already diverged. We most certainly did evolve from apes, and most serious scientists (in the field at least) will agree that we still ARE apes. This may seem a little repetative but why are there still apes. I'm sorry if I sound irritated when I say this, and I know someone else mentioned the whole thing about lines breaking off that leave the parent species intact, but think about this -> if we evolved from single celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms? It's the same concept just on a much older scale. If evolution worked that way, it seems to me there would only ever be one species alive on the planet at a time. Gigantopithicus is the closest thing to a big foot. I don't know the explaination for its extinctionGiganto is a bit of a mystery because there are so very few fossils and it probably went extinct a bit earlier than the typical megafauna that went out in the last iceage that most people are familiar with, but I think the general idea is the old fallback explanation of outcompetition with mroe effective critters in teh same niche and climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomgwyther Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Oh for goodness sake you lot. evolution/survival has very little to do with what you look like, only with how well you can survive, Modern apes are still with us because they can survive in our current climate etc. We (Humans) are still here because we can survive at the moment. we are all co-eveolving. Being able to manufacture tools like apes do, or manufacture ipods and McDonalds out-lets like we do is not a pre-requisit for evolution, humans are not top of the chain at all. The reason we still have apes, lizards, fish and most importantly bacteria and single celled organisms is because they're very good at surviving, Humans are an unusual bi-product of evolution, intelegnce has no bearing on survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Oh for goodness sake you lot. evolution/survival has very little to do with what you look like' date=' only with how well you can survive, Modern apes are still with us because they can survive in our current climate etc.We (Humans) are still here because we can survive at the moment. we are all co-eveolving. Being able to manufacture tools like apes do, or manufacture ipods and McDonalds out-lets like we do is not a pre-requisit for evolution, humans are not top of the chain at all. The reason we still have apes, lizards, fish and most importantly bacteria and single celled organisms is because they're very good at surviving, Humans are an unusual bi-product of evolution, intelegnce has no bearing on survival.[/quote'] I'm certain everyone here agrees with you, and no one said anything to the contrary. The original question had nothing to do with why humans evolved and such and such, simply the lineage of human evolution and what we know of it. I'm sorry, but what exactly are you responding to? Your post seems to be coming out of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The common ancestor and the links that lead up to modern humans and modern apes are extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The common ancestor and the links that lead up to modern humans and modern apes are extinct. there's a good phylogenic tree that shows this... I'll try and find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apologia Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Actually it doesn't say we evolved from MODERN apes that are still around. We broke off of the non-human ape-line straight from a crossroads with the chimpanzee's immediate ancestor' date=' well after orangutans and gorrilas has already diverged. We most certainly did evolve from apes, and most serious scientists (in the field at least) will agree that we still ARE apes.[/quote'] but it does say that there is a link between modern apes and modern man. Read into origins of species if you already havent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 but it does say that there is a link between modern apes and modern man. Read into origins of species if you already havent. I believe that that was what I was decribing. I was responding to when you said Evolution theory does not say we evolved from apes' date=' but that we share a common ancestor[/quote'] which is simply incorrect. We did evolve from apes (as a group), not a common ancestor with them, and so recently that our split occurred after orangs and gorillas had long diverged from the chimp line. You might know that, but your first post stated otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apologia Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 thats not what the theory states. Thats just how it's been misinterpreted by the later scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 If you are referring to what I said, then you are ignoring the most recent evidence, if I misread what you said, then I apologise and would appreciate it if you elaborated. Besides, none of this has to do with evolutionary theory in general, simply human evolution specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 thats not what the theory states. Thats just how it's been misinterpreted by the later scientists. The theory of evolution has evolved since Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species. It's misinterpreted, it's been changed to better fit the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scicop Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 If this dude is having so much trouble understanding that science supports humans and apes share a common ancestor, wait till he finds out that the same is true for humans and rodents...and I'm sure he'll flip his lid when he finds out the same is true for humans and nematodes along with the fruit-fly!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 thats not what the theory states. Thats just how it's been misinterpreted by the later scientists. Someone needs to google 'cladistics'. Welcome to the new way taxonomy works. You're now a lobe-finned fish. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHoToN_gUrL Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 similarities between apes and humans prove they evolved from a common ape-like ancestor "only" 2 or 3 million years ago. By comparison, evolutionists say we are far more distantly "related" to our insect "relatives." Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry -- they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! taken from : http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro05.html =========== Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. taken from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhole123 Posted June 11, 2006 Author Share Posted June 11, 2006 i wasnt disputing evolution i was just asking a question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 i wasnt disputing evolution i was just asking a question about it. No worries Blacky, there's just some tussling right now over the details of human evolution for some of us Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys' date=' but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures.[/quote'] Actually, the most recent evidence shows us that humans did indeed evolve directly from apes. The split between apes and lesser apes (gibbons) was about 18 million years ago, orangutans (pongo) split off from the main apeline 14 million years ago, followed by the gorillas seven million years ago. Only then, 3 to 5 million (perhaps as much as six, but no more) years ago did human ancestors split from those of chimpanzees, and recent genetic evidence indicates that after that first split both groups may have come together and interbred before finally splitting off once more. Whether or not you wish to accept that humans are apes even now, it is very hard to honestly deny that our ancestors existed as true apes for a span of at least 12 million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Someone needs to google 'cladistics'. Welcome to the new way taxonomy works. You're now a lobe-finned fish. Mokele And a reptile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 But of course, is there anything better to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjaminwood Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I believe the Biblical account of creation which states that animals were created and humans were created seperately. please read this link for one of many examples of a missing link being disproved. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/livoniana.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It's not being disproved, it's being questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now