Evolving from monkeys?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Mo-Cheynei, Oct 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. saximus

    saximus Almost Legendary

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    123
    Location:
    Windsor, NSW
    Haha you make a good point and I've heard this put in another way that I can't repeat here :p but it's still good to be able to qualify your own beliefs/arguments since the opportunity to debate with so many different people at once very rarely comes up IRL
     
  2. grimbeny

    grimbeny Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    People are saying we didnt evolve from apes and I think it is important that people dont get the wrong end of the stick. Understanding evolution is alot easier if you look at what animals look like today. We evolved from something that probably looked alot like a chimp, which evolved from something that probably looked like a monkey that evolved from something that probably looked like a lemur.

    The probably part comes about because I have never looked into human evolution so am not sure myself. I dont think there is much debate about what our ancestors looked like back then. Someone would have done research on this topic and know about it.

    I should add that The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins is a very good book which describes how life on earth evolved. If you are genuinly interested in discovering for yourself how humans came about you should give it a read.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  3. fugawi

    fugawi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    sydney
    Most scientists still have problems with our lineages and evolution, like with Neanderthals. We did not evolve from Neanderthals but co-evolved along side of them. They still cannot find direct links and lineages to us down from Apes. They also cannot explain our sudden, massive evolution because no other earthly creature has evolved so far, so quickly. There is still a lot of unanswered questions and the debate is continuing. Unfortunately it is wrong to assume something as simple as 4 legged mammal - Lemur - Monkey - Ape - Human. It is more likely that we evolved alongside of Monkeys, Lemurs AND Apes, rather than from them.
     
  4. grimbeny

    grimbeny Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    How would you even quantify this.

    There is no doubt there are still alot of questions and we will never be able to know every step in the linneage transition between any two extant species. To achieve this you would literally need to know every single individual in the family tree.

    Im not convinced about the necessity to add excess complexity to the story of evolution. It is likely that we evolved from animals that atleast looked like the animals in the story:
    Lemur - Monkey - Ape - Human
    The question is how do you define each of these groups. For example if you were define the ancestor of all extant reptiles as a reptile then I think you could say humans evolved from reptiles. That is an ancestor deep in the human lineage was a reptile. I am inclined to suggest that if the linneage is monophyletic that is in the case of apes then the ancestor to that group is also an ape.

    PS. there is still debate whether turtles split from the other reptiles before or after the mammal reptile split and I cant remember what the most recent scientific suggestion is. If turtles split after the mammal reptile split then I wouldnt necessarily say mammals evolved from reptiles.
     
  5. CamdeJong

    CamdeJong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Townsville, QLD
    Grogshla can you offer us any links to PDFs of actual scientific studies in the field. You might like to read up on pseudoscience, which is made out to look like science but doesn't follow scientific protocols (Observation, Hypothesis, Testing etc) and is usually based on opinion and not capable of being fully disproven (how can we say yes or no without scouring the universe for alien life). In order for something to become a SCIENTIFIC Theory it must go under years of testing and testing and not be disproven. Then it can go on to become a law. There is a massive gap between someone coming up with a theory and something becoming scientific theory.
     
  6. grimbeny

    grimbeny Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Mostly true, except scientific theories cannot be proven. That is why they are called theories. Only mathematicians can make proofs, and there for to show a law exists you need to use mathematics. Theories never become laws.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  7. Tell that to all the highly educated hillbillies who are always getting abducted and probed! :)
     
  8. fugawi

    fugawi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    sydney
    Grim.... what I'm saying is Gorillas have been evolving for millions of years into......Gorillas, not humans, Chimps have been evolving into chimps, Orangutans etc and Gibbons etc as well. Monkeys have been evolving into Monkeys and Lemurs into Lemurs. None have gotten even close to human evolution. They are still living like animals while we are planning to colonise Mars, have split the atom etc. All these animals and us probably had similar ancestors, not the same but from different environments, evolving down different paths in separate lineages alongside each other. Not from one to the other to the other. Our intelligence has evolved further in 10 000 yrs than any other animal throughout the history of the planet. Dinosaurs evolved for hundreds of millions of years but never evolved basic things like written communication etc.

    I quantify what I wrote by saying that we didn't come down a simple line through these animals but along side these animals. Not from the same ancestor but a similar ancestor and have co-evolved, not through any simple lineage.
    I also quantify what I wrote about our speed of evolution by asking "No other animal either co-evolving alongside of us or throughout history has come even close to our intellect and we did it in 10 00 yrs or so........WHY???
     
  9. Intelligence isn't the grand plan of evolution, or a way to rate how successful a species is. It is simply one of many different strategies for survival and propogation.
     
  10. grimbeny

    grimbeny Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Oh you are talking about "evolution" not evolution by natural selection. Our intelligence has not evolved in the last 10 thousand years, modern humans have been arround in the form that you and I are for more than 90 thousand years. If you could find a frozen human from 50 thousand years ago, educate them as any child would be educated in todays world, you would not be able to pick their exam score from anyone elses. The experiment has in a way already been done. Australian aborignals did not have the advanced civilisation that europeans had before europeans came to Australia. However if you put an aboriginal through todays education system they are just as capable at learning as anyone else. Their intelligence has not evolved in 200 years they were always just as inteligent. There is a book that covers this topic called Guns Germs and Steel by Jarrod Diamond. It talks about why some cultures evolved advanced technologies whilst others didnt. The punchline is that these people were not smarter just circumstances in the environments from which they existed led to technological advances that built on each other.
     
  11. snakeluvver

    snakeluvver Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast
    Although I believe that with so many planets in the universe, there must be life on more than just ours, I find the idea that we were genetically modified by them a bit far fetched :p
     
  12. Dannyboi

    Dannyboi Guest

    Natural selection is occuring within human populations. More desirable traits are being picked and less not as much. Seemingly shallow ideals about attractiveness is really just another step of evolution ;) or you could always watch idocracy and go with that hilarious theory that idiots reproduce more and therefore will eventually lead to the entire human race being stupid.
     
  13. waruikazi

    waruikazi Legendary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,114
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Gunbalanya NT
    Intellect hasn't changed, our knowledge has increased. We have made these technological gains in the last 10 000 years because we have been building on the work other people have done previously.

    Edit: Endogenous Retrovirus Sequences! Are the DNA markers that show we share a recent common ancestor with chimps and other great apes. Knew i would remember them eventually. I wont explain them i'll just end up being confusing, best you look them up on youtube or google for a decent explanation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  14. CamdeJong

    CamdeJong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Townsville, QLD
    Cannot be proven or disproven, yes. There is actually one Law in Biology (the Law of Tolerance), and I'm pretty sure if a theory lasts a particularly long it, or part of it, can become law.
     
  15. fugawi

    fugawi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    sydney
    Sorry....Embarrassed......missed some zeros.......ummmmmm.........I meant to write One hundred thousand years ago, but it doesn't change the result. Take Homo Erectus for example. They lived from 2 million yrs ago up until they went extinct one hundred thousand years ago, could possibly be related to Homo Habilis and may have evolved from Australopithicus Sediba but in almost 2 million years didn't come close to our level of evolution in one hundred thousand years and were not linked to Homo Sapiens lineage. Neither are we directly linked to Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, we just popped up a hundred thousand yrs ago and we have so far found no direct link back to Ardipithecus Ramidus of 4+ million yrs ago (a sort of ape like creature). I do say so far, archaeologists are still looking and finding new things every day throughout Africa. you cannot think in a simple line of this through this through this to Homo Sapiens. Like the various reptiles and birds, we cannot be directly linked to Lemurs, monkeys or apes but evolved side by side from similar but different mammals in different environments.
    As far as teaching early humans.......I think you would have trouble with simple domestication let alone complex mathematics. :)
     
  16. grimbeny

    grimbeny Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    This is not the case. Theories and laws are not in any way the same things. Theories are models used to explain the universe. Laws are constraints we know to exist in the universe.

    If that is a joke about the original inhabitants of Australia I certainly am not laughing!
     
  17. littlemay

    littlemay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    10
    Wow, that's a bit of a leap =/
     
  18. waruikazi

    waruikazi Legendary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,114
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Gunbalanya NT
    But who is thinking in simple lines?

    If you beleive in the theory of evolution you cannot deny that all humans (including the extinct species) and the other great apes have a recent common ancestor.
     
  19. fugawi

    fugawi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    sydney
    WOW....Dude.......Chill.

    You don't think one hundred thousand yrs ago a monkey just stood upright and said "Wow this brain thing is cool. It may take 100 000 yrs but if I start the calculations now, we can put a man on the moon". Early humans were not much better than wild animals living in small family groups, hunting Diprotodon and grunting at each other. I'm discussing early Homo Sapiens over the whole planet, not just Aborigines.
     
  20. Australis

    Australis Almost Legendary

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,468
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Central Coast NSW
    I thought we got past the monkey part... :lol:

    Fugawi, do you not accept humans evolved from a common ancestor to apes?

    I have a sinking suspicion you might think aliens have been involved. :|
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page