Thread: If we originated from apes where are all the ape to human forms in between ? Does evolution cross species ?

Hi

If we came from apes I would have expected to see the various stages of developing humans wandering around with us. It does not make sense that the apes are still in existence but ALL stages in between have been extinct. For example, homo ergaster, neanderthal etc....

Is it really plausible that each high version killed ALL of the lower beings ?

Linking to this is the question that due to evolution surely some apes by now would have developed into the next stage up or at least mutated towards the next stage ?

Note that I am not saying evolution is not true, as its been observed for example in flies and bacteria and of course Darwin's finches. But does it really cross species ?

Evolution does not progress or work "up" stages, necessarily- successful evolution is just whatever doesn't die.

Is the fossil record not good enough, so now you must say it doesn't make sense unless they all survived and are here, today?

Apes have evolved in the last several million years. Are you claiming that they haven't?

It is quite plausible that over the last several million years, many species have gone extinct and as to what drove the other human species to extinction- it's uncertain. Perhaps they were hunted down by fearful primitive Homo Sapiens Sapiens, perhaps they were unable to compete for food. It's not certain.

Originally Posted by Sabman

Note that I am not saying evolution is not true, as its been observed for example in flies and bacteria and of course Darwin's finches. But does it really cross species ?

It creates new species.

But, humans and apes are both primates.

It is possible to that we were an entirely different species of primate all together as well. We were not or at least a certain few anyway descendent from Neanderthals but rather we were smart and arguably stood taller than neanderthals. which contradicts that we evolved from the ape and neanderthal. The argument is that we thought the neanderthals were not us despite similar characteristics (It is now a fact that neanderthals were far cleverer than we thought they were) but regardless more curiously if e all do evolve over millions of years how come chimps and apes still retain there forms and haven't evolved into us? given that we both supposedly evolved in the same time frame evolution doesn't just sop.

They have the same pentadactyl limbs and yet still no evolution after all these years? evolution is slow but there is still no physical change in primates.

Hoolio- what on Earth are you going on about?
Read here:Hominid Species
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

You should think of how evolution is depicted as a branching tree. Evolution causes speciation. When you work back from an end point on the tree, you find that it eventually crosses with another branch. that is where the common ancestors are. While it is more likely that the common ancestor will look different to the two branches, it is not a requirement. The common ancestor of all the existing apes probably also were a sort of ape.

It's all a question about niches. If the niche stays the same, there is no reason for change. That is why we still find many forms of life that have remained largely the same hundreds of millions of years. It is not a problem for evolution at all. Imagine a group of similar animals that gets split into two groups and separated by some kind of barrier (a parting ocean, river, behavioral adaptation to the utilization of a different food source). Each group will slowly diverge from each other as different facors impact on each group. Eventually you will feel comfortable to name them as different species and they might not be able to interbreed. That is the same thing for humans and the other apes. Humans moved out of the primary niches of the other apes and then started to compete with each other in that new niche. It makes logical sense that a group with more advantages than another will more readily survive than another, especially when they are competing for the same resources.

Evolution is not a changing of an organism but the survival of an organism in a changing environment based on a beneficial and somewhat unique genetic trait. The genetic trait that will determine the next stage of evolution more than likely already exist for most organisms. The variable is the environmental change that will allow this trait to demonstrate its benefit.

Everything began in the sea. Since evolution began the sea creatures became amphibians which become reptiles which became primates which became human. If you can't understand that then please go back to your school, wherever it was, and ask them again to explain things to you. Or just Google evolution, that way you'll understand more and read the facts about evolution that we know about today.

We didn't originate from the apes. Rather, we and the apes both originated from a common ancestor, but we branched off from the apes, and they from us, some time ago.

IMO the environment killed off the original species. This is what happen: first:
1) our ancestor have great flexibility in its gene and have enough differing traits to allow speciation, then:
2) shit happens and forced only the fittest to survive, then:
3) only a specific trait is selected and every other trait dies...
In other word, our ancestor did not survive the transition because it only favour specific trait to endure and kill everyone else (this also kill other traits and force a speciation).

In current founa:
Some animal do not have enough genetic variant to speciate (ie: tansmania devil), while some still retain enough genetic variant to speciate/evolve/adapt.

In human:
Not our whole gene is open to mutation, some is kept safe with redundant copies to prevent mutation. ie: male Y gene. This part cannot/should-not evolve, and the amount of locked/non-locked gene determine our ability to speciate.

Sabman, one aspect of evolution is gene flow where genes from outside a population become incorporated into it. Besides direct competition for territory and food by a better surviving variant - which can cause the extinction of the losers - individuals and groups with their own variations move and mix with neighboring related populations. If they carry the genetics that increase survival for their offspring the introduced genes spread through subsequent generations. The new genes becomes fixed in that population. In one sense the earlier forms become extinct, yet a lot of their genes will be carried in the surviving population - which will be direct descendants and thus, in another sense, not extinct at all.

I think that our particular hominid line probably did a bit of both competing for food and territory, causing some hominids to die out, as well as mixing with others (gene flow) and changing the subsequent population. I also suspect that skills and tools, as much or more than the genetics, were making a big difference in survival and competition for food and territory. That could see traits that were not obviously or directly beneficial like reduced body fur (before the capacity to make more watery sweat made it into a distinct advantage for heat dissipation and endurance) be survivable and become established as viable variants.

Neverfly - some useful info. I think the fossils are very useful as you say, while they don't go to the extent of showing a solid link to apes they are the best evidence available.

Hoolio - I see what you are saying about the neanderthals; they were not as stupid as we once thought and were very strong and excellent hunters; so would 'survival of the fittest' suggest they should still be around now ?
Neanderthals lived in cold climates so would have been in the perfect environment to thrive; they would also have not been easy to kill off by competitors. Also being nomadic they would likely have spread over vast regions rather then be concentrated in a single environment.

I do see the point about competing for resources, though I would have thought that way back then the world was probably abundant with resources - animals and plant life. Rather than competing in a single environment do you not think there would have been a stand-off, some fighting, then the 'alpha male' victor would claim the territory while the other would leave, hence set up camp elsewhere ? (similar to how we see animals behave now).
The more spreading out of a population the less likely it will die out, given the resourceful planet in those times ?

I see the genetic mixing point which definitely helps explain the mutations, though I do feel that we sometimes do not give these early forms of man the credit they deserve. I think they were more intelligent than often thought. I think even they would have had survival instinct and that its too simplistic for us to say there were genetic mutations, some of which were best suited for their environment, so they survived and all others died out !
I can see there would have been some genetic mixing, but on a whole population level ? We are assuming these early forms of man did not have the ability to move to better environments or to adapt to different environments. As we see all the time even apes can adapt to different environments (e.g. we chuck them in a zoo to be constantly stared at!).

Oh by the way, Cosmictraveler - from your comments I think you might need to google evolution more than me !!

Hi folks - me again. Could not sleep as was thinking about natural selection (sad I know !).
In my above post I made the point that I think it would be unlikely for whole populations to die out due to natural selection. I just had a thought I wanted to share. What if its not necessarily (or only) natural selection by trait, but also natural selection by immunity ?
By this I mean, normally we talk about natural selection giving the new mutation a better trait for their environment (e.g. hairier for those in cold climates). My point above was essentially saying that just because a mutation is better equipped it does not mean that all the others will die out, they could adapt or change environment.
However, if natural selection was more an internal selection e.g. the new mutation has more antibodies then this would give them better protection against the real population killer, viruses and bacteria.
The only thing that could wipe out populations would be viruses and bacteria. What better form of natural selection than increased immunity ? This way the fittest would be those mutations with stronger immunity.

OK now back to bed !

Originally Posted by Sabman

Neverfly - some useful info. I think the fossils are very useful as you say, while they don't go to the extent of showing a solid link to apes they are the best evidence available.

I'm sorry- but what "Solid link" is missing?

Originally Posted by Sabman

Hoolio - I see what you are saying about the neanderthals; they were not as stupid as we once thought

This is debatable. From what I understand- that entire claim is based solely on a single skull as being measured as having a larger cranial capacity than modern humans. That isn't really enough evidence to conclude that.

Originally Posted by Sabman

In my above post I made the point that I think it would be unlikely for whole populations to die out due to natural selection. I just had a thought I wanted to share. What if its not necessarily (or only) natural selection by trait, but also natural selection by immunity ?
...
However, if natural selection was more an internal selection e.g. the new mutation has more antibodies then this would give them better protection against the real population killer, viruses and bacteria.
The only thing that could wipe out populations would be viruses and bacteria. What better form of natural selection than increased immunity ? This way the fittest would be those mutations with stronger immunity.

I read a news that this indeed had happen before, but IMO its not good one because in the process we removed a specific feature in our gene which is the ability to down-regulate our immunity ourselves (without this gene we are vulnerable to auto-immune disease and death related to sudden rush of immune, like when contracted by H5N1). Some time ago bacteria had gained an ability to exploit this feature, then shit happened and only trait without this gene survived. Thus, killed those traits.

In plant:
Bacteria do have the ability to down-regulate plant's immune system. Some plant appears healthy when infected with specific bacteria than by other bacteria.

In human:
some people ate parasite so that this parasite down-regulate their immune for them and help with a case of immune system attacking own digestive system.

Well we do have all sorts of 'balances' in various responses to different attacks on our systems.

I remember reading a long time ago that the eradication of yaws (don't look at this if you're eating, or easily upset Yaws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) in tropical areas had resulted in some populations becoming more susceptible to some other conditions. Remember yaws has been around for as long as people have - so successfully fighting off a yaws infection would have led to some long lasting effects on the immune system - which might have prevented other infections succeeding in establishing themselves.

[QUOTE=Sabman;379771]If we came from apes I would have expected to see the various stages of developing humans wandering around with us. QUOTE]

Hi Sabman,

I think AlexG replied to you with a short but very important point “We didn't originate from the apes. Rather, we and the apes both originated from a common ancestor” – That common ancestor was a species that is now extinct millions of years ago.
So it certainly wasn’t a gorilla or a chimp because they didn’t exist millions of years ago!

I'm just hoping you’ve already acknowledged his point because you did open up your post with “If we came from apes...”. So I‘m just repeating the point because I wasn’t sure if you had acknowledged or not?

Also, reading some of your other posts further down, you seem to be more familiar than me with “Micro Evolution”.
Todays chimps and man share a lot of the same DNA. I understand this is the hard evidence that we are related. But I’m not an Evolutionary biologist (Or a scientist for that matter) so I stand corrected!

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Sabman

Neverfly - some useful info. I think the fossils are very useful as you say, while they don't go to the extent of showing a solid link to apes they are the best evidence available.

I'm sorry- but what "Solid link" is missing?

Originally Posted by Sabman

Hoolio - I see what you are saying about the neanderthals; they were not as stupid as we once thought

This is debatable. From what I understand- that entire claim is based solely on a single skull as being measured as having a larger cranial capacity than modern humans. That isn't really enough evidence to conclude that.

As I understand it there was a decisive point in our evolution. This occurred with the fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome. This fusion apparently started an entire new chain of growth commands, which proved to be very advantageous to subsequent offspring.

Chromosome fusion

Conclusion,

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.

Natural selection is what did not die. The reason link species are not around is the reason we are around. If your grand father had no children surviving til puberty chances are your will not either, cause you will not be here.

Originally Posted by Sabman

Hi

If we came from apes I would have expected to see the various stages of developing humans wandering around with us. It does not make sense that the apes are still in existence but ALL stages in between have been extinct. For example, homo ergaster, neanderthal etc....

Is it really plausible that each high version killed ALL of the lower beings ?

Linking to this is the question that due to evolution surely some apes by now would have developed into the next stage up or at least mutated towards the next stage ?

Note that I am not saying evolution is not true, as its been observed for example in flies and bacteria and of course Darwin's finches. But does it really cross species ?

We would only have killed off those beings which were competing with us for our niche. For the most part, the surviving apes out there hunt different animals than we do, or forage for different fruits.... etc. We would have let them live because they posed no threat to our food supply.


The trouble for our poor hominid peers was that they occupied hunting territories our ancestors wanted to hunt in. It's essentially the same problem the Native American people faced when the Western European colonists arrived.

Enviroment and location influence evolotuion. Some ask why certain species of humans died out while others survived. Could long periods of seperation of the species which allowed each to evolve their own way be a possible cause? Meaning once the physical barrier was removed and the two came into contact with each other again couldnt disease itself have whiped out on population? Kind of like diseases european settlers brought to the americas which by some reports reduced native populations by 50 percent or more?

Almost like an uninteneded biological warefare that weakened the population to the point of it couldnt put up a resistance to other hostilities in the enviroment?

Just thinking to myself so forgive me if I am way off track with my thoughts.

Enviroment and location influence evolotuion. Some ask why certain species of humans died out while others survived. Could long periods of seperation of the species which allowed each to evolve their own way be a possible cause?

Of course. And in your example, co-evolution of diseases AND the separated groups of humans.

Another possibility is they could have just bred together into one population group. Kind of like how Mexico today is a mix of the original population and the Spanish settlers/conquerors.

Instead of asking ourselves why Homo-Erectus isn't still with us today, why not ask ourselves what are the odds that a group of homo-erectus would have isolated themselves from the rest of Homo so completely that they only ever bred with one another, and never once introduced Homo-Sapiens DNA into their own? At which point they would no longer be purebred Erectus. They'd be mixed.

It's not a matter of a whole Erectus specimen surviving. It's a matter of pieces of them surviving. As long as some of their DNA is present in a modern Homo-Sapiens, their line never really did die out. It's still alive today. Their descendants are still with us. It's just a problem that you have two parents. You're never just one person's descendant.

The short version of what I just said is that pureblooded apes exist as a seperate species from Homo-Sapiens for the simple reason that they are not able to breed with us. That's how speciation works.

Two groups of organisms have to get far enough away from each other genetically that they are no longer able to mix to produce offspring, and from that moment on they will continue in their own separate directions.

Any groups close enough together that they still are able to breed will eventually clump together into one collective species. And that is why there is such punctuation in the natural world.

Originally Posted by Sabman

HiIf we came from apes I would have expected to see the various stages of developing humans wandering around with us. It does not make sense that the apes are still in existence but ALL stages in between have been extinct. For example, homo ergaster, neanderthal etc....Is it really plausible that each high version killed ALL of the lower beings ?Linking to this is the question that due to evolution surely some apes by now would have developed into the next stage up or at least mutated towards the next stage ?Note that I am not saying evolution is not true, as its been observed for example in flies and bacteria and of course Darwin's finches. But does it really cross species ?

It's intelligent to ask questions, right? I believe you are correct, on the right path, in believing that the current common hypothesis concerning human evolution is wrong.... However, I do believe that apes alive today do share a common population with Us at some point in the past.

Modern human today are also not the decendants of a single lineage. We are the decedants of multiple hominids. We are the decendants of neandertals, of denisovans, of multiple hominids and without these ancestors, we, modern humans, would not exist.

As our ancestors evolutionary path and their breeding habits spawned Us, our kind and our breeding habits will spawn different types of hominid populations in the future. We will do as our ancestors have always done, and that is change, not die off or be killed off.

Originally Posted by kojax

The short version of what I just said is that pureblooded apes exist as a seperate species from Homo-Sapiens for the simple reason that they are not able to breed with us. That's how speciation works. Two groups of organisms have to get far enough away from each other genetically that they are no longer able to mix to produce offspring, and from that moment on they will continue in their own separate directions.Any groups close enough together that they still are able to breed will eventually clump together into one collective species. And that is why there is such punctuation in the natural world.

Exactly, right? We are not the first in our lineage to breed with just about anything and everything. It is one of the very first things modern humans do when discovering or arriving at different populations, and our ancestors did the same thing. Two legs, good enough, right?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It's intelligent to ask questions, right? I believe you are correct, on the right path, in believing that the current common hypothesis concerning human evolution is wrong.... However, I do believe that apes alive today do share a common population with Us at some point in the past.

Modern human today are also not the decendants of a single lineage. We are the decedants of multiple hominids. We are the decendants of neandertals, of denisovans, of multiple hominids and without these ancestors, we, modern humans, would not exist.

Not following you here. There is strong evidence that humans interbred as you said above. So how is it that you say common hypothesis is incorrect? Please clarify.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It's intelligent to ask questions, right? I believe you are correct, on the right path, in believing that the current common hypothesis concerning human evolution is wrong.... However, I do believe that apes alive today do share a common population with Us at some point in the past.Modern human today are also not the decendants of a single lineage. We are the decedants of multiple hominids. We are the decendants of neandertals, of denisovans, of multiple hominids and without these ancestors, we, modern humans, would not exist.

Not following you here. There is strong evidence that humans interbred as you said above. So how is it that you say common hypothesis is incorrect? Please clarify.

I am referring to all popular idea/s that modern humans derive, throughout our intire lineage, from one singular region, line and population at a time.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I am referring to all popular idea/s that modern humans derive, throughout our intire lineage, from one singular region, line and population at a time.

I may be somewhat dated in my knowledge but I believe there are two "main" theories for Homo sapiens origins: (1) The "out of Africa" theory and the (2) multi-area (multi-national) theory.

The first states that yes Homo sapiens (everyone today) descended from a relatively small group in north-eastern Africa.

The second states that Homo sapiens originated, somewhat simultaneously, in three? different areas of the old world.

Will someone please update me if necessary.

(You know, at least this thread didn't start with that stupidest of stupid statements that current-day neanderthals, usually from the American heartland, say when they want to "disprove" the Theory of Evolution: "If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" )

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Attachment 2139

Evolution for the hard of thinking...

I made corrections to suite most Americans. fdbsdb.jpg

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I am referring to all popular idea/s that modern humans derive, throughout our intire lineage, from one singular region, line and population at a time.

Popular ideas or scientific hypotheses?

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every trait has to originate somewhere. Either it must all stem from a single organism or the same mutation would have to separately and independently occur in two different cases.

However, all having a common ancestor is not a statistically hard thing to achieve. If you go back only 30 generations, you would have over a billion ancestors. Go back 40 generations and you have over a trillion (clearly some are repetitions.) At some point your list is going to overlap with everyone else's list.

It's not so much about one person breeding prolifically as it is about intermarriage. That well shaped new eye design mates with an older eye design, and the offspring mates with other old eye designs, and so on..... until every old eye design still in existence has managed to graft itself into the new eye design. From there it's just a matter for selection to gradually eliminate everyone who didn't inherit the gene.

Certainly if we evolved from any specie there has to be traces of this development through time. There are so many possibilities of development; it could have gone in any direction through adaptation. If we even surmise that such development took place, why are there no concrete evidence found to substantiate the suggestion. There is a gap from humans to Apes. Is there any left over information from the transformation of caterpillars to butterflies?

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes

Is there? (Bearing in mind that humans are apes.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes

Is there? (Bearing in mind that humans are apes.)

If that is so, why are we discussing this point. If I call you an Ape are you ok with that?

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes

Is there? (Bearing in mind that humans are apes.)

If that is so, why are we discussing this point. If I call you an Ape are you ok with that?

The point is, we have a pretty extensive fossil record of hominid species (especially given the difficulty and improbability of fossilization) so where is this "gap"?

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes.

You need to take a break and do about 20 mins of reading about apes. Start with wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

And, when you have finished that, here is a partial list of fossils related to human evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lution_fossils

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes

Is there? (Bearing in mind that humans are apes.)

If that is so, why are we discussing this point. If I call you an Ape are you ok with that?

The point is, we have a pretty extensive fossil record of hominid species (especially given the difficulty and improbability of fossilization) so where is this "gap"?

With gap I mean the evidence of development from Apes to humans.

Is there? (Bearing in mind that humans are apes.)

I hope I have it right, you are saying there was no development because we humans are Apes.

Originally Posted by Therapy

With gap I mean the evidence of development from Apes to humans.

Where is this gap?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

There is a gap from humans to Apes.

You need to take a break and do about 20 mins of reading about apes. Start with wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

I am really referring to the topic of the thread and not considering the definition as such. I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them, there must be a line to follow. The question is, did we split at some point? Did the split leave the original monkeys on the evolutionary path or why are they still appearing together with us humans?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them, there must be a line to follow. The question is, did we split at some point? Did the split leave the original monkeys on the evolutionary path or why are they still appearing together with us humans?

There it is. The classic response to the Theory of Evolution by the uneducated and ignorant: "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" The one-line response to that question is "humans and monkeys had a common ancestor millions of years ago."

You really need to do some serious in-depth self-study.

Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves. Does that answer the question?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am really referring to the topic of the thread

Then try READING the thread and stop making stupid assertions that you can't back up.

I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them

Once again: We. Did. Not. Evolve. From. Apes (or monkeys).
We BOTH evolved from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by Strange

And, when you have finished that, here is a partial list of fossils related to human evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lution_fossils

Thanks for the link, very interesting. However it is refering to humans where do I find links that explains the development from Aps to humans?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them, there must be a line to follow. The question is, did we split at some point? Did the split leave the original monkeys on the evolutionary path or why are they still appearing together with us humans?

There it is. The classic response to the Theory of Evolution by the uneducated and ignorant: "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" The one-line response to that question is "humans and monkeys had a common ancestor millions of years ago."

You really need to do some serious in-depth self-study.

My friend that is what I am doing I am human and I do not and cannot know everything, I am trying to follow your line of thought and understand for myself.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by PumaMan

You really need to do some serious in-depth self-study.

My friend that is what I am doing

Obviously you aren't, given the stupid questions you repeatedly ask.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Therapy, once again you are showing your collosal ignorance, best quit before you get even further behind.

I am very happy that I am showing my ignorance, it gives me an edge because I am also intelligent.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by PumaMan

You really need to do some serious in-depth self-study.

My friend that is what I am doing

Obviously you aren't, given the stupid questions you repeatedly ask.

Donald you are at it again, but waht should I expect from a duck?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am also intelligent.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Obviously you aren't, given the stupid questions you repeatedly ask.

Not even intelligent enough to read the thread you're posting in.

Originally Posted by Strange

Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves. Does that answer the question?

That might be so, there must be a physical trace, or not?

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am very happy that I am showing my ignorance, it gives me an edge because I am also intelligent.

If you say so I guess we have to believe you, don't we? If you are intelligent then maybe you will see the wisdom of doing some reading on your own.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves. Does that answer the question?

That might be so, there must be a physical trace, or not?

Physical trace of what? Human evolution? You have been given one link to a (partial) list of hominid fossils. I'm sure there are better resources, but it is not my field of expertise. (hey, but what is)

And, of course, there is the physical record in the genome.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves. Does that answer the question?

That might be so, there must be a physical trace, or not?

Physical trace of what? Human evolution? You have been given one link to a (partial) list of hominid fossils. I'm sure there are better resources, but it is not my field of expertise. (hey, but what is)

And, of course, there is the physical record in the genome.

I am not saying you are not right that dogs developed from wolves, I am saying there is evidence that that is so. That is not my field eithe,r I am treading on sacred ground.

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am not saying you are not right that dogs developed from wolves, I am saying there is evidence that that is so.

I didn't think you were saying that dogs didn't evolve from wolves. I was just pointing out that there is extensive physical (fossils and DNA) of the orgins of both dogs and humans.

I am treading on sacred ground.

You are not; the theory of evolution is science not religion. But you seem to be making flawed assertions based on little knowledge.

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are so many possibilities of development; it could have gone in any direction through adaptation. If we even surmise that such development took place, why are there no concrete evidence found to substantiate the suggestion. There is a gap from humans to Apes. Is there any left over information from the transformation of caterpillars to butterflies?

What kind of evidence are you after? You realize that finding fossils is a matter of luck, don't you? A creature can be born, live, and die, and not leave a fossil.

We've found fossils for a lot of transitional forms between human and pre-ape, but it would be really unreasonable to expect that ever little baby step between each previous form is going to appear for us.

Also there's the problem that each form had a wide variety of manifestations. Just look at modern homo-sapiens today. In our varied population there are probably a few humans with traits that resemble a Neanderthal more than the average Neanderthal even resembled a Neanderthal.

How do we figure out which fossil even is which stage?

This may clarify a few things.

The Primates: Humans

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I am referring to all popular idea/s that modern humans derive, throughout our intire lineage, from one singular region, line and population at a time.

I may be somewhat dated in my knowledge but I believe there are two "main" theories for Homo sapiens origins: (1) The "out of Africa" theory and the (2) multi-area (multi-national) theory. The first states that yes Homo sapiens (everyone today) descended from a relatively small group in north-eastern Africa. The second states that Homo sapiens originated, somewhat simultaneously, in three? different areas of the old world.Will someone please update me if necessary.(You know, at least this thread didn't start with that stupidest of stupid statements that current-day neanderthals, usually from the American heartland, say when they want to "disprove" the Theory of Evolution: "If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" )

Multi-regional theory for the evolution of modern Homo Sapiens will ultimately win the debate due to evidence that we, modern humans, are the product of multiple hominid populations from multiple regions. The claim that we, Homo sapiens, our DNA, evolved soley in Africa from a single african population is simply a false claim.

Before we, Homo sapiens, even existed the DNA we inherited from our ancestors had evolved in Eurasia and Africa, and our ancestors lived in Eurasia and Africa.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Multi-regional theory for the evolution of modern Homo Sapiens will ultimately win the debate due to evidence that we, modern humans, are the product of multiple hominid populations from multiple regions. The claim that we, Homo sapiens, our DNA, evolved soley in Africa from a single african population is simply a false claim.

Before we, Homo sapiens, even existed the DNA we inherited from our ancestors had evolved in Eurasia and Africa, and our ancestors lived in Eurasia and Africa.

An argument I've seen against the multi-regional theory is that it would require DNA exchange (sexual relations) between all the regions, which is over a very large area, to keep from speciation occuring in each region.

[QUOTE=kojax;419566]

Originally Posted by Therapy

There are so many possibilities of development; it could have gone in any direction through adaptation. If we even surmise that such development took place, why are there no concrete evidence found to substantiate the suggestion. There is a gap from humans to Apes. Is there any left over information from the transformation of caterpillars to butterflies?

What kind of evidence are you after? You realize that finding fossils is a matter of luck, don't you? A creature can be born, live, and die, and not leave a fossil.

We've found fossils for a lot of transitional forms between human and pre-ape, but it would be really unreasonable to expect that ever little baby step between each previous form is going to appear for us.

Also there's the problem that each form had a wide variety of manifestations. Just look at modern homo-sapiens today. In our varied population there are probably a few humans with traits that resemble a Neanderthal more than the average Neanderthal even resembled a Neanderthal.

How do we figure out which fossil even is which stage?[/QU

I think you have a valid point, I am not sure we can confidently give a definite development pattern from just fossils alone. Does that not make traceability somewhat incomplete?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Multi-regional theory for the evolution of modern Homo Sapiens will ultimately win the debate due to evidence that we, modern humans, are the product of multiple hominid populations from multiple regions. The claim that we, Homo sapiens, our DNA, evolved soley in Africa from a single african population is simply a false claim.Before we, Homo sapiens, even existed the DNA we inherited from our ancestors had evolved in Eurasia and Africa, and our ancestors lived in Eurasia and Africa.

An argument I've seen against the multi-regional theory is that it would require DNA exchange (sexual relations) between all the regions, which is over a very large area, to keep from speciation occuring in each region.

And our DNA shows that this is exactly what happened. Multiple hominids from multiple regions bred to each other and we, modern humans, are the product.

By definition the remixing had to be from the same species. The isolated populations that had diversified into different species were wiped out.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am not saying you are not right that dogs developed from wolves, I am saying there is evidence that that is so.

I didn't think you were saying that dogs didn't evolve from wolves. I was just pointing out that there is extensive physical (fossils and DNA) of the orgins of both dogs and humans.

I am treading on sacred ground.

You are not; the theory of evolution is science not religion. But you seem to be making flawed assertions based on little knowledge.

I am making my assertions on the little I know about this particular topic.

Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Diagramatic representation of the location of the fusion site of chromosomes 2A and 2B and the genes inserted at this location.
The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hromosomes.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tt-drawing.jpg

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Multi-regional theory for the evolution of modern Homo Sapiens will ultimately win the debate due to evidence that we, modern humans, are the product of multiple hominid populations from multiple regions. The claim that we, Homo sapiens, our DNA, evolved soley in Africa from a single african population is simply a false claim.Before we, Homo sapiens, even existed the DNA we inherited from our ancestors had evolved in Eurasia and Africa, and our ancestors lived in Eurasia and Africa.

An argument I've seen against the multi-regional theory is that it would require DNA exchange (sexual relations) between all the regions, which is over a very large area, to keep from speciation occuring in each region.

And our DNA shows that this is exactly what happened. Multiple hominids from multiple regions bred to each other and we, modern humans, are the product.

Just have to be careful how you describe that. It wasn't necessarily in equal amounts. The core species could have come predominantly out of Africa and then acquired traits from the surrounding populations over time.

That's the beauty of natural selection. It only takes one or two originators and the gene they offer can spread throughout the entire population. It also only really requires one or two cross - species matings.

Originally Posted by Therapy

I think you have a valid point, I am not sure we can confidently give a definite development pattern from just fossils alone. Does that not make traceability somewhat incomplete?[/FONT][/COLOR]

It isn't from fossils alone. We have evidence of evolution in current species. We also have evidence from DNA.

Originally Posted by Sabman

Hi

If we came from apes I would have expected to see the various stages of developing humans wandering around with us. It does not make sense that the apes are still in existence but ALL stages in between have been extinct. For example, homo ergaster, neanderthal etc....

Is it really plausible that each high version killed ALL of the lower beings ?

Linking to this is the question that due to evolution surely some apes by now would have developed into the next stage up or at least mutated towards the next stage ?

Note that I am not saying evolution is not true, as its been observed for example in flies and bacteria and of course Darwin's finches. But does it really cross species ?

Speaking personally, I have my reservations about palaeontology because it's riddled with assumptions. You seem to be highlighting another assumption that I haven't spotted before. Also, one of my biggest problems is the construction of a rather large theory on evidence which is sparse, to say the least. The theory of evolution looks to me like one of those dinosaur reconstructions you see in museums: there is one fragment of leg bone and one tooth and all the the rest is an imagined construction built of plaster --- I rather like the stories I read in Bill Bryson's book A Short History of just About Everything in which he describes the competitive capers between the European and American 18th century scientists which had them constructing 100 foot monsters out of whatever bones they managed to find. This is the mines-bigger-than-yous school of palaeontology! That being rather the cast of mind of the people involved in science in general, but palaeontology in particular, I cannot help but view any assumptions made with deep suspicion --- they just seem to be licence to go for "awesome". (I wonder if our evolutionary history really does cover such vast and awesome timescales --- I have studied a little geology and found rather more than a few suspect assumptions there also!)

Originally Posted by pantodragon

Speaking personally, I have my reservations about palaeontology because it's riddled with assumptions.

Such as?

Also, one of my biggest problems is the construction of a rather large theory on evidence which is sparse, to say the least.

There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. In fact, evolution is an undeniable fact. There is also a mountain of evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection (with all the various modifications and extensions that have been made to it over the years). The fact you do not know about this evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

That being rather the cast of mind of the people involved in science in general

So did you just join a science forum to insult people involved in science?

I wonder if our evolutionary history really does cover such vast and awesome timescales

Yes it does. Pretty obviously.

Originally Posted by Sabman

Linking to this is the question that due to evolution surely some apes by now would have developed into the next stage up or at least mutated towards the next stage ?

There is no "next stage". But obviously all apes have evolved and are still evolving.

And evolution does not happen because of "mutation towards the next stage". That is a pretty impressive density of misconceptions in one short sentence.

Originally Posted by pantodragon

I have studied a little geology and found rather more than a few suspect assumptions there also!)

It's very easy to make a statement like that. Please, state the "suspect assumptions" you've found in modern Geology and state why you doubt them.

I rather like the stories I read in Bill Bryson's book A Short History of just About Everything

I like his books too. I also like the books of Douglas Adams. But I don't use them to invalidate the sciences.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

I think you have a valid point, I am not sure we can confidently give a definite development pattern from just fossils alone. Does that not make traceability somewhat incomplete?[/FONT][/COLOR]

It isn't from fossils alone. We have evidence of evolution in current species. We also have evidence from DNA.

Are you saying DNA traceability? Could there not be a split at some point where there would be no trace of the original DNA?

Are you saying DNA traceability? Could there not be a split at some point where there would be no trace of the original DNA?

No. Genes often last tens of millions of years, many that we carry are probably hundreds of millions of years old and essentially unchanged. mtDNA is much the same.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

I think you have a valid point, I am not sure we can confidently give a definite development pattern from just fossils alone. Does that not make traceability somewhat incomplete?[/FONT][/COLOR]

It isn't from fossils alone. We have evidence of evolution in current species. We also have evidence from DNA.

Are you saying DNA traceability? Could there not be a split at some point where there would be no trace of the original DNA?

You may have the wrong idea about DNA. If you want to see proof of two genomes combining to form a single human DNA all you need is look at genome #2 . This fusion is evident in all humans and is not present in any ape. Human have one less genome than apes.
Chromosome fusion

DNA is a set of instruction of how and where to build a cell and when to stop building. The building materials themselves are all the same for all living things. It is only how these materials are arranged that creates a speciated living organism. Every living organism has some DNA in common, from the earliest amoeba to modern man.

Except perhaps for the platypus.

"I'd be skeptical if you told me there was a venomous, egg-laying, duck-billed, beaver-tailed mammal, and yet the platypus, it does exist."

Large Brains

Most obviously primates tend to have a larger brain size than mammals of a similar size. This alone cannot explain our intelligence, however, as elephant brains are five times the size of human brains. Perhaps more importantly, the cortex (the thin outer layer and surface of the brain) is more folded than those of most other animals, though again this can not be the only adaptation, as dolphins have even more convoluted brain surfaces. There is also a correlation between intelligence and the size of the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with emotion, personality and decision making. During mammalian evolution the prefrontal cortex has grown three per cent in cats, 17 per cent in chimps and 29 per cent in humans (Greenfield 1997)

.

then

And this clearly shows that man is by no means the most complicated organism on earth. I only has an advantage in the area of thought. Other animals are far superior to us in all kinds of natural abilities for observation or survival in their environment.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Every living organism has some DNA in common, from the earliest amoeba to modern man.

Except perhaps for the platypus.

I think we can be certain that the platypus shares the vast majority of its DNA with other mammals.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Therapy

I think you have a valid point, I am not sure we can confidently give a definite development pattern from just fossils alone. Does that not make traceability somewhat incomplete?[/FONT][/COLOR]

It isn't from fossils alone. We have evidence of evolution in current species. We also have evidence from DNA.

Are you saying DNA traceability? Could there not be a split at some point where there would be no trace of the original DNA?

You may have the wrong idea about DNA. If you want to see proof of two genomes combining to form a single human DNA all you need is look at genome #2 . This fusion is evident in all humans and is not present in any ape. Human have one less genome than apes.
Chromosome fusion

DNA is a set of instruction of how and where to build a cell and when to stop building. The building materials themselves are all the same for all living things. It is only how these materials are arranged that creates a speciated living organism. Every living organism has some DNA in common, from the earliest amoeba to modern man.

Except perhaps for the platypus.

"I'd be skeptical if you told me there was a venomous, egg-laying, duck-billed, beaver-tailed mammal, and yet the platypus, it does exist."

Large Brains

Most obviously primates tend to have a larger brain size than mammals of a similar size. This alone cannot explain our intelligence, however, as elephant brains are five times the size of human brains. Perhaps more importantly, the cortex (the thin outer layer and surface of the brain) is more folded than those of most other animals, though again this can not be the only adaptation, as dolphins have even more convoluted brain surfaces. There is also a correlation between intelligence and the size of the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with emotion, personality and decision making. During mammalian evolution the prefrontal cortex has grown three per cent in cats, 17 per cent in chimps and 29 per cent in humans (Greenfield 1997)

.

then

And this clearly shows that man is by no means the most complicated organism on earth. I only has an advantage in the area of thought. Other animals are far superior to us in all kinds of natural abilities for observation or survival in their environment.

I have to agree with you at least with the logic that all physical life is connected in one way or the other. Because we all live on the planet there has to be some way we connect with each other, even if it is through the oxygen we breathe. We could look at the superiority question and come to some agreement that there is a balance in the mix. If we lived in a world too different from each other there would be chaos. All living things on planet earth are exposed to the same physical conditions as far as the cosmos is concerned. One DNA strand twisted a little to the left, the other to the right and so on. We use animals to test our medicines and so on. There is tremendous versatility.

[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;419530]

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them

Once again: We. Did. Not. Evolve. From. Apes (or monkeys).
We BOTH evolved from a common ancestor.

Can you give us a scenario on how this would happen?

Two common ancestor's mate... do they produce a baby chimp or a baby human(homo genus)? If they produce a male and a female.. do the siblings mate?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Do you think evolution from the common ancestor to humans and chimps happened in one generation? Your ideas on evolution seem to be confused, I suggest you go and do some research and come back with specific (sensible) questions.

Me? Please explain because I am confused.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Yes you, your question about whether a common ancestor would give birth to a human or a chimp is nonsense, it displays a complete lack of understanding of evolution (this sort of change takes many generations). This is why I suggested you go and do some research and then come back if you have any questions.

Please link a web page. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

Originally Posted by vaio

Two common ancestor's mate... do they produce a baby chimp or a baby human(homo genus)? If they produce a male and a female.. do the siblings mate?

Is this a cryptic way of saying, "I know nothing at all about how evolution works, could someone please give me a basic introduction".

Edit: Apparently so.

I would recommend a book such as The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins - before he went a bit crazy)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by vaio

Two common ancestor's mate... do they produce a baby chimp or a baby human(homo genus)? If they produce a male and a female.. do the siblings mate?

Is this a cryptic way of saying, "I know nothing at all about how evolution works, could someone please give me a basic introduction".

Edit: Apparently so.

I would recommend a book such as The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins - before he went a bit crazy)

I was being skeptical.

Which page?

[QUOTE=vaio;419825]

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

I am trying to understand if there are still monkeys today and we have evolved from them

Once again: We. Did. Not. Evolve. From. Apes (or monkeys).
We BOTH evolved from a common ancestor.

Can you give us a scenario on how this would happen?

Two common ancestor's mate... do they produce a baby chimp or a baby human(homo genus)? If they produce a male and a female.. do the siblings mate?

Look at the current population of humans. For simplicity, choose 200 people at random who are of the same ethnicity. Do any two of them look alike? (Assuming there are not identical twins, I think you'll have to say "no")

What would happen if the two males and two females who are the most different looking got placed on deserted islands and had a gaggle of children - who then somehow managed to breed without inbreeding until a large population formed?

Animals in antiquity were often finding themselves separated from the herd. Due to the lack of good transportation technology, it was quite possible for them to wander far enough away that - for all intents and purposes - they might as well have been on a desert island.

This would cause 2 things.

1) - The offspring would tend strongly toward the appearances of the parents - losing some of the diversity present in the larger group.

2) - The new environment might be different from the last environment, offering a different selection pressure.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

You were being daft and you need to read the whole book...

Have you read the reviews?

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

Originally Posted by vaio

Have you read the reviews?

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

No, just the book. They look overwhelmingly positive though.

I'd actually recommend reading the "Selfish Gene," before the later books. The science value is a bit dated, but the arguments are solid and examples remarkable approachable for those who haven't had a college biology course. It's also not written like Dawkin's had an ax to grind.

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

What about this one?

Amazon.com: A Customer's review of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of ...

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'd actually recommend reading the "Selfish Gene," before the later books. The science value is a bit dated, but the arguments are solid and examples remarkable approachable for those who haven't had a college biology course. It's also not written like Dawkin's had an ax to grind.

Actually, that might be the one I read. It was so long ago ...

Originally Posted by vaio

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

What about this one?

Amazon.com: A Customer's review of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of ...

What about it? Do you actually have a point to make, or is this just a "review the reviews" session?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Write4U

Every living organism has some DNA in common, from the earliest amoeba to modern man.

Except perhaps for the platypus.

I think we can be certain that the platypus shares the vast majority of its DNA with other mammals.

I think someone should create a cartoon in honor of uncle Platy. He deserves it!!

Originally Posted by Write4U

I think someone should create a cartoon in honor of uncle Platy. He deserves it!!

Perry the Platypus - Cartoon characters Wiki

Originally Posted by vaio

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

What about this one?

Amazon.com: A Customer's review of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of ...

Science isn't about opinions. It isn't about polls. Science is theories, which are hypotheses + evidence + predictions.

An example of how opinions and polls don't matter, please read this short excerpt from wiki about the "100 Authors Against Einstein" and Einstein's reply:

A Hundred authors against Einstein

A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (A Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by vaio

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

What about this one?

Amazon.com: A Customer's review of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of ...

Or you prefer the negative reviews because you believe they add weight to your ignorant anti-science agenda?

What is your problem and why are you so dogmatic?

I am here to learn. Do I have the freedom to make my own decisions?

If 2 + 2 = 4, how is it possible to come to a complexity of the number 23390982391335812349078903124734670236786128^75812 6175126. What are the odds of sooooo many combinations of (2 + 2). There must be a bookkeeper.

Originally Posted by vaio

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

The blindness of the author of the book?
Or of the review?
You appear to have decided that the negative reviews are correct without reading the book.
This alone discredits your claim to be "here to learn".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by vaio

I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

The blindness of the author of the book?
Or of the review?
You appear to have decided that the negative reviews are correct without reading the book.
This alone discredits your claim to be "here to learn".

I read the reviews written by scientists. Why would scientist give a negative review of the book if the book is correct?

Originally Posted by vaio

Why would scientist give a negative review of the book if the book is correct?

For the same reasons 100 scientists published a book against Einstein and his Theory of Relativity in 1931: they were all wrong.

Originally Posted by vaio

I am here to learn.

Not much evidence of that. For example, asking questions and giving thoughtful responses to the answers.

Do I have the freedom to make my own decisions?

You can decide and believe whatever you want. But if that means you decide to ignore science and believe in pixies (or whatever) then don't expect an overwhelmingly positive reaction on a science forum.

As someone said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

Originally Posted by vaio

I read the reviews written by scientists. Why would scientist give a negative review of the book if the book is correct?

Presumably because the scientist doesn't know anything about the subject. Most scientists are highly specialised and can be remarkably ignorant about other areas (which doesn't always stop them sounding off about it). And of course, in every field, there are those who disagree with established science (which is generally a good thing). For example, Einstein never fully accepted quantum theory but his criticisms ended up making it a much stronger theory.

Originally Posted by vaio

I read the reviews written by scientists.

Really?
ScientistS plural?
ONE of those reviews claims to be from someone who's studied biological anthropology.
How many positive reviews by scientists did you read?
Given that you linked, specifically, to the negative reviews?