Did we evolve from apes?

  • Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date
  • #26
81
0
rea said:
What we will do?? exterminate them¿?¿?¿?
I doubt this very much. Gosh, I would love my dog to be a bit smarter than he is. I think humans in general would be fascinated to see any species evolve to become intelligent. Imagine the dialogues we could have! The conversationist in every one of us would definitely want to preserve an intelligent species. The only reason to eliminate it would be if survival is at stake. But a new sentient species would not just pop up armed and organised, ready to eradicate all humans. There would be plenty of time to learn to coexist.
 
  • #27
81
0
Did I say conversationist? I meant conservationist, though it works that other way too... :smile:
 
  • #28
2,255
1
Wikipedia said that humans are apes. So apes are the superfamily which would have descended from a common ancestor a long time ago. What I like to know is what that ancestor was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes

The presenter might have tried to simplify things when he claimed that we descended from the apes. He wasn't wrong though because our ancestors were ape creatures but these ape creatures do not exist today. The controversy might have been cleared had he tried to mention earlier ancestors which were not even apes.
 
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
The scientific name for the family of species that includes the great apes and us is Primates. Here is a site on early primates.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
selfAdjoint said:
The scientific name for the family of species that includes the great apes and us is Primates. Here is a http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm" [Broken].
But the "Primate" category also includes monkeys and lemurs, no? It looks to me like the most specific category that classifies great apes and humans together is the family Hominidae (eg see here). If you want a broader category that categorizes all apes together, then it's the superfamily Hominoidea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Quote from the site:
Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family
The inclusion of the great apes in the hominidae is surely a novelty and perhaps suggests a bias in the site? In any case if you go back to the Miocene, you should find a common ancestor for all the primates, no?
 
  • #32
I thought we are descended from prehistoric apes, and so are modern apes? i.e. us and the apes have a common ancestor which was also an ape?
 
  • #33
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Depends on what you mean by ape. I would agree that if we could see the common ancester of apes and humans we would surely call it an ape.
 
  • #34
2,255
1
The word ape is a tricky one because most people tend to associate chimps and those types of animals - not us. This was the mistake I made and consequently started this thread. But now I know that the word ape has a technical definition which is the superfamily Hominoidea.

From the evidence I have seen for the theory of evolution, it seems like a very supported theory. I don't understand why other theories like creationism can be so popular. I wonder if there are any biologists who are creationists. If there are none than clearly, it should not deserve as much respect as it does.
 
  • #35
Mk
1,984
3
I don't understand why other theories like creationism can be so popular.
Why can religion be so popular? Why is pseudoscience so popular?
 
  • #36
2,255
1
Mk said:
Why can religion be so popular? Why is pseudoscience so popular?
I see what you are getting at. But what I had in mind when using the word popular was how creationism is so popular as a scientific subject, so popular that it is encouraged to be taught in all schools as science. Creationsim is surely not a science and if they are going to teach it than it should be included in religion, not science.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
pivoxa15 said:
I see what you are getting at. But what I had in mind when using the word popular was how creationism is so popular as a scientific subject, so popular that it is encouraged to be taught in all schools as science. Creationsim is surely not a science and if they are going to teach it than it should be included in religion, not science.
Yes, I have no problem with religion, I just don't approve of labelling it "science."
Chalk and cheese, anyone?
 
  • #38
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
pivoxa15 said:
The word ape is a tricky one because most people tend to associate chimps and those types of animals - not us. This was the mistake I made and consequently started this thread. But now I know that the word ape has a technical definition which is the superfamily Hominoidea.
You got it. Loosely using the word "ape" was part of the problem. The other was picturing evolution as a linear progression (of entire species) rather than a branching of variations. The divergence of one group doesn't mean the whole species has to go with it.

From the evidence I have seen for the theory of evolution, it seems like a very supported theory. I don't understand why other theories like creationism can be so popular.
Sometimes from misunderstanding (evolution is complex, often gets minor treatment in schools unless you specialize in biology, and is poorly taught in many states).

Sometimes from competing world views (e.g., faith based views of the world vs. evidence based). This of course ties into many religious beliefs (fundamentalist/orthodox religions in particular...other religions have accepted the theory of evolution).

I wonder if there are any biologists who are creationists. If there are none than clearly, it should not deserve as much respect as it does.
Not many. However, there is a broad spectrum of what "creationism" could include...from those who completely reject evolution to those who accept evolution with divine guidance. (typically, it refers to those who reject evolution)

Creationsim is surely not a science and if they are going to teach it than it should be included in religion, not science.
Exactly.:approve:
 
  • #39
2,255
1
Phobos said:
Not many. However, there is a broad spectrum of what "creationism" could include...from those who completely reject evolution to those who accept evolution with divine guidance. (typically, it refers to those who reject evolution)

Could you name professional biologists who reject evolution? I'd really like to know their reasons.
 
  • #40
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
pivoxa15 said:
Could you name professional biologists who reject evolution? I'd really like to know their reasons.
Most famous names (professors who wrote popular books on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement" [Broken])...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe" [Broken]...professor of biochemistry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells" [Broken] ...professor(?) of molecular and cell biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon" [Broken] ...professor of biology

ID advocates proudly cite a list of 400 scientists who reject evolution...I'd be curious to see what fraction of that list is comprised of actual professional biologists. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
No this is an alltocommon misconception.

apes are our "cousins" sotospeak
 
  • #42
2,255
1
NutriGrainKiller said:
No this is an alltocommon misconception.

apes are our "cousins" sotospeak
Objects that are classified as apes must belong to the superfamily Hominoidea. Many species belong to this superfamily. So yes some apes are our cousins such as chimps but we are also apes.
 

Related Threads on Did we evolve from apes?

Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
19K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
11K
Top