If evolution is true then why there is a monkey until this moment

[Thomas McGuigan]

Evolution is not simply replacing one thing with another; and also one thing evolving from another, earlier thing, does not necessarily cause the extinction of that earlier thing, or anything else. A tree branch branches and that does not kill off the first branch, does it? If you study that wonderful chart referenced above, you will see few core branches have gone extinct; evolution seems to be very robust in its diversity here, and it is mostly an additive process, not a replacement process.

Exactly, Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If my ancestors were Irish, why are there still Irish.

 

[Grinkle]

Humans are still evolving, yes.

I disagree. What environmental pressure is causing selection to take place? For the time being, humans have outrun evolution by ensuring that almost any human being who is born will survive to puberty. This is obviously not a permanent situation, imo (sooner or later we will run out of stuff to burn), and if whatever brings survival of the fittest back to humanity acts faster than our ability to adapt via generation-by-generation selection, we will go extinct.

Folks with the more hopeful perspective that humans will always find a way to prolong our technological advancement via identifying additional concentrated energy sources to make use of (what I meant by 'burn') must (imo of course) accept stunted / stalled evolution as a result. Evolution needn't be 'good', its just a response to environmental pressure to survive and reproduce, so lack of evolution is not 'bad'. The changes caused by evolution might be the acquisition or loss of full body hair, for instance. Whether that is good or bad is very context specific. In any event, I do not see a case to be made that the human species is evolving in 2016.

 

[CapnGranite]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen
Humans are still evolving—and we can watch it happen
"Being able to look at selection in action is exciting,” says Molly Przeworski, an evolutionary biologist at Columbia University. The studies show how the human genome quickly responds to new conditions in subtle but meaningful ways, she says. “It’s a game-changer in terms of understanding evolution.”

 

[Grinkle]

@CapnGranite

"the effect of a gene that favors cigarette smoking ... "

Fair enough. I agree our technology can also present environmental stresses that will show evolutionary results. Thanks for the reference - very interesting. Unintended/incidnetal eugenics, I guess?

 

[phinds]

If my ancestors were Irish, why are there still Irish.

Well, the Irish are a particularly persistent strain. I think it's all the alcohol in their blood ... keeps them well preserved.

 

[rbelli1]

I do not see a case to be made that the human species is evolving in 2016

Today some choose to have many children. Some choose to have few or none. Those choices have at least some genetic basis as does the physical ability to have children. Ergo evolution.

"the effect of a gene that favors cigarette smoking ... "

This is a tickling of the reward circuit that favors all persistent behaviors. A desire to consume food and a desire to reproduce are similar in nature to the compulsion to ingest chemicals that produce pleasurable responses. Action "A" induces positive response "B". If the negative consequence of an action does not reduce reproductive success then it has no bearing on evolution. While smoking will reduce ones longevity it only does so in a time frame shorter then most reproduction. The negative evolutionary pressure will have a small affect compared to the other associated behaviors.

BoB

 

[Drakkith]

I disagree. What environmental pressure is causing selection to take place? For the time being, humans have outrun evolution by ensuring that almost any human being who is born will survive to puberty. This is obviously not a permanent situation, imo (sooner or later we will run out of stuff to burn), and if whatever brings survival of the fittest back to humanity acts faster than our ability to adapt via generation-by-generation selection, we will go extinct.

I think the dominant force acting on the human genome is genetic drift. But that's still evolution.

 

[Grinkle]

it only does so in a time frame shorter then most reproduction.

In any case, the claim made on the link is that this gene was observed to have a decreased frequency in some groups. Perhaps smoking makes women less fertile, or increases infant mortality, or perhaps smokers for whatever reason are less likely to have children, or perhaps its not a true correlation, whatever data was used to draw that conclusion.

Those choices have at least some genetic basis

Interesting / maybe.

 

[Grinkle]

I think the dominant force acting on the human genome is genetic drift.

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[rbelli1]

Interesting / maybe.

Everything an organism is or does in influenced in some way by genes. I see no reason to believe that human thoughts and decision making should be an exception.

BoB

 

[Grinkle]

I see no reason to believe that human thoughts and decision making should be an exception.

One must establish a feedback loop between the decision consequences and the frequency of some gene or genes in the pool to make an argument that evolution is occurring. 'Maybe' such an argument can be posed for specific examples is what I mean, and its interesting to try and think of some.

I am not sure if logically its needed to establish that genes are causing or influencing the decision outcome, the decision consequences might affect gene frequency anyway. Nevertheless, I agree with you that is does seem axiomatic that genes play some role in all decision making.

 

[Steelwolf]

As for why there are still monkeys, in fact in large numbers of types, it is a matter of SOMETHING HAS to occupy that ecological niche, if it was not a primate monkey it would be a jumping reptilian or a very strange, handed form of bird, who knows what, but, since they are adapted well to their niche there is no reason for them to change. Ecological Pressure, either in high population low food times some will try to eat different things, and perhaps musculature and teeth will modify for the new food source. But the Monkey Form is apparently THE Best Form for that job, so Nature has stuck with it while continuing to make mutants of Everything, perhaps to find a whole new, unexploited food source and niche all for their own. The same thing that drove and drives bacteria today, as always, is the looking for new or better food sources and places to exist, always the spiral upwards in trying to understand our surroundings to the point we can control them for ensured survival.

 

[Zikie_Tseka]

firstly humans did not evolve from monkeys they evolved from an extinct species of ape.
secondly, when a new species arises from an older ancestral species, the ancestral species does not necessarily have to go extinct. think about the evolved species as a child and the ancestor as a parent. sometimes the ancestral species even outlives the younger species(parent lives longer than offspring) but its less common. sometimes you have many species arising from one species (like a parent who has many kids). I wish to discuss this further with you in simple terms but I'll end up filling up this whole page :v :v

 

[Evo]

I think after three pages of basically the same answers it is now safe to close this. Thanks to everyone for participating.