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

[rashida564]

it is a common arrangement that say if evolution is true then why there is a monkey until this moment . I now that evolution is correct but who i can answer this question .

 

[phinds]

it is a common arrangement that say if evolution is true then why there is a monkey until this moment . I now that evolution is correct but who i can answer this question .

Monkeys and humans are not the same animal. Evolution is not a straight line, it is a branching tree. Monkeys are on one path and have STAYED on that path. Humans, a very long time ago, were on the same path, but branched off into their own path.

 

[fresh_42]

I cannot think of any reason why there shouldn't be monkeys. Recently (in terms of evolution) there also have been more of neighboring human species around. We were likely the reason they became extinct and the survival of higher primates doesn't look safe either. We are just another dry-nosed primate. A more successful one, hence still a primate.

 

[rashida564]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

 

[phinds]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

Why should they?

 

[fresh_42]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

Why don't cats evolve to lions? It's simply the case that both models are successful in their corner of the world. And we still evolve! And I assume other species, too.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Your question stems from not understanding a lot of things. It is like asking 'why doesn't Evolution work to add fingers to families of concert pianists.'
Too many assumptions. Evolution has no goal, it doesn't "think". It does not "think" we humans are the epitome of all life. We are not an endpoint or a goal. We arose in response to lots of random events, usually unpleasant, way back in time. It won't happen again.

If you know programming, Evolution is very like Langston's Ant or Conway's Life. Complex behavior arises from following simple rules overs billions of iterations (or in Biology, generations).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Please read this intro sticky first
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/learn-about-evolution-evolution-introduction.543950/

 

[rashida564]

can the human get evolve

 

[russ_watters]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

No monkeys evolved into humans. Please reread post #2.

can the human get evolve

Humans are still evolving, yes.

 

[rashida564]

how we evolve

 

[fresh_42]

Source: http://www.patzwaldt.org/karsten/post/97/evolution-als-baum.html/

 

[rashida564]

we began with oceans rust

 

[fresh_42]

how we evolve

By adaptation, selection and random changes.

 

[phinds]

we began with oceans rust

No, you are mis-reading the chart. Ocean rust was a stage in the Earth, like an ice age.

 

[fresh_42]

how we evolve

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753][/PLAIN]
Abstract:

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753

Main author is John D. Hawks

 

[phinds]

@rashida564, you will learn much more about evolution by actually READING about evolution, not asking semi-random questions on an internet forum.

 

[rashida564]

thank you

 

[Pythagorean]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

Let's reiterate, monkeys never turned into humans. Both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. the reason they evolved into different things is because they evolved in different environments (the mother group got separated into at least two groups and each group evolved in their own way according to the details of their envrionment).

 

[bayi]

can the human get evolve

I don't think so

 

[phinds]

I don't think so

So, you think that modern humans just sprang into being like magic?

 

[fresh_42]

So, you think that modern humans just sprang into being like magic?

"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." (D. Adams, 1st vol. of 5 from the trilogy)

 

[Thomas McGuigan]

why not all the Monkeys get evolve to human

Monkeys aren't humans. Humans have been able to evolve in a way monkeys have not been able to discover for millions of years.

 

[phinds]

Monkeys aren't humans. Humans have been able to evolve in a way monkeys have not been able to discover for millions of years.

It's not a matter of "discovery" --- that's not how evolution works.

 

[Thomas McGuigan]

It's not a matter of "discovery" --- that's not how evolution works.

Sorry… didn't realize I said that until you pointed it out

 

[Promytius]

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.

 

[demon]

Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. That's it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It used to be thought that evolution was driven by competition between different species and within species. That view has been replaced by the idea that co operation between species can also be advantageous. Not conscious co operation, of course, but behaviour and characteristics can benefit more than just one species. Insects and flowering plants rely on each other for success. The existence of monkeys and humans at the same time and place could well be an advantage to both.

 

[Ken Natton]

As you said, it is a very common line of argument, particularly from those who have an agenda to disparage the science behind evolution. But as ever, it is an argument based in a significant misunderstanding. Darwin never said that human beings are descended from monkeys. No serious evolutionary scientist has ever said that human beings are descended from monkeys. What Darwin did say, what there is overwhelming scientific evidence in support of, is that human beings and modern monkeys have a common ancestor. That is not the same thing. The last common ancestor of human beings and modern monkeys was not a modern human being and it was not a modern monkey. It was another species all together. One that no longer exists but that did not exactly go extinct. It simply evolved into something else. Or actually several something elses.Now get this point. Modern human beings and fruit flies have a common ancestor. When I once pointed this out to another sceptic, his contemptuous response was to laugh at the notion that any human ancestor ever used to, as he put it, ‘paddle around in dang’. But that notion is just as ridiculous as he sought to make it seem. Indeed, no ancestor of human beings ever engaged in the typical behaviours of a modern fruit fly. But the evidence that those two species share a common ancestor is compelling. Clearly, the last common ancestor of human beings and fruit flies is a lot more distant than that of human beings and monkeys. If you were to see that species you would not recognise it as being in any way connected to human beings or to fruit flies. But it would have had bi-lateral symmetry and a segmented body form, just like modern fruit flies and modern human beings. And its body was segmented by the very same hox genes that segment a modern fruit fly and that segmented your vertebrae.

 

[Algr]

A species can diverge into two when the environment provides conflicting opportunities.

Imagine a heard of animals finds itself living in an apple orchard. The biggest animals can reach up and grab the apples. The smallest ones can climb the trees. But the mid-sized ones are stuck. Neither solution is better then the other, and neither of the resulting species can be said to be more evolved then the other.

This sort of thing can happen in all sorts of ways in the natural world. Two different environments might favor different characteristics. There is a random element to evolution, so even two different identical environments might produce different results if they are isolated from each other. (Islands or continental drift, for example. )

 

[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.