Is the theory of Evolution true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kitty_kat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution Theory
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, with skepticism regarding the idea that humans evolved from modern apes. It clarifies that humans and today's apes share a common ancestor, which is now extinct, and emphasizes that evolution does not imply a linear progression but rather a branching process where different populations adapt to their environments. The conversation also addresses misconceptions about evolution, such as the belief that one species must die out for another to emerge, and highlights the importance of understanding the scientific basis of evolution. Additionally, it notes that while the theory is well-supported by evidence, it is subject to refinement as new discoveries are made. Overall, the theory of evolution is presented as a robust scientific model explaining the diversity of life on Earth.
kitty_kat
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Not to be rude, but you obviously haven't studied Evolution enough to have an informed opinion about it.

Your argument about apes and men is a prime example. No, men did not descend from the apes we see around today. Rather, at some distant point in the past today's apes and human shared a common ancestor. They just evolved along different paths after that. That common ancestor does not exist anymore.

But even if man had evolved from today's apes or that common ancestor was still around, that still would not be an argument against evolution.

One population of apes could have evolved into to men while one stayed more or less the same; if the first group was exposed to changing conditions that it had to adapt to, and the second group continued to live under the same unchanging environment.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-evolution-a-beginners-guide/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could say exactly the same thing about Fish & Amphibians, or Amphibians & Reptiles, or Reptiles & Mammals, or anything else.

If multiple-celled organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms in existence, etc.
 
A mutation gives some member of population X a new and valuable way of exploiting the environment. Descendents of this individual inherit the mutation and concentrate on their new skill, differentiating themselves from their cousins who don't have the inherited ability. But those cousins aren't going to just curl up and die; the evolutionary gimmicks that population X has already got still work. (Example: early hominids get skeletal mutations allowing them to walk comfortably, their cousins remain restricted to the trees)

So the two groups tend to live separately, and over time further mutations can occur in one or the other to drive them still further apart. This is speciation; eventually the groups won't interbreed.

Both populations typically survive. In order for the older population to die out there has to be some change in the environment, like the comet that killed the dinosaurs.
 
I don't understand how this misconception arises. The correct picture can be figured out easily from Darwin's story itself: birds on different islands became isolated and evolved independently. There is no requirement ever presented that one species must die-out for another to come about, so those islands could contain any number of combinations of new species, old species, species that evolved from other species, etc.

Geological separation provides the easiest mechanism by which species can evolve separately from the same ancestor, possibly leaving one species unchanged.

The Grand Canyon is another example: related species of animals can be found on the north and south rim, but because there is an elevation difference, the habitats, and thus the species, are different.
 
russ waters said:
Geological separation provides the easiest mechanism by which species can evolve separately from the same ancestor, possibly leaving one species unchanged.

Yes, allopatric speciation as this is called is easy to understand, but it is important to note that sympatric speciation does occur, where the two populations coexist but interbreed less and less until they are reproductively isolated and are regarded as two species.
 
I agree with Russ that the idea of allopatric speciation is so easy to grasp that in my opinion it ought to be well-known and understood by every adult in our society. Unfortunately, it isn't.
 
arildno said:
I agree with Russ that the idea of allopatric speciation is so easy to grasp that in my opinion it ought to be well-known and understood by every adult in our society. Unfortunately, it isn't.

You underestimate the power of religious indoctrination. My boss is a Christian (believing in Creationism). He is also a Microbiologist and he's a foremost authority on resistance in bacteria. He sees evolution by mutation happening every day in the lab, but he reconciles this by calling it "microevolution" that does not cause speciation as opposed to "macroevolution", that does. He believes in the former but does not believe in the latter, since he holds that distinct species were created de novo by God.

I know his view is logically inconsistent, and I've pointed it out to him (well, as stongly as I can considering I am his subordinate in an Asian society), but he seems happy with his view.
 
I previously had the same misconception as the OP had but now understand that today's apes (humans are apesas well - contray to common opinion) descended from a common ancestor which is extinct today. We did not descend from today's gorillas, chimps, monkey etc.

But concerning 'is the evolution true?' A scientific theory can only be disproved and never proved. So the question is unanswerable. But on top of that, how do we disprove a theory like evolution since it has no precise mathematical formulation and is formulated in such general terms? It seems that given we live in a rational world, evolution is logically necessesary given the empirical scientific information about birth of life, continents, genes etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I think of it more as a model, and i would re-phrase the question thus:

How acurate is the Evolutionary model?

I can't answer it though :P
 
  • #11
pivoxa15 said:
I previously had the same misconception as the OP had but now understand that today's apes (humans are apesas well - contray to common opinion) descended from a common ancestor which is extinct today. We did not descend from today's gorillas, chimps, monkey etc.
We did, however, evolve from an animal we would unreservedly regard as a chimp-like ape.
 
  • #12
Janus said:
Not to be rude, but you obviously haven't studied Evolution enough to have an informed opinion about it.
I think this is key - most people, inlcuding myself, don't have enough information to make an informative decision on whether evolution holds true or not.

However, it seems far, far, far, more grounded than some of that other stuff, like intelligent design, that you see banded around.
 
  • #13
Why did our common ancestor(i.e. ours and that of today's apes) die--was it not adapted well enough for the environment?
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
I don't understand how this misconception arises.

Probably from the cartoon version of evolution...the "march of progress" which suggests life goes from simple to complex (where "complex" = "human"). Obviously, this is an incorrect explanation of evolution.
 
  • #15
kitty_kat said:
He states...
Just wanted to note that Darwin is not the authority on the modern theory of evolution. Darwin got the theory going and was correct on many aspects of it, but a lot more has been added since his time (e.g., genetics, many more fossils, etc.)

... that human origin comes from apes...
As noted above, modern humans did not evolve from modern apes...they had a common ancestor.

... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here?
As noted above, a population can split and take different paths. As a metaphor from daily life, your parents/cousins/etc. didn't disappear when you and your siblings were born.

Shouldn't they evolve into humans too?
Evolution is not a path toward humanity, nor is it progress toward any particular goal. Evolution is simply change. Bacteria are just as "evolved" as humans...each does well in its own niche.

Why did only some turns to human?
Only some populations had the circumstances which led to humanity. Others had circumstances which lead down different paths.
(circumstances = ecosystem, variations from mutations, competitors, etc.)

the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.
If you study the science of evolution, I think you'll find that it's very well supported by the evidence. The last part of your statement about the scientists suggests you've encountered some creationist/intelligent design literature with claims against evolution. Check out a science textbook for yourself. Sure, the theory is refined as more evidence is obtained, but it's not subject to whims or conspiracy. The evidence is peer-reviewed and openly discussed (i.e., the world's experts in the field review the evidence to ensure its validity).
 
  • #16
pivoxa15 said:
... how do we disprove a theory like evolution since it has no precise mathematical formulation and is formulated in such general terms? It seems that given we live in a rational world, evolution is logically necessesary given the empirical scientific information about birth of life, continents, genes etc.
A "precise mathematical formulation" sounds more like a "law" (which is descriptive) rather than a "theory" (which is explanatory). I'm not so sure the theory is "formulated in general terms" given that there are so many aspects to it in the scientific literature (perhaps one of the PF biologists could fill in some details here) even if the public debate only mentions some basic concepts.

Anyway, aspects of the theory are constantly being revised. For example, a new fossil discovery may force a particular lineage to be redrawn from what was previously understood. Or perhaps the understanding of the relative importance of a particular mechanism in natural selection compared to other mechanisms is changed. Given how much evidence supports the theory of evolution, it's hard to imagine what could topple it completely (more likely, it will continue to be revised/improved). Finding a mammal fossil in a pre-cambrian rock might do it. Or if we find fossils distributed randomly in the geologic column and geographically (obviously, we don't). Or if we find that DNA is not the key to heredity (yeah, right).
 
  • #17
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.
 
  • #18
So?...[/color]
 
  • #19
kitty_kat said:
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

That's your interpretation. The theory of evolution is scientific and only can use natural explanations for the variation of life on this planet.

The interpretation that you have made, that it conflicts with muslim and christian teachings, is your interpretation.

Science and religion are two entirely different things. If you want to believe the creation story of your religion that is your right. However, science's explanation for the diversity of life is the theory of evolution. It has overwhelming scientific support.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
But why are they still no accurate explanation on how things evolve in the 1st place. The scientists tried to replicate (or close to it) the evolutionary process but until now aren't able to justify the whole process. there is just no clear cut answers.

Can it be that the theory are using the wrong terms to explain the idea? I would think that hybridisation fits the evolutionary process in plants rather than mutation.
 
  • #21
Hi ,I have a few questions. Excuse me if they are trivial

1. What are the time-scales invlved in evolution? How long did it take for the "common ancestor" to evolve into Homo Sapiens ?

2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

Thanks
 
  • #22
kitty_kat said:
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.
Of course it is, but you must be aware that the bible was written by man, sweetie, and man is not exactly known for his perfection... there are, after all, two verions of the creation of Earth in the bible, and of course the book you see sitting next to your bed (Or wherever people keep their bibles these days) isn't the original text. There was much, much more at one time, but this isn't History Forums and I won't get into that right now.

Isn't it so much easier to look at the concept as God started evolution, and it's just one of the many beautiful things that He has created for us, to study and learn about? Such beauty, such skill, such care was taken in the entire evolution process, it's insane to think from a religious point of view that He had no part in it.
You can observe the beauty of a flower, and thank God that you were able to see such an amazing sight. Why can you not observe the beauty of evolution, of science, and wonder at God's great power and how much he loves us?

My grandfather, who's a pastor and adores science (He's my hero), always laughed at the Christians who, when looking at science, never realized that it was truly God's plan. If you look at science in general with that thought, you can appreciate evolution and God.


*Note: I'm not at all Christian. This was how it was explained to me when I was younger, by my grandfather, and I think that's it's a beautiful way to present science to a religious person.
 
  • #23
HMS said:
Hi ,I have a few questions. Excuse me if they are trivial

1. What are the time-scales invlved in evolution? How long did it take for the "common ancestor" to evolve into Homo Sapiens ?

2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

Thanks

The accepted time frame is more than 10.000 years. Great Brittan and Irland has been isolated from the main land for this period. We have not seen any new species arising in these places. We are talking of a time period in the millions most likely.

You need to understand that it is not time that matters. Other factors needs to be considered as well. Just because some birds have been living in the same place doesn't mean that they after X number of years will be separate. There needs to be an isolation for it to "work".

Note that the finches on the Galápagos Islands did evolve because of the isolation because due to their body they couldn't handle the flight to other islands or the main land. The herons (a large bird) lived around the Galápagos Islands as well. They didn't show this evolution. That is because they are bigger and stronger so they could fly between the islands without problem. As a result, there was no isolation for the heron.

Here is an interseting and well done flash about the evolutions of man and her ancestors that could be good for you to watch:

http://www.becominghuman.org/

:smile:
 
  • #24
SimplySolitary_ said:
... there are, after all, two verions of the creation of Earth in

Just out of interest, which two versions are they?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Phobos said:
A "precise mathematical formulation" sounds more like a "law" (which is descriptive) rather than a "theory" (which is explanatory). I'm not so sure the theory is "formulated in general terms" given that there are so many aspects to it in the scientific literature (perhaps one of the PF biologists could fill in some details here) even if the public debate only mentions some basic concepts.

Anyway, aspects of the theory are constantly being revised. For example, a new fossil discovery may force a particular lineage to be redrawn from what was previously understood. Or perhaps the understanding of the relative importance of a particular mechanism in natural selection compared to other mechanisms is changed. Given how much evidence supports the theory of evolution, it's hard to imagine what could topple it completely (more likely, it will continue to be revised/improved). Finding a mammal fossil in a pre-cambrian rock might do it. Or if we find fossils distributed randomly in the geologic column and geographically (obviously, we don't). Or if we find that DNA is not the key to heredity (yeah, right).


A scientific theory should have an element of precision which generally comes in the form of maths. And that is what separates it from philosophy or any other statement involving natural language. Evolution, even though was found through empirical observation does not have any precise terms in it. So I like to call it philosophy or a guiding principle in biology rather than a scientific theory. Although it is more objective than Freud's psychoanalysis (one can constantly improve Freud's theory from more empirical data as well) but is closer to it then the theory of heredity. Although I don't blame it on the biological theorists because the scale at which evolution applies is so large that any accurate numerical description would be (to me) impossible to formulate.
 
  • #26
pivoxa15 said:
Just out of interest, which two versions are they?

I imagin that that user means to say evolution and creationism.

pivoxa15 said:
A scientific theory should have an element of precision which generally comes in the form of maths. And that is what separates it from philosophy or any other statement involving natural language.

Incorrect. A scientific theory does not need to contain an element of percision. A scientific theory or a physics model, needs to be formulated in a way that you with experiments can prove it wrong. That is the definition of the phenomena. Not to say that evolution does not involve mathematics, because it does. However, you as a opponent to the theory of evolution may not have come into contact with it.

pivoxa15 said:
. Evolution, even though was found through empirical observation does not have any precise terms in it.

Also incorrect. Evolution has many specific terms and predictions and not one single experiement has disproven it or succeeded in even question it (apart from a certain breed on monkeys that uses intercourse for social communication of course which isn't a disproof anyway).

pivoxa15 said:
Although it is more objective than Freud's psychoanalysis (one can constantly improve Freud's theory from more empirical data as well) but is closer to it then the theory of heredity. Although I don't blame it on the biological theorists because the scale at which evolution applies is so large that any accurate numerical description would be (to me) impossible to formulate.

You cannot compare Evolution with Freud. At all. Freud was a bad doctor. He use to fall asleep or just simply ignore his patience. Evolution has evidence that is clear including datings and predictions. The area that Freud was involved in has none. You should also notice that evolution is bases on population while Freud dealt with individuals.
 
  • #27
Mattara said:
Incorrect. A scientific theory does not need to contain an element of percision. A scientific theory or a physics model, needs to be formulated in a way that you with experiments can prove it wrong. That is the definition of the phenomena. Not to say that evolution does not involve mathematics, because it does. However, you as a opponent to the theory of evolution may not have come into contact with it.

People never mention this mathematical model of evolution and population dynamics.

Hardy-Weinberg principle was one of the first one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg

I'll to look my notes for some other models.
 
  • #28
kitty_kat said:
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.
When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.
 
  • #29
dav2008 said:
When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.

I never knew that!
WOW!
That's why I had those bite marks the other day...
:smile:
 
  • #30
kitty_kat said:
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.
You would do well by ridding yourself of such religious fantasies as the Adam&Eve-story.
For those who say "science and religion are entirely separate things",
this claim about history&biology certainly conflicts with the findings of science.

Not very "separate", are they, then?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
pivoxa15 said:
Just out of interest, which two versions are they?
There is only a single version of creation of Earth in Old Testament, in Genesis 1:9-13 (but there are two versions of creation of man, Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7).

Now, since the OP is concerned about problems with organic theory of evolution--let us scientifically investigate the story presented in Gen 1:9-13 on the creation of earth, which many people bring forth as a "possible" scientific explanation (some call it the scientific hypothesis on creation of Earth via intelligent design). Under this hypothesis, the Earth is formed in the "third day" before the "greater light" (the sun) that rules the day, and the "lesser light" (moon) that rules the night, which are formed in the forth day. Of scientific concern with this hypothesis is the statement that when the Earth was formed (before the sun was present) the Earth did "bring forth grasses, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree"...Now, biologically, and based on known laws of physics, the above "version" of creation presented in Genesis is impossible--that is, grasses, trees, etc. (e.g., plants with chlorophyll) cannot be prior to the "greater light" (sun) which is the ultimate source of energy required for photosynthesis. And this is the way of science, to falsify a proposed intelligent design hypothesis such as Gen 1:9-13. Please note, organic theory of evolution says nothing about how the Earth was formed, nor how the first forms of life came to be on the earth. That life did come to be on Earth is self evident, how and why it changes over time is the topic of organic theory of evolution.
 
  • #32
Also, by no known means known to science is it possible to create a woman out of a man's rib..:wink:
 
  • #33
arildno said:
For those who say "science and religion are entirely separate things",
this claim about history&biology certainly conflicts with the findings of science.

Not very "separate", are they, then?

I disagree with you. Science and religion are completely different. Religion requires its followers to have faith in the teachings, faith being defined as belief in something without evidence. Science is the exact opposite since the theories are upheld by experimental evidence, not faith.
 
  • #34
When people say that religion and science are completely different things, it is ordinarily understood by that that both have its own sphere of validity within which the other has no say.
This idea is then used to argue for the peaceful co-existence of science and religion.

This type of separateness is what I argued against; there are numerous example where faith-based statements are clearly in conflict with evidence-based scientific ideas.

As for you pointing out that religion and science have totally different epistemological approaches, I agree with you 100%.

(My original post was primarily directed against the view espoused by silkworm).
 
Last edited:
  • #35
arildno said:
Also, by no known means known to science is it possible to create a woman out of a man's rib..:wink:
Well, one could clone cells from the bone marrow of the man, replace Y chromosome with an X in one developing cell line at two cell stage, and then along comes Eve--only a matter of time IMO--see this link about cloning potential of bone marrow stem cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011112073405.htm
 
  • #36
"Replace" chromosomes? If it is even possible to "Replace" a chtomosome in the way you are talking you would be "combining" two people in a way. I hardly doubt that would work at all. It isn't that easy. The human genome is a highly advanced puzzle; everything needs to fit, from the physical to the chemical world.
 
  • #37
Mattara said:
"Replace" chromosomes? If it is even possible to "Replace" a chtomosome in the way you are talking you would be "combining" two people in a way. I hardly doubt that would work at all. It isn't that easy. The human genome is a highly advanced puzzle; everything needs to fit, from the physical to the chemical world.

Without in any way slightling the great complexity of the task, it's just a technical problem and as technical abilities advance (which they are currently doing by leaps and bounds) it may eventually become possible. As for combining two people, one might begin by duplicating the existing X-chromosome. Since that might cause some unhealthiy recessive pairings, it might be more conservative to use one of the two X-chromosomes from your parents that you didn't get; your father's and your mother's other one.

As Isaac Asimov sang (to the tune of Home on the Range):
"Clone, clone of my own
With its Y-chromosome changed to X..."
 
Last edited:
  • #38
kitty_kat said:
I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

Yes evolution is true, not only has natural selection happened in nature, but something called artificial selection has (which is the selective breeding of organisms that contain characteristics that are desirable by man) led to species that we desire. An example is domestic dog which were artificialy selected to be cute and cudely. I don't think if we were to travel back in time to before dogs were domesticated we would find wild basset hounds and chihuahuas. Another example is brocolli, and cauliflower which were derived from mustard plants through artificial selection. Have you even taken a general biology class? The basics of evolution are presented to you in that class, I suggest you learn more about evolution by taking a general bio course before you start to even qeustion the validity of evolution, if you want to be taken seriously.
 
  • #39
kitty_kat said:
If the theory is correct then it is conflicting with the believes of both muslims and christians as the 2 religions believe that God created the 1st humans i.e Adam and Eve.

note: not all Christian religions take the Adam and Eve story so literally. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution. (I'm not familiar enough with Muslim religions...but presumably the same applies.)

While you're at it, the theory also conflicts with literal interpretations of Jewish and Hindu beliefs as well as pretty much every other religious creation story.

But the theory is built up from physical/verifiable lines of evidence rather than traditional beliefs.
 
  • #40
kitty_kat said:
I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

Look at Cats, The common House Cat compared to the mighty Lion, Through Both Natural and Domestic selection all Cats, That's right, All Cats
can be cross fertilized domestically but the difference in species keeps them from Naturaly interbreeding with each other, There is one species called a http://images.google.com/images?q=liger&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images" which is domestically crossed breed between a Lion and a Tiger which has also made the Liger the largest current Cat in the World.

A Liger almost looks like a missing link to the Sabor Tooth Tiger.

Not to mention Dogs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
I also failed to mention the http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html" which is closer to Humans than any other Primate known, Bonobos also have Human like sex forming many positions and do appear to have very much sexual pleasure just as Humans do, I have seen the Bonobos Females giving Oral Copulation to Bonobo Males when a Bonobo Male gives the Bonobo Female a Gift of some kind or even just a simple kiss, I have seen some pretty good documentries on Bonobo ape that I will never forget, If you want to study a Good Primate then take a look at the Bonobo.

What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail.
 

Attachments

  • Bonobo.gif
    Bonobo.gif
    49 KB · Views: 621
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Intuitive said:
What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail.

Well no. In general old world monkeys lack the tail and new world monkeys have it. Compare Macacqies(sp?) and Cebus. Apes are a few closely related species of primates, including humans.
 
  • #43
selfAdjoint said:
Well no. In general old world monkeys lack the tail and new world monkeys have it. Compare Macacqies(sp?) and Cebus. Apes are a few closely related species of primates, including humans.

(What makes a Monkey different than an Ape, Apes have no external Tail)

"Ape" (Old Eng. apa; Dutch aap; Old Ger. affo; Welsh epa; Old Czech op) is a word of uncertain origin and is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage. Its earliest meaning was a tailless (and therefore exceptionally human-like) non-human primate, but as zoological knowledge developed it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise unrelated species.

The macaque that you mentioned appear to be very closely related to the Baboon in appearance but has lost its Baboon Muzzle, Sort of like an evolved Baboon. Where as the Cebus is definitely a Monkey.

Within this group, both families of apes can be distinguished from these monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars (apes have five—the "Y-5" molar pattern, Old World monkeys have only four in a "bilophodont" pattern). Apes have more mobile shoulder joints and arms, ribcages that are flatter front-to-back, and a shorter, less mobile spine compared to Old World monkeys. These are all anatomical adaptations to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion (brachiation) in the apes. All living members of the Hylobatidae and Hominidae are tailless, and humans can therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes.

Getting back to the Bonobo, It is classified as the most Human like Ape, even more so than the Chimpanzee, Orangutans and Gorillas according to research and Bonobo does recognize itself in the Mirror in this case.

In the History of Primate Media, the Bonobo has not been given the Media it deserves and Darwin would of rolled in his Grave.
 

Attachments

  • tibetan_macaques.jpg
    tibetan_macaques.jpg
    46.7 KB · Views: 448
  • cebus.jpg
    cebus.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 447
  • CASWHY3J.jpg
    CASWHY3J.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 445
Last edited:
  • #44
If we was to lose just a few tendons between the Metatarsal bone and the Middle Phalange of the foot then our feet would look like an Apes Foot.

since we chose to run after prey our feet must change to suit the new stress on them.

It has been seen that Chimpanzees use ambush techniques to capture and kill small deer but have not developed the ability to run down prey as efficiently as we can.

in the image of the Human foot, you can clearly see the arch in the Metatarsal between the Middle Phalange that appears to be an evolved addition and has been pulled together with developed tendons in its local area, With a little tendon surgery only you could have your very own Ape feet.
 

Attachments

  • ftbns_tpvw.gif
    ftbns_tpvw.gif
    17.2 KB · Views: 620
Last edited:
  • #45
HMS said:
2. Does the theory of evolution make any predictions? Is there a pattern in these evolutions ? Can we say that in X number of years, Homo Sapiens may evolve into one of many species with certain attributes ?

To do that, you'd have to be able to predict all environmental changes, such as isolation events as Mattara said, in the unforeseeable future, which is impossible. Through some cataclysmic event, humans might be forced to live in trees again so that only the lightest and most nimble of us would survive, but there's absolutely no way we can predict if that will happen.

Even in times of relatively constant environmental conditions, there's genetic drift:

Chance events can cause the frequencies of alleles in a small population to drift randomly from generation to generation. For example, consider what would happen if [a]... wildflower population ... consisted of only 25 plants. Assume that 16 of the plants have the genotype AA for flower color, 8 are Aa, and only 1 is aa. Now imagine that three of the plants are accidently destroyed by a rock slide before they have a chance to reproduce. By chance, all three plants lost from the population could be AA individuals. The event would alter the relative frequency of the two alleles for flower color in subsequent generations. This is a case of microevolution caused by genetic drift...(Campbell, N.A. in Biology 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings 1990 p.443)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
 
  • #46
Rade said:
Now, biologically, and based on known laws of physics, the above "version" of creation presented in Genesis is impossible--that is, grasses, trees, etc. (e.g., plants with chlorophyll) cannot be prior to the "greater light" (sun) which is the ultimate source of energy required for photosynthesis.

To say nothing of how two days came to pass before the sun popped into existence.
 
  • #47
fournier17 said:
I disagree with you. Science and religion are completely different. Religion requires its followers to have faith in the teachings, faith being defined as belief in something without evidence. Science is the exact opposite since the theories are upheld by experimental evidence, not faith.

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. to find where science and religion part ways you must look to the origins of life. This is where both science and religion lose all ability prove anything, thay both make statements that cannot be backed up, and require a person to believe that the parts that cannot be proven are of little consequence the big picture. The first and most obvious augment against religion is "where did God or Gods come from?" The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief. Science and religion stand together on every point, except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Indeed, people should at least get the idea of evolution right before they argue against it.

In the end it I actually don't care what people think of evolution. Let everyone have this own opinion.

Are there any applications of the theory of evolution? I mean does it help in medicine or biology (protect species,...) ? Then of course I'd rather consult someone with a theory that might have some predictive power based on everyday logic. Religious post-question "I knew it"-statements wouldn't help.

Here's the prove that Darwin was right:
 

Attachments

  • Darwin was right.jpg
    Darwin was right.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 475
  • #49
kitty_kat said:
I'm just wondering is the Darwin theory of evolution is actually acceptable? We were thought to believe about this theory since we were young but as our mind expands with other info I seem to find this theory somewhat false. He states that human origin comes from apes... but if its true why are primates like apes, gorillas, chimps, monkeys... are still here? Shouldn't they evolve into humans too? Why did only some turns to human? the theory have a lot to be doubted... the facts laid out were always questionable... and somewhat changable to suit the scientists researching them.

like others have pointed out, you do not know evolution well enough to critize it. animals don't "evolve" with the mere passage of time, it is completely random. mutation is extremely rare, and for it to have a positive effect is even rarer. so what happened is one or two chimps were born as mutants who could think, had children, who had children who happened to have better mutations and so on. basically evolution is being born lucky to have mutated genes, which as a result make you have more kids that pass on such traits.

the theory of evolution is a remarkable theory because of how applicable it is. it explains all of biology, and all of biology agrees with evolution on everything... from the genes to the organism. to my knowledge, no data exists that has yet contradicted the theory of evolution - although there are many attempts.






and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.
 
  • #50
khemix said:
like others have pointed out, you do not know evolution well enough to critize it. animals don't "evolve" with the mere passage of time, it is completely random. mutation is extremely rare, and for it to have a positive effect is even rarer. so what happened is one or two chimps were born as mutants who could think, had children, who had children who happened to have better mutations and so on. basically evolution is being born lucky to have mutated genes, which as a result make you have more kids that pass on such traits.

the theory of evolution is a remarkable theory because of how applicable it is. it explains all of biology, and all of biology agrees with evolution on everything... from the genes to the organism. to my knowledge, no data exists that has yet contradicted the theory of evolution - although there are many attempts.






and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations none of which have ever been observed. if one of the mutations in a chain of helpful mutations was bad the mutant would die and every helpful mutation wasted. As well if one mutant is born to have any chance of reproduction it would have to mate with another of its own kind meaning you have to double the number of helpful odds and have them run along the same time line for our current way of reproduction to even have a chance of evolving. The fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution in that it is slow, labor is unpredictable and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) regardless much less than say a termite or ant, if natural selection is to be given credit for evolution we would reproduce like an ant or a fast breading animal seeing as this is the most efficient way for one species to survive in a harsh environment. To add to this why would we even give birth, if splitting like some micro organisms work so well for spreading an organism. Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and none of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils, the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

Start looking at the world around and how many mutations must have gone into making the complicated things you see around you, then look up the parts of the "simple" single cell organisms that started evolution and you will see the down fall that plagues evolution from the start to end. This is assuming you do not look at the provability of a inanimate object getting life and the ability to reason. To think that not even a modern man can make a brain that works as good as the one we have let alone a inanimate object making its self.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top