FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


if ape evolve to human, then why ape still exist?





Xaferrow
Sorry for being stupid, i jst want to ask

if ape evolve to human, then why ape still exist?
Bikerman
*sighs*
How many time do we have to deal with this?
Apes, monkeys and humans share a common primate ancestor.
Evolution does not mean that the whole parent population suddenly changes. What happens is that groups of the original population find themselves in different environments. Over time they adapt to the new environment and become 'different' to the original parent population. After sufficient time the differences are so great that members of the new population can no longer breed with members of the original population - then we have a new species.
Now, that is a major simplification of the real picture that we have, but it serves to illustrate the major points.
Gagnar The Unruly
It's OK not to know the answer, particularly if it encourages you to ask a question.

Like Bikerman says, it was just some of our ape ancestors that split off and became human. If the total population of our ancestors was like a city, it was a neighborhood that split off and became us. Other neighborhoods became other things -- chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans. There is nothing 'left' of the original ancestor anymore, because all of it's lineages changed over time. The original ancestor went extinct millions of years ago. Chimpanzees and gorillas are like our brothers, and the original ancestor is the parent.
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
*sighs*
How many time do we have to deal with this?
Apes, monkeys and humans share a common primate ancestor.
Evolution does not mean that the whole parent population suddenly changes. What happens is that groups of the original population find themselves in different environments. Over time they adapt to the new environment and become 'different' to the original parent population. After sufficient time the differences are so great that members of the new population can no longer breed with members of the original population - then we have a new species.
Now, that is a major simplification of the real picture that we have, but it serves to illustrate the major points.


And just to throw it out there in addition, evolution shouldn't be thought of as a straight line, but rather a tree branching out.
driftingfe3s
It's too bad so many people have all these misconceptions of evolution. I think more people would accept it if they knew what evolution actually is instead of what they've heard or think it is.
Voodoocat
Gagnar: great analogy! All too often, when people think of evolution then think "ZAP!" and everything changes. Your city analogy emphasizes the relationship between different sections of the city to the city as a whole. Cities change all the time to meet the challenges of day to day life, and so do populations.
yagnyavalkya
Actually humans did not evolve from Apes
Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
In fact ALL LIFE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR
Gagnar The Unruly
Well, we did evolve from apes, but it was from a species of ape that doesn't exist anymore.
Afaceinthematrix
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Actually humans did not evolve from Apes
Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
In fact ALL LIFE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR


Well... we technically did evolve from apes, I think, because human beings are apes. Human beings have evolved from previous types of humans (such as neanderthals), so I'd say that we technically did evolve from apes. But you're pretty much correct.
Fake
That is just mumbo jumbo

God made MAN and from MAN he made EVE
And then prolly, i'm guessing, after a few generations of incestual sex, everyone came about

the truth
Bikerman
Fake wrote:
That is just mumbo jumbo

God made MAN and from MAN he made EVE
And then prolly, i'm guessing, after a few generations of incestual sex, everyone came about

the truth

No, not the truth. A rather stupid and easily refutable lie.
liljp617
Fake wrote:
That is just mumbo jumbo

God made MAN and from MAN he made EVE
And then prolly, i'm guessing, after a few generations of incestual sex, everyone came about

the truth


lol...

trolling or...?
miacps
liljp617 wrote:
Fake wrote:
That is just mumbo jumbo

God made MAN and from MAN he made EVE
And then prolly, i'm guessing, after a few generations of incestual sex, everyone came about

the truth


lol...

trolling or...?


A good joke. Very Happy
Fake
THat is what I think

I mean, that is what is in the books
Bikerman
Fake wrote:
THat is what I think

I mean, that is what is in the books

What books are those then? The simple fact is that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I suggest you would be better posting on the religion and philosophy forum...
liljp617
Fake wrote:
THat is what I think

I mean, that is what is in the books


May I ask which books these are and why they're superior to any book with technical explanations of the Theory of Evolution?

What you're saying is if something is written down in a book, it automatically has validity. That's a ridiculous idea.
Insanity
I'm 90% sure that he is trolling and/or being sarcastic. I point you to his "incestuous sex" comment.
ParsaAkbari
Xaferrow wrote:
Sorry for being stupid, i jst want to ask

if ape evolve to human, then why ape still exist?


This is the most stupid obvious question, and yes, be sorry for being stupid.

Imagine there was a country of apes, living happily and mating and breeding.

Then one group of apes decide to emegrate away to somewhere diffrent, they mate and more apes are born and they emegrate somwhere diffrent, eventually the whole region is full of apes.

Untill by total random chance one of the babies, has a mutation, now instead of being like a typical ape this baby is slightly more brainy, so much so that he can find food and escape predetors way faster than any of the other apes. So this special baby lives on and mates to make a whole family of special babies.

UNTILL MOST OF THE APES IN THE AREA CANNOT COMPETE WITH THE SPECIAL APES AND THEY DIE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE APES SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE PLANNET DIE TOO.


And this process carries on, untill slowly through generations a mutation happens and the apes slowley change... to make humans! YAY
noidea
HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY DARWIN!!!!

Too bad he isnt around to answer this question
Afaceinthematrix
noidea wrote:
HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY DARWIN!!!!

Too bad he isnt around to answer this question


Ehh... maybe it would be nice if he was around to answer the question but he isn't really needed to answer it - people here answered it very nicely. The answer is simple. A simple analogy would be to say that most Americans came from Europeans yet there are still Europeans...
manlear
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Actually humans did not evolve from Apes
Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
In fact ALL LIFE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR


First of all you cant say that we did not evolve from Apes they have proved none of these Theories.
Second- In your second sentence you say Scientists "Believe" Believe is the key word!!! That means it is an hypothesis and is NOT proven yet. So please word your sentences correctly, people who do not have observability like myself may think that they have proven that theory.
Bikerman
manlear wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Actually humans did not evolve from Apes
Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
In fact ALL LIFE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR


First of all you cant say that we did not evolve from Apes they have proved none of these Theories.
Second- In your second sentence you say Scientists "Believe" Believe is the key word!!! That means it is an hypothesis and is NOT proven yet. So please word your sentences correctly, people who do not have observability like myself may think that they have proven that theory.
You seem to be unclear about the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection is underpinned by numerous lines of evidence. The current interpretation of that theory is that there is a common ancestor - this is underpinned by fossil evidence and genetic evidence. There really isn't much doubt.
manlear
Well i haven't been keeping in touch with it sorry. Read about it like 2 years ago and haven't since. So they have proved it? Thats crazy >.>
Afaceinthematrix
manlear wrote:
Well i haven't been keeping in touch with it sorry. Read about it like 2 years ago and haven't since. So they have proved it? Thats crazy >.>


No, it's not really crazy. And you still seem to be a little confused. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. You can't just "prove" a theory. You can't really prove anything in science (although you can prove in mathematics).

This is a little about the scientific method (in a short & simplified matter):

1. You must make observations
2. You come up with a hypothesis that explains your observations
3. You test your hypothesis
4. If it's tested to be false, you start over with another hypothesis (if it passes the test, move on to step 5)
5. Do some more testing

If something repeatedly passes all experiments, it may eventually move up from a hypothesis to a theory. As a theory, it is pretty much accepted to be true because there is an incredible amount of evidence backing it up. The theory of evolution has so much evidence that it is widely accepted as true. It still has the ability to be tested false, but it's unlikely.

With evolution, this is a simplified history of the theory:

1. Darwin made observations (he's really famous for "Darwin's Finches")
2. He came up with a hypothesis and wrote The Origin of Species
3. Evolution was further supported by the fossil record
4. People began testing it in labs (evolution has been observed numerous times both outside and inside of the lab)
5. DNA was discovered to be the genetic source (it was previous thought to be proteins)

Number 5 is one of the biggest discoveries in human history and it is also the biggest source of evidence for evolution. Genetic evidence is one of the major things that makes evolution such a sound theory (although the fossil record is also extremely good).
manlear
What is this fossil record?
Afaceinthematrix
^^A record left behind of fossilized species that are in certain geological stratas that basically show what species existed at what time. So basically, if species A dies and fossilizes, then the fossils will remain behind. After a while, that fossil will be buried in that geological era. Fossil B may then die and become fossilized. Then after a while, Fossil B will be buried above Fossil A. Paleotologists can study these fossils and which geological era they came from to study the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

I would suggest reading up on fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
manlear
I know what a fossil is. I was wondering what kind of record they have on this Ape-Human evolution fossil.
Afaceinthematrix
manlear wrote:
I know what a fossil is. I was wondering what kind of record they have on this Ape-Human evolution fossil.


There are plenty of fossils of early hominids. A detailed list can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

But the most abundant evidence is the DNA evidence linking humans and other apes.
manlear
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?
coreymanshack
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?


The only thing these people know is what they have read. I doubt they have read very much at all, they just like the idea that we came from apes. Everyone here is just looking to argue, and if they have to believe something so nieve and rediculous to be opposite of someone else they will. Heck, I bet someone else here tries to argue with me.
manlear
coreymanshack wrote:
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?


The only thing these people know is what they have read. I doubt they have read very much at all, they just like the idea that we came from apes. Everyone here is just looking to argue, and if they have to believe something so nieve and rediculous to be opposite of someone else they will. Heck, I bet someone else here tries to argue with me.



Smile
Afaceinthematrix
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?



1) Paleontologists can determine if an animal was bipedal or not by looking at several features (legs, backbone, tailbone, etc.) that are needed for bipedal locomotion. The bone structure of an animal is what determines the form of locomotion and studying bone structures is quite easy when you have access to fossils. It's very easy, for instance, to see that a cat must walk on all fours.

2) Biologists/paleontologists are trying to link species together in the evolutionary tree to determine the history of life on the planet and have a better understanding of how evolution took place. 200,000 years is a relatively small amount of time when you look at an earth that's approximately 4.55 billion years old. 200,000 years is approximately .0044% of the earth's history. Evolution is a pretty slow process overall (although there are short "bursts" in evolution because of a drastic need to change).

coreymanshack wrote:
The only thing these people know is what they have read. I doubt they have read very much at all, they just like the idea that we came from apes. Everyone here is just looking to argue, and if they have to believe something so nieve and rediculous to be opposite of someone else they will. Heck, I bet someone else here tries to argue with me.


Should I even bother responding? This post was so full of nonsense that it's really hard to come up with a civil response. Well... I'll give it a shot.

Most people generally only know what they have read about evolution. That is true. The reason for that, though, is that most people are not biologists. Since the vast majority of us don't dedicate our lives to working in a lab trying to discover more about evolution, we're limited to studying from the books. There seems to be many people here that are well read. Maybe you should follow our footsteps. Libraries are generally free, you know? If you can't get down to a library, you can always try google.com. I personally like the website talkorigins.org.

To believe that we haven't read anything at all about science and that we just like the idea that we came from apes, and that we're believing in something extremely naive and ridiculous is to assume that all of the top scientists from the top universities all around the world are in some global conspiracy to trick those "fools" into believing something so silly as evolution! You do realize that that's exactly what you're doing, right? Besides the fact that evolution has been observed and has an incredible amount of evidence backing it up, it also explains the way viruses work (such as why they become immune to antibiotics) and has led to major biological breakthroughs. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry and physics. Are you going to deny atomic theory also?

Also, I like your comment saying, "...they just like the idea that we came from apes." Well... I can prove that to you.

Wikipedia wrote:
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.


Now let's look at the taxonomy of human beings:
any quality science book wrote:

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens


Therefore, human beings ARE apes and assuming that you're a human being, you must have come from an ape (your biological mother).
Gagnar The Unruly
It's interesting that the most common criticism of science is that scientitsts are simply following their own belief system. Of course, the people making those arguments are the ones who are guilty of following their beliefs in ignorance of the actual facts.

Scientific knowledge is based upon observation. We know that humans descended from the early hominids because we have observed it to be true. The fossil record gives us that power. And as we increase the number of fossils we have found, we increase our ability to observe early human evolution in action.
manlear
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?



1) Paleontologists can determine if an animal was bipedal or not by looking at several features (legs, backbone, tailbone, etc.) that are needed for bipedal locomotion. The bone structure of an animal is what determines the form of locomotion and studying bone structures is quite easy when you have access to fossils. It's very easy, for instance, to see that a cat must walk on all fours.

2) Biologists/paleontologists are trying to link species together in the evolutionary tree to determine the history of life on the planet and have a better understanding of how evolution took place. 200,000 years is a relatively small amount of time when you look at an earth that's approximately 4.55 billion years old. 200,000 years is approximately .0044% of the earth's history. Evolution is a pretty slow process overall (although there are short "bursts" in evolution because of a drastic need to change).

coreymanshack wrote:
The only thing these people know is what they have read. I doubt they have read very much at all, they just like the idea that we came from apes. Everyone here is just looking to argue, and if they have to believe something so nieve and rediculous to be opposite of someone else they will. Heck, I bet someone else here tries to argue with me.


Should I even bother responding? This post was so full of nonsense that it's really hard to come up with a civil response. Well... I'll give it a shot.

Most people generally only know what they have read about evolution. That is true. The reason for that, though, is that most people are not biologists. Since the vast majority of us don't dedicate our lives to working in a lab trying to discover more about evolution, we're limited to studying from the books. There seems to be many people here that are well read. Maybe you should follow our footsteps. Libraries are generally free, you know? If you can't get down to a library, you can always try google.com. I personally like the website talkorigins.org.

To believe that we haven't read anything at all about science and that we just like the idea that we came from apes, and that we're believing in something extremely naive and ridiculous is to assume that all of the top scientists from the top universities all around the world are in some global conspiracy to trick those "fools" into believing something so silly as evolution! You do realize that that's exactly what you're doing, right? Besides the fact that evolution has been observed and has an incredible amount of evidence backing it up, it also explains the way viruses work (such as why they become immune to antibiotics) and has led to major biological breakthroughs. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry and physics. Are you going to deny atomic theory also?

Also, I like your comment saying, "...they just like the idea that we came from apes." Well... I can prove that to you.

Wikipedia wrote:
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.


Now let's look at the taxonomy of human beings:
any quality science book wrote:

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens


Therefore, human beings ARE apes and assuming that you're a human being, you must have come from an ape (your biological mother).



But if all they found was a toe how do they know its a bi-pedal toe? Didn't say it found a backbone or anything. just a toe. And i am a well read person. I WORK in the library. So i am always reading.
manlear
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?



1) Paleontologists can determine if an animal was bipedal or not by looking at several features (legs, backbone, tailbone, etc.) that are needed for bipedal locomotion. The bone structure of an animal is what determines the form of locomotion and studying bone structures is quite easy when you have access to fossils. It's very easy, for instance, to see that a cat must walk on all fours.

2) Biologists/paleontologists are trying to link species together in the evolutionary tree to determine the history of life on the planet and have a better understanding of how evolution took place. 200,000 years is a relatively small amount of time when you look at an earth that's approximately 4.55 billion years old. 200,000 years is approximately .0044% of the earth's history. Evolution is a pretty slow process overall (although there are short "bursts" in evolution because of a drastic need to change).

coreymanshack wrote:
The only thing these people know is what they have read. I doubt they have read very much at all, they just like the idea that we came from apes. Everyone here is just looking to argue, and if they have to believe something so nieve and rediculous to be opposite of someone else they will. Heck, I bet someone else here tries to argue with me.


Should I even bother responding? This post was so full of nonsense that it's really hard to come up with a civil response. Well... I'll give it a shot.

Most people generally only know what they have read about evolution. That is true. The reason for that, though, is that most people are not biologists. Since the vast majority of us don't dedicate our lives to working in a lab trying to discover more about evolution, we're limited to studying from the books. There seems to be many people here that are well read. Maybe you should follow our footsteps. Libraries are generally free, you know? If you can't get down to a library, you can always try google.com. I personally like the website talkorigins.org.

To believe that we haven't read anything at all about science and that we just like the idea that we came from apes, and that we're believing in something extremely naive and ridiculous is to assume that all of the top scientists from the top universities all around the world are in some global conspiracy to trick those "fools" into believing something so silly as evolution! You do realize that that's exactly what you're doing, right? Besides the fact that evolution has been observed and has an incredible amount of evidence backing it up, it also explains the way viruses work (such as why they become immune to antibiotics) and has led to major biological breakthroughs. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry and physics. Are you going to deny atomic theory also?

Also, I like your comment saying, "...they just like the idea that we came from apes." Well... I can prove that to you.

Wikipedia wrote:
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.


Now let's look at the taxonomy of human beings:
any quality science book wrote:

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens


Therefore, human beings ARE apes and assuming that you're a human being, you must have come from an ape (your biological mother).



But if all they found was a toe how do they know its a bi-pedal toe? Didn't say it found a backbone or anything. just a toe. And i am a well read person. I WORK in the library. So i am always reading.
Afaceinthematrix
Toes are generally found along side with many other fossils that can then be used to determine if an animal was bipedal or not. A toe may give evidence towards bipedal locomotion (such as the structure, and how it would have connected to a foot, and also where the pressure was probably stressed on), but when you gather more evidence of bipedal locomotion from multiple fossils found it becomes more obvious if the animal was bipedal or not.

And the entire part about being well read was obviously not directed towards you as I was responding to someone else... Although I can provide you with several great sources for evolution and it would be helpful if you read them so that I wouldn't have to answer basic questions...
manlear
But it was found HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years apart.
Gagnar The Unruly
Presumably, toes of bipedal apes are distinctive.
manlear
But how? Is my question.
Afaceinthematrix
What do you mean "how?" I already told you that a few thousand years is a relatively small amount of time by evolutionary standards. I also told you how it is determined if an animal is bipedal or not. Toes are quite different in bipedal animals than in other animals. Hell, they're different in many animals, and each type of toe allows for certain kinds of locomotion.

Gagnar The Unruly
manlear wrote:
But how? Is my question.


They are experts. They can recognize aspects of the construction of bones that give them certain properties and functions.

That said, I imagine they don't feel 100% certain that the toes belong to bipedal apes. I'm sure their impressions will change when they gather more data -- something I doubt any of the scientists on the project would dispute.
manlear
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
What do you mean "how?" I already told you that a few thousand years is a relatively small amount of time by evolutionary standards. I also told you how it is determined if an animal is bipedal or not. Toes are quite different in bipedal animals than in other animals. Hell, they're different in many animals, and each type of toe allows for certain kinds of locomotion.



Ok so that diagram you posted is useless. They are all 4 legged animals. And im sorry that im hard-headed and want a little more evidence than a toe. (In the fossil area, i read on the others and believe them, but you continue to say the fossil is the second largest piece of evidence. And i just want more than a toe.)
Afaceinthematrix
The diagram is definitely not useless. It doesn't matter if all of the animals there are four legged animals. You completely missed the point. The point was that animals have different toe structures and that allows them to walk differently. You can clearly see the differences there. A squirrel, for instance, has the ability to walk on two legs for short periods of time. Experts in the field can use the same observations to see if an animal was most like bipedal. And the vast majority of the time, there is much more fossil evidence than just a toe.
manlear
Okay, so now i know. And according to the passage i read. No the toe was the only thing they found.
Kopernikus
manlear wrote:
Ardipithecus ramidus (Fossils)

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils



^
1. How do they now if it is a Bipedal Toe?
2. Why are they trying to link the species if they are several hundred thousand years apart?


1. Look at your foot, then look at the foot of a chimpanzee or a dog or a horse or....
2. why do you try to link your family to your great-grand-parents? they lived a hundred years apart!
Ankhanu
manlear wrote:
Okay, so now i know. And according to the passage i read. No the toe was the only thing they found.


As has been mentioned, there are anatomical differences in the bone structure of bipedal toes and quadrupedal toes. To you and I they may be fairly difficult to distinguish in some instances, to someone who's spent their entire professional lives investigating anatomy and biomechanics, the differences are generally a little more apparent. So, though there was only a toe found, using comparative anatomy and probably a few exploratory statistical techniques (building cladograms and the like) they're able to determine that it (most likely) came from a bipedal organism. The "most likely" part may change as more evidence is collected.

You're wise to think "I need more convincing than that" when you encounter information based on so little data... but that does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. Rather, it means that it should be viewed with some skepticism, but the data should be taken for what it is.

The "fossil record" is certainly incomplete, but it is definitely informative. With a little parsimonious extrapolation we can move past some "missing links" to follow a lineage with great confidence. Also, as has been mentioned, fossil evidence is only one aspect of the picture when looking at cladistics and the evolutionary path of any organism (phylogeny), humans included (Though our egos wish we were, we're really not very special biologically).

An interesting little statement that's been found to be generally applicable is that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". What this means is that the observed development of an organism closely matches its evolutionary history. Even distantly related organisms will develop in the same way until they reach the point at which their evolutionary histories diverge... starting from the formation of a zygote to a fully mature organism (for sexually reproducing organisms). Organisms like humans and other apes share many physiological features, many genetic features and are nearly identical in development until very late stages of the fetus. The collected evidence from these and some other sources of data point towards a shared ancestry, and recent divergence (in evolutionary time).

As for why there are still other apes even though we evolved from an ape ancestor, that's been covered well enough. Speciation is more often than not a branching from one species to two, rather than a direct transition from one species to the next being a direct replacement. As such, though speciation has occurred creating a new species, the parent species generally continues to exist. Hominid species follow this trend pretty nicely. Though there is currently only Homo sapiens representing the hominids, often there have been two or three Homo species existing at once, for example H. erectus at the same time as H. neandertalus or (earlier) H. habilis. Here's a little image of the hominid timeline as presented on the Berkeley University website:

As you can see, pretty early in the timeline, hominids separated out from the chimp evolutionary line... but both continued on, one did not replace the other.
8166UY
It's actually very easy to explain to normal people in this way:

Do you agree that animals have DNA?


Do you agree that DNA consists of molecules?


Do you agree that molecules can be messed up by the electric/magnetic influence of other molecules, like popping one atom out of the line?


Do you agree that some change in the DNA could lead into a very small change in the animal if it has very few cells and not given the chance to copy it's DNA for further cells?


Do you agree that if that just might happen to code for a molecule that virusses bond, it would give you an advantage in survival?


Do you agree that living is a key element in passing DNA?


Do you agree that it's children will also have that survival advantage and thus can pass their DNA, while other without that change in DNA can't?


Do you agree that it thus makes for a greater percentage of the animals with the changed DNA, since they tend to survive better?


Do you finally see that having such a slight difference makes all predecessor have that piece of DNA and so has changed over thousands of generations of filtering?


If not, you didn't read well.
Raymond
What I hate is when religious people who grefuse to lsiten to reason constantly use this as a valid reason, and refuse to listen when you try to prove them wrong.
Blind faith really is blind in more way than one, especially to reason.
sum12nv
evolving doesnt mean that the whole race or spieces change but some of them for instance when let say a race of humans become superhuman...that is evolution but that was an example i dont think we will see that happen any time soon...
Dennise
Apes exist today simply because they have evolved ways to sustain themselves in their environment just as other species have evolved survival means for theirs.

Evolution is a branching mechanism. Just because a successful species branches off with traits to survive in a different environment, does NOT mean that their predecessors will not continue to thrive in their own environment.
bukaida
Dennise wrote:
Apes exist today simply because they have evolved ways to sustain themselves in their environment just as other species have evolved survival means for theirs.

Evolution is a branching mechanism. Just because a successful species branches off with traits to survive in a different environment, does NOT mean that their predecessors will not continue to thrive in their own environment.


I do agree with you. The first life started on this earth with some micro-organism which still exists. Evaluation doesnot mean nonexistence of the parent. The species which can survive the present environmental condition, doesnot become extinct easily. Although in some cases, we, the human are making them extinct by destroying mother nature.
TBSC
Xaferrow wrote:
Sorry for being stupid, i jst want to ask

if ape evolve to human, then why ape still exist?


Humas are apes. They are related to other apes such as chimpanzees by a common ancestor.
sketteksalfa
I want to share some biblical information!!
God created all things in this world!!
i don't even believe on the evolution theory!!
Ankhanu
sketteksalfa wrote:
I want to share some biblical information!!
God created all things in this world!!
i don't even believe on the evolution theory!!


Thanks for sharing... not seeing that it's relevant though Wink
Bikerman
I will be spam-canning future postings of this type - ie ones which have no science content and, instead, are simply religiously inspired assertions. There is a place for that type of posting and it is NOT here. Try the Faith forum.

I'm giving this warning because I am aware that I will probably be called biased, unfair etc etc and while this warning is extremely unlikely to change such people's minds, my mind tells me it is the right thing to do, and that is good enough for me Smile
Navigator
You want to know an interesting question? How and when did the cro-magnon man appear, thats a real mystery. The artistic cro-magnon as opposed to the dull and rather brutal neanderthal suddenly showed up after hundred thousands years of neaderthal presence without evident evolutionary development.
Bikerman
Navigator wrote:
You want to know an interesting question? How and when did the cro-magnon man appear, thats a real mystery. The artistic cro-magnon as opposed to the dull and rather brutal neanderthal suddenly showed up after hundred thousands years of neaderthal presence without evident evolutionary development.

I think this mistates the case somewhat,
Cro-Magnon was never actually a 'type' of hominid. It was more a generic term applied to any earlyish European remains with a roughly moden appearance. It is true that Cro-Magnon appears quite suddenly in Europe, but that is not so surprising - especially if the 'migation' theory is correct (ie they would have come into Europe from Africa - not here one year, here the next.

There is still quite a lot of controversy over the 'standard' 'Out of Africa' model which most paleontologists think is correct. Below is a link to a collection/archive of the excellent BBC Horizon series, on my main website.
The episode 'Out of Asia?' is old, but still well worth a watch - as are most, if not all of the programs in this archive (hence I took the time and effort to edit and save them, using plenty of precious disk space on my webserver)

Go HERE
Ankhanu
Yeah,Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens.
Agil1ty
Bikerman wrote:
*sighs*
How many time do we have to deal with this?
Apes, monkeys and humans share a common primate ancestor.
Evolution does not mean that the whole parent population suddenly changes. What happens is that groups of the original population find themselves in different environments. Over time they adapt to the new environment and become 'different' to the original parent population. After sufficient time the differences are so great that members of the new population can no longer breed with members of the original population - then we have a new species.
Now, that is a major simplification of the real picture that we have, but it serves to illustrate the major points.


True, its called darwinism, and as such for example birds change their beak to be able to eat different food. That does not mean the other bird is gone..
Bikerman
No, it isn't called Darwinism, it is called Natural Selection.
mshafiq
My friend I think you eed more knowledge of evolution if you really want to know about such kind of things. Firstly I would like to say that evolution is a real slow process, it is not like things vanishes quickly and reappear again quickly. It is really slow process that takes millions of years so that new species might form. The case with apes as scientists tend to say is that humans did not evolve from apes. Rather apes and humans used to have a common ancestor that is not existing now. So, the ancestor of humans, monkeys, apes, gorillas got diverged into these species. I hope I am able to understand your answer even little bit. Thanks .
Bikerman
A quick and simple answer is possible by considering analogies.

So, here's one which might help to both answer the question, and also show why it is not a good question at the same time:

American's are evolved from Europeans.
(Now, I'm not attempting to say they are a different group, let alone species, because humans have technology which allows mixing (and ultimately breeding) between individuals who would otherwise be geographically isolated from each other. This means that any differences which the environment selects for are negated - they get 'washed away' in the general gene pool).
Nonetheless the analogy is otherwise accurate - Americans are largely descendants of Europeans. So now let's re-ask the question in the OP. If Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?

Asked in this way, the flawed thinking which underlies the question becomes obvious, does it not?
Klaw 2
And something else isn't it true that there is no species called "ape"? Apes are a group of species wich includes humans wich makes the question pointless...
Related topics
Subdomains on my old subdomain still exist.. ?!
[OFFICIAL] Bleach - No more new threads about this
science vs. religion
USA is blackmailing almost every country
Images of Islam - "Death to America, Death to Denmark&a
Homosexuality, is it biologically natural?
A debate of religion, science, and more
Man proves God does not exist?
Creationism in School?
Does God exist?
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
DOES GOD EXIST?-- the grand old debate
What is the usefulness of religion?
Global Warming
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Life

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.