According to Dawin's theory, we, human beings developed from Monkey. If that's true, monkeys will be our relatives. What do you think? Do you agree with that?
Human Beings derived from Monkey
No, humans did not evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys have a common ancestry. Particularly Chimpanzees who are our closest relatives.
| ryukenden wrote: |
| According to Dawin's theory, we, human beings developed from Monkey. If that's true, monkeys will be our relatives. What do you think? Do you agree with that? |
Some people appear to be much closer to that branch of the family tree than others. -_- No names mentioned.
You don't understand the theory of evolution. We didn't "develop from" monkeys. Both us and monkeys developed from a common ancestor. Modern monkeys have just made fewer changes to their schematics than we have.
Regardless, yes, monkeys are probably our relatives. So are zebras, tuna, spiders and the duck-billed platypus. What do i think about it? Not that much. i'm less concerned about the monkeys in my distant family than i am about the ones running my country - and most countries.
In all seriousness, what's your point?
There is a rather decent unrooted phylogenic tree (showing the ancestry relationships - like a family tree) on Wikki which is free to distribute, despite being copyright.....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg
yea, i believe we derived indirectly from monkey, not the ones you see at the zoo though. we have very similar characteristics.
| ryukenden wrote: |
| According to Dawin's theory, we, human beings developed from Monkey. If that's true, monkeys will be our relatives. What do you think? Do you agree with that? |
It's like looking at a longon, a lychee, and that Vietnamese equivalent which thorn-like hairs growing out of it. You look at them and you think to yourself, "They're related." Still unsure of this "missing link" thing. Maybe if you mix God and science, God (or Gods... or no god... eh?) he/she/it took all the "missing links" transform them into modern humans and set them down. Kinda like reformatting.
in my view
human are derrived from monkey
see the morphology it is all similar
execept tails
human are derrived from monkey
see the morphology it is all similar
execept tails
| spanx wrote: |
| in my view
human are derrived from monkey see the morphology it is all similar execept tails |
But we have tail bone... for uhh... no reason really... Then again we have appendix too for no reason?
| QrafTee wrote: | ||
But we have tail bone... for uhh... no reason really... Then again we have appendix too for no reason? |
Our tail devolve because we have no use of it (maybe because we don't have to climb trees and jump here and there again?)
But the appendix...yeah why do we have appendix?
Some put the bonobo as our closest related species. Some say that the chimpanzee and bonobo (Wiki) could be classified in our "homo" group. They both split from our common progenitor millions of years ago --- these are distant cousins.
I am currently reading "Origin of Species". Darwin writes about many organs that have no apparent uses in various species; also, he doesn't really get into the subject of where humans fit in - only writing "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".
If Darwin's theories apply to humans (as I am sure they do), it is more likely that humans descended from a species that is no longer around. Furthermore, Darwin speaks of the problems with "imperfect geological record" that makes it nearly impossibly to find the parent species.
True monkeys have tails - and are more distant from humans.
I recommend reading the Wiki article, Human Evolutionary Genetics. If you are not looking specifically on the subject of human evolution - go find a copy of "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.
I am currently reading "Origin of Species". Darwin writes about many organs that have no apparent uses in various species; also, he doesn't really get into the subject of where humans fit in - only writing "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".
If Darwin's theories apply to humans (as I am sure they do), it is more likely that humans descended from a species that is no longer around. Furthermore, Darwin speaks of the problems with "imperfect geological record" that makes it nearly impossibly to find the parent species.
True monkeys have tails - and are more distant from humans.
I recommend reading the Wiki article, Human Evolutionary Genetics. If you are not looking specifically on the subject of human evolution - go find a copy of "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.
hello everyone, good day.
Well if you agree that you came from apes or monkeys,
you need to study the bible. It is the word of GOD,
even if i'm not that handsome as the other guys, i won't
accept that i came from the family of apes.
GOD created us. He is the only who created us.
Well if you agree that you came from apes or monkeys,
you need to study the bible. It is the word of GOD,
even if i'm not that handsome as the other guys, i won't
accept that i came from the family of apes.
GOD created us. He is the only who created us.
| zplitstonez wrote: |
| hello everyone, good day.
Well if you agree that you came from apes or monkeys, you need to study the bible. It is the word of GOD, even if i'm not that handsome as the other guys, i won't accept that i came from the family of apes. GOD created us. He is the only who created us. |
(And with this bold statement of belief and intent, the poster strode purposefully, haughtily and a touch arrogantly from the forum, where he returned to his previous task... picking fleas from his fur and trying to work out what the strange oblong black stone in front of him signifies, whilst playing idly with an antelope femur.
'Nobody makes a monkey of me', he mutters to himself quietly)
xC
| Quote: |
| hello everyone, good day.
Well if you agree that you came from apes or monkeys, you need to study the bible. It is the word of GOD, even if i'm not that handsome as the other guys, i won't accept that i came from the family of apes. GOD created us. He is the only who created us. |
ooohh... God created every species and variety at once, eh? So, he created the milk cows that we customized from aboriginal species - that create more milk (based on our selection of which offspring to propagate, we overrode the Natural selection that allows for adaption of species). Did God create fancy guppies? or carrier pigeons? German Shepherds? Argyle rabbits? Wool Sheep? Man created all of these domesticated varieties.
Just face it, you are an ape-child.
So, tell me this -- if we came from God, did Adam and Eve have navels??? (think hard about this one, because if they had belly buttons, there is no God - because that is where an animal gains nutrition from its mother when it is in the womb. If you don't care about this question, did God create himself on the "negative 1st day"? God couldn't have always been there; did he just wish himself into existence one day? The true answer is (and you can research this -- this is FACT), man created Gods and eventually narrowed down many Gods (polytheism) into a single God (monotheistic); God does not exist but in the weak minds that couldn't possibly accept incredible facts - such as our descent from apes, or lightening, or other worlds.
So, to sum it up, birds are dinosaurs, humans are apes, and we all likely descended from either a primary life form or several spontaneously created lifeforms. Darwin writes that unless the components for life sparked at various points, all living things (including plants, animals, bacterium, viruses, &c) likely descended from at most 4 or 5 initial life forms. Research has shown that simple chemistry in a closed environment can be used to create similar chemical precursors to life -- Yes, you too can play God with a few hundred-thousand dollars worth of chemistry equipment!
I saw the most hilarious show on some religious channel recently that I just had to watch because of the topic -- "Dinosaurs in the Bible". They claim that we have all been brainwashed - while they are the ones who are limiting their own REASONING. They really believe that man and dinosaur shared the same time period. The "behemoth" is supposed to be a brontosaurus or something similar ("...with a tail like a cedar"). Their defense included the fact of why the word dinosaur didn't appear in the Bible was because the word was invented in 1841. So, actually - Noah supposedly took two of every dinosaur on his ark as well; unbelievable - ark couldn't even come close to being able to contain every species of insect - let alone all animals including dinosaurs. They argued that the dinosaurs that Noah took were mere babies. They are complete hypocrites about what we should eat - according to their very same Bible, it says that we shouldn't eat any meat, but all Christians chow down on that once-living flesh.
God couldn't create all species at one time because they simply wouldn't have endured various points in our world's known history (consider Woolly Mammoths). Religious fanatics can not defend this evidence.
So - Adam and Eve, did they have navels???
I agree with some of the others here that we are not directly from what we know as monkeys today. If we evolved from modern monkeys, then there wouldn't really be any modern monkeys, because they would have evolved into us (I hope that makes sense). We would have had to evolved from an ancestor of the modern monkey, or relative of that ancestor.
If you want to believe that Good old Noah managed to cram about 1.5 million species into his Ark 7 by 7, and that he did this about 7000 years ago and that a global flood then occurred and then disappeared again a few weeks later. If you want to believe that evolution is not a sensible and logical theory supported by huge reams of fossil evidence and not only accepted but seen as obvious by scientists the world over and understood and accepted by a large majority of non scientists; then that is fine - you go ahead my boy. Nobody can prove you are wrong.
(Well, they can, but you don't have to listen to them.)
It's a free country and you can believe anything you like. Don't worry how silly and illogical it is, it's your right to believe stupid things.
Sure, people will correctly assume that you are a religious fundamentalist but that is also your right.
There is no law against religious zealotry and certainly no law against believing ridiculous illogical things.
I absolutely support your right to believe these fairytales and am happy to say so loud and clear!
Regards
Chris
(Well, they can, but you don't have to listen to them.)
It's a free country and you can believe anything you like. Don't worry how silly and illogical it is, it's your right to believe stupid things.
Sure, people will correctly assume that you are a religious fundamentalist but that is also your right.
There is no law against religious zealotry and certainly no law against believing ridiculous illogical things.
I absolutely support your right to believe these fairytales and am happy to say so loud and clear!
Regards
Chris
| Petee wrote: |
| I agree with some of the others here that we are not directly from what we know as monkeys today. If we evolved from modern monkeys, then there wouldn't really be any modern monkeys, because they would have evolved into us (I hope that makes sense). We would have had to evolved from an ancestor of the modern monkey, or relative of that ancestor. |
Another example would be all of the various types of bear. Grizzly bears certainly didn't replace polar bears when they appeared because the territory is not the same. Remember "Naturum not facit saltum", or "Nature doesn't move fast", so minor adaptations of bears to warmer climates and sufficient resources in their territory and millions of years allowed for both species to persist. We may see the end of polar bears in our lifetime due to global warming; if polar bears become extinct sometime soon, then you can imply that the grizzly bears did replace them.
I had a fish tank with fancy guppies and common guppies at the same time --- the universe didn't implode or anything because of this. The fish were simply related. Over time, the common guppy may prove to live well beyond the fancy guppy because the modifications to its body have not improved its ability to live (big fins actually make it harder for them to swim in strong currents), yet the common guppy has a very strong and diverse gene pool (which helps to fight disease outbreaks).
So, if one day - something causes the extinction of all monkeys, you could say that Apes replaced Monkeys. The existence of both at one time does not prove that one didn't descend from the other.
I feel that it may be necessary for humans to diverge into subspecies to insure our survival. I am not only talking about our survival on the earth, but beyond that. If our planet's atmosphere continues to change, will we be able to survive it? Hypothetically, if our atmosphere builds up much more Argon - it will lead to most of our deaths. If there are some who already have a gene that somehow allows them to survive high Argon levels - then they will survive and a new subspecies would completely replace the old one. Hypothetically again, if we aggressively begin to make mutant human genes, the chances for any one of the mutant species surviving any major change increases. Just as it is wise to not invest all of your money in one company, it follows that we can't survive unless we mutate.
| yy1124 wrote: | ||||
Our tail devolve because we have no use of it (maybe because we don't have to climb trees and jump here and there again?) But the appendix...yeah why do we have appendix? |
Maybe the appendix had a function 10.000 years ago. If we're talking in terms of evolution you're talking about 100 thousands of years. Maybe in 100.000 years we will only have one lung or kidnee...
This is a very wrong concept that we humans are eveolved from monkey....
we have eveolved from apes and chimps...
apes and orangs are our closest relatives but monkeys ..no not at all...
chimps and apes are also similar to monkeys but not same...
we are from same ancestor but we are not relative of each otehr....
we have eveolved from apes and chimps...
apes and orangs are our closest relatives but monkeys ..no not at all...
chimps and apes are also similar to monkeys but not same...
we are from same ancestor but we are not relative of each otehr....
| ccer wrote: |
| we have eveolved from apes and chimps...
apes and orangs are our closest relatives but monkeys ..no not at all... chimps and apes are also similar to monkeys but not same... |
No. We didn't evolve from Chimpanzees and apes. Apes, Chimpanzees and humans come from a common ancestor.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| No. We didn't evolve from Chimpanzees and apes. Apes, Chimpanzees and humans come from a common ancestor. |
It's just a matter of semantics actually. That common ancestor looked very similar to our current apes/chimpanzees because the human species evolved way faster than other humanoids/apes. But apes/chimpanzees indeed evolved during those millions of years (just not as much as humans) so you are right that they are not the same as our common ancestor.
| zplitstonez wrote: |
| hello everyone, good day.
Well if you agree that you came from apes or monkeys, you need to study the bible. It is the word of GOD, even if i'm not that handsome as the other guys, i won't accept that i came from the family of apes. GOD created us. He is the only who created us. |
zplitstonez, while your faith is admirable, a statement like this one is very unlikely to convince anyone, and won't even give them good enough reason to pick up a bible.
You need to provide more substantial arguments (how do you know that God created us?).
I've heard that man man developed from some sea creatures, and I think is much more closer to the truth.
My version of the facts:
A while ago (read a few million years) there was some kind of (let's call it this way) "humanoïd" creature which you could consider as being an ape or anything such. That's the "common ancestor". Then, this specie lived in two major ecosystems: rain forests and warm prairies. At this point, there was a division over time (a looooong time), where the jungle-living part of the specie developed the skills needed to climb trees or the likes. Of course that went on in many, many jungles, thus leading to the creation (over a long time then again) of modern monkeys and apes and so on. The plains guys first lived in small thickets, but the raising temperatures helped tall grass to develop and the trees eventually came close to disapearing. So, they were force to raise on two legs to see over the grass, develop feet to walk, get a bigger brain to defend themselves (as they couldn't count on their aptitude to climb trees) and so on. This lead to the evolution of humans and their now extinct relatives.
I'll end by adding that gorillas, chimps, orangs-utans are indeed close relatives of mankind, but also bonobos (which really few people know of in fact), which are centre african apes which walk on two legs half of the time and have very interesting ways of life. Maybe really really close to us too.
A while ago (read a few million years) there was some kind of (let's call it this way) "humanoïd" creature which you could consider as being an ape or anything such. That's the "common ancestor". Then, this specie lived in two major ecosystems: rain forests and warm prairies. At this point, there was a division over time (a looooong time), where the jungle-living part of the specie developed the skills needed to climb trees or the likes. Of course that went on in many, many jungles, thus leading to the creation (over a long time then again) of modern monkeys and apes and so on. The plains guys first lived in small thickets, but the raising temperatures helped tall grass to develop and the trees eventually came close to disapearing. So, they were force to raise on two legs to see over the grass, develop feet to walk, get a bigger brain to defend themselves (as they couldn't count on their aptitude to climb trees) and so on. This lead to the evolution of humans and their now extinct relatives.
I'll end by adding that gorillas, chimps, orangs-utans are indeed close relatives of mankind, but also bonobos (which really few people know of in fact), which are centre african apes which walk on two legs half of the time and have very interesting ways of life. Maybe really really close to us too.
| ryukenden wrote: |
| According to Dawin's theory, we, human beings developed from Monkey. If that's true, monkeys will be our relatives. What do you think? Do you agree with that? |
The theory does NOT say that we came from monkeys. It states that we came from a common ancestor.
i dont think we developed from monkeys.insted i feel that monkey developed from us or simply got separated from our races .
 |