it won't always be this way.
you can find your answers in "the planet of the apes".
OK I have a question about evolution. I want to start off saying a couple of things though. First I do not believe in evolution. Call me what you will and I am not trying to "convert" or convince you so I am not looking to argue. Second, this is a serious question that I have never figured out in the theory of evolution and again I am not trying to argue. Third, did I mention that I wasn't looking to fight?
Ok so now that I am done with the disclaimer here it is. People that believe in evolution and the evolutionary chart believe that we have evolved from microorganisms to fish to monkeys to whatever to now. Ok so I understand some people say we are still evolving and it takes millions of years but my question is why are the animals that we supposedly evolved from still around? I see examples where dinosaurs are now birds and how modern horses evolved from a species that was about the size of a small dog, etc. etc. So why are the apes that we evolved from still here?
I think I could grasp it more if the animals we supposedly evolved from were no longer around. Instead of examples of an arthritic man and a pigs tooth that explain where we came from. I mean if monkeys are still around where are the in betweens? Why are they gone but everything else still here?
Again I am being serious and want to know if maybe you have researched or have your own theories.
it won't always be this way.
you can find your answers in "the planet of the apes".
dude we didnt evolve from monkeys... not at all! both monkeys and humans evolved from another species a long ass time ago. anthro 101. i cant remember what that species was called.
I'm far from being an expert, but isn't the explanation that we didn't evolve from the apes, but that we both had a common ancestor? As far as I know remains or evidence of this common ancestor have yet to be found.
Now I'll let the more knowledgeable poster correct me.
dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! dr. zeus! oooh dr. zeus!
Because an organism's evolution is in response to its environment. There are mul udes of environments in the same region, much less the world. The way you are describing it, evolution would look like a straight line from the first single celled microorganism to humans, and no other organism (plant or animal) would exist at the same time as another. The evolutionary track looks much more like a tree with many false starts, turns etc. Just as an example, I read an article about a year or so ago that it may be plausible that Sapiens didn't evolve from Erectus, but that both species evolved from a third common ancestor. The environments that each was subjected to caused different qualities to be valued by the evolutionary process with Sapiens emphasizing intelligence as evidenced by cranial capacity, and Erectus emphasizing strength (among many other things, but I am zeroing in on these for my example). Then when the enviroment changed (ice age, moving from one part of the world to another, whatever), the smarter Sapiens were able to more quickly adapt within their lifetimes due to greater ability to learn, and the Erectus' brute strength didn't help as much. This made erectus eventually die out. Hope this helps.
the planet of the apes musical on the simpsons. a classic !
OK so the whole third party thing makes more sense. At the same time there are things I still can't see. Certain animals, like us, have been around a really really long time. In that time the earth has changed and you can say that we have evolved intellectually but what about the other animals that have been around longer. Why do they continue to look the same even after all this time, like sharks, alligators/crocs, tortoiseseses?
Off topic but when is the fight? I cant wait to see you embarrass I.Hustle
Wait wait wait, you don't believe in evolution? That explains many things about your posts.
Well, and I am no expert on this, there were prehistoric shark species that died out, replaced eventually by the ones that you see today. Great Whites for example (probably) did not exist 1 million years ago, but their predecessors did (same arguement for the other animals that you mentioned). So yes, there were sharks, alligators/crocs, and tortoisses, but not necessarily the same species as we see today. Also, as far as those sea turtles are concerned, their evolution (with all other things being equal) would go substantially slower than ours since their life span is 160+ years. Twice our current lifetime, but 3-8 times (or more) of our life span over the last 60,000 years. Remember the potential for evolution is a generational thing and it is very slow. If you are talking about evolution within a life time, then you are actually talking about adaptation (i.e. using the physical and mental tools that you already have in a different way in order to stay alive). Evolution on the other hand is the process of developing completely different physical and mental tools.
why not?
Well, it's an interesting question. It's somewhat easily overcome, but one must wonder that if microevolution occurs because of changes to other animals in the food chain, or their environment changes, or your own changes, why do some continue persisting?
The apes we evolved from aren't actually still here. Modern apes are essentially our evolutionary cousins.
Things tend to go extinct because either they are adapted for an environment, and that environment changes faster than they do, or something new is introduced that totally outcompetes them for whatever resource that organism needs to eat/reproduce.
The single celled plants that float around in the ocean are still there because they don't compete with land based oak trees. There are enough resources for both because they inhabit different ecological niches.
Modern understanding of evolutionary processes has itself, pardon the expression, evolved from a "steady march" model, in which things change gradually at a fairly steady pace, to a "punctuated equilibrium" where you get some small steady changes over long periods of time with sudden bursts of change.
Many many of the "in between" animals have been found for many modern plant and animal lines, but due to the way fossils are formed, it is unlikely we will ever have a 100% picture with every single "in between" animal.
Humans have only been around for approximately 100,000 years.
That is a miniscule amount of time compared to the vast age of the planet and life itself.
Land animals tend to face more environmental change than sea animals, to my understanding. For what that is worth. You still see a wide variety of fairly primitive fish out there.
They have come closer and closer to finding that direct common ancestor.
The real problem is that we have to depend on bone fragments and so forth, as opposed to genetic testing.
We can make fairly good guesses on about when our last common ancestor with any given species was around based on fossils and genetic drift.
The fact is, the Lord God Most High created all things.
LOL, This reminds me of that family guy episode where Jesus says "I'll catch up to y'all later, I have to bury these dinosaur bones to confuse them later on."
Anyway, I don't think this was his question since he stated that even though he doesn't believe in evolution, he wanted to know certain things about those that do. The evolution v. creation debate isn't really appropriate here.
Thank you Jesus for my porns.
Evolution =/= replacement.
People have already mentioned the common ancestor factor in human evolution, but in general it is entirely possible (in fact quite frequent) for different populations of a single species to evolve differently for their specific environments. One population of deer could become isolated on a mountain, for example, and evolve into a completely new and different species of deer while their distant deer relatives continue to live as normal. When a species branches apart and becomes two new things, they'll both continue to live independently for as long as they can continue to adapt to a changing world.
Evolution only happens as much as is necessary. Species don't just radically change for the of it.
Sharks have changed quite a bit throughout their evolutionary history, they just haven't had any environmental reason to stop looking shark-like.
Yeah, why would sharks want to stop looking to cool? I know I wouldn't.
The fact is, evolutionary change does not explain where we come from.
Humans try to be too intelligent for their own good. The Lord God, Most High, is responsible for our creation, and evolutionary change is normal within His plan.
is your avatar part of his plan as well?
re
Different thread, but thanks for trying (again).
Honestly i knew it would go this route but I wasn't trying to make it a religious debate. I truly was asking just to hear different theories. I mean because when it all comes down to it it is mostly theories right? I mean we can say that we evolved from this or that but there is no concrete evidence showing that correct? Unless by some miracle (lol) we find a way to get some kind of dna or stumble upon some ancient genetic material how could you ever know for sure.
I mean for the most part we aren't even sure that most dinosaurs really look the way we see them in museums and television. We find certain bones and then they try to figure what the whole must look like from some spare parts. Of course I know there are a few fossils that show the whole shabang but this stuff is all interesting to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)