If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

a reply to: wisvol

Genetic mutation is the cause of variation, which allows for adaptation to different environmental pressures.

Heritable genetic traits passed to the next generation are how a species evolves.

Even the radiation from distant stars can cause these mutations.


Watch Carl Sagans cosmos (the original one), he gets into some pretty groovy topics, you'll learn a lot.

a reply to: Barcs

Homo habilis, homo erectus, Australopithecus Afarensis, homo rudolfensis. None of those could breed with man or monkeys. And that's just off the top of my head. I could list dozens more, but I sense this conversation is going nowhere and you will pretend these species don't exist or find some silly unscientific way to discount them that shows lack of knowledge on the topic.

Homo abilis, homo erectus and homo rudolfensis are imaginary constructs based off the remains of people.

Australopitecus Afarensis is an imaginary construct based off the remains of a chimpanzee.

Who or what the owners of these remains could breed with is out of your prerogatives, and genetic analysis of these remains have demonstrated that Homo abilis, homo erectus and homo rudolfensis are imaginary constructs based off the remains of people.

Australopitecus Afarensis is an imaginary construct based off the remains of a chimpanzee.

There are plenty of examples of genetic mutation yielding beneficial results for a species. I'll post them if someone doubts me, but at this point I'm not even sure what the particular bone of contention is.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

Homo habilis, homo erectus, Australopithecus Afarensis, homo rudolfensis. None of those could breed with man or monkeys. And that's just off the top of my head. I could list dozens more, but I sense this conversation is going nowhere and you will pretend these species don't exist or find some silly unscientific way to discount them that shows lack of knowledge on the topic.

Homo abilis, homo erectus and homo rudolfensis are imaginary constructs based off the remains of people.

Australopitecus Afarensis is an imaginary construct based off the remains of a chimpanzee.

Who or what the owners of these remains could breed with is out of your prerogatives, and genetic analysis of these remains have demonstrated that Homo abilis, homo erectus and homo rudolfensis are imaginary constructs based off the remains of people.

Australopitecus Afarensis is an imaginary construct based off the remains of a chimpanzee.

What? You're arguing that non-human organisms found in the fossil record are just mutated humans?

a reply to: Greggers

Clearly, inbreeding is fixed by genetic mutation

yet the mutation is a return to the original design, not a new species as is claimed by the state religion

I've also heard someone say that fish becoming blind (due to lack of light in their environment) is beneficial to their hearing.. which is true, but being blind isn't a positive mutation, just ask any blind person.

the bone of contention here seems to be the question of whether or not albino+blind+red haired = a penguin
I think the answer is no, and genetic variations are, as temperature, time, energy, solidity, and every other parameter, within well defined bounds

clear evidence includes the fact that none of the genetic mutation experiments until now have shown speciation, even after enough generations at immensely augmented frequency of mutation.

cheers

a reply to: Greggers

What? You're arguing that non-human organisms found in the fossil record are just mutated humans?

No

I'm saying that the fossil record does not have organisms, it has remains.

Through necromancy, it is possible to assume certain things about organisms of whom we have remains
some of the assumptions made are not up to par with the scientific method, and can be disproved quite easily

a great example is the assumption that Nebraska man, an imaginary construct based off a pig's tooth, is in fact a monkeyman as was taught in public schools

a reply to: wheresthebody

Genetic mutation is the cause of variation, which allows for adaptation to different environmental pressures. Heritable genetic traits passed to the next generation are how a species evolves. Even the radiation from distant stars can cause these mutations. Watch Carl Sagans cosmos (the original one), he gets into some pretty groovy topics, you'll learn a lot.

I agree with every word of this quote, thanks.

The topic being debated seemed to have been whether the origin of species is other species.

Frogs don't turn into princes, even Chronos or Carl Sagan can't do it.

a reply to: secretboss

A monkey is just as evolved as you are.

The question should be...

If we evolved from homo habilis why are there still homo habilis around?

And the answer to that is simple.

There isn't.

a reply to: wisvol

Ahhhh, are you making the micro vs macro evolution argument?

a reply to: wheresthebody

No

I'm making the frogs do not turn into princes

micro evolution to me means the evolution of one specific life, where macro evolution would mean the evolution of an entire species

part of both is genetic mutation, which does not add abilities such as sexual reproduction, life, & c. although it does make poodles out of wolves, who are still interfertile and thus the same species

originally posted by: wisvol
It matters how life got here if you're going to claim science, which you have done.

Um, try to follow the conversation. I claimed evolution is backed by science, not the origin of life or spontaneous generation. They are different scientific studies that require different mechanisms.

BTW your claim about harmful mutations is disproved by a single point. The ability to digest lactose in humans past childhood. This is a fairly new trait in the big picture, and it was certainly beneficial.

I backed up the fact that mutations do not add genetically beneficial data with two experiments whose reached goal was to demonstrate that fact scientifically.

I have not seen you back up a single claim yet. Please link me to the scientific research papers that conclude that beneficial mutations do not happen or that all mutations are harmful. If you can't do this, you have no argument.

Your ad hominem is out of place.

Hey if somebody lies about something, I'm going to call a spade a spade. It is intellectually dishonest at the absolute minimum to claim science has proven that all mutations are harmful, and then to respond with an experiment that has nothing to do with mutations. Sorry, but to me this only proves that you know nothing about what you are talking about.

a reply to: wisvol

Is the frog prince thing from Hovind? Sounds like his propaganda.

Think of it like this...

How different are you from your father?
How different is he from his father?
How different is he from his father?
How different is he from his father?

Small changes add up. It's really that simple.

I understand that this conflicts with your religious views. But that's just because your religious views are wrong.
There's no shame in being wrong. Unless you are someone like Hovind who misleads people for profit.

a reply to: wisvol

Micro evolution vs macro evolution is the idea that there can be inherited differences in a species, enough so that we can get different "kinds" of a species (micro evolution), but not enough to create a new species altogether (macro evolution).

They are not actually scientific terms, they from creationist rhetoric.

Genetic mutations cause variance, not necessarily "improvements" or "abilities" as you would think of them.

You need to be more imaginative about your thinking of evolution.

originally posted by: wisvol
Homo habilis, homo erectus and homo rudolfensis are imaginary constructs based off the remains of people.

Australopitecus Afarensis is an imaginary construct based off the remains of a chimpanzee.

Citation most definitely needed. What are you saying? The entire classification system is wrong? LMAO at imaginary. We have the fossils. You have nothing but lies.

a great example is the assumption that Nebraska man, an imaginary construct based off a pig's tooth, is in fact a monkeyman as was taught in public schools

Please give a citation that shows Nebraska man being taught in a public school science book. Last I checked, real science is what proved that to be a hoax.

micro evolution to me means the evolution of one specific life, where macro evolution would mean the evolution of an entire species

Good thing science doesn't care what those words mean to you. That is completely wrong, btw. Micro and macro are simply a description of short term small change (speciation) with long term accumulation of small changes where you notice a bigger change. It's not that complex.

originally posted by: Barcs

Please give a citation that shows Nebraska man being taught in a public school science book.

It was accepted, not widely but it was accepted for about 5 years so it could have gotten into text books.

Although it wasn't a "pig" tooth. It was identified as Prosthennops serus when it was debunked and that was an early ancestor of pigs.

Basically the Nebraska Man still proves evolution. Just not hominid evolution.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Indeed. The good thing about hoaxes like Nebraska man and Piltdown man, is that they caused scientists to increase the level of scrutiny for findings like that before announcing them to the public. These days it can sometimes take 7-10 years of fossil studies before the information is given to the public and/or included in textbooks.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: chrismarco

The specific course of evolution is generally dictated by various "pressures" in the environment.

classic example

lets say some island has 1000s of hummingbirds of one species and they have beaks of varying lengths. The beak length of a baby is relative to the length of his/her parents beaks. A storm come and destroys all of the flowers small enough for the hummingbirds with short beaks to feed from. The hummingbirds with short beaks all die, so only the ones with long beaks will reproduce and all of their offspring will have the same long beaks as them. After this all of the hummingbirds on the island have only long beaks.

TaaDaa evolution.

I realize and acknowledge that evolution occurs in many instances due to some additional need to survive but our next evolutionary change could be something pertaining to the brain...but would we know it or would we consider it a anomaly?

originally posted by: chrismarco

I realize and acknowledge that evolution occurs in many instances due to some additional need to survive but our next evolutionary change could be something pertaining to the brain...but would we know it or would we consider it a anomaly?

It's not an additional need to survive.
The hummingbird's with little beaks didn't grow big beaks to survive.

For example lets say the sun gets too hot for white people.
White people won't evolve darker skin. They will just die.

You could say the human species evolved towards darker skin however.

originally posted by: secretboss
Why are there still monkeys? Shouldnt they have all "evolved" into humans, or human-like beings by now?

How come chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other types of monkeys aren't building their own primitive civilizations? Where are their cave paintings?

If evolution was true, shouldnt monkeys be resembling primitive cavemen by now?

I ran across this today, and felt compelled to post it. Hope this answers your question.

Because not every monkey touched the monolith!