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

The plot thickens when you realize (it is theorized) that your ancestors were fish, and all of life's greatest grandparent is (theorized to be) a miraculous microbe that managed to become a viable self-replicating organism out of complete chaos.

It sounds like a corny sci-fi novel when you really analyze it.

originally posted by: cooperton
The plot thickens when you realize (it is theorized) that your ancestors were fish, and all of life's greatest grandparent is (theorized to be) a miraculous microbe that managed to become a viable self-replicating organism out of complete chaos.

It sounds like a corny sci-fi novel when you really analyze it.

I'm curious what analysis you have actually done?

Or is it just that anything you don't understand is wrong?

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'm glad you asked !

Monkeys in Brazil Entered the Stone Age

Humanity is no longer the only species on Earth that has entered the Stone Age. It’s been known for some time now that various other primates use stone tools, including chimpanzees, capuchins, and macaques. Just recently, a study revealed that there was enough archaeological evidence to prove that macaques in Thailand have been crafting geological tools for at least half a century. Now, it seems that capuchins have them beat. Tools in Brazil, undoubtedly made by capuchin hands, have been dated to be at least 700 years old. This means that just as the Renaissance was beginning in Italy, capuchins were crafting little chisels and hammers out of various stones in South America – although, in all likelihood, they had entered the Stone Age long before this. As the study in the journal Current Biology notes, the field of primate archaeology is relatively nascent. Michael Haslam, the lead author of this research and the head of the Primate Archaeology (Primarch) project at the University of Oxford, is a pioneer in the field. He’s previously uncovered evidence of stone tool use in Thailand by macaques, but this new discovery is far more of a game-changer. “Until now, the only archaeological record of pre-modern, non-human animal tool use comes from a study of three chimpanzee sites in Cote d'Ivoire in Africa, where tools were dated to between 4,300 and 1,300 years old,” Haslam said in a statement. “Here, we have new evidence that suggests monkeys and other primates out of Africa were also using tools for hundreds, possibly thousands of years.”

originally posted by: cooperton
The plot thickens when you realize (it is theorized) that your ancestors were fish, and all of life's greatest grandparent is (theorized to be) a miraculous microbe that managed to become a viable self-replicating organism out of complete chaos.

It sounds like a corny sci-fi novel when you really analyze it.

Certainly it's a lot less corny than the notion of a magical creator, especially when one considers all the natural processes analyzed via science, starting with the collapse of vast clouds of hydrogen to form stars and ending with a soup of organic compounds from which scientists have successfully produced RNA in the laboratory.

A couple of missing pieces from the overall puzzle doesn't negate the whole puzzle. But the creator myth is just a cop out. It requires no empirical evidence. And worse, it's boring.

originally posted by: wisvol

I'm making the frogs do not turn into princes

Evolution does not turn frogs into princes. It doesn't even turn one type of animal into another type of animal. The truth is, these changes happen so gradually that there is no "first human." There are merely genetic mutations accumulated over eons which eventually give rise to a collectively new species.

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

I have no idea what you're arguing at this point, but I anxiously await your claims to be published in a mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journal.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Monkeys in Brazil Entered the Stone Age

nào

monkeys always have done this

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm curious what analysis you have actually done?

Or is it just that anything you don't understand is wrong?

Oh spare me, get off your pedestal - It's a simple theory that 12 year olds can grasp. As you progress in the sciences you realize the impossibility of such a theory due to the immense irreducible complexity of organs, organ systems, and organisms, not to mention the endless complexity of biochemical and epigenetic equilibrium.

Ever wonder why its called the genetic code? Code does not self-generate - it requires a programmer.

originally posted by: Greggers

Evolution does not turn frogs into princes.

Actually, the human lineage, according to the theory of evolution, would be traced back to an amphibian stage. Your theoretical great-great-great...(x100 great) grandfather kermit the frog would be totally pissed that you theoretically neglected your ancestry.

a reply to: cooperton

Ever wonder why its called the genetic code? Code does not self-generate - it requires a programmer.

why, I did wonder about this.

I like to insist on "grammer" instead of "programmer" like procreation doesn't cut it for the big [I personally don't call him bang, but what evz]

a reply to: cooperton

I truly thought ATS members were above these kinds of n00b questions. I find these replies quite condescending and I must stress that this thread should have been shut down long ago. I've got nothing else to say except that: come on guys?!?! Having a good time boys????

@Mod:
Please, whenever you judgement feels this has gone long enough, direct this poor soul to google where an answer can be found without our rookie not-enlightened-enough members can't make fun of such questions. In my humble opinion, if you stop by here at ATS you should know the answer to that question.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: rebelv

one has to wonder how such a " question " has managed to vexx a person for "decades "

esp now you have had internet access for at least 4 years - yet you still claim not to have independantly discovered the correct answer

The only point I was trying to make, was that according to the theory humans "evolved" from a common ancestor with simians, however there are quite a lot of species of simians still walking the planet that I presume "evolved" in a much less accelerated manner than the homo sapiens with no real evidence of why except the hypothesis of some arrogant scientists that ignore all evidence except that which does not contradict the edict of teleology.

a reply to: rebelv

The only point I was trying to make, and not intending to get into an argument with a person who uses science as an excuse to believe in fairy tales, was that according to the theory humans "evolved" from a common ancestor with simians, however there are quite a lot of species of simians still walking the planet that I presume "evolved" in a much less accelerated manner than the homo sapiens with no real evidence of why except the hypothesis of some arrogant scientists that ignore all evidence except that which does not contradict the edict of teleology.

Now I see.

And I agree, and think they take offence to phrasing and I think we can concede that whether aliens, a god or soup did it, humans and simians evolved from a common [I'd personally replace ancestor with something neutral like source]

Fairy tales aren't science, well said. We can all tolerate any belief but calling it science is over the top: words have meanings.

originally posted by: awareness10
That's right, we evolved from a bunch of holographic apes.

We just Might Be!! G.A.T.I.C. O.M.

we are all codes after all !
see pic
thriving.childrenshospital.org...

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
This thread got me watching stuff here is a new one for me.

Chimps kill each other but Bonobo's have never been seen killing each other...just sex a lot.

This is True !!

Chimps are more Militant and Aggressive a Warrior Based
They Hunt in Groups or commence War on Each other for territory
a proven fact ..

Bonobos are like the Hippies of the Apes Peace Love kind of thing ..
Bonobos are also more Intellectuals ( problem Solving ) then Regular Chimps
and The Slightly Different from Chimps Physically they are Slightly different

Chimps & Bonobos ( comparison )
www.eva.mpg.de...
like a comparison to a Teressial ( earthen ) to a Klingon ( Star Trek ) kind of way !

So is this Evolution ? or will Bonobos will Die out and the the more
Aggressive The Hunter Gather Apes like the Chimpanzee will Dominate and wipe them Out
The Bonobos ?? or will the Bonobos get Smarter and have more problem Solving inventive Skills to Conquer..

As Neurologist Professer Robert Sapolsky had said the Big Difference Between APE and Man
from Research is that MAN has 3 x the Neurons in the Brain then Apes ..

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Wolfenz

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much

Please discover music, language, NASA and metallurgy

Throwing out some Videos

from Robert Sapolsky Point of view


The Biology and Psychology of Ethical Behavior
library.fora.tv...

Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate?
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Wolfenz

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much

Please discover music, language, NASA and metallurgy

!!!!LOL !!


Please Watch the Video that is on that POST!!
I Posted! Seeing you Had Not!

Boy Ignorance is Biss..


Thats what the Professor is Mentioning

only if you had watch the Video!

WE HAVE THREE TIMES ( 3 x ) The Wrap Around of NEURONS in Our Brain as in (( MORE ))
then a APES BRAIN Has..

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm curious what analysis you have actually done?

Or is it just that anything you don't understand is wrong?

Oh spare me, get off your pedestal - It's a simple theory that 12 year olds can grasp. As you progress in the sciences you realize the impossibility of such a theory due to the immense irreducible complexity of organs, organ systems, and organisms, not to mention the endless complexity of biochemical and epigenetic equilibrium.

Ever wonder why its called the genetic code? Code does not self-generate - it requires a programmer.

originally posted by: Greggers

Evolution does not turn frogs into princes.

Actually, the human lineage, according to the theory of evolution, would be traced back to an amphibian stage. Your theoretical great-great-great...(x100 great) grandfather kermit the frog would be totally pissed that you theoretically neglected your ancestry.

You might want to try reading my post again, if you're under the mistaken impression that somehow you've contradicted a point I made.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rebelv

The only point I was trying to make, and not intending to get into an argument with a person who uses science as an excuse to believe in fairy tales, was that according to the theory humans "evolved" from a common ancestor with simians, however there are quite a lot of species of simians still walking the planet that I presume "evolved" in a much less accelerated manner than the homo sapiens with no real evidence of why except the hypothesis of some arrogant scientists that ignore all evidence except that which does not contradict the edict of teleology.

Now I see.

And I agree, and think they take offence to phrasing and I think we can concede that whether aliens, a god or soup did it, humans and simians evolved from a common [I'd personally replace ancestor with something neutral like source]

Fairy tales aren't science, well said. We can all tolerate any belief but calling it science is over the top: words have meanings.

ID is nothing more than rebranded Creationism.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm curious what analysis you have actually done?

Or is it just that anything you don't understand is wrong?

Oh spare me, get off your pedestal - It's a simple theory that 12 year olds can grasp. As you progress in the sciences you realize the impossibility of such a theory due to the immense irreducible complexity of organs, organ systems, and organisms, not to mention the endless complexity of biochemical and epigenetic equilibrium.

Ever wonder why its called the genetic code? Code does not self-generate - it requires a programmer.

originally posted by: Greggers

Evolution does not turn frogs into princes.

Actually, the human lineage, according to the theory of evolution, would be traced back to an amphibian stage. Your theoretical great-great-great...(x100 great) grandfather kermit the frog would be totally pissed that you theoretically neglected your ancestry.

Back to recycling Behe's nonsense. How about coming up with something otiginal.

a reply to: anton74

ID is nothing more than rebranded Creationism.

Gotta disagree there

Chinese biologists & paleontologists concur: ID is not creationism, and more reasonable than Darwin because as their fossil records demonstrate, there are less species now than before, and mutations account for diversity in hair colour and lifting bricks, but not diversity in species. obviously