Wait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theory

bigbluey

Since Charles Darwin published the theory of evolution by means of natural selection in 1859, myths and misinterpretations have eroded public understanding of his ideas. For example, some people continue to argue that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory because it can't be tested. This, of course, isn't true. Scientists have successfully run numerous laboratory tests that support the major tenets of evolution. And field scientists have been able to use the fossil record to answer important questions about natural selection and how organisms change over time.

Ape to man? I think not!
Ape to man? I think not!

Still, the evolution-is-not-falsifiable myth remains popular. So does this one: The second law of thermodynamics, which says an orderly system will always become disorderly, makes evolution impossible. This myth reflects a general misunderstanding of entropy, the term used by physicists to describe randomness or disorder. The second law does state that the total entropy of a closed system can't decrease, but it does allow parts of a system to become more orderly as long as other parts becomes less so. In other words, evolution and the second law of thermodynamics can live together in harmony.


One of the most persistent myths, however, concerns the relationship of humans to great apes, a group of primates that includes the gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee. Someone who believes the myth will say, "If evolution exists, then humans must be descended directly from apes. Apes must have changed, step by step, into humans." This same person will often follow up with this observation: "If apes 'turned into' humans, then apes should no longer exist." Although there are several ways to attack this assertion, the bottom-line rebuttal is simple -- humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to say humans and apes aren't related, but the relationship can't be traced backward along a direct line of descent, one form morphing into another. It must be traced along two independent lines, far back into time until the two lines merge.

The intersection of the two lines represents something special, what biologists refer to as a common ancestor. This apelike ancestor, which probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in Africa, gave rise to two distinct lineages, one resulting in hominids -- humanlike species -- and the other resulting in the great ape species living today. Or, to use a family tree analogy, the common ancestor occupied a trunk, which then divided into two branches. Hominids developed along one branch, while the great ape species developed along another branch.

What did this common ancestor look like? Although the fossil record has been stingy with answers, it seems logical that the animal would have possessed features of both humans and apes. In 2007, Japanese scientists believe they found the jawbone and teeth of just such an animal. By studying the size and shape of the teeth, they determined that the ape was gorilla-sized and had an appetite for hard nuts and seeds. They named it Nakalipithecus nakayamai and calculated its age to be 10 million years old. That puts the ape in the right place on the time line. More important, the scientists found the ancient bones in the Samburu Hills of northern Kenya. That puts N. nakayamai in the right geographic place, along a trajectory of hominid evolution that stretches for several hundred miles in eastern Africa. The Middle Awash region of Ethiopia lies to the north, where the African continent dead-ends into the Red Sea.


Awash with Answers
Today, the Middle Awash region burns hot and inhospitable beneath a desert sun. But 10 million years ago, according to paleontologists and geologists, it held a cool, wet forest teeming with life. Is it possible that an apelike creature such as N. nakayamai lived in these fertile woodlands? Is it furthermore possible that the creature was just beginning to experiment with a new lifestyle, one that brought it down to the ground from the trees? Scientists think so, and they've been coming for years to the Middle Awash region, as well as points south, to learn when and how humanlike species diverged from the great apes.

One of the most important Middle Awash discoveries came in 1994, when a team of scientists led by Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, found skeletal remains that included skull, pelvis and hand and foot bones. When the team pieced the skeleton together, it revealed a very early hominid that walked upright, yet still retained an opposable toe, a trait commonly found in tree-climbing primates. They named the new species Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi for short, and determined that it lived 4.4 million years ago. In anthropological circles, Ardi has enjoyed almost as much fame as Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), the 3.2-million-year-old hominid discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia.

Lucy was the earliest known human ancestor for years, and for a while it seemed that scientists might never peer any deeper into our dim past. Then Ardi came along and, more recently, other landmark discoveries. In 1997, scientists found the bones of a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba, that lived in the Middle Awash region between 5 and 6 million years ago. And in 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut from the College de France and a team from the Community Museums of Kenya unearthed one of the oldest hominids to date. Its official name was Orrorin tugenensis, but the scientists referred to it as Millennium Man. This chimpanzee-sized hominid lived 6 million years ago in the Tugen Hills of Kenya, where it spent time both in the trees and on the ground. While on the ground, it most likely walked upright.

Now scientists are working to close the gap between Millennium Man and the true "missing link" -- the common ancestor that gave rise to humans down one line and great apes down another. Could N. nakayamai be that link, or is there another species in between? The answer, most likely, lies buried in the dry soil of eastern Africa.

One last piece of information is that apes have 48 chromosome and we have 46 chromosomes, therefore that is proof that we did not evolve from apes because then we would have the same amount of chromosomes. Also, if we evolved from apes wouldn't they all have evolved at some point then? Or at least most of them. Over the past few million years we have not seen any proof of this.

#evolution

Wait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theory
32
6
Add Opinion
6Girl Opinion
32Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • OfDeath
    You were doing so well until that last paragraph where you basically shat the bed.

    You weren't doing that well though. You don't seem to understand that human beings actually ARE apes. That group of great apes you mentioned which includes chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas also includes humans. Humans are apes and our most recent ancestors were all apes too, so YES WE DID EVOLVE FROM APES. Ignoring the last 2 million years of ape ancestors doesn't make it go away. Those ancestors include species you mentioned such as Australopithecus but also animals like Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis etc.

    Your point that Homo sapiens have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but other apes have 24, is not proof that we didn't evolve from other apes. We know from modern archeogenetics that Neanderthals and Denisovans, who we share about a 99.7% DNA match with, also had 23 pairs of chromosomes and that the most recent common ancestor we share with them likely also did. We can work out from sequencing data that the fusion occured somewhere between 1 and 4 million years ago. Likely occurring in the immediate predecessors of Homo erectus or partially in the former and complete in the latter. Different chromosome counts among closely related species are also not rare. The most relevant example to this being that donkeys have 31 pairs of chromosomes and horses have 32. Just as Homo Sapiens are members of the homidinae family with the other extant great apes such as chimpanzees etc which all share and evolved from a common ancestor, horses and donkeys which have different chromosome counts are both members of the equus family and evolved from and share common ancestors. The problem you have is with ignoring the steps in between, and these are steps we know about as I have already mentioned.

    The reason you see more evolutionary change with the more immediate human ancestors as opposed to chimpanzees and gorillas is because ancient human species were those which adapted to newer environments, whereas chimpanzees and orangutans etc, remained living in dense jungle and were preserved by the demands of their environment. This is natural selection at work and there are plenty of examples of this. Glaringly, the many species of marine life which have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. One most notable is the horseshoe crab, which has remained practically unchanged for in excess of 400 million years! Which of course is not to say that no new species ever branched from them. Where gene mutation is not advantageous to survival, it is less likely to be selected for. When one species branches off from another, the ancestral species does not automatically dissapear. That isn't how evolution works. Many related species coexist.

    I think I remember you making a question about doing this take. I answered it and told you that I advised against it because you would just be wrong. So, here we are, and you are.

    Zai jian.
    Like 1 Person
    Is this still revelant?
    • bigbluey

      Excuse me but I believe in one thing and you believe in another. So don’t you try to tell me I’m wrong because you might be wrong. I wrote this mytake to tel you what I think not to hear you say oh you’re wrong I’m right. I spent a long time trying to write this and I don’t want to hear anything negative from you. I know everyone has different opinions but that doesn’t mean you walk around and tear everyone’s opinions down and be like oh my god I’m right you’re we

    • bigbluey

      You’re wrong not you’re we

    • OfDeath

      Well, what I think is a carefully considered conclusion which is based on reliable and verified scientific evidence. What you think isn't.
      I'm not wrong. Evolution has been confirmed.

    • Show All
  • Throwdownxxx
    This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

    According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe.
    Like 2 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • goaded

      That's what she said.

Most Helpful Girls

  • youngmix
    This is not really a coherent argument concerning cellular biology and genetic progress, as the critical evidence you should address is modern genetic analysis. We are indeed genetically similar to other modern apes in a way that lends perfect evidence to our shared genetic origins, and physical anthropological evidence has only supported our shared heritage. The idea of the birth of humanity is probably a flawed hypothesis, but modern genetics doesn't lie, modern genetic samples give all the evidence you need.
    Is this still revelant?
    • youngmix

      In case you did not understand, our relationship with other animals, including our heritage, is established definitively using genetic analysis. So, if you ask who and how we are related to another creature, then the best evidence we (humanity) has is genetic analysis.

    • youngmix

      So I guess there's something else to address, that we are not simply descendants of apes, BUT we are a type of ape... You and I. We are apes, just as we are primates, mammals, animals, and living organisms.

  • purplepoppy
    The reality is apart from a handful of far right rednecks nobody actually believes the biblical creation myth.
    LikeHelpful 7 People
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

430
  • Guy13
    As you yourself said, “If Evolution Is”then. “If” suggests you did miss the Beginning, “before IF” in your Argument. As a “scientist”, you assumed Evolution process is without laying out a case for Evolution either Being or Existing (Existent vs Nonexistent). Using an 8th grader’s level understanding of the obviousness, I will demonstrate, using secular philosophical analysis, WHY EVOLUTION can in no way be the basis of Creation…

    Acknowledgethese scientific observations:
    -Firstly, if there was ever Nothing then there would still be Nothing now. How does one derive Something from Nothing❓
    -There is Something now so obviously there had to be Something in Beginning. How did that Something get there❓
    What was that Something❓
    Who put that Something there❓
    -Obviously, even Something can NOT self-create or self-start (8th grade), therefore, Something can not either spontaneously generate itself or self-start a Big Bang into Being. You, Me, and the World did NOT self-create or start out of Nothing ‼️
    -So, what was there that generated the evolutionary process❓Certainly, Scientists would contend that there had to be Resting Mass, Resting Motion, and Resting Energy (Newton/Einstein) in place.

    Since none of these Resting states can either Self-create/start then…Who/What created and placed those Resting States there❓ And since there is Something, who/what was the First Cause or Prime Mover that moved those Resting states❓
    Every Effect has an antecedent Cause is rational, therefore, the Big Bang Effect had a Cause. The only logical conclusion is that was a Creator and I contend that’s a Creator God who also was Prime Mover.

    And every Cause has a Cause that had another Cause is a logical fallacy that ends in a mathematical linear egress (.999999) into Infinitude.-This is an incomplete answer. But yet, Evolution irrationally postulates that every cause has a cause, whether it be another object causation or an academia construct after another academic construct, after academic construct to support a dead Evolution-Creation impossibility, itself.

    Evolution can NOT be Creation origin. I am not saying that the evolutional process is not a process, however, it’s irrational to assert all creation originated from Evolution SINCE Something can neither self-start or self-create‼️
    Until you can clearly argue or address the Beginning, your paper is a False Assumption as the paper itself is grounded upon Evolution which is False as a Creation into Being model.
    Disagree 1 Person
  • DaveJord
    Well since you didn't really ask a question in any of this and basically gave a short dissertation on the study of physical anthropology... I feel like rendering an opinion is unwarranted.

    But the answer to the implied question is because creationist believe that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation. Which could be very well true, because nobody knows for certain if there was a big bang or how or what caused it. But that does not mean that live did not originate from some super natural power, force, act of nature or divine creation... and then took millennia to evolve. So their believe system is rooted in faith and not science... so any scientific argument is moot. Even though they will fight for health care and medication... which obviously was not created by divine intervention.

    At end of the day I try to appease creationist that in bible God declared Adam and Eve the first man and women and I believe that is true... to the extent that with the dawn of Adam and Eve that man had evolved to the point that God felt it was necessary to make a clear distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. No where does it say in the bible that Adam and Eve were the only man and women at the time. And clearly everyone knows that incest is not permissible within any Christian religion, so if Adam and Eve were the only two... how did the earth become populated with over 7 billion people... the gene pool would be too small.

    Even Christians can't deny that. You would need at least 2 to 5 thousand people to start over... and even then the chances would be small if not carefully monitored.
    • Yes that is the reason Hinduism should be followed, it doesn't have this Adam and eve theory.

  • CountessSarah
    Oh, FFS. People who clearly don't understand evolution trying to explain how it couldn't work.
    This post commits every trope known in the anti-evolutionary playbook.
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 5 People
    • they jus have low iq, they dont understand anything, best to jus ignore these idiots than explain anything to them, they wouldn't understand

    • Tamera952

      Agreed.

  • goaded
    "My point? My point? It is that I do not believe that we evolved from apes"
    Wait, what?

    I'm very confused now. You lay out all the evidence that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, which is correct, then say you don't believe we evolved from apes, which is also correct because we've evolved in parallel with them. But what you wrote in response to @seanscoopers opinion makes me wonder if you think humans didn't evolve?
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • Djmbbasgerd
    its very clear to me that we evolved from something, not jus from darwins theory, but from looking at things around me... for example, the first humans was found in africa, so why do you think Africans have black skin? its cos they needed that sun protection so they evolved melanin, then when we no longer that skin protection when we moved to colder countries, thats when we started turning white, so that is clear evidence of skin evolving there,

    also, people evolve every time a child is born, for example the parents of both parents mix to create something new, for example if you have a white mum fuck a black dad, the child will mix into both white and black, that is a very small example of evolution, genes changing and morphing.

    so, lets say a woman had sex with a slightly more ape like man, but still human, for example a neanderthal, the species should be close enough that they can breed, but because of the neanderthal genetics of the dad, the child will be slightly more ape like, now imagine for generations and generations you keep breeding off spring and off spring with gradually more ape-like people each time..., eventually you will evolve the child so much he's almost completely a whole ape monkey kid, u get what i mean?

    also... jus look at the slight fur on the mans arms and legs, and facial hair, isn't this clear evidence we was once furry all over but lost it over time?
    we even have a similar body type lay out as a gorilla or ape, for example the legs are connected to torso, arms to torso, head at top... pretty similar to gorillas or orangutans, if u look at apes skulls its also a similar shape to ours but slightly different
    Helpful 1 Person
    • we jus got smarter, its very clear to me

    • im sorry but if u dont believe in evolution ur jus a mindless dumbass with no brain, im sorry, maybe u should evolve more

    • how u think we got here? what... u think we jus appeared out of nowhere? ha, its also the same for the chicken or the egg which came first question... the answer is... neither... neither came first... they evolved slowly until one came to be

    • Show All
  • AviatorTom
    Well written. As you point out, having a common ancestor is not the same as evolving from.
    Helpful 2 People
  • Boxxa
    Macro evolution is not scientifically proven. Missing links are in every fossil record. So go ahead and believe what you will. There is truth though, and truth is objective. We all should aim to find it. I believe God is the ultimate truth. He will judge everyone according to his faith and deed. As an alternative to Darwin, read the bible.
    LikeHelpfulDisagree 4 People
    • AndrésC64

      There is no difference between so-called microevolution and macro-evolution. There is only evolution and the time over which the evolution takes place. See my response above titled "Ken Miller on human evolution."

    • AndrésC64

      * My response BELOW

    • goaded

      As an alternative to the Bible, read a textbook, look at some evidence, ask why people think evolution is true. Here's a hint: the fossil record is not the only proof of evolution.

  • Gal67
    The generally accepted belief isn't that man evolved from apes, but that humans and apes share a common ancestor, an ancestor that is yet to be identified. Too many creationists seem to believe that "since we came from apes, how come there are still apes to be found today", which, as you point out, is just a silly argument.
    And yes, they don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so I'm glad you mentioned that too.
    Like 2 People
  • Daniela1982
    I don't know. I think a lot of people evolved from monkey's asses. Wait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theory
    Disagree 1 Person
  • AndrésC64
    Ken Miller on human evolution https://youtu.be/zi8FfMBYCkk

    There is not one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.
    Like 4 People
  • AtTheTop
    Wait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theoryWait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theoryEVOLUTION IS FAKE

    read the bible
    men and women have sex
    to make more humans

    FACTS
    LikeDisagree 3 People
  • CrossroadsDemon
    When they teach you something that is a theory people need to remember that it is a theory. The theory of evolution, the big bang theory, germ theory there is absolutely no proof that any of these things are real but they teach you since you are very young to accept them as fact. There lies the problem. We are allowed to question things.
    FunnyDisagree 2 People
    • goaded

      "there is absolutely no proof that any of these things are real..."
      Really? Other than, you know, being able to examine bacteria under microscopes or genetically sequence viruses, or observe distant objects as they were billions of years ago, or the fact that evolution hasn't been disproved in 150 years, while evidence that Darwin couldn't even have dreamt of (like DNA and quantum mechanics) show that he was right?

      Just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't make your ideas plausible.

      Scientific theories have to fit the known facts, at least as well as previous theories. We have collected an awful lot of facts over the centuries.

    • AndrésC64

      There is not one piece of evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. Don't believe in germ theory? Lick the floor in a public bathroom. Don't believe in atomic theory? Ask the Japanese. Don't believe in the theory of gravity? Time to the top of a 10-story building and see if you can fly. You obviously don't understand what the word theory means.

  • TheBigGuy9
    We did NOT evolve from apes. Their is no such thing as Evolution. In the beginning humans lived to be 1000 years old. Today the only reason why humans are bigger and stronger is because of hormones in our food and medicine.
    LikeDisagree 3 People
    • if there was no evolution how did humans get here? u think they jus appeared one day out of nowhere/?

      ur a dumbass

    • its a gradual slow proccess of changing from one species to another

    • TheBigGuy9

      Who were Adam and Eve?

    • Show All
  • pibe10
    Humans are apes, and all apes come from a comon ancestor. Thats prooven (sorry for bad English)
    LikeDisagree 4 People
    • TheBigGuy9

      So Adam and Eve were Apes?

    • bigbluey

      @TheBigGuy9 yeah good point

    • pibe10

      @TheBigGuy9 they weren't real

    • Show All
  • admles
    For the thousandth time, Evolution does not state we came from apes, but that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

    We went one way, apes went another.
    LikeHelpful 4 People
    • Humans ARE apes. We're part of the subcategory called Great Ape, which makes the "We evolved from apes" misconception even dumber since we still are part of that group.

    • @AD240pCharlie Lol, noooope.

  • Valso
    From the old days when I used to have a Fascistbook account:Wait did we evolve from apes or... not? The Evolution theory
    Like 1 Person
  • Mbizzay
    God created man. I think evolution is real, but not with human beings. There is definitely some evolution involved though.
    Disagree 5 People
  • zagor
    The idea has always been a common ancestor, not that we evolved from apes.
    Helpful 4 People
  • exitseven
    Darwin had it backwards. Apes were descended from man.
    Like 1 Person
  • 888theGreat
    Not me , but I think A lot of men on here have or are part ape
    LikeFunnyDisagree 4 People
    • well this is a fact we even have a similar penis as a ape or gorilla jus look

  • Show More (14)
Loading...