Crosswords5 mins ago
evolution?
22 Answers
so if we evolved from apes, why arent they still evolving? why are there not semi human apes evolving into a human?
there are apes and there are humans but nothing inbetween.
doesnt this put a spanner in the works for Darwin?
can someone explain this please?
there are apes and there are humans but nothing inbetween.
doesnt this put a spanner in the works for Darwin?
can someone explain this please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by meltoadhall. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a common mistake to say that we evolved from apes. We didn't evolve from apes. We evolved from some same common ancestor as the present-day apes, and that ancestor is what's in between humans and apes. Animals evolve to take advantage of a changing environment. Once they become best suited to a stable ecological niche, there is no need for them to evolve further.
As heathfield advises, both humans and apes are decended from a common root species - the primeval ape.
You can see evolution working - young people today are taller and heavier and more physically developed than they were w couple of generations ago.
Similarly - obesity, virtually uknown a couple of generations ago has now been bred into the modern generation.
Changes like this occur all the time - the essence of evolution.
You can see evolution working - young people today are taller and heavier and more physically developed than they were w couple of generations ago.
Similarly - obesity, virtually uknown a couple of generations ago has now been bred into the modern generation.
Changes like this occur all the time - the essence of evolution.
Andy, surely obesity is more common now because of the availability of food. Most of us are still kitted out to eat when food is available and potentially go long periods without food by slowng metabolism. Reference half the world too fat and the other half starving.
Anyway as heathfiled says we share a common ancesstor with apes etc, our closest relative being the Chimp. We also share a common ancestor with every other living thing if you go down the evolutionary tree far enough. Apparently we share 95% of our genes with a lettuce, I don't see any lettuces evolving into people. No spanner in the works!
Anyway as heathfiled says we share a common ancesstor with apes etc, our closest relative being the Chimp. We also share a common ancestor with every other living thing if you go down the evolutionary tree far enough. Apparently we share 95% of our genes with a lettuce, I don't see any lettuces evolving into people. No spanner in the works!
-- answer removed --
Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. You will never ever get an individual ape that gives birth to an individual human, or even an ape that gives birth to an individual semi-human. You would see an individual ape give birth to an ape that was virtually identical to its mother but with a teeny tiny genetic difference from her. They're both still the same species and will always be the same species.
Think about a rainbow. We can all say that the colours in a rainbow are Red, Orange, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. Everyone knows that, right? We could clearly point to a picture of a rainbow and point out where each colour was on the rainbow.
However, at what point does the Red become Orange..? Sure, you can point at Red and you can point at Orange, but at what point is the rainbow Red and then the next point Orange?
That's impossible to answer except by making an arbitrary declaration; "*There* on the rainbow is Red, but a micrometer further down the bow, it's Orange." Yet, you probably couldn't put those two colours next to each other and tell them apart, could you? You would require a pretty sophisticated and sensitive chromoscope to tell the difference.
That�s *exactly* how it is with the mother and daughter, and in the same way you can start with one species and with lots of tiny changes over a long period of time you can get the equivalent of easily identifiably different species, much like the Red and Orange in our rainbow.
At some point in the past, there was a species of ape-like creatures. They were most likely geographically dispersed, possibly through the fact that the amount of food the environment could provide only supported a certain number of individuals, or because they had become separated by a river or a mountain or something. For the ease of illustration, we�ll say that the two groups were separated by a river.
CONT
Think about a rainbow. We can all say that the colours in a rainbow are Red, Orange, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. Everyone knows that, right? We could clearly point to a picture of a rainbow and point out where each colour was on the rainbow.
However, at what point does the Red become Orange..? Sure, you can point at Red and you can point at Orange, but at what point is the rainbow Red and then the next point Orange?
That's impossible to answer except by making an arbitrary declaration; "*There* on the rainbow is Red, but a micrometer further down the bow, it's Orange." Yet, you probably couldn't put those two colours next to each other and tell them apart, could you? You would require a pretty sophisticated and sensitive chromoscope to tell the difference.
That�s *exactly* how it is with the mother and daughter, and in the same way you can start with one species and with lots of tiny changes over a long period of time you can get the equivalent of easily identifiably different species, much like the Red and Orange in our rainbow.
At some point in the past, there was a species of ape-like creatures. They were most likely geographically dispersed, possibly through the fact that the amount of food the environment could provide only supported a certain number of individuals, or because they had become separated by a river or a mountain or something. For the ease of illustration, we�ll say that the two groups were separated by a river.
CONT
A member of the population of ape-like creatures on one side of the river experienced a mutation (or series of mutations) that benefited that members of the species in living long enough to pass on their genes to children. Those children were better at surviving to an age where they could reproduce too and thus gradually, the gene that makes an individual better at surviving to become parents becomes the norm in the population.
Maybe it gave some of them longer legs and this made them able to run from predators more quickly and thus more of them survived. Maybe it allowed them to include a wider variety of food in their diets, so they survived. Maybe it gave them a better sense of smell, so they could seek out food more efficiently or maybe it gave them longer hair so they were better protected against the weather, but in some small way, it made them more fit to survive in their environment to the point where the individuals that survived to pass on their genes all shared this advantageous gene.
However, this advantageous gene hadn't arisen on the other side of the river, so they just went on the way they were.
Both sides were essentially similar, but a little bit different. They went on for many generations, the best adapted to their situation survived to pass on their genetic information to their offspring. Occasionally, one or other of the groups would experience another mutation. If the mutation benefited the group - i.e. more survived to pass on their genes - the gene would be pass on. If it didn't, those with the gene would be less likely to pass on the gene to their children and we would discover that those that were best adapted to their environment would survive.
CONT
Maybe it gave some of them longer legs and this made them able to run from predators more quickly and thus more of them survived. Maybe it allowed them to include a wider variety of food in their diets, so they survived. Maybe it gave them a better sense of smell, so they could seek out food more efficiently or maybe it gave them longer hair so they were better protected against the weather, but in some small way, it made them more fit to survive in their environment to the point where the individuals that survived to pass on their genes all shared this advantageous gene.
However, this advantageous gene hadn't arisen on the other side of the river, so they just went on the way they were.
Both sides were essentially similar, but a little bit different. They went on for many generations, the best adapted to their situation survived to pass on their genetic information to their offspring. Occasionally, one or other of the groups would experience another mutation. If the mutation benefited the group - i.e. more survived to pass on their genes - the gene would be pass on. If it didn't, those with the gene would be less likely to pass on the gene to their children and we would discover that those that were best adapted to their environment would survive.
CONT
If one of these groups experienced another genetic split, it may be that both sub-groups lived alongside each other for a long time. (In fact, this is exactly what we see with the ancestors of modern man. Even Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis lived alongside each other for thousands of years; definitive Neanderthals were around from about 130,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago. Modern humans first arrived about 200,000, so we were together for a long time. The fossil record indicates that the same thing happened all the way back down the line.)
Over an extremely long period of time, these two populations would have become so different that if they had come together again, they would no longer be the same species! They would have become two distinct species that though sharing a common ancestor were now so different that they might look and behave entirely differently and would probably not be able to reproduce because their DNA was so dissimilar.
This is a very basic overview, but I hope it demonstrates that your questions are based on a misunderstanding and that no problem exists.
Over an extremely long period of time, these two populations would have become so different that if they had come together again, they would no longer be the same species! They would have become two distinct species that though sharing a common ancestor were now so different that they might look and behave entirely differently and would probably not be able to reproduce because their DNA was so dissimilar.
This is a very basic overview, but I hope it demonstrates that your questions are based on a misunderstanding and that no problem exists.
It's not entirely hard and fast what a species means, because there's no single definition that works for all living things, which unfortunately leaves it open to attack from intellectually dishonest creationists.
For example, you can say it means a "taxonomic group whose members can interbreed". That's not a bad definition for most things, but it means that you can't define any assexual organism as a species, which is clearly nonsensical, so you need to accomodate that.
You're right to say that species is like the difference between Red and Orange. It's a useful definition, but ultimately the very nature of evolution means that there must be all the shades inbetween too.
Your intellectually dishonest creationist will attempt to imply that this represents some major problem with the theory of evolution, whereas it's clearly exactly what must necessarily be true if evolution is correct.
For example, you can say it means a "taxonomic group whose members can interbreed". That's not a bad definition for most things, but it means that you can't define any assexual organism as a species, which is clearly nonsensical, so you need to accomodate that.
You're right to say that species is like the difference between Red and Orange. It's a useful definition, but ultimately the very nature of evolution means that there must be all the shades inbetween too.
Your intellectually dishonest creationist will attempt to imply that this represents some major problem with the theory of evolution, whereas it's clearly exactly what must necessarily be true if evolution is correct.
Ooh, you are such a colourist.
Well from what you are saying above, in your rainbow it don�t exist. So when I next look at a rainbow and I see yellow, I s�pose I�ll have to stare in wonderment at the marvel of Gods creation of a species that didn�t exist before he put it there, and assume that all yellow is good and free from evil.
Well from what you are saying above, in your rainbow it don�t exist. So when I next look at a rainbow and I see yellow, I s�pose I�ll have to stare in wonderment at the marvel of Gods creation of a species that didn�t exist before he put it there, and assume that all yellow is good and free from evil.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul10 mins ago
Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |