Did Man come form Apes?

[Sami4u]

Hi,

With the Scopes-Monkey Trial being all over the news now days. What is your thoughts did we come from apes?

Should Darwin be aloud to be taught in schools?

Where do you think we came from?

:flower:

Sami

[brownnataly21]

Some people have really come from apes and even haven't went far away ....

[KentuckySlone]

Darwin never said that we came from apes and no serious evolutionist even believes that. The idea was that man and ape had similar ancestors not that one came from the other.

[Styla]

No, this is not true. Darwin's theory is rejected widely now.

[Big Dan]

I'm not sure either way really. Personally I see a resemblance in the facial structure of apes and humans. Perhaps we didn't directly decend from them but we're related somehow.

Likewise we share something like 98% of our DNA with monkeys. Just a 2% deviation makes us (humans) the kings of jungle. That's pretty neat no matter where you believe we came from.

[CheckDavid]

Well, of course man came from Apes.

Man Are Apes! And Apes according to the Law Of Biogenesis, must come from Apes!

[CheckDavid]

You are more into reptilians now?

[Sami4u]

Hi,

Darwin never said that we came from apes and no serious evolutionist even believes that. The idea was that man and ape had similar ancestors not that one came from the other.

I am going to tell my old teacher you said she had the wrong picture in the book LOL

You are more into reptilians now?

I'm not taking on any projects at this time

:flower:

Sami

[BiologyWebmaster]

I as a Molecular Biologist do agree with evolution and the fact that man did come from APES!

Darwin never said that we came from apes and no serious evolutionist even believes that.

Darwin never said that we came from APES because Darwin's first thoughts and ideas on evolution were based on his personal morphological observations of birds, lizards and marine life. NOT APES these were just naturalist observations being made during his voyages on the HMS Beagle.

Morphology simply being the shape, size and anatomical structure of a living thing.

Darwin was unable at the time to link man and ape, this idea of humans evolving from apes did not come into play until after darwin was already dead.

Also, Darwin's first ideas on evolution, like I said were based on observational biology alone, which simply just means, looking at and observing.

Once again he was not looking at and observing apes, he was looking at and observing birds and lizards.

Darwin did not have genetics, Darwin did not have molecular biology and Darwin did not have epidemiology or population biology as a means of studying mass individuals within one particular species.

Also Darwin did not have the technology to compare genomes of different yet similiar species.

Also all of his observations were of animals in their natural wild habitat, he was unable to capture live specimens and hold and observe them in a lab or on the HMS Beagle, once the ship sailed off bye bye animals, nothing else for Darwin to study or observe.

The idea was that man and ape had similar ancestors not that one came from the other.

This statement holds no validity, if you think about it...we all came from somewhere. Life started out as microbial organisms, single-celled life-forms which evolved and began to interact with their environments and other single-celled life-forms according to Endosymbiotic Theory.

One simple cell, eating another simple cell = forms a new specialized more advanced cell (2 cells working together as 1 organism) This is believed to be the first time molecular evolution occured in Earth's Natural History...

This then began the evolution of single-celled organisms, becoming more advanced and being composed of lots of cells; multi-cellular organisms

So all life came from the same ancestor, no one knows what that ancestor is (hence the term - Missing Link)

As far as sharing a similar ancestor this does mean that we came from apes, apes were here and living before us, some apes decided to leave the jungle and live on the flatlands.

which forced these apes to begin walking upright like we do now, and they also were forced to think more about finding food and survival which forced them to grow larger more powerful thought-processing brains just like ours.

So you are trying to say that you did not come from your Great great great great great great great grandfather, that he is only an ancestor of yours?

If he was never around, then sadly you would not be around today either, think about it!

Thanks,

BiologyWebmaster

[KentuckySlone]

Hi,



I am going to tell my old teacher you said she had the wrong picture in the book LOL





I'm not taking on any projects at this time

:flower:

Sami

Yes! That picture is wrong - Evolution does not say that we came from apes - it says we have common ancestors. That isnt my personal belief that is what the science of evolution actually teaches. Believe it or not the whole Man came from Apes thing was propaganda by the "church" intended to discredit and vilify Darwin and others who talked of evolution/adaptation.

[vasilisa]

Hi)
how about Supreme Being? does nobody believe in it???
i think that the truth is somewhere between these theories, i believe thatwe dont look always like today, we have with apes the same ancestors but the Being itself...its a question.

[BiologyWebmaster]

Science and Religion have always created and stirred controversy, the only difference between the two is that science has always seeked out the truth, through use of the scientific method, which can be repeated over and over again yielding the same results, while religion only lies and claims that what it says is true.

Wars have been started over religion, people killed in the name of "God" and religion... no such wars have been started over science, science only betters life on our planet, while religion attempts to control and manipulate both life and human thoughts and beliefs on this planet, by use of fear and ignorance in instilling people to follow their religion!

Link to Original Wikipedia Article Discussing Darwin and His Book "The Origin of Species" On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, while science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.

The book was written for non-specialist readers and attracted widespread interest upon its publication. As Darwin was an eminent scientist, his findings were taken seriously and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X Club to secularise science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred, but scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate. During the "eclipse of Darwinism" from the 1880s to the 1930s, various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s, Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, now the unifying concept of the life sciences.

I Hope This Enlightens A Few!

:2078: Thanks,

BiologyWebmaster

[andr114]

No, this is not true. Darwin's theory is rejected widely now.

Darwin's theory has many mistakes in it, one of them is that people haven't found those "transitional" beings between a numan being and a monkey. I dpn't believe in this theory but I believe that numan beings have been created by the God.

[CheckDavid]

Darwin's theory has many mistakes in it, one of them is that people haven't found those "transitional" beings between a numan being and a monkey. I dpn't believe in this theory but I believe that numan beings have been created by the God.

The one's you have fantasized in your have not been founded.

Everything else as predicted by the theory of evolution, allied with paleontology has been found.

[vectro]

We either come from apes or an ape-like species. One way or the other, there's more evidence to point back to us having ancestors that actually existed in nature than there is evidence of a supreme being. There could be a God, but even still, observing nature is fascinating enough with or without a supreme being. That's one of the big lessons I learned from reading Carl Sagan.

I also see how everything on Earth and in the Universe is a process and things work in organized systems. Stars form slowly, then solar systems form, then a planet that sustains life can form in that solar system. The planets and stars move in a predictably organized fashion. Civilizations grow and develop over time, not over night. Technology gets better over time with more research and development. You have to go to school and learn from your parents when you're young. My point here is that everything in nature that is actually able to sustain itself and function seems to happen as a slow process in an organized system, so evolution seems like it fits right into the bigger picture.

Darwin never said that we came from apes and no serious evolutionist even believes that. The idea was that man and ape had similar ancestors not that one came from the other.

I'm not proficient in knowledge of evolutionary theory, but I've heard theories along those lines.

I'm not sure either way really. Personally I see a resemblance in the facial structure of apes and humans.

Likewise we share something like 98% of our DNA with monkeys. Just a 2% deviation makes us (humans) the kings of jungle. That's pretty neat no matter where you believe we came from.

Wikiepedia says 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome

This statement holds no validity, if you think about it...we all came from somewhere. Life started out as microbial organisms, single-celled life-forms which evolved and began to interact with their environments and other single-celled life-forms according to Endosymbiotic Theory.

So to clarify, what are you saying? I'm not trained like you are, so help me out here. I've heard that when evolution occurs, the offspring with the mutation becomes a different branch of that species. Then, those new branches can continue to branch off further. I've heard the theory that humans and apes both branched off from the same species and have common ape-like ancestors. It still wouldn't surprised me if we branched directly from apes.



Like Sagan said, schools have an "attitude of discouragement" about teaching some scientific information. I think that if evolutionary theory is taught in schools, it doesn't necessarily have to been taken as an offensive attack on religion. Just because a school teaches something doesn't mean people are forced to believe it.

[Sami4u]

Hi,

Did I misunderstand or did the great man of science say "God set the universe going???"

:flower:

Sami

[vectro]

Did I misunderstand or did the great man of science say "God set the universe going???"

I think when he makes statements like that, he is not necessarily confirming that he believes in God. One point he likes to make is that "if" there is a God, then what scientists observe in nature are observations of what God created. More specifically, I think it's a statement to subtly reject religious dogma and authoritarianism.

[BiologyWebmaster]

So to clarify, what are you saying?

Well what I was trying to say about Endosymbiotic Theory is that all life on earth came from simpler less-advanced organisms. This theory is supported by many facts which all have a molecular basis. Won't get into those, will try to keep this explantion light, lol.

Anyways, the first living things on this planet were microbes, very simple single-celled organisms, such as bacteria.

Endosymbiotic Theory states that more advanced organisms, developed as a hybrid of two separate completely different cells that bonded and learned how to work together.

Here is an example of what I mean:

You have a small bacteria cell, this cell is special in which it contains properties which makes it photosynthetic, able to produce it's own food with sunlight.

You have a second larger cell, which cannot produce it's own food, it can only survive by engulfing and eating other smaller cells to survive.

Here comes the bigger hungry cell starving to get something to eat, comes across the smaller cell. The smaller cell is helpless and is engulfed by the bigger cell.

Normally the bigger cell would begin to destroy and digest any cell that it swallows, but for some reason, the bigger cell simply wraps a protective layer around the smaller cell to protect it from its digestive insides.

Resulting in a significant relationship being formed between the two cells, the larger cell gets to feed off of any food that the smaller cell makes, and the smaller cell is now protected from the harsh environment and able to survive without fear of being eaten.

After some thousands of years the two cells mutated and evolved into a single more advanced cell.

This is believed to be the first time molecular evolution ever occured in Earth's Natural History

(Plant cells today, have an internal organelle called a chloroplast, these chloroplasts are what contain the photosynthesis production for plants, these have a double-walled membrane which separates them from the internal parts of the cell, also chloroplasts now actually have their own DNA, which is separate from the DNA found in the nucleus) This is considered evidence of Endosymbiotic Theory having occured.

(Animal cells have mitochondria which is what produces energy for the cell, these also have a double-walled membrane and contain their own DNA as well)

More complex and advanced multi-cellular organisms, such as apes and humans, would not be around today, if these simpler-cells millions of years ago never became more advanced themselves.

So, just to sum it up simply, every living thing on Earth came from the same cells, which are our genetic descendants

I've heard that when evolution occurs, the offspring with the mutation becomes a different branch of that species. Then, those new branches can continue to branch off further.

Yes, you are correct, branches are considered to show us what new species came from what other species, that offspring that you are talking about, is what is called the Missing Link for that species, the first viable individual of that new species.

Mutation occurs either naturally, by mechanical error in the DNA, or by environmental change and stimuli.

Mutation can occur in already living creatures, does not necessarily have to be only a mutation found in offspring. You can have genetic mutations occuring and that organism would still be considered part of the same species.

When a severe mutation occurs, one which changes behavior, appearance, bone structure, anatomy or physiology that is when an organism should be deemed a new and completely different species. (these kinds of mutations occur over entire populations, and over thousands of years) Every species on Earth has its own genetic markers which identify it as it's own individual species

Keep in mind that to even be considered an actual biological species, that species needs to be able to produce fertile offspring.

Ligers (1/2 lion & 1/2 tiger) for example cannot be considered an actual species because ligers cannot produce fertile ligers with other ligers, all of their offspring will be infertile and unable to procreate or continue the survival of that species.

I Hope This Enlightens a Few;

:2078: Thanks,

BiologyWebmaster

[Sami4u]

Hi,

Great info I learned something New

I never knew that there was such a thing as a Ligers.

Real question Not a joke

So will the The Island of Doctor Moreau happen in time? So could we have half people half animals?

:flower:

Sami

[BiologyWebmaster]

I never knew that there was such a thing as a Ligers.

Yea, Ligers are crazy...attached a pic of one below

Mules are also an example (1/2 Donkey & 1/2 Horse), now there are pictures flowing around the internet about a half-zebra half-donkey, not sure what they call those though.

So will the The Island of Doctor Moreau happen in time? So could we have half people half animals?

Well DNA is universal, meaning that where the DNA comes from does not matter it will be accepted by the body as if it was it's own.

What makes DNA work is the actual sequence of the DNA, such as ATCGGGCTA

This sequence makes up a unique code, which is then read by the body and the body translates that code into proteins.

So technically all one has to do is just insert the animal DNA into a human body and it could be absorbed and added to the body's normal DNA. This is essentially what Genetic Therapy is attempting to do, but not with animal DNA sequences.

Genetic Therapy and Health

Also, if it were to be done, then only the types of cells that the code was inserted into would contain that animal DNA sequence.

Example, only the skin cell which was inserted with foreign DNA would produce other skin cells with that foreign DNA.

So the only way to make sure that every cell in the body contains it, would be to implant the foreign DNA into an already developing ZYGOTE, the stage before it becomes a fetus.

Only two ways to do that, is either through stem cell manipulation in a lab or bestiality, someone having sex with an animal.

Now species of animals are very different, nature has already placed a safeguard into the system making it almost impossible for any species to actually impregnate an animal from another species.

Only already very similar species, may by an off-chance get each other pregnant. Hence ligers, lions and tigers are very similar, and mules horses and donkeys are very similar, but this is considered by laws of nature a freak that should not be in existance. Hence why they almost always come out infertile, so they will eventually die and that species won't continue.

Thanks to Darwin, this is called death by Natural Selection, that hybrid animal is not well suited to survive. So the entire species will never have a chance to fluorish.

With the current technology at our present disposal, I do not think we will have the Island of Dr. Moreau on our hands anytime soon.

But it is technically feasible to have a human be able to produce certain animal proteins, which humans do not normally produce.

Trying to come up with an example could be, human skin cells that produce a certain kind of animal oil which helps keep the animals coat clean, or a human growing animal fur instead of human hair.

I Hope This Didn't Freak Anyone Out;

:2078: Thanks,

BiologyWebmaster

[Sami4u]

Hi,

Now species of animals are very different, nature has already placed a safeguard into the system making it almost impossible for any species to actually impregnate an animal from another species.

This is just wayyyyy to open. So that is why the Montana Farmers are safe LOL

With the current technology at our present disposal, I do not think we will have the Island of Dr. Moreau on our hands anytime soon.

I did not elaborate correctly about my use of the word time I was thinking like in 10,000 years or so maybe longer.

I Hope This Didn't Freak Anyone Out;

I was not Freaked out I think it cool It did make me think of something else though. Is it true or just on TV and in the movies, can you order babies now by sex and hair color?

:flower:

Sami

[BiologyWebmaster]

I did not elaborate correctly about my use of the word time I was thinking like in 10,000 years or so maybe longer

Oh yea, Definately...I can see us already living in space in 10,000 years, that is of course if the sun doesn't blow up first.

There are a number of animal characteristics which would actually benefit humans if we were able to possess their abilities, such as the regeneration of missing limbs like starfish, or the prolonged endurance and high oxygen-rich blood of birds.

If we were able to make half-human half-animal beings, I can only imagine the societal implications this would impose on what is even human. But I can also see the freaks out there who would want a rhino horn on their head, or scaly skin like a lizard, or even changing our skin tone like octupus and cameleons.

If anything, I would certainly do it, only if it still allowed me to look human, unless I got wings or something, that would be cool, but who needs wings in space with no atmosphere?

Is it true or just on TV and in the movies, can you order babies now by sex and hair color?

Yes, this is actually happening now! People can order their baby to be whatever they want it to look like, they are called Designer Babies, not only just looks can be customized, they can be prevented from having any kind of genetic disease or defects as well, they can also have certain proteins modified or even created, they can be a factory for whatever protein is needed, if someone else needs it. This was portrayed in the movie "My Sister's Keeper"

This is possible because of the Human Genome Project, we finally successfully fully mapped-out the entire Human Genome, we now know where every nucleotide and gene lies and where it should be, only thing is that we still do not fully yet understand, what or why these genes do what they do and why they are where they are.

Thanks,

BiologyWebmaster

[ladesignandcodin]

Both man and apes answer to God.
ladesignancoding

[CheckDavid]

Both man and apes answer to God.
ladesignancoding

Do both of them read Holy books as well?

[blast23]

according to science yes...