question about evolution

i have always been taught a "creation" perspective on the origin of the universe and understand that theory quite well. I am very curious to learn about the evolutionary viewpoint. i certainly do not disagree with the principle of natural selection, but the aspect that assumes we are descendents apes brings some confusion. now for my question...

if apes evolved to eventually become humans as we know them today, why did only some of us evolve and some stay as apes? why did all in between perish, leaving only the beginning and end "products" (apes and human) with no in between?

thanks to anyone who can shed light with an educated, intelligent response!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazetwostep

i have always been taught a "creation" perspective on the origin of the universe and understand that theory quite well. I am very curious to learn about the evolutionary viewpoint. i certainly do not disagree with the principle of natural selection, but the aspect that assumes we are descendents apes brings some confusion. now for my question...

if apes evolved to eventually become humans as we know them today, why did only some of us evolve and some stay as apes? why did all in between perish, leaving only the beginning and end "products" (apes and human) with no in between?

thanks to anyone who can shed light with an educated, intelligent response!

---

Aye I've often wondered the same man.

How is it that no other types of beings evolved with a brain capable of such complexity? You'd think species like lizards that have been here much longer than primates would have developed a brain way before us...

~The mysteries of life!

millions of years in different places? apes are evolved, just not as much as us.

there are millions of different species, who says all primates have to be the same?

fish - sharks, why aren't all fish sharks?

I find it asburd a human being can teach creationism through stories alone from uneducated ancestors with the need to believe in a higher power.

Adaptations only occur, under the theory of evolution, when there is something in nature for the animal to adapt to. So, in other words, apes in one part of the world live there, and fill in a new niche in the environment and apes who don't fill in the new niche or live in another geographic area don't adapt.

I suggest reading up on the process of Natural Selection, it will shine light upon many of the questions I assume you have.

Evolution doesn't claim that we descended from apes, but rather that human and ape descended from a common ancestor. There were several mutations in that common ancestor somewhere along the line. It is not just a one time mutation also. When a mutation is suitable for the conditions of the habitat, the gene is passed on to the next generation. But just because one mutation is helpful to a species, does not mean that the parent set of genes is harmful and will die out.

For instance, humans with hanging earlobes came from the same common ancestor as humans with attached earlobes. One could ask, "But why did only some of the humans mutate, but not the others?". Well, at this point in time, ear lobes don't really have much to do with the survival of our genes. However, if for some reason, women become sexually attracted only to men with attached earlobes, then those men will reproduce at a rate faster than those with hanging earlobes, and the attached earlobe genes will prevail.

Wow I'm writing a lot. But the point is, just because certain animals encounter mutations that nature(or the other sex for that matter) deems desireable, doesn't mean that all examples of the species that do not have that gene are going to die out.

I personally believe that we all got to be via the cyclic model of the universe, panspermia, natural selection, and evolution. But that's just me.

Well, evolution is a very slow process. Things evolve to adapt to the environment they live in. Evolution can be looked at kind of like...birth defects. I guess a better word would be a genetic difference. When something is born with that "defect," It carries the gene along with it, and passes it along to whatever it breeds with. Through time and breeding, the trait becomes more and more common, and eventually is just a normal part of that type of animal. Of course, this process takes a very long time. I'll use an colony of people that starts living underwater as an example.

Ok, so just say a colony of people were to start living a lot of their lives underwater, but coming up every minute or so for air. Over generations, the people in the colony will be able to breathe for longer and longer amounts of time. This is their body's way of adapting to the environment.

It is the same way gills were created. Then, when animals developed legs and started coming onto land, they developed lungs, because that's what they need to get nutrients from the air.

I think that the reason not all apes turned into humans is the fact that they are so spread out. I'm not sure why we developed so much intelligence, but it makes sense because animals have been becoming more and more intelligent over time. Anyway, since not all apes were bunched together and not all bred with each other, the ones who were not around the ones who carried this new trait obviously did not get this new trait. You can see this in people too, as the first humans developed in Africa, they were black. Eventually, some of them started to move to colder climates, and the ones that did, developed lighter skin colors, making white people. There are still both whites and blacks living today, as there are apes and humans. Now, I am not exactly sure why the earlier versions of humans no longer exist, but my theory is that, like many species of animals, they became extincted. I think that at one time, the more primitive humans and the ones more like now co-existed.

Thats is about what I know about evolution. I hope I explained it clearly and that it helped. :thumbsup: :rastasmoke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GotWake88

Evolution doesn't claim that we descended from apes, but rather that human and ape descended from a common ancestor. There were several mutations in that common ancestor somewhere along the line. It is not just a one time mutation also. When a mutation is suitable for the conditions of the habitat, the gene is passed on to the next generation. But just because one mutation is helpful to a species, does not mean that the parent set of genes is harmful and will die out.

For instance, humans with hanging earlobes came from the same common ancestor as humans with attached earlobes. One could ask, "But why did only some of the humans mutate, but not the others?". Well, at this point in time, ear lobes don't really have much to do with the survival of our genes. However, if for some reason, women become sexually attracted only to men with attached earlobes, then those men will reproduce at a rate faster than those with hanging earlobes, and the attached earlobe genes will prevail.

Wow I'm writing a lot. But the point is, just because certain animals encounter mutations that nature(or the other sex for that matter) deems desireable, doesn't mean that all examples of the species that do not have that gene are going to die out.

I personally believe that we all got to be via the cyclic model of the universe, panspermia, natural selection, and evolution. But that's just me.

---

Haha, ours is pretty similar. Pretty much all these were posted while I was writing that it took me a while lol.

People seem to think that our DNA has some sort of conciousness, and when the conditions change, so do the genes. But that is not what evolution says. The mutations are completely arbitrary. For example, Giraffes. If for some reason, one giraffe is born with a mutation that gives it a longer neck than the others; then there is a draught which creates a food shortage. Well, the giraffes with longer necks are going to have a better chance of survival, as they will be able to reach higher branches on trees to obtain food. Genes do not mutate because of a change in conditions, but a change in conditions can be the reason some genes are passed on more frequently than others.

yeah, its the result of the common ancestor, as has been said by several people already. I suppose the phrase "man is decended from apes" is misleading, but I think it was actually coined to that effect. Correctly speaking, both man and modern apes evolved from some previous common ancestor within the primate family.
We share the most genetic traits with the chimpanzee I believe.

A lot of the driving force of natural selection has to do with what niche the organism is filling, and whether or not its competitive to keep filling it. There are some "living fossils", mostly fish, that have remained remarkably unchanged for millions of years because there's no pressure on their population to evolve significantly. Same goes for many reptiles come to think of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

We share the most genetic traits with the chimpanzee I believe.

---

I believe about 96 percent. Weird stuff huh.