humans evolving from monkeys

[splitfangr06]

Would someone explain to me why evolutionists belive that humans evolved from monkeys. In my opinion if we did evolved from monkeys then why is there still monkeys on earth today? Shoulden't they all be evolved?

 

[linwood]

Would someone explain to me why evolutionists belive that humans evolved from monkeys. In my opinion if we did evolved from monkeys then why is there still monkeys on earth today? Shoulden't they all be evolved?

Evolutionists don`t believe we evolved from monkeys.

They believed we evolved from a common ancestor.

Here`s how you should look at it..

I had a Grandfather named Smith(common ancestor) who had children.

Some of these Smith children went on to have their own children with the names of King and Hood .(different fathers)

These King and Hood children went on to have other children named Jones and Simon.

Now at the end of all this we have not only The Jones children but we still have some of the original Smith line as well.

This is how we have apes/monkeys and man all here at the same time.

For the same reason we have Kings/Hoods and Simons at the same time.

This isn`t exactly the same thing but it`s the same concept only the evolution of a species takes a very long time and if measured at all should be more likely measured in generations and not years.

I recommend you check out talkorigins.org it`s a pretty comprehensive site on evolution.

 

[Druidus]

Why are there still monkeys? Because evolution isn't linear. It's radial, like a branching tree, and not linear like a string. Monkeys and apes split a long while back.

 

[cvipertooth]

it..
I had a Grandfather named Smith(common ancestor) who had children.

Some of these Smith children went on to have their own children with the names of King and Hood .(different fathers)

These King and Hood children went on to have other children named Jones and Simon.

Now at the end of all this we have not only The Jones children but we still have some of the original Smith line as well.

This is how we have apes/monkeys and man all here at the same time.

For the same reason we have Kings/Hoods and Simons at the same time.

I believe the question had less to do with monkeys and more to do with species change. Yes there are Kings and Hoods but they are all human, unless you are a very different thing altogether and you would then be extremely rich. I find it hard to belive that something created itself from nothing (and If it did creat itself from something then I would like to know what it is and where it came from) evolved into a cell, evolved into another cell, so and and so forth, adn eventually it ends up a fish, eventually end up on land, changes species somewhere in there, and eventually makes a mammal. This just doent provide much logic for me.

 

[linwood]

I believe the question had less to do with monkeys and more to do with species change.

No it didn`t and I explained it

I find it hard to belive that something created itself from nothing (and If it did creat itself from something then I would like to know what it is and where it came from) evolved into a cell, evolved into another cell, so and and so forth, adn eventually it ends up a fish, eventually end up on land, changes species somewhere in there, and eventually makes a mammal. This just doent provide much logic for me.

It wasn`t the question asked but the only answer to the origin of life on this planet is "I don`t know".

I can give you several hypothesis and the evidence that supports each but currently know one knows how life on this planet came to be.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Okay, okay, okay. Cvipertooth, if you'd like to debate abiogenesis, there are separate threads for that. In answering splitfangr06's question, however, we only need to deal with evolution.

That said, to me this question is presented under the pretense that evolution does occur, you simply aren't understanding how it does. Linwood's analogy was on the mark, except a tad bit incomplete, for as you stated, cvipertooth, all animals involved remained human.

The point that linwood was making, is that evolution is not a linear process with a means to an end--evolution does not mean movement towards higher complexity, and evolution most certainly does not mean the complete transformation of an ENTIRE species. Take the okapi and the giraffe, for example. These two animals are related, and do slightly resemble each other, except that the okapi lives in the rainforest and maxes out at 5', whereas the giraffe lives on the serengetti (sp?) and can grow up to 14' tall or more. The okapi is basically identical to it's great (x a lot) grandparents, from whom the giraffe is directly descended as well. This is a prime example of how one species can split off into two. The giraffe has obviouly evolved it's height and long neck to survive in its respective environment, whereas the okapi has seen little need for change.

This same rule applies to monkeys and humans. Monkeys do look like humans, however we are also very different from each other. Whatever our common ancestor was, obviously a group from that species perhaps migrated to a new place, which over time required them to evolve, whereas the rest stayed where they were and therefore HOW they were. This is what happened with the okapi and the giraffe. Is that clearer?

 

[Druidus]

(and If it did creat itself from something then I would like to know what it is and where it came from)

They "created" themselves from proteins. You see, the chemical nature of some proteins causes them to replicate themselves from the materials around them. Of course, these were not life, just self-promoting proteins. However, they could build into more complex things, such as RNA, DNA, or even an extinct, archaic form of genetic sequencing.

This just doent provide much logic for me.

And "God" just creating the world out of nothing provides you enough logic? "God" creating humans out of dust provides you with enough logic? "God" existing at all provides you with enough logic?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in a "Source", as well as Gods, but not in your God. I also believe the Source started the universe, and let it evolve naturally.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I find it hard to belive that something created itself from nothing (and If it did creat itself from something then I would like to know what it is and where it came from)

So you're an atheist?

 

[cvipertooth]

So you're an atheist?

ok.this has been adressed on many other threads, like the infamous rock thread. I stated that it created ITSELF from NOTHING. Got is not considered 'nothing'. I believe that a God made the universe, not God created himself. The problem with the 'logic' of many people is that they think on a worldy level. The do not attempt to pursue knowledge in the supernatural and rather fit the infinite into what they can currently understand. If you create a circle that represents all the knowledge in the universe, and then draw a circle in the middle of this representing what you know out of this knowledge, dont you think there might be room for God to exist? You can't confine the universe into your current interpretation of it.

They "created" themselves from proteins. You see, the chemical nature of some proteins causes them to replicate themselves from the materials around them. Of course, these were not life, just self-promoting proteins. However, they could build into more complex things, such as RNA, DNA, or even an extinct, archaic form of genetic sequencing.

Now where did these proteins come from? Matter had to start somewhere. It had to be created by an outside force, becuse the laws of the universe would not allow it to be create within the universe. These proteins had to start somehwere unless you believe in an infintely old universe, which that is not a widely accepted theory by scientist today.

And "God" just creating the world out of nothing provides you enough logic? "God" creating humans out of dust provides you with enough logic? "God" existing at all provides you with enough logic?

You cannot disagree with me on the fact that it is easier to believe in a supernatural force and the perfection of God that the products of imperfection made by humans.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

ok.this has been adressed on many other threads, like the infamous rock thread. I stated that it created ITSELF from NOTHING. Got is not considered 'nothing'.

Neither is matter.

If you create a circle that represents all the knowledge in the universe, and then draw a circle in the middle of this representing what you know out of this knowledge, dont you think there might be room for God to exist?

By this logic, not only might there be room for God to exist, but all kinds of mythical creatures. Still, this does not warrant belief in them.

You can't confine the universe into your current interpretation of it.

Your current interpretation is that the universe has to have a single supernatural sentient being to create it in order for it to exist. That's awfully confining.

 

[linwood]

Now where did these proteins come from?

Amino acids, which are "created" regularly in laboratories

You cannot disagree with me on the fact that it is easier to believe in a supernatural force and the perfection of God that the products of imperfection made by humans.
Reply With Quote

I can and do.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I believe that a God made the universe, not God created himself.

So the universe didn't come from 'nothing', but god did? Hhhmmmm...

The problem with the 'logic' of many people is that they think on a worldy level.

And you think on a supernatural level, which is fine. The difference, however, is that we have tangible evidence of the 'world', whereas the supernatural realm is based on assumptions and feelings. Come to think of it, Ceridwen's Magical Castle of Wonders is founded on logic derived from those two things as well. That and a little alcohol perhaps.

dont you think there might be room for God to exist?

Anything which provides evidence for it's existence can find a place in the circle of knowledge. We don't discriminate.

Matter had to start somewhere. It had to be created by an outside force, becuse the laws of the universe would not allow it to be create within the universe.

Are you sure about that?

You cannot disagree with me on the fact that it is easier to believe in a supernatural force and the perfection of God that the products of imperfection made by humans.

You're right--I can't. I COMPLETELY agree that it is easier to believe in supernatural forces, than that the universe was created through natural scientific processes. I mean, those scientists just start talking and it goes RIGHT over my head! Something which involves so many big words and which is so complicated couldn't POSSIBLY be true. It would be much easier to stick with the superatural side of the story: "god created everything; don't worry how he did it because he's got it all under control....oh yeah, and he told me to tell you that he blesses you, and that you can go home and watch football now."

 

[Druidus]

You can't confine the universe into your current interpretation of it.

Neither can you.

It had to be created by an outside force, becuse the laws of the universe would not allow it to be create within the universe.

That's not true.

These proteins had to start somehwere unless you believe in an infintely old universe, which that is not a widely accepted theory by scientist today.

First of all, back in Galileo's time, did people except readily that the planets revolved around the sun? No. It wasn't widely accepted at all. People prefered the church's explanation, even though it was wrong (coincidentally, I was taught during catechism that the "Holy Spirit" would not allow any priest to tell a falsehood during mass. But wait... They did!).

Now. If one accepts that time and space are inseperable, one can realize that time existed only after the universe came into existance. Apparently, we only have an idea of time because of our inability to percieve the entirety of time and space at once. There was no time before time, and therefore, the universe was not here forever before, and yet, it also was.

Of course, I do believe that time, and the universe, were started by the Source.

 

[linwood]

Matter had to start somewhere. It had to be created by an outside force, becuse the laws of the universe would not allow it to be create within the universe.

Would you mind telling me exactly what law you`re talking about here?

 

[anders]

Matter had to start somewhere. It had to be created by an outside force, becuse the laws of the universe would not allow it to be create within the universe.

Some very serious and knowledgeable philosophers and physicists make it the other way around:

The Weak Anthropic Principle: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on their values restricted by the requirement that there exists sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to already have done so.

Don't ask me to explain it, though.

 

[kbc_1963]

Amino acids, which are "created" regularly in laboratories

by intelligent design.

there is no provable time in earths history that any conditions existed that would allow for natural creation to ever become what exists now.

 

[kbc_1963]

here is a neat question? why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply to everything in existence except atoms, why don't they fall apart once they reach their lowest possible state? what keeps everything moving without stopping at the atomic level.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Something tells me that this neat question is really a strategem to increase your deity's elbow room.

Only kidding. The Strong Nuclear Force between particles keeps them in place with neutrons acting as a kind of "glue" to keep protons in the nucleus. Electromagnetic forces keep the electrons in their orbits. Check out: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html

 

[painted wolf]

ok, to answer the origional question as to why we still have monkeys...

Monkeys and other simains (that includes us apes) are all highly adapted to our various environments. For example humans can not replace monkies as we do not have the adaptations that they have for thier environment. We can not swing through the trees and eat the same foods that they do. (infact many monkeys eat things that would be poisonous to us as well as the fact that we simply can not digest the leaves of most trees) Thus monkeys never receved direct compitition from us humans and never needed to be 'replaced' by us.

The idea that a new species has to replace an old one is a falce view of how evolution works. "Primitive" lifeforms are often just as capable and adapted to thier environments as "Advanced" life forms are to thiers. "Advanced" life forms just tackle life in different ways with different adaptations.

also as to the second law of thermo... for an atom to stop moving it would have to be cooled to zero degrees Kelvin a temperature that is mostly hypotetical although we have gotten close (within millionths of a degree) but still not there.
What happins to an atom that stops moving? We don't realy know yet as we havent done it.
Hyperphysics site on the Second Law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html


wa:do

 

[Druidus]

by intelligent design.

Ahhh, but here is where you are wrong. By just putting the amino acids (common ones, found in many places, especially thermal vents) togethor and simulating thermal vents, they have seen amino acids turn into self-promoting proteins. Not by intelligent design, but by nature, albeit in a simulated environment.