If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

[Ouroboros]

I just realized. I know why there are monkeys still around... because they stuck around for the bananas!

 

[Smart_Guy]

Maybe because we didn't?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here we go again...

Yeah I heard that before. If you don't accept every single scientific theory, that must mean you hate science or deny it. That childish argument gets so old.

Sapiens didn't say that. But, more pertinently, you are denying something before you understand it at a basic level. You are asking questions that demonstrate you have a severe lack of knowledge of this subject. It's extremely difficult to answer questions about something when the person asking them doesn't understand the basics. As I've said before, it's like someone asking "Why does A^2 + B^2 = C^2?" before they have an understanding of basic arithmetic. How are we supposed to answer those questions in a way that you will understand? Nevertheless, I will endeavour to try.

I guess people don't know what a THEORY is or the difference between evidence and proof. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you want to think so.

People are very aware of the differences, particularly as they relate to science. Are you aware that the word "theory" means very different thing in science than it does in common parlance?

So are apes millions upon millions of years old? Doesn't it TAKE millions of years to evolve.

Evolution is change in allele over time in populations, so evolution takes as long as it takes for allele frequencies within a population to change. What you are saying here is kind of like "it takes an hour to walk somewhere". How long it takes depends entirely on the starting point and destination, as well as other factors. It doesn't make sense to say "evolution takes millions of years". It takes millions of years for evolution to produce large amounts of change in populations of organisms that reproduce relatively slowly (such as apes), but it's not as if the rest of the changes that occurred in less than that amount of time doesn't "count" as evolution. Any widespread change in the general genetic makeup of a population of organisms is evolution.

Reptiles have been around far longer and not one of them have evolved into beings like us.

Why would they? We are not evolution's end goal. We are the descendants of a populations (or populations) of apes who evolved intelligence. We fill a particular environmental niche. Why would you expect all evolution to point in the same direction?

Those apes in an isolated area mutated? You do know most mutations are not beneficial right? I'm not a scientist and even I know this.

The vast majority of mutations are neutral and confer no increased chance to survive or reproduce. Only very few are detrimental or beneficial, but that doesn't matter. It only takes a slight improvement in a small number of a population for those improvements to quickly pass on and spread through subsequent generations, aided by natural selection.

But what is causing the change.

You've already said it yourself: mutation. Every generation carries mutations in its genetic code that are sometimes beneficial, and these mutations are selected for by the process of natural selection. The rule of natural selection is really very simple. It works like this: if an organism has a mutation that makes it more likely to survive and reproduce, then it is more likely to survive and reproduce. If an organism has a mutation which slightly camouflages it from predators, for example, it is more likely to survive and have children than others that don't have that mutation. As a result, its children (who will now also carry that mutation) will be more likely to survive than other children, and they themselves will be more likely to produce more. Eventually, over enough generations, a single mutation will essentially grown until the mutation is carried by practically all the members of that population.

And I seriously doubt those apes were the only life forms that evolved. Are you telling me there weren't any bugs in that area?

What are you talking about? All living populations evolve. Nobody has said that only apes evolved. Where on earth did you get that idea?

Why didn't they evolve too?

They did.

Was there some cosmic radiation that evolved us? Explain.

See, it's questions like these that really demonstrate that what you lack isn't answers to your questions - it's a basic grasp of what evolution actually says.

Let me ask you this:
In your own words, what is evolution? What do you think evolution says about how humans came about?

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah but evolution is just a theory

It's just a theory that evolution is just a theory.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know why people got this idea that science is the final word on everything and it's always right, even though it has been wrong numerous times, and better theories replaced the obsolete ones, by people who didn't hate or deny science, they just thought those theories didn't make sense and offered their own explanation and backed it up with more convincing evidence.

The theory of evolution is highly unlikely to be replaced by another theory. Sure, they'll be tweaking of it from now to a hundred years from now, but the core of it is too well established to be a likely candidate for replacement.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Maybe because we didn't?

We did, technically.

 

[atanu]

What are you talking about? All living populations evolve. Nobody has said that only apes evolved. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I think that you did not get the meaning of his question.

I think, his question relates to 'diversity'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think that you did not get the meaning of his question.

I think, his question relates to 'diversity'.

I'm really not sure what he's asking. He specifically says that he doubts that apes are "the only life forms that evolved" and asks about why insects didn't. It just makes no sense.

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah I heard that before.

You heard what before?

If you don't accept every single scientific theory, that must mean you hate science or deny it.

Hate? Don't know. Deny? Absolutely.

That childish argument gets so old.

Then don't try to make it.

I guess people don't know what a THEORY is or the difference between evidence and proof. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you want to think so.

Please hold forth on the difference and on what evidence and proof are ... you appear to be confused.

So are apes millions upon millions of years old?

Yes, the first ape goes bac many millions of years.

Doesn't it TAKE millions of years to evolve.

No, we are all evolving constantly. It too millions of years to move from the common ancestor of apes to today.

Reptiles have been around far longer and not one of them have evolved into beings like us.

Why would you expect them to do so?

Those apes in an isolated area mutated? You do know most mutations are not beneficial right? I'm not a scientist and even I know this.

... and your point is?

But what is causing the change. And I seriously doubt those apes were the only life forms that evolved. Are you telling me there weren't any bugs in that area? Why didn't they evolve too? Was there some cosmic radiation that evolved us? Explain.

Everything evolved (and evolves) constantly. What is your point?

Cheese comes from milk. How is an ape related to a reptile or a fish? They are entirely different. Way back then the oldest creatures were fish and bugs. And reptiles and money's evolve from that? If there was nothing but fish or bugs back then, we would all be a different version of the same thing, not completely change into something entirely different.

Yes, all terrestrial tetrapods evolved from fish. If you look closely you can see that the differences,while existing, point to the commonality of ancestry that genetics proves.

As far as the bugs are concerned, they all did (and do) evolve, some changed more than others, it all depends on the amount (and details) of the unoccupied niche space.

Gee why am I not surprised. I ask questions and all you do is say "lolz" you don't know anything." You not only not answer any of my questions or back up your claims, but you point me out to books that say pretty much the same thing and also not answer any of my questions.

I don't know why people got this idea that science is the final word on everything and it's always right, even though it has been wrong numerous times, and better theories replaced the obsolete ones, by people who didn't hate or deny science, they just thought those theories didn't make sense and offered their own explanation and backed it up with more convincing evidence.

I answered your questions, but you appear to lack the background to understand my answer. Skwim suggested an excellent and less advanced explanation. You should thank him and get a copy of the book. Then, if you still have questions, come back here and ask away.

 

[Smart_Guy]

We did, technically.

You did? Lucky you

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I think people get natural selection and evolution mixed up sometimes. No matter how many years you give to a fish, even millions of years, it's not going to grow legs, breathe air on land, turn into monkeys and then evolve into humans. There was nothing but fish and undersea creatures back then. Really, we should all be variations of the same thing. Creatures are not going to turn into something completely different. Mutations occur but most of the time, they harm the creature, not help it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think people get natural selection and evolution mixed up sometimes.

Sometimes, probably. But that is hardly the problem you seem to be assuming.

No matter how many years you give to a fish, even millions of years, it's not going to grow legs, breathe air on land, turn into monkeys and then evolve into humans.

Not the fish itself. But its descendants may, and in fact did.

There was nothing but fish and undersea creatures back then.

A bit of an oversimplification, but let's go on.

Really, we should all be variations of the same thing.

You mean we are not? How so?

Creatures are not going to turn into something completely different.[ Mutations occur but most of the time, they harm the creature, not help it.

I am sorry, Tophat, but you are only showing how little you understand (or accept?) of the basics of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

When I say variations I mean variations or versions of the same thing. Meaning we should all be fish by now. Different kinds of fish, some with extra limbs, some with different colors some that are more intelligent but how can a fish turn into a land creature that breathes without gills and is completely different? If all of us were single celled animals, it would make more sense to say there were single celled animals that would turn into fish, while others would turn into bugs, of monkeys. What sense does it make for a bug to turn into a reptile or a fish to turn into a monkey? Fish will still be fish. Some will be variations but they are still fish. That's the point I was making.

Oh I understand the theory, I just think it has holes in it. Like a lot of other theories. That's how one improves in science to begin with. By recognizing the holes and correcting it. I guess unless you have a time machine and go back millions of years, people really don't have THAT much evidence supporting evolution. Looking at fossils doesn't tell you everything after all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think people get natural selection and evolution mixed up sometimes. No matter how many years you give to a fish, even millions of years, it's not going to grow legs, breathe air on land, turn into monkeys and then evolve into humans. There was nothing but fish and undersea creatures back then. Really, we should all be variations of the same thing. Creatures are not going to turn into something completely different. Mutations occur but most of the time, they harm the creature, not help it.

There are fish with 'legs' that breathe air on land right now. Anything in the Gobi family requires both water and air, will eventually drown if it can't reach surfaces, and has a sophisticated gill sack like a pseudo-lung, and has mobile, land crossing appendages which work better as legs than fins. Transitional species between amphibians and fish were much the same.
A fish isn't going to turn into a monkey but nobody said they did. But fish did produce descendants which eventually became amphibians. Amphibians eventually produced reptiles. Reptiles eventually produced birds and mammals. Mammals eventually produced primates. Primates eventually produced great apes which eventually produced hominids which eventually produced Homo sapiens.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You did? Lucky you

What I mean is humans have monkey ancestors.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

When I say variations I mean variations or versions of the same thing. Meaning we should all be fish by now. Different kinds of fish, some with extra limbs, some with different colors some that are more intelligent but how can a fish turn into a land creature that breathes without gills and is completely different?

Fish and tetrapods are both variations of vertebrate chordates. They're not completely different. There are more fundamental similarities than differences.

 

[LuisDantas]

When I say variations I mean variations or versions of the same thing. Meaning we should all be fish by now.

We did inherit a whole lot from ancien fish, as a matter of fact. We are very much variations of the same thing. In a technical sense, both we and the modern fish are all variations of Chordata and Craniata, at the very least.

But not in the sense of somehow never speciating into new species.

That, quite simply, is something that happens for certain. The Theory of Evolution is fact, not opinion or speculation.

Different kinds of fish, some with extra limbs, some with different colors some that are more intelligent but how can a fish turn into a land creature that breathes without gills and is completely different?

By speciating gradually, or perhaps with an accidental major change along the way.

If all of us were single celled animals, it would make more sense to say there were single celled animals that would turn into fish, while others would turn into bugs, of monkeys. What sense does it make for a bug to turn into a reptile or a fish to turn into a monkey? Fish will still be fish. Some will be variations but they are still fish. That's the point I was making.

That you do not believe that what happened actually happened? That you do not believe speciation to occur in reality despite it being plenty observed and documented?

Oh I understand the theory, I just think it has holes in it. Like a lot of other theories. That's how one improves in science to begin with. By recognizing the holes and correcting it. I guess unless you have a time machine and go back millions of years, people really don't have THAT much evidence supporting evolution. Looking at fossils doesn't tell you everything after all.

Except that you are quite wrong, sorry. Are you unaware that the fossils are not even particularly important parts of the current evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think people get natural selection and evolution mixed up sometimes.

In what way, exactly? What do you think evolution and natural selection are?

No matter how many years you give to a fish, even millions of years, it's not going to grow legs, breathe air on land, turn into monkeys and then evolve into humans.

That is correct. That is also absolutely not what evolution says would happen.

There was nothing but fish and undersea creatures back then.

Back when, exactly?

Really, we should all be variations of the same thing.

We are. We are all eukaryotes.

Creatures are not going to turn into something completely different.

Define "completely different".

Mutations occur but most of the time, they harm the creature, not help it.

Absolutely false. Most of the time, mutations are neutral.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When I say variations I mean variations or versions of the same thing. Meaning we should all be fish by now.

We are - technically. We are not classified as fish, but we are essentially variations of early vertebrates.

Different kinds of fish, some with extra limbs, some with different colors some that are more intelligent but how can a fish turn into a land creature that breathes without gills and is completely different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#Deuterostomes_and_the_first_vertebrates

If all of us were single celled animals, it would make more sense to say there were single celled animals that would turn into fish, while others would turn into bugs, of monkeys.

What?

What sense does it make for a bug to turn into a reptile or a fish to turn into a monkey? Fish will still be fish. Some will be variations but they are still fish. That's the point I was making.

Only because you don't understand how classifications work. Everything belongs in the phylogenetic classification of what came before it, but fish isn't a simple phylogenetic class.

Oh I understand the theory,

You have shown very little evidence of this.

I just think it has holes in it. Like a lot of other theories. That's how one improves in science to begin with. By recognizing the holes and correcting it. I guess unless you have a time machine and go back millions of years, people really don't have THAT much evidence supporting evolution. Looking at fossils doesn't tell you everything after all.

It tells you what species once existed, and looking at the genetic makeup of life on earth tells you in what ways those species are related.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What sense does it make for a bug to turn into a reptile or a fish to turn into a monkey?

Bugs (arthropods) did not evolve into reptiles. No one has ever made that claim.

Oh I understand the theory.

No you don't. Not at all.

Basically, you're debating against what you think it claims rather than what it really claims. You're also not defining some of the terms you're using. What constitute as a "kind"? What qualifies an animal as being "completely different" from another animal? I don't want an example. I want definitions.