do u believe that we evolved from monkeys?

do you believe that we evolved from the ancestors of monkeys?

yes	55.8%	[ 241 ]
no	35.4%	[ 153 ]
not sure because you dont know anything at the matter of this topic	8.8%	[ 38 ]
Total Votes:			[ 432 ]

[moonbreaze]

iMiz-kay

do u believe that we evolved from the ancestors of monkeys?

in my opinion i believe that we didn't evolved from the ancestors of monkeys, we should rely on the biblical origin

I'm sorry, enjoy sunday school. The biblical creation did not happen, and it is flawed even in itself. go read gen chap 1 and then gen chap 2. explain to me why there are 2 separate creations, that occurred in diff orders, and why god can poof everything else into existence but had to make adam from dust and eve from adam's rib.

oh, and where cain's wife came from.

yes, we evolved from a common ancester with other primates.

[moonbreaze]

Oh My Master

evolution is just a modernized version of spontaneous generaton the belief that living things, (humans) can come from non-living things (energy or sludge)

its the most primitive and unsupported belief of them all.

congrats,
I now deem you retarded.

[moonbreaze]

Oh My Master

Vryko Lakas

Oh My Master

evolution is just a modernized version of spontaneous generaton the belief that living things, (humans) can come from non-living things (energy or sludge)

its the most primitive and unsupported belief of them all.

Evolution doesn't say how life began.
"Spontaneous generation" doesn't mean the same thing as "abiogenesis," and neither one of those is evolution.
Evolution happens to be an observed and documented fact with solid theory backed by insurmountable evidence.


Could you be any more wrong?

observed how? cell division? thats Dna replication. the only way anyone could observe evolution is if they threw all that sludge into a petri dish and used an inorganic and extremely powerful catalyst to make little lifeforms rise from it.

highly unlikely. rofl

highly unlikely? try already done. take a few basic things, and run lightning through it, and you get RNA, which is Similar to DNA. Get a few more compounds in there, more add lightning again, you get DNA.

[Archie Goodwins kitten]

Golden Dysprosium

Coleman sis

Well there are three sides on this, i stand on two.
side one) cristianity: we were created by god
side two) Evolution: we have a comon ancestor as apes
side three) evolution: we came from apes
i stand on side one and side two becouse if evoultion is real side two is the most likley to be true and if it is not true then i am trusting in cristianity side one.

I'm not a big fan of semantics, but aren't 2 and 3 saying the roughly same thing?

Actually they're not saying the same thing at all. 2) we have a common ancestor as apes - this has been scientifically proven. It means that long ago there was a primate species which spawned various other primate branches, and those branches spawned other branches, and eventually there were humans.

3) we came from apes - This says that humans evolved from apes directly, meaning that chimpanzees are an early form of human and essentially our evolutionary great great great great grandfather. This is incorrect. Essentially apes and humans share a common great great great great grandfather, which means that evolutionarily apes and humans are cousins.

To Coleman: It's nice to see someone who doesn't see Christianity and evolution as diametrically opposed. Although I am an atheist myself, evolution does not rule out the existence of deities, and I think Christianity does not rule out evolution.

[Phooky]

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

[SOADrox429]

Phooky

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

What are you talking about? That some of the monkeys (which is incorrect because we share a common ancestor with apes, and are, in fact, still apes) didn't evolve? It makes perfect sense.
The problem with saying that if we had come from monkeys, they wouldn't be around is that evolution doesn't just magically change an entire species. Evolution works within populations. It's called speciation.
Here's a nice, hypothetical situation that will hopefully allow you to better understand what you're talking about.
You have a population of 100 animals (usually populations are much larger, but 100 will work for this example). 99 of these we will call 'A,' and the other one is 'B,' because it has a genotype that codes for a phenotype that gives it an advantage over A. Let's say that something happens that separates this population into two different populations of 50. Population A (composed entirely of As), and population B (with B and 49 As). B will survive to reproduce more than the As in its population, and it's genetic code will be proliferated more and more, until all of the organisms share the part of its genome that gave it an advantage.
Along with all of the other changes bound to happen in population B, this will cause this population to be composed of what I will call X. The changes bound to happen in population A will lead to this population being composed of what I will call Y. X, as a result of this evolution, is much more different from A than B was, and even more so from Y.
Because of this, humans (which could be 'X'), and other apes (which we actually evolved from, and could be 'Y') both exist.

[Phooky]

SOADrox429

Phooky

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

What are you talking about? That some of the monkeys (which is incorrect because we share a common ancestor with apes, and are, in fact, still apes) didn't evolve? It makes perfect sense.
The problem with saying that if we had come from monkeys, they wouldn't be around is that evolution doesn't just magically change an entire species. Evolution works within populations. It's called speciation.
Here's a nice, hypothetical situation that will hopefully allow you to better understand what you're talking about.
You have a population of 100 animals (usually populations are much larger, but 100 will work for this example). 99 of these we will call 'A,' and the other one is 'B,' because it has a genotype that codes for a phenotype that gives it an advantage over A. Let's say that something happens that separates this population into two different populations of 50. Population A (composed entirely of As), and population B (with B and 49 As). B will survive to reproduce more than the As in its population, and it's genetic code will be proliferated more and more, until all of the organisms share the part of its genome that gave it an advantage.
Along with all of the other changes bound to happen in population B, this will cause this population to be composed of what I will call X. The changes bound to happen in population A will lead to this population being composed of what I will call Y. X, as a result of this evolution, is much more different from A than B was, and even more so from Y.
Because of this, humans (which could be 'X'), and other apes (which we actually evolved from, and could be 'Y') both exist.

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

[Golden Dysprosium]

Phooky

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

To my knowledge, there are. I remember seeing them in a museum. The world went through many changes, so animals going back into the water isn't that crazy.

I like the horse-thing with the drooping nose. xd
Anyways, whales belong to the Cetacea family of creatures.

[Anima De Arcana]

Phooky

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

Whale evolution is the most reserched and complete set of records we have on an example of natural selection. When people are taught natural selection whales are always mentioned at some point, even if it is just homologous skeletons. Also, how would you explain why a gigantic, aquatic mammal has hind legs?
P.S. The skeletons of modern whales' ancestors are quite similar to those of wolves but slightly more reptilian in build.

[Golden Dysprosium]

Anima De Arcana

Quote:

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

Whale evolution is the most reserched and complete set of records we have on an example of natural selection. When people are taught natural selection whales are always mentioned at some point, even if it is just homologous skeletons. Also, how would you explain why a gigantic, aquatic mammal has hind legs?
P.S. The skeletons of modern whales' ancestors are quite similar to those of wolves but slightly more reptilian in build.

Yeah, but they were having some issues a while back. They found some new stuff in Pakistan (hope it hasn't been blown up by the Taliban yet) that put a new perspective on it.

[CherokeeAlex]

Phooky

SOADrox429

Phooky

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

What are you talking about? That some of the monkeys (which is incorrect because we share a common ancestor with apes, and are, in fact, still apes) didn't evolve? It makes perfect sense.
The problem with saying that if we had come from monkeys, they wouldn't be around is that evolution doesn't just magically change an entire species. Evolution works within populations. It's called speciation.
Here's a nice, hypothetical situation that will hopefully allow you to better understand what you're talking about.
You have a population of 100 animals (usually populations are much larger, but 100 will work for this example). 99 of these we will call 'A,' and the other one is 'B,' because it has a genotype that codes for a phenotype that gives it an advantage over A. Let's say that something happens that separates this population into two different populations of 50. Population A (composed entirely of As), and population B (with B and 49 As). B will survive to reproduce more than the As in its population, and it's genetic code will be proliferated more and more, until all of the organisms share the part of its genome that gave it an advantage.
Along with all of the other changes bound to happen in population B, this will cause this population to be composed of what I will call X. The changes bound to happen in population A will lead to this population being composed of what I will call Y. X, as a result of this evolution, is much more different from A than B was, and even more so from Y.
Because of this, humans (which could be 'X'), and other apes (which we actually evolved from, and could be 'Y') both exist.

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

Actually there was a 'missing link' fossil found this past year that is likely a link between modern whales and their land mammal ancestors. Just because we haven't found a skeleton yet doesn't mean they don't exist. That's part of what makes science so exciting-there's always something that hasn't been discovered, and each new discovery helps us to better understand how the world works.

[Anima De Arcana]

CherokeeAlex

Phooky

SOADrox429

Phooky

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

What are you talking about? That some of the monkeys (which is incorrect because we share a common ancestor with apes, and are, in fact, still apes) didn't evolve? It makes perfect sense.
The problem with saying that if we had come from monkeys, they wouldn't be around is that evolution doesn't just magically change an entire species. Evolution works within populations. It's called speciation.
Here's a nice, hypothetical situation that will hopefully allow you to better understand what you're talking about.
You have a population of 100 animals (usually populations are much larger, but 100 will work for this example). 99 of these we will call 'A,' and the other one is 'B,' because it has a genotype that codes for a phenotype that gives it an advantage over A. Let's say that something happens that separates this population into two different populations of 50. Population A (composed entirely of As), and population B (with B and 49 As). B will survive to reproduce more than the As in its population, and it's genetic code will be proliferated more and more, until all of the organisms share the part of its genome that gave it an advantage.
Along with all of the other changes bound to happen in population B, this will cause this population to be composed of what I will call X. The changes bound to happen in population A will lead to this population being composed of what I will call Y. X, as a result of this evolution, is much more different from A than B was, and even more so from Y.
Because of this, humans (which could be 'X'), and other apes (which we actually evolved from, and could be 'Y') both exist.

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

Actually there was a 'missing link' fossil found this past year that is likely a link between modern whales and their land mammal ancestors. Just because we haven't found a skeleton yet doesn't mean they don't exist. That's part of what makes science so exciting-there's always something that hasn't been discovered, and each new discovery helps us to better understand how the world works.

E.G., Quantum Physics. ^^
Well of course, Mr. Schrodinger, a cat can be in two different states of existence at any one time. wink

[moonbreaze]

Phooky

SOADrox429

Phooky

Yeah, makes a lot of sense that some of the monkies didn't make it. rolleyes

What are you talking about? That some of the monkeys (which is incorrect because we share a common ancestor with apes, and are, in fact, still apes) didn't evolve? It makes perfect sense.
The problem with saying that if we had come from monkeys, they wouldn't be around is that evolution doesn't just magically change an entire species. Evolution works within populations. It's called speciation.
Here's a nice, hypothetical situation that will hopefully allow you to better understand what you're talking about.
You have a population of 100 animals (usually populations are much larger, but 100 will work for this example). 99 of these we will call 'A,' and the other one is 'B,' because it has a genotype that codes for a phenotype that gives it an advantage over A. Let's say that something happens that separates this population into two different populations of 50. Population A (composed entirely of As), and population B (with B and 49 As). B will survive to reproduce more than the As in its population, and it's genetic code will be proliferated more and more, until all of the organisms share the part of its genome that gave it an advantage.
Along with all of the other changes bound to happen in population B, this will cause this population to be composed of what I will call X. The changes bound to happen in population A will lead to this population being composed of what I will call Y. X, as a result of this evolution, is much more different from A than B was, and even more so from Y.
Because of this, humans (which could be 'X'), and other apes (which we actually evolved from, and could be 'Y') both exist.

there are, do research before you post in a science and tech forum.

tl;dr
Explain whales.
If they evolved from mammals who lived on land, why are there no skelatons of their previous stages of evolution?

[Neko Girl017]

nope exclaim

[SOADrox429]

camz10angels

nope exclaim

Now, when you say this, are you saying it because what the title is stating is factually incorrect, or because you reject evolution?