How did apes evolvle into humans?

Nathan Poe said:

And among the various fossilized animals we've discovered, some of them look way too much like us to be a coincidence.

So we know that humans have evolved.

Click to expand...

Wow! I had no idea modern science was so precise

Carico said:

So then why don't scientists let cancer cells mutate into healthy ones?

Click to expand...

Because, unlike yourself, doctors have a clue about how cancer works and how to best treat it.

Forgive me for being snappy, but having several close friends and family members killed or being killed by cancer it irks me to see someone without a clue of how the body works like yourself make such stupid statements about cancer.

Carico, think of a copy machine.

Get a picture and copy it with a copy machine.
Get copy_1 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_2 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_3 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_4 and copy it with the copy machine.
...
Get copy_100 and copy it with the copy machine.


Now, if you compare the original picture with copy_100 you will notice a big difference (the copy will be much darker than the original)...

But if you compare the original and copy_1, the difference is so minimal that it wouldn't matter. Also if you compare copy_99 and copy_100, their difference is so minimal as well that it doesn't matter. This is what they mean by populations evolve, not individuals.

Although evolution is more complex than the copy machine example, I just brough up this idea to let you grasp how populations evolve. The ancestral primates from which we evolved from are a much earlier copy than us(humans) and other apes (remember the picture of the tree branching posted earlier). But us(humans) and apes are still related to that original copy.

Well, I tried. But I'm done with this thread now

Osiris said:

Carico, think of a copy machine.

Get a picture and copy it with a copy machine.
Get copy_1 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_2 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_3 and copy it with the copy machine.
Get copy_4 and copy it with the copy machine.
...
Get copy_100 and copy it with the copy machine.


Now, if you compare the original picture with copy_100 you will notice a big difference (the copy will be much darker than the original)...

But if you compare the original and copy_1, the difference is so minimal that it wouldn't matter. Also if you compare copy_99 and copy_100, their difference is so minimal as well that it doesn't matter. This is what they mean by populations evolve, not individuals.

Although evolution is more complex than the copy machine example, I just brough up this idea to let you grasp how populations evolve. The ancestral primates from which we evolved from are a much earlier copy than us(humans) and other apes (remember the picture of the tree branching posted earlier). But us(humans) and apes are still related to that original copy.

Click to expand...

Your example might have some legs if copy 100 was a lot clearear changed its font and added a bit of colour

A4C said:

Your example might have some legs if copy 100 was a lot clearear changed its font and added a bit of colour

Click to expand...

You realize that a black-and-white copier does not have a mechanism for this to occur (neither does a color copier)? Are you truly that dense?

L'Anatra said:

You realize that a black-and-white copier does not have a mechanism for this to occur (neither does a color copier)? Are you truly that dense?

Click to expand...

Ah so it wasn't a colour copier OK (I must have been thinking of a different species)
Well clearer and a font change only maybe

A4C said:

Ah so it wasn't a colour copier OK (I must have been thinking of a different species)
Well clearer and a font change only maybe

Click to expand...

LOL.

Come on, man... you really should try and read some of the posts in here explaining evolution and all that to you. At the very least you wouldn't have people getting frustrated repeating themselves over and over again. It's not particularly nice baiting people like that.

L'Anatra said:

Are you truly that dense?

Click to expand...

L'Anatra said:

LOL.

Come on, man... you really should try and read some of the posts in here explaining evolution and all that to you. At the very least you wouldn't have people getting frustrated repeating themselves over and over again. It's not particularly nice baiting people like that.

Click to expand...

Yer I read them.
By the way Have you read any on creation lately?
Perhaps you could find one and give some constructive comment to it

A4C said:

Yer I read them.
By the way Have you read any on creation lately?
Perhaps you could find one and give some constructive comment to it

Click to expand...

Good point.

I have read a bit on creationism lately. Creation, on the other hand, is something I already take as a given... you can see the Christian icon below my username, I assume?

L'Anatra said:

Are you truly that dense?

Click to expand...

This was a rhetorical question, not a bait. I realize that you'd understand what I meant, A4C, otherwise I wouldn't have responded.

Carico said:

I'm simply trying to find out how apes evolved into human beings. Animals are produced by the fertilized egg of their parents. So how did apes produce human beings? "over time" explains nothing. It does not explain how 2 apes can produce a "homonid". So how did humans evolve from apes? Again, apes are breeding apes today and humans are breeding humans. So how did the fertilized egg of 2 apes produce a species so different from an ape that it was given a new name? Where did the "homonid" come from? Is there anyone here who has an answer to that question?

Click to expand...

Although I’m sure that, with over 5000 posts under your belt you have been told this before, I will sincerely try to answer you question anyway.

I think the thing preventing you from understanding the process is the understanding that this took time and transitional forms to get from “ape” to “humans”. As genetic mutations occurred in separated populations of apes, they started to diverge. Once there was an initial speciation then all it took was time and more speciation to get to human form.


At the time Charles Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species (1859), we had no fossils of Human ancestors. Through tremendous effort in searching for fossils the next chart can show about 13-14 "links" between modern Humans and our Gorilla cousins, going back about 5 of the 10 million years to our split in lineage. For each of the species in this chart there are from 5 to 500 fossil or sub-fossil specimens. We have the most specimens for Neanderthals. As new fossil sites are discovered it may be expected that our confidence in this chart will grow (or it will be modified) and that even more intermediate links will appear on it.

Indeed, since I wrote that paragraph for my Introduction to Evolution page, a range of new fossils have been found, including: Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, 5.2-5.8 mybp in Ethiopia, Kenyanthropus platyops, 3.5 mybp in Kenya, Orrorin tugenensis, 6 mybp, also in Kenya, and Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 6.5 mybp in Chad. The graphic timeline shown here is modified from one used by the BBC in several recent articles. My larger graphic just below, based upon 1995 data, will have to be modified to include the new fossils after the debate within paleoanthropology reaches some degree of consensus as to the validity of the taxa and their importance.







In the graphic above only fossil genera are shown with a timeline. In the one below, closely following one produced in the journal Nature, all of the commonly discussed species are shown but without attempting to illustrate hypothesized lines of descent. Notice that the species designated as Australopithecus habilis (below) is called Homo habilis in the cladogram that follows it, and three species of Paranthropus are referred to Australopithecus in the following cladogram. These are taxonomic decisions made by different authors.







Note that as many as 4 or 5 species of early hominids were living at the same time. Observe also that, in at least a half-dozen instances, a parental species continued to exist for a lengthy period of time after a daughter species evolved. The arrangement shown here is not accepted by all paleoanthropologists. For instance, there are some who would merge H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, considering them as one species. Also, there are those who maintain the H. neanderthalensis is a subspecies of H. sapiens while many others disagree.







The transitional series does not only include skulls, of course. While skulls provide evidence for gradual evolution of many features such as brain size, other bones involving the pelvis, knees and feet show us the transition to bipedality (upright stance) and increase in stature. Below the next picture and its links you will find the sections for all hominid species







A. Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B. Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C. Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D. Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E. H. habilis, OH24 , 1.8 My
F. H. ergaster (H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My

G. H. heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300-125ky
H. Homo neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70ky
I. H. neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Sts, 60ky
J. H. neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45ky
K. Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30ky
L. Homo sapiens, modern





SOURCE: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm

A4C said:

Are you such a blithering idiot that you think I don't know what a rhetorical question is when I see one?

Click to expand...

No, I just thought you may have been referring to that post when you underlined part of what I'd said about "baiting someone" in a prior post. What I meant was that I was not trying to bait you if you thought I was.

Carico said:

But what you don't understand is that populations cannot evolve without individuals being born. It is a virtual impossibility because people are born individually. So until you can understand how humans and animals are reproduced, you cannot understand how populations evolve! I suggest you take a beginning course on how people get born.

Click to expand...

You're totally right! People ARE born individually!

* Every individual born is a little bit different from the parents.

* When two different individuals mate, the offspring is a little bit different from the parents.

* The differences collect until the result 5000 generations down the line is noticably different from the first generation's results.

A4C said:

Your example might have some legs if copy 100 was a lot clearear changed its font and added a bit of colour

Click to expand...

You do realize that I stated : "Although evolution is more complex than the copy machine example"

The copy machine system is the limitation which the 'paper copies' are limited to -- while the earth and nature are the limitation which living organism are limited to.

A4C, your view of evolution is that people grow wings on their foreheads for no apparent reason, this view is wrong by the way, you are misinformed on the subject.

The copies in the copy machine will only vary with respect with whats being copied. Same with organisms, that is why we evolved from an ancestral primate rather than birds! Because we only vary with respect to that ancestral primate rather than birds.

L'Anatra said:

No, I just thought you may have been referring to that post when you underlined part of what I'd said about "baiting someone" in a prior post. What I meant was that I was not trying to bait you if you thought I was.

Click to expand...

Oh well I must have been mistaken then

Osiris said:

You do realize that I stated : "Although evolution is more complex than the copy machine example"

The copy machine system is the limitation which the 'paper copies' are limited to -- while the earth and nature are the limitation which living organism are limited to.

A4C, your view of evolution is that people grow wings on their foreheads for no apparent reason, this view is wrong by the way, you are misinformed on the subject.

The copies in the copy machine will only vary with respect with whats being copied. Same with organisms, that is why we evolved from an ancestral primate rather than birds! Because we only vary with respect to that ancestral primate rather than birds.

Click to expand...

Is it possible to see samples of copy 56, 57, and 58 anywhere?
Have any transitional photo copies turned up?

Carico said:

"Natural selection"?" That is again a term made up by evolutionists to try to explain things they don't understand.

Click to expand...

Ok, how about this: maybe the process of traits detrimental to reproduction dying out (because they weren't reproduced, or reproduced as much as without that trait) and traits beneficial to reproduction persisting (because they were reproduced, or reproduced en masse) doesn't cause cells which reproduce uncontrollably to die out.

But while we're at it, why don't you explain in your own words how evolution and natural selection work?

Carico said:

It's simply common sense that cell characteristics don't spontaneously and miraculously appear.

Click to expand...

So, cancer cells don't exist, or are you defining "spontaneously and miraculously" weirdly?

Carico said:

They had to come from somewhere.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

Carico said:

There's a reason that a dog & a human being, for example, cannot mate and produce offspring.

Click to expand...

And yet, are you aware that a lion and a tiger can mate an produce a liger or a tigon? Or that a horse and a donkey can produce a mule or a hinyy? How would you explain that? From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd say that the common ancestor of lions and tigers had two primary gene pools which got seperated and over time formed modern lions and tigers that haven't yet evolved far enough apart to be genetically incompatible, just like the common ancestor of horses and mules. Not that it's central to evolution that this be the case, but it's one of many things well explained by evolutionary theory. Again though, how might you explain it?

Carico said:

We were not created that way.

Click to expand...

So why were lions and tigers created that way?

Carico said:

A sperm seeks out an egg from its own species and has a natural barrier against an egg of a different species.

Click to expand...

So would you place lions and tigers in the same species? Mules and horses?

Carico said:

And that is nothing than man created. The cell is the basis of life form and it has billions of characteristics that have a life of their own.A bacterial cell, for example, was programmed to survive. Therefore, it will eventually develop antibodies against whatever medication is invented to kill it which is why so many bacterial cells are becoming resistant to medications.

Click to expand...

Rather, when a population of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic, if any of the bacteria survive the exposure (as a result of their DNA being different from the bacteria which died, or mutated) and can still reproduce they will go on to reproduce and subsequent generations of that bacteria will be resistant or immune to that particular antibiotic.

A4C said:

Is it possible to see samples of copy 56, 57, and 58 anywhere?

Click to expand...

A4C said:

Have any transitional photo copies turned up?

Click to expand...

How hard is it to ignore everything that people tell you. I mean really, it’s like some kind of reality filter. In case you missed it, look six posts back.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16757428&postcount=53