How did apes evolvle into humans?

[Carico]

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?

 

[random_guy]

Well, I suggest before you even ask people for the answer, you should first learn what evolutionary theory states. Populations evolve, individuals don't. Understand this concept and the rest follows.

In fact, this thread contains the same misconceptions in the OP. Read what people have to follow up, especially people like ConsiderLilly and other posters.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

populations evolve, not individuals.

That's the second time you've been told in this thread.

And about the 2000th time you've been told overall.

 

[Carico]

Well, I suggest before you even ask people for the answer, you should first learn what evolutionary theory states. Populations evolve, individuals don't. Understand this concept and the rest follows.

In fact, this thread contains the same misconceptions in the OP. Read what people have to follow up, especially people like ConsiderLilly and other posters.

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.

 

[mikeynov]

Copied verbatim from the other thread:

What about "populations evolve, not individuals" don't you understand?

Evolution doesn't happen by one "kind" giving birth to another. THAT'S saltation, and it's stupid.

Think of a population as a group of organisms who are exchanging genetic information. So, you have a gene pool that represents a given population.

Now, over time, the gene pool of that population can change due to selective pressure. That "change over time" is evolution.

As a result of that "change over time," one part of that population can split off from the rest, such that the daughter population becomes genetically isolated from the parent population. Given enough time, the daughter population might become a brand new species. That's speciation, and we have hundreds of examples of it.

And that's evolution in a nutshell. Once you've established that pattern of divergence (which is at the heart of what Darwin was trying to explain, the "origin of the species," ie the formation of new lineages from pre-existing lineages), you've gone a long way towards establishing the reality of evolution over a longer period of time. And this pattern is a branching bush, NOT a stepping ladder moving from "less to more complex." In other words:

And that pattern of divergence matches what we see in the past and present in terms of how life is organized. Again, what's described above leads to "branching," and branches that form off of branches such that you get clear "groups within groups."

And it's the only testable explanation we have for why life is organized the way it is. It's the only explanation we have that all vertebrates are animals, all mammals are vertebrates, all primates are mammals, and all apes are primates. But the opposite doesn't work - not all animals are vertebrates, not all vertebrates are mammals, not all mammals are primates, and not all primates are apes.

That's a nested hierarchy. It's what evolution predicts, it's the pattern we have established in the lab and field (particularly in the form of speciation), and that's what we find for ALL known life past and present.

None of this is tremendously difficult to understand. But you're going to have to exert an ounce of effort reading this to do so.

 

[simi]

*sigh* i know populations evolve over time. It is a result of genetic mishaps that happen and cannot be stopped. DNA is not perfect and it will continue to mutate and cause genes. But i dont see how it can change this much. Eg breeds of cats and dogs and different species of birds have evolved this way.

But seriously the genetic mishaps would have had to be sooo huge to create humans and if you didnt realise, when nature has huge genetic mishaps that alter a being, it becomes infertile to stop reproducing....

Then where did they get their superior intelligence over animals? where did humans get the concept of morals? its clear apes do not have that. They have a differenty way to thinking than us.

 

[mikeynov]

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.

Read what I wrote. Keep rereading till it sinks in.

 

[notto]

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.

Yep, individuals are born that are slightly different than their parents. There is variation in any population and natural selection acts on it to cause evolution.

Lets take a population of apes and split it into two and put them in two different environments. Over time, they will diverge down two different evolutionary paths. Some of the mutations may affect how they reproduce and over time, the groups may not be able to mate between the groups but they can still mate within the groups.

At no time did any of the members of either group give birth to something other than their own species, but that doesn't mean that as a population they cannot speciate.

Populations evolve, not species.

Ring species is a good example of how this can happen as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Take out a piece of the 'ring' and you will have two distinct populations that cannot interbreed, but again, at no time does any member of the group give birth to something that is drastically different or a different species.

As for your previous statement:
So how did the fertilized egg of 2 apes produce a species so different from an ape that it was given a new name?

You can now see that this is NOT how it happened or what evolution says so you should just put that away. You don't understand evolution if say that evolution suggests that this happened.

Again, at no time does a member of a species give birth to something that is not of the same species, but diverging groups can evolve down different paths that over time will create two populations of different species.

 

[notto]

But seriously the genetic mishaps would have had to be sooo huge to create humans and if you didnt realise, when nature has huge genetic mishaps that alter a being, it becomes infertile to stop reproducing....

And you know this how? Please show you math.

 

[A4C]

populations evolve, not individuals.

That's the second time you've been told in this thread.

And about the 2000th time you've been told overall.

roughly translated:
"I don't know how apes evolved into human beings"

 

[random_guy]

Here's an analogy. How did other languages come from a single language? If a Latin speaking person gave birth to a French speaking person then who did the French speaking person talk to? Obviously, Latin speakers give birth to Latin speakers.

Now, what if a group of Latin speakers moved away from the main group. Slowly, their language would change over time, but it would still be understandable to everyone in the group. However, if enough time has passed between the separation, if the two groups meet again, they might not be able to communicate any more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

roughly translated:
"I don't know how apes evolved into human beings"

We also don't know how they landed on the moon with a hot-air balloon.

Know why? Because it didn't happen that way.

 

[mikeynov]

*sigh* i know populations evolve over time. It is a result of genetic mishaps that happen and cannot be stopped. DNA is not perfect and it will continue to mutate and cause genes. But i dont see how it can change this much. Eg breeds of cats and dogs and different species of birds have evolved this way.

But seriously the genetic mishaps would have had to be sooo huge to create humans and if you didnt realise, when nature has huge genetic mishaps that alter a being, it becomes infertile to stop reproducing....

Then where did they get their superior intelligence over animals? where did humans get the concept of morals? its clear apes do not have that. They have a differenty way to thinking than us.

Basically, you don't understand how it could happen, therefore conclude it didn't.

But it's not that complicated.

Observe the following, which is the standard dogma of genetics:

DNA<-->DNA-->RNA-->protein-->trait

Mutations (which provide an innate variability to all life, and are largely a result of copying errors of DNA) happen at the level of DNA.

Now, "mutation" doesn't mean "makes a monster." Mutation is some change to the DNA - the addition, deletion, or changing of nucleotides in DNA, which are the basic building blocks of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA).

Selection will act at the level of "trait" if the trait in question has a basis in DNA. Selection just describes a process of induced differential reproductive success - some organisms with a particular genetic makeup tend to pass on that genetic material better than other organisms, based on particular criteria.

What is that criteria? Different organisms live in different environments. Within a given environment, any particular organism has a "job" in respect to its overall place in a community. That "job" (called an ecological niche) describes what they're eating, where they live, how they're interacting with other organisms and each other etc. New jobs come and go, old jobs are lost, changed hands, etc. There's all sorts of stuff that can cause this, but these are the background factors and the basis by which nature "selects" organisms most suited towards a particular role.

So, natural selection is steered by the above - if a trait in a particular organism is advantageous towards a particular niche (job) in nature, that organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genetic material to the subsequent generation.

Over time, this process shapes the "gene pool" that represents a given population. From one generation to the next, the change you're going to see will be fairly subtle. So it's not like one organism is born with a radically different genetic code, he's super organism, and then passes on his super genetic material to the next generation. I have to stress that the change from one generation to the next is almost always subtle - it's when that change cumulates over deep time that you notice "big" changes.

The overall size of the gene pool during this process may increase, decrease, or stay relatively the same. But the overall pool is "changing," thus it's fair to define evolution as "a change in allele (versions of a gene) frequency in some population over time." I repeat - this "change over time" of that gene pool IS evolution, and it's adaptive because nature is steering that process. It's ensuring that genetic material which is advantageous for individual organisms is propagated at a higher frequency than less advantageous genetic material.

This combined with the description offered to Carico above is evolution in a nutshell. It might be hard to see how all these changes can add up, but that is EXACTLY what happened. All known evidence confirms this reality, and while it might at first seem counter-intuitive, mindful study of the subject will lead you to this conclusion.

Edit: if you're further confused how a population undergoing all this change manages to "make it," consider the fact that the vast majority of creatures that ever lived are extinct. So most "don't make it." The organisms you see in the world around you are the ones (or descendents of those) that did "make it."

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

roughly translated:
"I don't know how apes evolved into human beings"

roughly translated:

I never add anything meaningful to a conversation.

 

[mattjay]

Then where did they get their superior intelligence over animals? where did humans get the concept of morals? its clear apes do not have that. They have a differenty way to thinking than us.

We have developed larger and heavier brains allowing for more complexities in the different areas of the brain.

 

[mikeynov]

roughly translated:
"I don't know how apes evolved into human beings"

No, that's you lying. Stop lying, Christ wouldn't appreciate it.

The basic, undeniable fact of the matter is that Carico is misrepresenting what evolution is and how it happens. His question indicates this fact, and you ignoring it speaks volumes about your person.

Evolution occurs at the level of a population. I have now explained this in fairly exhausting detail - keep rereading it until it sinks in. You don't HAVE to agree with it - but at least understand what it IS that biologists actually believe.

 

[Carico]

No, that's you lying. Stop lying, Christ wouldn't appreciate it.

The basic, undeniable fact of the matter is that Carico is misrepresenting what evolution is and how it happens. His question indicates this fact, and you ignoring it speaks volumes about your person.

Evolution occurs at the level of a population. I have now explained this in fairly exhausting detail - keep rereading it until it sinks in. You don't HAVE to agree with it - but at least understand what it IS that biologists actually believe.

Sorry but attacks in place of rational explanations only show that you cannot defend your postion. I simply asked how the genes of a homonid can get into the genes of its parents and no one can answer that because they know it's impossible. And that is why they attack me instead of answering a simply question. If it were answerable in a rational way, there would be no need for an attack, just an answer.

 

[mikeynov]

Sorry but attacks in place of rational explanations only show that you cannot defend your postion. I simply asked how the genes of a homonid can get into the genes of its parents and no one can answer that because they know it's impossible. And that is why they attack me instead of answering a simply question. If it were answerable in a rational way, there would be no need for an attack, just an answer.

Inflammatory material deleted - it appeared Carico hadn't read it yet.

Part 1 - populations and the branching tree of life
---------------------------------------------------

What about "populations evolve, not individuals" don't you understand?

Evolution doesn't happen by one "kind" giving birth to another. THAT'S saltation, and it's stupid.

Think of a population as a group of organisms who are exchanging genetic information. So, you have a gene pool that represents a given population.

Now, over time, the gene pool of that population can change due to selective pressure. That "change over time" is evolution.

As a result of that "change over time," one part of that population can split off from the rest, such that the daughter population becomes genetically isolated from the parent population. Given enough time, the daughter population might become a brand new species. That's speciation, and we have hundreds of examples of it.

And that's evolution in a nutshell. Once you've established that pattern of divergence (which is at the heart of what Darwin was trying to explain, the "origin of the species," ie the formation of new lineages from pre-existing lineages), you've gone a long way towards establishing the reality of evolution over a longer period of time. And this pattern is a branching bush, NOT a stepping ladder moving from "less to more complex." In other words:

And that pattern of divergence matches what we see in the past and present in terms of how life is organized. Again, what's described above leads to "branching," and branches that form off of branches such that you get clear "groups within groups."

And it's the only testable explanation we have for why life is organized the way it is. It's the only explanation we have that all vertebrates are animals, all mammals are vertebrates, all primates are mammals, and all apes are primates. But the opposite doesn't work - not all animals are vertebrates, not all vertebrates are mammals, not all mammals are primates, and not all primates are apes.

That's a nested hierarchy. It's what evolution predicts, it's the pattern we have established in the lab and field (particularly in the form of speciation), and that's what we find for ALL known life past and present.

None of this is tremendously difficult to understand. But you're going to have to exert an ounce of effort reading this to do so.

Part 2 - The basics of mutation and selection
----------------------------------------------

Basically, you don't understand how it could happen, therefore conclude it didn't.

But it's not that complicated.

Observe the following, which is the standard dogma of genetics:

DNA<-->DNA-->RNA-->protein-->trait

Mutations (which provide an innate variability to all life, and are largely a result of copying errors of DNA) happen at the level of DNA.

Now, "mutation" doesn't mean "makes a monster." Mutation is some change to the DNA - the addition, deletion, or changing of nucleotides in DNA, which are the basic building blocks of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA).

Selection will act at the level of "trait" if the trait in question has a basis in DNA. Selection just describes a process of induced differential reproductive success - some organisms with a particular genetic makeup tend to pass on that genetic material better than other organisms, based on particular criteria.

What is that criteria? Different organisms live in different environments. Within a given environment, any particular organism has a "job" in respect to its overall place in a community. That "job" (called an ecological niche) describes what they're eating, where they live, how they're interacting with other organisms and each other etc. New jobs come and go, old jobs are lost, changed hands, etc. There's all sorts of stuff that can cause this, but these are the background factors and the basis by which nature "selects" organisms most suited towards a particular role.

So, natural selection is steered by the above - if a trait in a particular organism is advantageous towards a particular niche (job) in nature, that organism is more likely to reproduce and pass on its genetic material to the subsequent generation.

Over time, this process shapes the "gene pool" that represents a given population. From one generation to the next, the change you're going to see will be fairly subtle. So it's not like one organism is born with a radically different genetic code, he's super organism, and then passes on his super genetic material to the next generation. I have to stress that the change from one generation to the next is almost always subtle - it's when that change cumulates over deep time that you notice "big" changes.

The overall size of the gene pool during this process may increase, decrease, or stay relatively the same. But the overall pool is "changing," thus it's fair to define evolution as "a change in allele (versions of a gene) frequency in some population over time." I repeat - this "change over time" of that gene pool IS evolution, and it's adaptive because nature is steering that process. It's ensuring that genetic material which is advantageous for individual organisms is propagated at a higher frequency than less advantageous genetic material.

This combined with the description offered to Carico above is evolution in a nutshell. It might be hard to see how all these changes can add up, but that is EXACTLY what happened. All known evidence confirms this reality, and while it might at first seem counter-intuitive, mindful study of the subject will lead you to this conclusion.

Edit: if you're further confused how a population undergoing all this change manages to "make it," consider the fact that the vast majority of creatures that ever lived are extinct. So most "don't make it." The organisms you see in the world around you are the ones (or descendents of those) that did "make it."

 

[mikeynov]

Note: the answer you deny exists is contained therein. You first have to understand how evolution happens to have any background whatsoever to understand the specific factors that lead to the origin of humanity.

Once you demonstrate any working understanding of that, a discussion can be had of the SPECIFIC selective factors that are believed to be responsible for the origin of humanity. We can even discuss the evidence that undeniably ties us to non-human origin and common ancestry with other extant apes.

But you have to start from square one. You're asking to have a graduate to doctorate level discussion of the evolution of humanity with a pre-junior high understanding of biology. So I'm trying to explain to you the very basics required to understand any of this, and you're denying that I'm even doing that.

So, learn an ounce of respect, be honest, try to understand what I wrote, and we can continue from there. If you continue being irrational and inflammatory about this, I'm not going to bother wasting energy typing these responses to you anymore.

 

[Nathan Poe]

First of all, apes DID NOT evolve into human beings. DID NOT. A common ancestor evolved into apes as well as humans in two different environments.

This common ancestor was very ape-like, but it was NOT an ape, not an ape we see today.

One more time: Apes DID NOT become human. Now that you have been told this, if you ever make this claim again, you are a liar. Remember this.

Ok, to continue...

It was around the 18th century where scientists began to realize that species were not fixed as rigidly as you would believe (N.B. 18th Century.... well before Darwin) Species could change, through small steps.

A monkey might not give birth to a human, but it could (and often would) have an offspring that was ever-so-slightly more humanlike.

And that offspring could (and, given the opportunity, would) have an even more humanlike baby.

And that offspring would have a still more humanlike offspring.

It would not happen in one generation, or even a hundred, maybe not even a thousand, but given enough time, you'd get there.

Now that you see how it could happen, the question is whether it did happen. And that's where the fossil record comes in. When you compare various fossils that have been found, obvious pattens are apparant.

Placed in chronological order, the last fossil looks very different from the first, but intermediate fossils in a sequence look very similar. The only good explanation for this similarity is that the fossils are related.

So we know that evolution does happen.

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.

Any questions?