Somethings I don't understand about evolution.

[Moaty]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing, So how is this "gene" being passed? On top of that even if it was a gene it would be the recessive gene and get taken out of DNA after 2 or 3 generations, so how could a person with no gay parents or grandparents be gay?

 

[TheOutsider]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

From Talk.Origins:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"

I'll let someone else answer the homosexuality question because I'm not exactly sure about it.

 

[Moaty]

The comparison between those two questions makes no sense, even as an evolutionist you should understand that no matter what the heritage of a person they're still all the same species. Why would apes continue to evolve when a better species has already evolved?

 

[TheOutsider]

The comparison between those two questions makes no sense, even as an evolutionist you should understand that no matter what the heritage of a person they're still all the same species. Why would apes continue to evolve when a better species has already evolved?

The question was what we like to call an "analogy". I know that all humans are the same species.

You have to understand that evolution is not a ladder, it is a tree. We are not more or less evolved than other apes, we just evolved in a different way. We split from the other apes millions of years ago. Apes are still around because nothing has killed them off.

 

[FishFace]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

You're thinking of evolution in the wrong way. Life doesn't fall onto a ladder, but rather onto a tree. Birds evolved from reptiles, but there are still reptiles. Mammals IIRC also evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from fish, but there are still fish - in fact, all land animals evolved from fish. Fish evolved from lampreys or hagfish (or something similar) but we still have both.

In some cases, a new species will outcompete the old species. In some cases, a new species will adapt to eat a different kind of food, or live in a different kind of tree, in which case, both can survive. In other cases, no new species is created, but an entire population of individuals evolves into something different.

Clearly, if life evolved, in some cases the second option would have to happen, because otherwise all life would be the same. The key to understanding this is realising that not all organisms occupy the same ecological niche. When the first amphibian evolved, the fish it had evolved from didn't all just die - in fact, the amphibian took to land because nothing else was eating the food on land, or hunting it on land. As such, it didn't need to try and eat whatever the fish were eating, and so they both remained alive.
The same kind of thing happened with us and apes.

Oh and by the way, it's not technically correct to say "us and apes." We are apes - if you name every feature that, say, gorillas and chimpanzees share, you will find, that humans have it as well, in 99.9% of cases.

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing, So how is this "gene" being passed? On top of that even if it was a gene it would be the recessive gene and get taken out of DNA after 2 or 3 generations, so how could a person with no gay parents or grandparents be gay?

This is a very interesting topic, in fact. Since it's interesting, lots of research is being done into it! One thing I believe is for sure - there's no "gay gene."

As far as I can recall, the last thing I read on the subject suggested that there is a certain gene which makes boys born after the first more likely to be gay. I think the same gene confers an advantage to the first born, too. The reason homosexuality survives as a trait is because the same gene confers different advantages.

In any event, even if homosexuality were based on one gene that had no other effects, that doesn't stop it from being passed on. There are plenty of other genes which harm one's chances of having children, but which are still knocking about in the gene pool. Also remember that a homosexual man can still have children - Oscar Wilde, for example, was married with children.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

Please provide sources for these "other cases", because I have never heard of such a thing.

 

[TheOutsider]

Please provide sources for these "other cases", because I have never heard of such a thing.

Now that you mention it, the big story from earlier this week about the fossil finds in Kenya proves your point. Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived side by side for nearly half a million years before Homo habilis died off.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Now that you mention it, the big story from earlier this week about the fossil finds in Kenya proves your point. Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived side by side for nearly half a million years before Homo habilis died off.

Haven't you heard? This discovery disproves evolution once and for all!

 

[plindboe]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around?

If americans came from europeans, that would mean that americans are better than europeans, and if so then why are europeans still around?

Peter

 

[Gracchus]

If humans evolved from apes, ...

Humans are apes.

... that would mean that humans are better then apes, ...

Why would it mean that? Gorillas are better at what they do than humans. Chimps are better at what they do than humans. Bonobos are better at what they do than humans. And humans are better at what they do than other apes. Of course what humans are better at includes destroying the environment, and killing each other.

... and if so then why are apes still around?

Why do you have cousins?

In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

The other apes are still around because humans haven't yet driven them to extinction. Be patient.

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing,

I have known many homosexuals who have children. Moreover, homosexuality, if it is genetic, which is still an open question, is probably the effect of more than one gene.

So how is this "gene" being passed?

Genes are usually passed by copulation in the case of animals, pollination in the case of plants, conjugation in the case of bacteria, etc. Of late the petri dish has come into fashion..

On top of that even if it was a gene it would be the recessive gene and get taken out of DNA after 2 or 3 generations, so how could a person with no gay parents or grandparents be gay?

Actually since recessives can hide, masked by dominants, they can hang around even if they are deleterious. Moreover, consider the gene for type O blood for instance. It is recessive to both type A and type B, but type O is the most common blood type in those of European and African descent.

The comparison between those two questions makes no sense, even as an evolutionist you should understand that no matter what the heritage of a person they're still all the same species.

You are aware, are you not, that persons do not evolve, species do. True, an organism always remains the same species it was born, but species, over time, change into other species.

Why would apes continue to evolve when a better species has already evolved?

Species under selective pressure evolve or go extinct. Gorillas evolved in such a way as to cope with a forest environment. Humans evolved to cope with savannas. Now that humans have returned to the forest destroying it by cutting down the trees, it is very likely that gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons, will soon join the dodos, the great auks, and the passenger pigeons.

It is possible, even likely, that humans are going to destroy themselves. It is doubtful that they will succeed in destroying cockroaches, mosquitoes, or archaebacteria. By your reasoning, that would make cockroaches better than humans.

 

[consol]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing, So how is this "gene" being passed? On top of that even if it was a gene it would be the recessive gene and get taken out of DNA after 2 or 3 generations, so how could a person with no gay parents or grandparents be gay?

The way you were brought up made you come at evolution from a different angle,
because if you came at it from the logical angle creationism would be destroyed right from the off,
you will never overcome evolution, it is a fact, but fighting it allows you to carry on believing in creationism,
while you keep fighting you feel as if you have a chance to win,
you haven't, but it feels as if you have, which is all you need to carry on fighting,
creationism is a lost cause, but you are unable or unwilling to see it, sad really, but there you are.

I am just glad it wasn't me who had an upbringing like yours, and made me think the way you do.

 

[Mavros]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around?

if you didnt notice we are still apes

 

[Mystman]

I am just glad it wasn't me who had an upbringing like yours, and made me think the way you do.

The guy just asked two polite questions. Is there a need for such hostile replies?

 

[Gracchus]

The guy just asked two polite questions. Is there a need for such hostile replies?

Of ten responses to Moaty, eight addressed his questions, there was one attempt (I think!) at humor, and only one that could be considered hostile. That one, I ween, was more inspired by annoyance at Moaty's sloppy reasoning, imprecise rhetoric, and ignorance than outright hostility.

We all become impatient at times, and sometimes express our annoyance inappropriately. But why, I wonder, do you, Mystman, seem to characterize all the responses as hostile? Perhaps I misunderstand your post?

 

[FishFace]

The reason not to be hostile is that, so frequently, a creationist will focus only on the hostile replies. Being hostile gives the creationist an excuse not to answer the question.

 

[Mystman]

Of ten responses to Moaty, eight addressed his questions, there was one attempt (I think!) at humor, and only one that could be considered hostile. That one, I ween, was more inspired by annoyance at Moaty's sloppy reasoning, imprecise rhetoric, and ignorance than outright hostility.

We all become impatient at times, and sometimes express our annoyance inappropriately. But why, I wonder, do you, Mystman, seem to characterize all the responses as hostile? Perhaps I misunderstand your post?

Oh no, I only meant the one that I quoted. Maybe "Is there a need for such a hostile reply" would've been better (english not being my native language and all ^^ )

 

[Loudmouth]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around?

How are humans better? In what ways? That is the important question.

If you tried to keep up with a group of chimps in their habitat you would have a pretty rough time of it. They have evolved to survive on fruits in trees with the occasional serving of monkey. Their walking/running gait is horribly ineffecient but it is good enough to get them from fruit bearing tree to fruit bearing tree. I really doubt you could climb a tree as quickly as a chimp, so why are you still around?

The answer is that humans evolved to survive on the African savanna. We have evaporative cooling, a decently effecient jogging gait, good sight for spotting prey, and an intelligence that allows for excellent tool making. This allows us to hunt animals as groups over long distances in very extreme temperatures. In fact, a human can chase down the fastest ungulates in the savanna using a very simple strategy. Chase them until they collapse from heat exhaustion. At this point you can just walk up and hit them over the head with a rock.

The quick answer is that humans and the other apes occupy different niches. It is only recently that humans and other apes have come under direct competition, mostly for territory. The chimp, bonobo, gorilla, and orangutan are all endangered species and may very well disappear within a few generations if we are not careful.

In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

That isn't the case at all, as others have pointed out.

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing, So how is this "gene" being passed?

Most studies have shown that homosexuality is only slightly linked to genetics. If anything, there may be a suite of genes that increase the probability of one being homosexual. The strongest correlation seems to be population size. The larger a population the higher the percentage of homosexuality. This would actually be a good thing because it would limit overpopulation.

 

[Nithavela]

If humans evolved from apes, that would mean that humans are better then apes, and if so then why are apes still around? In all other cases of evolution the original organism dies off completely, why would apes still be around?

If homosexuality is a gene, that would mean it needs to be passed between the generations. So in order for someone to be gay they're parents would need to be gay and homosexuals are not reproducing, So how is this "gene" being passed? On top of that even if it was a gene it would be the recessive gene and get taken out of DNA after 2 or 3 generations, so how could a person with no gay parents or grandparents be gay?

First of, the term better is misleading.

Cheetahs are better at running.
Fish are better at swimming.
Birds are better at not dying when pushed of a cliff"

Assuming that a species is better if it evolved later is wrong.

Apes like chimps or orang utans are better at surviving in the jungle, climbing and solving certain puzzles that apply a different kind of thinking.

To understand why a species is around, you have to understand the concept of niches. Let me give you an example:

Let's assume that there is an island with nothing on it but Birds of all different sorts and a special sort of berry bush.

What happens now is that the species of birdxs which is able to harvest the berries to their fullest potential gets the most berries. They can eat more then other species and are able to reproduce faster, thus allowing them to outlive the less effective species. Some of the more effective species might survive longer or even coexist, but they will never have a population as big as the other bird's species.

What you have here is the most simple example of natural selection. But, as you might know, nothing is as simple as its most simple example. For every source of food, for every climate, for every different factor, there is a different niche. The niche of the apes are the jungles, where humans can't survive except in small tribes. Outside of their niche apes will quickly die.

And, as you might know, apes ARE dying out because we are destroying their niches.

Oh yeah, and like the others said, man didn't evolve from today's apres. Man evolved from the same ancestors as the apes, only in a different direction. And, the ancestors are (guess what) gone.