evolution!!! evidence show that we all have evolved from apes (primates) but why are some group of people?

Question

different in the sense that why asians and europeans are different in their physical appearence..

Answer 1

Because we didn't EVOLVE!!!!!Monkey Boy!!!There is no concrete evidence,just because monkeys are closely related to humans are you going to believe your ancestors ate bananas and swung from trees?It is called a"theory"because it's not a proven fact.Other types of animals are closely related but didn't evolve from eachother,they are their own species,just like you and I are the human species and primates are there own species.Zebras and horses are related but not the same or didn't evolve from eachother.

Answer 2

The above answers are correct - human differences (due to less than a 0.1% difference in DNA) occur within populations. If everyone had been able to travel as much as we do today for the last 100,000 years, we would all look much more alike.

We see squirrel, fish, bird, etc populations"Change Over Time" when they are separated through natural events. There are some really cool books out there, like"Darwins Finches," that explore researchers evidence about these events.

I think that there is more than enough genetic and physical evidence to show that the Earth is old, has changed a lot over time, and to support that evolution is how living things change and adapt and eventually lose genes that are hurtful or no longer helpful, even today (and once the genes are lost, they cant de-evolve back to how they were). Gravity is just a theory, too, but that doesnt mean there isnt enough evidence - just that nothing is ever proven in Science (so that Science can Evolve ;-) too).

Answer 3

Well, to be precise, evolution puts it that apes are our closest living relatives. We didn't descend directly from them.

As to your question, the human race didn't travel very much until recently, with the invention of airplanes and cars. Genes tended to stay in the same place. As time passed, any random mutation that happened to one group of people wouldn't spread to the others, so the groups would get more and more different.

Some of the differences are adaptive. For example, dark skin is much more common in areas near the equator because it provides protection from the sun.

Answer 4

what evidence shows this???!!?!?!!
I have seen no evidence yet, and the evidence that has been brought forth in the past has been proven a hoax- why are these facts so overlooked???


I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 5

"there is not clear proof that we decended from apes" and "evolution isn't proven, that's why it's a theory" - gee, I haven't heard that one before.

sigh....here we go again.

Firstly, evolution has such a monumental amount of data supporting it, I can't even touch upon it here. In fact, I have never even once read any piece of data that contradicts it (hence the "flaws" that creationists love to claim with not one shred of proof or citation). There are gaps, to be sure, and things that are unclear, but those are details that have just not been sketched out yet. For example, gaps in the fossil record are easily explained by the difficulty in fossilizing slight-boned organisms (like us) and the fact that only 0.00001% of species that ever existed probably have a extant fossil (otherwise the earth would contain nothing but fossilized remains) There are gaps in the theories that explain how gravity interacts with mass and on the wave-particle duality of light, but people don't doubt the existance of those.

Difficulties aside, there is an abundant amount of fossils that link (not continuously, some species are surely missing) the progression of the ancestor of the great apes and modern man. If you even want any information on it, I recommend "Becoming Human" by Ian Tattersall or visiting the anthropology department of your local museum. Stop blindly listening like a sucker to what you're told and pick up a book for once. If you are going to dispute evidence, you better have some yourself - or else your argument is just laughable. Once again, this is not a light theory with "some evidence". Email me if you need help finding some proof or explaination.

That being said Phil S is correct. Our species (Homo sapiens) is incredibly new, probably only 150,000 years old. We probably arose somewhere in northwestern to mid-western Africa and spread out over time rather quickly. Our species likely reached Europe about 60,000 years ago and Asian shortly afterwards. This is an very very short window of time for evolution and adaptation, so our lineages (European, African and Asian) probably didn't have enough time to diverge to the point of reproductive discontinuity, but enough to develop some adaptive change. I have heard that skin color really only needs about 25,000 years to change to the appropriate shade for your latitutude.

Morphology changes may be reflected by a "founder effect" where a small group heading out and starting their own colony will have traits not necessarily indicative of the parental population. Think of a bowl of M&Ms with equal sampling of colors. Now grab a small handful. The colors in your hand might not be an accurate representation of the color ratios in that bowl. That is the founder effect and can happen with genes just as easily.

There are a few slight changes in versions of genes (known as alleles) in different races. Asians have a higher preponderance of B-type blood, Europeans "prefer" A, and native Chileans have exclusively O-type (the band of prehistoric explorers that founded Chile no doubt had only this type). Huntingtin's Disease is very low among Asian populations (relative to Europeans) but Asians also have a common mutation that makes them lactose intolerance (in lactase) or poorly metabolize alcohol (mitochondrial form of alcohol dehydrogenase). Also there are different versions of genes that metabolize drugs and plant compounds in your liver that have different frequencies in different racial groups, which will be important in the future of medicine.

So basically, there are slight differences in the allelic frequencies of different races that have accrued over the very short amount of time in our divergence. That being said, not nearly enough time passed to have a speciation event occur in our lineage to break us off at racial boundaries. In fact, the entire human population has less divergence in genetics than two bands of chimpanzees separated by one valley in their natural habitat. Also if I mixed up 8 asians, 8 Africans and a white dude and tested them all genetically, I couldn't tell the difference if you blinded me. We're basically all brothers.....seriously.

Answer 6

Survival of the fittest. Darwin noted on the Galapagos Islands that each island had finches with different adaptations to suit their environments. As groups of people migrated, they made adaptations to survive their environments. That is why northern Europeans tend to be fair haired and fair skinned and southern Europeans tend to be dark haired and dark skinned. Each one evolved to deal with the amount of sunlight and other factors in their environments to survive. Neanderthals were very numerous during the Ice Ages because they had adaptations that allowed them to live in cold, icy regions (wide, large nose to warm the air as they breathed in was one).

Answer 7

Like all creatures, we evolve to cope with an environmental condition. When modern humans migrated out of Africa, they moved into climates that were colder, shorter seasons, etc.. Some scientist believe it takes about ten thousand years to evolve from black to white, brown, yellow, etc. Physical characteristics like, shorter bodies help retain heat. I recommend Talkorigins. org. for insight into evolution. Excellent reading. I hope this helps.

Answer 8

That's how evolution works.. Each species tends to get isolated populations that evolve into races, then varieties, then sub-species, then a separate species.

Answer 9

Isolated populations can experience genetic drift and different selection pressures, thus eventually leading to a predominance of differing alleles. If you let the isolation and different selection pressure continue for, say, 30 million years, you might end up with creatures that are as different from us as we are from monkeys.

Answer 10

actually the evidence is not clear that we evolved from primates.. hence creationism. I don't agree that just because we can't define ourselves with one that the other is fact... but it is a wide open-ism now ....