Darwin says man evolved through evolution.?

Question

In simple terms Men are from Mokeys.Then why the rest of monkeys remained as monkeys?Why fishes remaned as fishes?Why birds did not become fishes?
How come man as the only exception to go through all these so called evolution?

Answer 1

I can only gently suggest that you misunderstand the basics of what Darwin said.

You wrote: > "In simple terms Men are from Mo[n]keys." <

Nope. As *many* people are quick to point out ... Darwin very specifically did *not* say that men are from monkeys, but that men and monkeys have a common ancestor. This is not a minor nitpicky point ... you really need to understand that the ancestor species to man *does not still walk around*.

> "man as the only exception to go through all these so-called evolution?" <

Who told you that? Man is not the only exception to anything. Every animal, every plant, every shitake mushroom, every amoeba, every slime mold, every species of bacteria, etc. went through evolution. They just each had a different path.

You seem to have this idea of evolution (or perhaps only human evolution) as some sort of CHAIN. Fish ... bird ... monkey ... man. Each link giving way to the next, when a species evolves to the next "step", then the old species dies off. Darwin had no such concept of evolution.

Instead, the *basics* of Darwinism is that evolution is a constantly branching TREE ... it is *not* a CHAIN. A branch happens as follows: Given *any* single species, if two populations of the same species become genetically isolated from each other (they migrate apart; or they get separated by water or great distance; or one prefers the ground or daylight while the prefers treetops or nighttime, whatever), then they can evolve separate characteristics that in turn strengthens the genetic isolation. If separated long enough, the genetic isolation becomes permanent (they cannot interbreed even if they wanted to) and they become two separate species ... two permanently separate BRANCHES on the tree. One or both can become extinct ... or both can survive side-by-side.

Thus the old species does not necessarily become extinct as the new one branches off. They are two equally viable branches, both surviving quite well in their two environments. And then each of them can branch again in the future, again, and again; some (in fact most) branches die out (go extinct), some survive, etc. etc.

It's like asking "If America was founded by Europeans, why are there still Europeans?" The answer: Just because *some* Europeans came to America (to find new opportunities for survival), doesn't mean *all* Europeans have to follow ... Europe is still a great place to live.

Similarly, just because *some* fishes found ways to survive on land (to find new opportunities for survival), doesn't mean that *all* fishes have to follow ... the sea is still a great place to live.

Same with some fish becoming amphibians and some amphibians becoming reptiles, and some reptiles becoming dinosaurs and some dinosaurs becoming birds ... at each stage, only *some* individuals create the new branch, not *all*.

I hope that explains Darwin a little better.

Answer 2

Humans are descended from monkeys, true, but an extinct monkey, not any extant species (or even genus) of monkey.

Evolution does not have a goal; every species alive at a given time is equally "evolved" (or, if you look at it a different way, the ones that have gone through the most generations are the most evolved, so bacteria are millions of times as evolved as humans...). The reason not every ancestral species goes extinct is that, well, there's no reason why they necessarily have to go extinct.

One population gets split by, for example, a natural disaster. Many generations later, one of the two populations is still living as the ancestral population did, while the other has been subject to very different environmental forces. Therefore, there is stabilizing selection, which keeps the one population from deviating too far from the ancestral population. Meanwhile the other population has experienced pressures that eliminate many genotypes, and allow others to thrive, leading to net changes to that population.

Look, you clearly don't understand evolution at all, and asking a couple questions here won't really help you that much. Read some books on the subject. You might start with "What evolution is", by Ernst Mayr.

Answer 3

I like Loulabelle's answer the best. I think she is the only one who understands your question fully. The same question has stumped real biologists for decades as well, to a degree. I lived in Southwest Ohio for a while, and I dug some fence posts into the ground there. Occasionally I would dig up a rock that was obviously teeming with sea life fossils. I inquired about this and I was told that this part of Ohio is teeming with Cambrian era fossils, i.e. 500-550 million years old. The most incredible thing to me was how identical they seemed to modern creatures that you would see walking on the beach today, especially the clamshells, snailshells, and worms that were present. There had been essentially no evolution in these life forms in all that time!! But this situation has been explained by the theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium". This holds that once a successful survival strategy is arrived at, it can remain essentially unchanged for millions of generations, since there is no survival pressure to make a change. This explains why clams and snails and worms look the same from 550,000,000 years ago as they do today. BUT, and it is a big BUT, if something in the environment changes, like an ice age or global warming or the arrival of a new kind of predator across a land bridge or anything else, then there is mass death followed by marginal survival of the remaining few, and these just barely hold on but begin to evolve rapidly due to the extreme pressure of death, and soon thereafter, there comes a completely new species that is far better able to cope with the new altered environment. This is really how evolution works in practice. It explains why wooly Mammouths evolved away from their elephant-like ancestors and it explains why humans evolved away from our chimpanzee-like ancestors, among many other examples. I can tell that you are an intelligent, thinking person, and you are correct to ask such questions. That is the mark of a true scientist. Just keep up the good work and don't just aquiesce to simpleminded lines like "it is simply God's will" and then leave it at that.

Answer 4

Because all the monkeys did not evolved. Few started for example just walking more and more. The basic requirement is that after they have evolved they must be able to propagate. This mean quit a few of them were adapting new environment and still propagating. Usually it take 9 generations for one minor change to stick, and still you can have dormancy showing up at any time in future.

Everything is still evolving to some extent few million years from now man may have eyes very close to each other, studies shows this is happening very fast, average distance between the eyes is becoming less and less.

Without evolution there is only extinction-if the living thing is not able to cop with the changes. Humans have evolved so much that we not only adapt to the surrounding but are constantly changing it, when other living thing cannot adopt to the change we generate they vanish.

Humans move mountains and createe oceans(build dams to creat lake-a big enough lake if it is big enough, can have tides than it is an ocean).

Answer 5

Hopefully you enjoy reading and researching info in a library or better in Internet. There you will find your notions about evolution are not exactly what Darwin had in mind. we did not evolve from monkeys although we may have had a common branch (ancestor) along he way. Some species evolved and still do and others do not. The survival of the fittest accounts for many evolved species and many more that did not quite make it. The "theory" of evolution is complex and controversial. Only if you are genuinely interested you are going to learn about it. Go ahead, try it, you may yet evolve into a fine biologist, paleontologist, or something you really love to study.

Answer 6

Men are not from monkeys. Each evolved from a common ancestor.
Birds, Fish all animals are still evolving. It just takes a long time. Pigeons were not originally city birds. They have evoled to handle the cities quite well though.
Sharks have been on earth same since the dinosaurs. There were sharks back then but not the Great Whtie and other species we see today. The species today evolved from the older sharks.

Answer 7

The most simple design, which was created
by the God / Nature , is atom of hydrogen.
The most complex design, which was created
by the God / Nature , is the Man.
The Man is alive essence.
Animals, bird, fish are alive essences.
And an atom?
And atom is also alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
Therefore, the one, who creates a general picture of Life,
must consider development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
* * *
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has caught a cold accidentally and has blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some hundreds
(thousands) kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then atom of hydrogen was accidentally formed.
Then complex atom was accidentally formed.
Then was accidentally formed vegetative and fauna.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
http://www.socratus.com

Answer 8

Here is the idea behind evolution in a nutshell. Natural selection (what causes species to change over time) allows certain traits from one generation to be passed on to the next generation. The only traits that natural selection act on are those that aid in survival to the point where one can reproduce. This is because if some trait kills someone off after they've already had kids, then the traits have already been passed on and you can't do a recall or anything.

Apes are well suited to their environment and humans are well suited to theirs. Thus there is no motivation (selective pressures) for them to pass on one trait over another in general, and that is why apes stay apes and humans stay humans (at least as far as we can tell).

Things don't just evolve into what people consider better states. They need selective pressures to do so. People are the way they are because a long time ago selective pressures made them that way (being bipedal and having larger brains), not because nature just decided that was just the way things were going to be. Obviously these ideas don't only apply to humans.

The idea of why birds did not become fishes as you put it is paralleled by what happens in the business world. In the business world people take advantage of niche markets; in the animal world animals take advantage of ecological niches.

For example think of Pepsi and Red Bull. Both are caffinated sugar water, but they are slightly different so as to take advantage of different target customers. If they both just made the exact same thing, then they'd loose out because they'd be splitting the same market without taking advantage of another potential one.

The same thing happens in ecosystems. There are resources birds can tap into that fish can't and vice versa. If they all were exactly the same types of animals, say all fish, they'd have to compete more fiercely for the same types of resources. If you think about evolution in this light, birds don't become fish because it isn't economical.

Similarly, this is why not all primates sharing our common ancestor became humans. There were resources that they could tap into that we couldn't and vice versa.

Answer 9

Evolution is caused by environmental conditions. If it is good for you to be a fish, and all of your children are healthy as fish, then there is no evolutionary pressure to create change. If on the other hand you and your kin are trapped in a lake that is drying out, then you had better be the one fish that has strong enough fins to drag yourself to the next little pool, and thus begins the evolutionary pressure to change into a land-using animal.

If there is a suitable environment, then there will be an animal that is taking advantage of it (jungles=monkeys because they can climb and use trees).

Answer 10

Darwin wasn't wrong; he just got a few things mixed up.

What you're talking about it macroevolution--fish turning into birds, stuff like that. There are no fossil records to prove any of these. In fact, there are fossil records found in the Burgess Pass that the prehistoric creatures may have been created at the same time; wings and gills didn't evolve according to these fossils. They just appeared.

Microevolution, a blue flower turning into a red flower, is proven. There's no problem in believing that.

Basically, this argument over evolution isn't going to stop. Ever. No one can ever be proven RIGHT. Science may be able to decide HOW but not why. Religion will be able to help find the WHY but not the how.