2006-10-19 16:35:38 · 10 answers · asked by Miss Terry 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Study a bit of anthropology and get back to me, okay?
2006-10-19 16:38:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
some apelike creatures evolved to be humans and some evolved to be apes. silly. everyone knows that.
we did not actually evolve from the very same apes we see now, they are already evolved from predecessors. we may have had an apelike creature in common at some way back time. maybe.
maybe we are evolved from an animal more like the dog is evolved from.
Recent DNA tests seem to support that theory. the theory is evolving too as we learn more.
"The only constant is change."
2006-10-19 16:41:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Men did not evolve from apes; they both evolved from a common primate ancestor. Therefore, apes are "evolved" to the extent that they can, given that they've already been pretty well adapted to their environment.
Obviously, there are those that confuse evolution with "betterment," rather than adaption. Evolution is about having advantages, but often, that comes by trading away something else. Much like the sickle cell gene that provided resistance against malaria, but can kill its carrier if both parents contribute the gene to the offspring.
2006-10-19 16:48:53 · answer #3 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If I understand correctly what's been told me, it was that both humans and apes evolved together from a common ancestor, which was supposed to be a lot more like an ape than it was like a human.
However, this seems to suggest that intelligence and self-awareness is nothing more than a series of incremental increases of understanding and self-awareness, starting from nothing, from zero.
Taking this to the logical conclusion, it seems to mean that there really is no QUALITATIVE difference between intelligence and non-intelligence, between self-awareness and non-awareness; only a QUANTITATIVE difference. In practice, nobody lives that way. The most callous materialist does not say of his recently deceased loved one, "That's all right. She was only a pile of atoms, and that hasn't changed."
We are unable to function that way; the sanity and humanness of human beings demands that we act as though our lives mean something; whereas if in fact we (ultimately) evolved from non-living materials, we are no different from non-living materials and are worth no more than non-living materials.
So the evolution of Mind from ultimately unintelligent sources, like mere dead matter, still sounds like a line of bunk to me. It's a nice theory, but it just doesn't conform to the reality that we all act upon within our own hearts and minds. I don't think it is unfair to compare science to philosophy this way; if one contradicts the other then perhaps one is wrong.
By and large, sane people act as if their lives have meaning, as if their thoughts and feelings matter, as if we are not totally futile-- which we would be, if we ultimately came from dead matter and energy alone, and ultimately returned to that state.
2006-10-19 16:58:03 · answer #4 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Watch out. Evolutionists will say that apes and humans evolved from the same primate like creature. But they still can't answer tough ones like if we are evolving for the better then why are more people dieing of diseases. But that is a good question and the answer is evolution is a crock.
2006-10-19 16:41:01 · answer #5 · answered by RIDLEY 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Simple =) Humans didn't evolve from apes!
2006-10-19 16:39:09 · answer #6 · answered by Spudders 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
lol, some day humans will evolve back to apes :) and apes will evolve to something else, human race was genetically engineered by aliens and sent to earth
2006-10-19 16:40:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
"they" dont say apes evolved into humans, "they" say that apes and humans are different branches of the same tree
2006-10-20 03:11:17 · answer #8 · answered by hell oh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a good question and there are some very good answers in any real text book on evolution or in the talk origins site. There are some very bad (read false) answers (lies) in the literature and sites promoted by creationist organisations.
The question pre-supposes that evolution leads to some kind of improvement in a population of organisms. That supposition is wrong. Evolution merely leads to change. Mostly that change is in the direction of better adaption to the environment of the population. If it isn't, or the environment changes, the population reduces or vanishes.
2006-10-19 22:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's not how evolution works. Species don't simply morph into new species.
You need to read some books about the evolution before you try to decide whether or not you think it's correct.
2006-10-19 16:39:10 · answer #10 · answered by extton 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋