after all, they adapt to their environment, we do not. They continue to evolve today, we do not. There are missing links, and humanity has been known to burn their dead, thus destroying fossil evidence, and animals don't do this. Disregarding the question of where the humans might have come from, since we are unlikely to know for a certainty anytime soon, is it possible that animals evolved from us?
2007-01-04 05:58:39 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Dear Endora, Would it really make a difference? Your Friend Eva.
2007-01-04 06:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by Eva 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, there are a few issues with that, for one, we continue to evolve, and adapt to the environment today, we just have some relatively long generational time as opposed to some other oganisms... Burning our dead isn't a very old practice regardless, and doesn't destroy the fossile evidence completly, as it's extremly difficult to get carbon to burn, cremation now occurs at 1600-1800 °F, basically if you can achieve that you can smelt iron, and we have records far before man could do such things. Likewise, we have no records of homo sapiens before a certain point in time while we do have records for homo erectus and homo neanderthalus from those time periods, which would indicate the very little could've developed from homo sapiens (we've only been around 250,000 years or so, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms). There happen to be records of many species before that... So it's a bit unlikely, even ignoring what environmental pressures would be necisary to stop developing the upper brain and primarily depend upon midbrain and lower brain functions.
2007-01-04 06:19:41 · answer #2 · answered by yelxeH 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This depends on which you consider to be a greater achievement, being able to adapt to your environment or being able to adapt your environment to you. Humans are able to live in places that are not capable of supporting life as a result of technology we've developed. Which is much more useful as a tool for survival than growing more fur.
But even with that, things will continue to evolve - just look at how many humans now have wisdom teeth? As this is no longer a survival advantage, chances are this will become increasingly uncommon.
The idea that a horse (or any other animal) would evolve this way is contrary to the theory... further, if that was the case, then you would also have empircal evidence in the forms of human remains predating that of animals (which we don't, not even close)
2007-01-04 06:05:28 · answer #3 · answered by Paul S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, humans do evolve. Humans evolve at about the same amount per generation, but human generations are longer. For example, a virus has generations within a day. So they can quickly evolve forcing us to make a new flu vaccine every year.
It is possible that animals evolved from us, but all the fossil records and radioactive dating says otherwise.
2007-01-04 06:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nope, that really makes no since.
Also we do evolve The average IQ level in countries with lots of social security and welfare programs goes down since on average the poor will breed faster and have a lower IQ.
Some times someone will be born with horns, a tail, their entire body covered in fir. If these where better traits to have and those people bred a lot soon we would all have them.
Adapting does not just mean looking different differences in IQ and thinking are adaptations too. People who are smarter get more money and are more attractive so for many years they would breed more and the average IQ would go up. Now people with no job get more money from the government the more kids they have so they breed more and the average IQ is going down. Both are examples of adapting to environment.
2007-01-04 06:09:55 · answer #5 · answered by thatoneguy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I must correct you. We are still evolving too.
It's an interesting thought you've got going there, but I don't think it happened that way.
You could compare evolution to a tree. At the bottom there is the tree trunk. Higher up it splits into many branches and each branch grows into many other branches. All of today's living beings are like those last branches. They came from the previous branches, which came from the trunk. We (and all other beings) will evolve into something else with time, but I believe that hasn't happened yet. The tree needs to grow further before that happens.
2007-01-04 06:06:25 · answer #6 · answered by undir 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a million. Outright denial 2. Lie 3. Duh! yet this does not propose something. Even newly obtained ed genetic mutation remains "already" interior the gene-pool 4. Nope, the perception of evolution basically discusses how organisms replace through the years. Abiogenesis is a thoroughly different subject matter and has that's own assisting information. declaring abiogenesis is basically a cheap ploy to move the doubt we at present have over the perfect origins of existence, to evolution. 5. Retrospection isn't information. If I win the lottery, seem decrease back and say, "Wow! That became really not likely!" does the money disappear? 6. That sounds like a own problem… Gravity has no compassion for after I fall and smash a leg, yet that would not give up it from taking position. 7. "typically at the same time as it reaches out, controls, differences, and adjusts the ambience to his own needs," nicely, duh. at the same time as circumstances are favorable, you do not opt to do something, is this going someplace? "it needs to be referred to that this pastime is under no circumstances analogous to any software of "version to the ambience", "organic and organic mutation" or something else understood through the perception of evolution and organic determination." this does not choose particular aspect out, that's obtrusive. Evolution bargains with genetic replace, I even do not recognize why you're even talking about this… "This has great implications to the perception of evolution. No different organism has ever had this potential. " and how is this a flaw of the perception of evolution? "of route the list is inexhaustible" sure, bullshit is a renewable source. "it really is sparkling that such factors come from the layout hypothesis" Such factors stem from lack of know-how, not that pseudoscience crap.
2016-10-16 23:27:59 · answer #7 · answered by fernande 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sigh.
It doesn't work that way; all animals - humans and non-humans alike - evolve from their ancestors. It's not like once speciation occurs, the original species stops evolving!
Read a little bit about evolution if you really want to know:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Reading the other answers, I'm amazed at how terrible american schools are. It's just american schools - the rest of the world doesn't have that problem.
2007-01-04 06:03:04 · answer #8 · answered by eldad9 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Humans are evolving, but is an environment with massive population growth and low selective pressures, changes aren't selected out.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it remotely probable? No. Is there any evidence? No, all evidence is that our closest cousins are chimps from which we diverged 4-5 million years ago.
2007-01-04 07:07:45 · answer #9 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What makes you think the human animal isn't evolving? In my view it's a given that evolution continues, with people as well as other animals.
2007-01-04 06:06:37 · answer #10 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You say animals evolved from us and animals are still evolving. Your statement that we are not evolving any longer has fundamental logical errors. These animals would then be an evolved form of humans thus we would still be evolving.
From what source did you find that humans are no longer evolving?
2007-01-04 06:16:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋