Question for Evolutionists??

Question

Have we actually found fossils that are transitions from an ape to a human??
I dont understand how you can believe that a human, can come from an ape because our DNA is sooo similar, 1% difference right? well we're obviously different than apes, so that 1% difference is a HUGE difference because i dont have fur all over my body, and i dont act like an ape.
another thing is where did these apes come from? I dont understand how this could be a random occurance. Our bodies are so complicated we still dont understand all of it.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, i just want to know more because right now i dont buy it.

How do u know i'm a religious person?
well i'm sorry i sound foolish but i dont understand, thats why i asked this question. I just want to learn more i'm not saying that its wrong or anything but you just assume that.
Thanks for all of the very detailed answers they are very helpful :-)

Answer 1

There are *so* many good answers here ... please, please read Richard's answer carefully. It is *very* good, and is not insulting at all. Likewise Jessica G's answer (and link).

But OMG, please be careful when reading the post by Bryan R (who has since changed his handle to 'science.fact.). It is using the incredibly dishonest technique of "quote mining" and "quoting out of context". The misquoting of people like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins is deplorable.

Example: Bryan R takes a passage from Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" and leaves the last sentence dangling:

Bryan R's edited version of Dawkins quote: "Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation..." (and there Bryan cuts off Dawkins in mid-sentence).

Bryan R is deliberately omitting most of that paragraph, which says precisely the OPPOSITE. The paragraph (I have the book right here) actually ends like this:

Dawkins actual sentence: "Both schools of thought [the two different schools of evolutionary theory] would agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject that alternative." (p. 230.)

So Bryan R strategically omitted the beginning and ending of Dawkins' sentence, especially that last phrase "AND BOTH WOULD REJECT THAT ALTERNATIVE" [divine creation]. Dawkins was specifically saying that both schools of evolutionary thought are unanimous in REJECTING creationism. And Bryan R manufactured this into a passage that implies that Dawkins himself now AGREES with the creationists! This is the type of deceitful tactics that are commonplace among some creationists.

I could go pgf by pgf through Bryan R's post and show similar deceits and/or misunderstandings of science (e.g. that scientists date rocks only by the kinds of fossils they contain ... not true. Or that the claim that human footprints along side dinosaur footprints "has been verified" ... not true (it has be thoroughly discredited) ... or that Don Patton has a PhD or is a reputable scientist (not true, not even *close* to being in the same category of Harvard and Oxford biology professors Gould (now deceased) and Dawkins).

But this gets boring and does not answer your question. I just had to call Bryan R on these tactics. He is insulting your intelligence.

---

Now to your questions:

"Have we actually found fossils that are transitions from an ape to a human?"

Yes. Although I have to clarify the term 'ape'. First, this was not a transition from any modern species of ape (chimp, gorilla, etc.) but a common ancestor of the modern apes, including humans. It's unclear whether we would call this early ancestor an 'ape' ... it's often hard to put modern labels on a long extinct species. Second, humans *are* apes ... this is just a classification (basically a primate without a tail, but there's more to it) and is no more insulting than saying that "humans are primates" or "humans are mammals." It's just a classification.

For transitional fossils for humans:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

"I dont understand how you can believe that a human, can come from an ape because our DNA is sooo similar, 1% difference right? well we're obviously different than apes, so that 1% difference is a HUGE difference because i dont have fur all over my body, and i dont act like an ape."

Actually, it may be as much as 3% or 4% ... but it's still tiny. And yes that is enough explain all the differences we see. Humans DO have fur all over their body, just less of it. The brains of a human is not fundamentally a different brain than that of apes ... it's just bigger ... a *lot* bigger (which accounts for the behavior, and the language). Our arms aren't *different* arms ... just different proportions ... longer or shorter forearm bones, bicep muscles, etc. Even our feet and legs have muscles and structures that have no function in humans but are essential for grasping with the feet in other primates. But the real point is that 96% or 97% similarity in our genes ... same basic structures, same blood proteins, same digestive enzymes, same proteins in the eye used for color vision, same hormone structures, all almost identical proteins that vary in a couple of molecules here and there. More distant species (like monkeys) have the same proteins, but with a few more variations ... and so on ... the further away on the evolutionary tree, the more of these subtle molecular differences. This is not explained simply by "common creator" ... these all follow the *exact* patterns we would expect if all species were related by common ancestry.

For more information, see "How to Compare Genetic Distance Among Species":
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

I hope that helps. You are asking good questions. The problem you may find is that "evolutionists" (a questionable term ... I prefer "scientists" or "biologists" as most do believe that evolution is the best theory going) not only don't balk at these questions ... but they have *very* detailed answers.

Answer 2

Firstly, I encourage you to visit the link I listed as a source and see the picture of a Neanderthal skull. The big jaw looks fairly ape-ish, no?

Also, you DO have fur all over your body, it's just not as pronounced. Do you not shave your legs, your armpits? Everywhere except your palms and bottom of your feet is covered in tiny hairs. You also act like an ape, only a more intelligent one who has gained the ability to walk upright. Apes are able to use tools and they have opposable thumbs, two characteristics that are quite integral to our human existence.

In animals besides apes and humans, there is a lot of other evidence for evolution, such as the presence of vestigial structures. And example of a vestigial structure is the human appendix--we don't use it, but it's still there. Actually the only good it does us is to get inflamed sometimes. Anyhow, these unused body parts come from ancestor species that DID use them, and there definitely are fossils demonstrating this.

If the complexity of life seems like it must have been creating by a being, let me give you a dose of logic. Many theists believe "This is so beautiful, something must have designed all this." Most theists would also agree that their God is beautiful and complicated, so by that logic something had to make him too, right? Well what about this other maker, the God of God? Who made him? If you think existence has to be designed, you end up with an infinite chain of Gods and creations.

Answer 3

Yes, there are fossils of individual animals that have characteristics intermediate between modern humans and common ancestors of extant apes.

Intermediate brain sizes, tooth shapes, skull proportions, degrees of bipedality, overall morphology.

A snowflake is complicated, that doesn't mean there have to be little elves/angels/imps/faires assembling or carving them in the clouds.

There's a difference between don't understand and can't understand. Saying that we can't understand something because we don't understand something else is either lazy or dishonest.
Evolution isn't random, mutation is. Those randomly derived traits that help survival are perpetuated the traits that reduce survival rates are slowly weeded out.

You do have hair all over your body, just not thick enough to notice. There are plenty of uncomfortable (from a creationists POV) behavioral similarities between humans and apes. A vast body of anthropological studies that show human-like behavior among nonhuman primates. Jane Goodall's research on chimpanzees, Diane Fossey's work with mountain gorillas are two standouts among a very busy field of research.

Answer 4

There are transitional forms, many of them, between our common ancestors with apes. They do have fossils. Look it up-I'd recommend futuyma's book Evoloutionary Biology for a good primer on evolution.
And the difference is less than 1%.
We actually have many similar social systems, when compared to apes. And we do have fur all over our bodies--look at your arms and legs. Do you see hair? It's not super thick, but it's there.

And if you think it's weird that we got, from random circumstances, the formation of barely living cells, and then slightly more complex life forms, and so on and so on, until we got us...

THINK HOW MUCH WEIRDER AND UNLIKELY IT IS THAT GOD RANDOMLY APPEARED FIRST.
And then created everything else, with his randomnly bestowed absolute powers. That's what I can't buy, and if you're assuming linearity of time, you really do need God to just randomly appear from nothing at some point with no intermediate forms, before anything else.
Talk about a leap of faith!

Answer 5

I would have to think that in this term would be micro evolution. It's all about the mutations of our genetics and a combination of the environmental factors. Modern apes and the apes from a few million years ago have separate genetic pathways.

After so long of branching out our species and the others we become different as do the apes. Like I said the evolution theory is all about genetics, environmental factors, and the science of things like anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology backs up these theories. But that is why they call it a theory.

This is a very great question. Although I don't think I could convince you otherwise. I hope I was helpful in some sort of way.

Also, I hope you really don't believe that god merely placed animals and man on this earth making us pop out of nowhere...now that is just a silly concept of our evolution.

Answer 6

First off there are humans that are very fury !!! Second ever watch wrestling or ultimate cage brawling or whatever that is. Pretty much running around grunting and smashing heads. I have also watched an ape use tools to retrieve his meal. I have seen a baby monkey of some kind make something to play with and have blasty with it. My kids only play with what my hypocrisy purchases. They seem like they live a whole lot less hectic life. Maybe we are lesser evolved we have essentially complicated the process of food, shelter, and companionship beyond what they are. Needs. The apes seem to have it much better... Minus the people killing them for money or destroying their homes for money. I can only assume that they do such things in order to feed and shelter their family but I doubt it.

Answer 7

I do not call myself an evolutionist, but I am going to answer this anyway.

Evolution is is a theory to help understand the changes in lifeforms over time. It does not have anything to do with the original creation or manifestation of these lifeforms. Evolution does not mean a belief in random events or chaos.

Most people who accept this theory would tell you that humans did not come from apes, but rather humans and many apes seem to have a common ancestor (different branches of the same family tree).

Much of that difference in DNA between humans and apes is the genetic coding for the brain and how the brain is used. Just because humans have languages and logical thought patterns which can be taught from generation to generation does not mean that basically humans are not animals. To believe this might be considered the height of arrogance.

If you look carefully at human behavior in a mob or group expecting an immediate danger (large predator or fire, for example) you might find much less difference between your behavior and that of many of the great apes.

The simplest cases of change in a lifeforms over time deal with microbes. Humans know through study that some species have changed enough to now be considered a different species. This is more than just changes in antibiotic response or nutritional needs. These changes are associated with changes in DNA coding.

Please understand that some people are so set in their own dogma that they cannot begin to change their belief system no matter what evidence is presented to them. They have no method to begin to understand how a flu virus can change from year to year. Evolution does not have all the answers, especially if one is interested in the original creation of life. Evolution can, on the other-hand, help understand how life can change.

Answer 8

Apes are not humans. Humans are not apes. Evolution doesn't work that way. If humans had evolved from apes, there would be no more apes. Chimps are our closest relatives due to similarities in DNA yes, but our evolutionary paths separated many years ago.

Answer 9

You religious people are dumbasses and always piss me off. Learn a little bit more about science before making a complete *** of yourself. I know science is a little bit more difficult to swallow compared to your religion where magic always happens in Lala land. The theory of evolution doesn't say that we came from monkeys. I know that's what your preacher or whatever you have over there teaches you kids. But that isn't the case. Open your mind, don't be a mindless drone that drinks whatever your religion tells you. Wake up and learn.

Answer 10

Apes are not humans. They are totally different and are animals in jungles where they belong in their natural habitat.