OK If we really did evolve from primates then where did they evolve from? A Twig?

Question

Seems i touched a nerve with my previous question, so to the people that argued their point so passionately be it wrong or right, please attempt to explain to me how the first living thing came to exist.
I'll make it clear from the start that 1. I'm not religeous, 2. I'm not a scientist, 3. None of the evolutionary theory is fact as one person pointed out(that is after all why it is a theory) 4. Just because i do not personally believe it, does not make me a religeous nut(see above) or an idiot. 5.Lets remember there is nothing wrong with a good debate and there is no need for any bitching on my behalf or anyone else!

Answer 1

Well, whether you're a religious person or not, theres a lot of really valid thought behind the ''theory'' of evolution. As you pointed out, it is a ''theory'', but you have to realize that when that word is used in scientific language it bears much more weight than it does in every day language, because its been tested and retested many many times by different people in different parts of the world, and the ''theory'' hasn't been disproven. Before it can be called a theory in scientific language, its a hypothesis, and to graduate to the level of theory takes much work. The next level is ''law'', but who knows if we'll ever get it to there.
Ok, so, without explaining all the experiments and studies that have led to this theory, here it is in a very small nutshell:
Imagine the Earth about 3 billion years ago. There was no life, only barren rock, oceans devoid of life, the atmosphere had little or no oxygen, there were constant lightning storms, constant earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Ok, now even scientists agree that the chances of this happening are one in several trillion, but over the course of hundreds of millions of years, it is possible. What happened was that lightning struck and a group of molecules formed into an amino acid or something similar. Over time this happened many many times and the oceans or maybe even a pond became some sort of primordial soup of these amino acids. Through the chemical interactions (which we can observe in labs today), they eventually formed random different combinations of these amino acids untill one of them, the first form of life, was able to replicate itself. It sounds like magic, but its actually quite simple and amazing once you learn the chemistry behind it. I could go on for ever about this so I'll stop, but that, in a very very small nutshell is how life started, according to the ''theory''.

Answer 2

Fine. The problem with your last question was that you claimed to have "studied 'evolution' at university for three years" but demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge. ADMITTING that you don't understand something will get you much more productive (and kind) answers.
As for the actual answer, it's very complicated, and would require a book to explain it all...maybe you should buy one. A short answer is not going to illuminate this for you. But, an overly simplistic answer is that it all began as a "chemical reaction" of sorts, and "evolved" from there. Blocks of amino acids, to single celled organisms, to multiple celled organisms...and so forth and so on, for billions of years. But, really, do some research, this is in no way a sufficient answer, and you won't get one with the amount of time allowed here. Also, look up the definition of "theory."

Answer 3

Here's an article about the manufacture of amino acids within a laboratory. It's not life, but it is the building blocks of life. This was previously thought to be impossible. Clearly it is not.
Consider, though, that those who demand proof of evolution will still reject it. Why? Because they have already decided that evolution does not exist.
In the primordial soup of the early Earth, there were many hot springs where the components of life existed in abundance. That they should combine after billions of years into organic molecules seems, to me, to be inevitable. Remember, it only had to happen once for all of life on Earth to have followed.
With regard to creation of larger molecules such as proteins, etc, - combining with molecules of the same kind is a normal chemical phenomenon, crystals in solution do it all the time, organic molecules are not excluded, or special in this respect. In this way, it is not unbelievable that amino acids crystallised in supersaturated solutions to form peptides, proteins, etc.
There are forms of "life" which exist which are little more than proteins - Prions - these cause diseases such as Mad Cow Disease.

Given the right conditions and nutrients, and enough time, life seems inevitable, because life if just a series of chemical reactions.

You're right in that there is nothing wrong with debate. But there is something wrong with rejecting hundreds of years of valid scientific data, claiming that it "doesn't make sense".
To me, understanding evolution does not require a great deal of scientific knowledge. Did you ever wonder why lions and a pet cat look very similar to each other? Or why the Dodo bird was flightless, seemingly just waiting for man to come to their island and hunt them to extinction?
It is ignorance to accept that these things were just put there. Evolution is the only theory which explains the differences and similarities between all species of life on Earth. It is one of the most robust, yet elegant, theories to be put forward.
It is supported by many branches of science, in fact, I cannot think of a branch of science which can be used to reject it. The main objections to it are faith based (yourself excluded), and are not scientific. People seem to be insulted that they can be related to other forms of life. Why? Because then it would challenge their beliefs that they were created in God's image, rather than having an ape-like ancestor as a template for humankind. It is this arrogance which keeps some people from accepting evidence.

Sorry, I have said enough for today. I'll save some words for tomorrow, when, no doubt, someone else will ask a similar question.

Regards to you.

Answer 4

Your initial suggestion, "from a twig," suggests absolute nonsense, and I think you know it.

I really, really hope that you read these excellent and in-depth responses and actually seek to try to understand them. Pick up a book, do more reading and additional research. Don't just make what you think is a snappy dismissal of them simply out of a lack of understanding (or unwilliness to look at the scientific evidence).

And as far as your understandings of scientific 'theory' and its application to the real world, I might point out that NO other 'theory' (religious or otherwise) even comes close to evolution in terms of evidence and explanatory power so if you're going to dismiss the theory of evolution because it's 'only a theory', you also have to disbelieve every other explanation, particularly creationism and intelligent design (or extraterrestrial origins) since there is a complete lack of any supporting evidence for them from any credible source.

Answer 5

"4. Just because i do not personally believe it, does not make me a religeous nut(see above) or an idiot."

True, but the fact that you misuse the word "theory" so horribly, might.

This is not a good debate. This is not a good forum for a debate.

Answer 6

Evidence shows that we did evolve - look at the Neanderthal man etc. As someone said in your last question the right acids/enzymes were in the right place at the right time and temperature and it sparked off a change. Time and change is the key, I think. I think some people should be put back in the slimy soup we came from but that's my opinion.

Answer 7

briefly, convinced. In a sophisticated answer: people developed alongside part primates. we are all descended from the "tremendous apes". The gorillas and chimpanzees that we percentage our planet with immediately at the instantaneous are not a similar species that were round tens of millions of years in the past at the same time as people began to adapt from the excellent apes. Their ancestors were evolving too. We developed otherwise because we had a diverse eating routine, and diverse conduct, regardless of the indisputable fact that our social structure grow to be extremely similar. there is an evolutionary route laid out in findings in Asia and Africa extremely, that shows the human route of evolution. there is also DNA data of our relatedness to chimpanzees and gorillas. utilising this, scientists can confirm style of at the same time as our lines diverged, i.e. after shall we not be labeled as one species (after shall we not interbreed and produce doable offspring). As on your 2d question - speciation can ensue at the same time as a inhabitants is separated from something else of the inhabitants, jointly with via an ocean, mountain decision etc. and those populations can not come jointly to interbreed. over the years (and via that I mean quite a number of time - 1000's of years a minimum of) a inhabitants will diverge and grow to be a separate species, by skill of sluggish mutations of their DNA. Mutation expenditures at the instantaneous are not a similar in each species, and in preserving with their needs 2 species interior a similar area gained't evolve on a similar cost.

Answer 8

They evolved from a lower primate
who came from a lower mammal such as a vole
who came form some form of amphibian
who came from a fish that could briefly come ashore
who came from a fish
who came from a trilobite
who came from single cell organisms

Answer 9

microbes or small single cell organisms that over thousands and millions of years evolve and become more complex organisms as it evolved and learns to adapt to it's new environment (i.e. how animals have evolved over time to adap to things)

Answer 10

Dude, we ARE primates.

And you clearly have no clue what a theory is. After all, gravity is "just a theory" too.