2007-06-17 17:01:13 · 14 answers · asked by Pen 5 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Ok and for that first answerer thanks, but I ment from the ape family/sinthropicas, ausropethethicas, gorrilas, , whatever you know the family genus, get the drift?
2007-06-17 17:09:02 · update #1
anthropocentric=centered around anthropods
anthropomorphic=making gods, animals into human like figures, images
2007-06-17 17:10:39 · update #2
Yes we had a commen ancestor that has not yet been discovered the so called missing link my question was simply was it a progression or a regression
2007-06-17 17:11:51 · update #3
What is ignorant is getting an agressive answer from a souped up monkey damn!
2007-06-17 17:46:11 · update #4
yes.
Nice story related to monkeys.
My aunt has a few mango trees in her garden and a couple of monkeys usually come and have a good feast this time around. They also open the taps in the garden wash their hands and face (female ones wash the faces of their kids) but leave the tap opened. This made my aunt lock the tap, so now the female monkeys have started using dried leaves to clean the faces of their kids and pic up water from other houses using some old utensils :)...
2007-06-17 17:12:50 · answer #1 · answered by Capt. Nemo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as "de-evolving," if there is change it is evolving. Evolution has nothing to do with whether the change is beneficial or not. Therefore we EVOLVED. If you're asking whether this was a good thing or not, I'm not sure. We are intelligent enough to understand much about our universe, and are able to rely increasingly less on nature. On the other hand, we are rapidly destroying the earth, whose ecosystems are necessary for our survival. So... you could argue either way.
2007-06-18 01:37:35 · answer #2 · answered by khard 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither, we split off from a common ancestor.
On the other hand, I'd say human-ness is a step up from monkey-ness, but I speak as an anthropocentric human.
2007-06-18 00:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by maeamian 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are evolved from animals that are very similar to todays monkeys. They evolved into apes that are also similar to modern apes which evolved into us. It is rare in nature to even consider using the term devolved. I don't see how it could apply to humans.
2007-06-18 00:49:48 · answer #4 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no humans did not evolve from monkeys, and if people interpret darwanism the correct way, it basically means that people are put on earth by luck .... meaning that humans do not have a purpose in life, we are just here taking up space.... meaning that there is no such thing as god.... meaning evolution is bullshyt because something can not come from nothing
2007-06-18 09:05:54 · answer #5 · answered by Giggles 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
possibly from apes not monkeys and probably evolved and devolved both at the same time;the apes do sometimes seem a bit more intelligent.
2007-06-18 00:07:00 · answer #6 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As johnmcn49 stated, there is no such think as devolution. So, no matter whether you agree or not, changing from monkey-like ancestors, to ape to human is always evolution. It would be nice if we hadn't lost the tail though.
2007-06-18 01:16:57 · answer #7 · answered by Labsci 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This silly question is a bit like saying "If all dogs evolved from wolves, (which DNA evidence has proven the have) then why are there still wolves around?"
2007-06-18 10:42:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so because if we derived from monkey's, then why are the species of monkies still here and none of us look like them. Think about it for show, evolution theories only, if we came from a monkey we will still be one.
2007-06-18 00:11:44 · answer #9 · answered by JoJoBa 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Evolution has no direction. Your question shows you are too ignorant to really answer. Educate yourself first. Go here.
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.aboutdarwin.com
PS Do not be smart mouthed, little girl, go to the sites.
2007-06-18 00:35:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋