I just dont get it?! Apes and humans from the same animal?!?

Question

I understand that evolutionists say that we are not from modern apes and that we share a common ancestor. Now, lets see if I follow: "X" gave birth to X which gave birht to X which gave birth to X which gave birth to X which gave birth to Y and Z. It just seems odd that the same ancestor gave rise to two different lineages and eventually disapeared. Now if tall people mate their children have a probability that they will be tall. And these tall people and thesee tall people and these tall people..... and so on Tall children. If little people and little people and little people and little people and so on.....little children after several generations. Even if this was stretched out over thousands of years you would still have Humans weather tall or short they would still be humans not something else.

protik : Abraham gave birth to Jews and Arabs......note......both are still human.

Geeza

yet it is still language. It may have changed but it is not something else now.

ALL YOU PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO GIVE EXAMPLES OF HOW LANGUAGE CHANGES OR HOW YOUR SKIN BECOMES DARKER OR WHAT EVER CHANGE YOU CAN THINK OF STILL DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. ADAPTATIONS ARE SOMETHING THAT IS READILY SEEN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. PEOPLE LIVING CLOSE TO THE EQUATOR ARE DARKER THAN THOSE LIVING IN ENGLAND. !!!!!!!!!!THEY ARE STILL HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR IS THIS CONCEPT TO HARD TO GRASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jonlindley:

exactly where did that cell come from. Dont you know it just appeared!?

Answer 1

They try to reason by saying it took place over Billions and billions of years ago. somehow saying that if if given enough time monkeys can birth humans

Answer 2

It's not so direct as you make it sound.

Call the remote ancestor X, that's fine. They produce offspring. Some of them might move into a different area and might evolve independently of the original community because their environment is different. If random mutations in the brached-off community's organisms are beneficial, then it will thrive and over a long period of time it may become distinct from the original species that it originally came from.

So, the same species might have, for example, 3 species that branch out from it as new communities evolve in different and specialized ways. And for every species that made it, you can be sure that many failed and become extinct.

Answer 3

Biological adaption lead to mutation(evolution)

It is like this. If the pollution grows worse, the human body will adapt to the level of poison we inhale daily. The body will find a way to protect itself against the poison, possebly by breaking down the molecular structures and use the components for something contructive in our body. But this requires a physical change.

When you travel to a warm country with a lot of sun, this happens visibly with your body within 14 days. The skin becomes darker. This is adaption to the environment. If you stay there and your spwn stays there for like 20 generations, their skin will be more permanently dark. That is evolution.

A more long-term form of evolution is if the value of gravity changes. That will change our size ad how we move, and our body (and the following generations) will physically adapt to the change of gravity.

Evolution is only changes from one physical state to another.

Answer 4

What your missing is that there is almost always some sort of rift between two separate populations. If two groups can't or won't mate with each other, then they can diverge in evolutionary terms until they form a new species. If some of the common ancestors to humans lived in the plains, while others of the same species lived in the forests, and none of them interbreed because they lived in a different enviroment, then they could in fact become different species, say chimpanzees and humans in this case.

When two groups become different enough genetically, it becomes physically impossible to breed together and thus the seperation of the two species becomes complete, even if they later inhabit the same areas later on.

Answer 5

But not all members of a population are, to use your example, tall. Imagine if a part of your hypothetical population moved to an environment where being short was an advantage. Eventually the taller members of the population would die out, and you would be left with a new population that is different from the source population. If they are significantly different, they may even be a different species (obviously they would have to differ in other traits as well, but you get the general idea).

Answer 6

DNA info tells us that people final shared a uncomplicated ancestor with the apes a minimum of five million years in the past. If we seem interior the fossil checklist, we see that by potential of approximately 4.5 million years in the past, there became right into a species of hominid named Ardipithecus ramidus. it would desire to stroll upright even though it had brains the dimensions of chimps. greater remarkably it had plenty smaller dogs tooth than chimps, which potential it would desire to probable no longer be waiting to shield itself against a chimp. As all of us be attentive to chimps are territorial, and that they stay in social communities. they often homicide different chimps from neighboring communities. Given those info, if the conventional ancestor of the chimp and ourselves have been something like residing chimps, they does not tolerate the presence of Ardipithecus interior their territories. They probable could have taken care of Ardipithecus as yet another team of unusual-looking chimps, and can even have hunted Ardipithecus for foodstuff. besides, the hominid lineage more advantageous to stay interior the savanna, especially because of the fact the forests have been shrinking. the quite a few habitat possibilities subsequently cut back the possibility of touch between apes and early hominids. finally, the organic and organic species thought informs us that interspecific hybrids are uncommon in nature, because of the fact hybrids are much less greater healthy than the two parental species below typical situations, because each and each species is genuinely tailored to its particular area of interest, and an admixture of two species is basically approximately quite much less nicely tailored to the habitats of the two parental species. organic determination subsequently could have eradicated any interspecific hybrid between apes and bipedal hominids. And the info of it quite is interior the DNA info, which needless to say shows that hominids are reproductively remoted from apes for a minimum of the previous 5 million years.

Answer 7

>>Now, lets see if I follow: "X" gave birth to X which gave
>>birht to X which gave birth to X which gave birth to X which
>>gave birth to Y and Z.

No, you don't follow.

By your logic, it would seem that for example the English language always existed or was completely written overnight. Because after all, you are able to read this because you learned English, in part by having English conversations with somebody else. And those people had conversations with older people. And those people grew up having conversations with people who already knew English, and so on. Yet we don't actually have evidence of people speaking English 1500 years ago. Why? And who did the first English speaker speak to?

The answer of course is that the definition of "English language" isn't so rigid. Books from 100 years ago read a bit differently as they do now. Shakespearre works are harder to read. And an even older Anglo-Saxon English text like "Beowulf" is next to impossible to read by the modern English speaker. This happened by gradual changes over a long period of time. We can, however, find notable enough differences in English that separate itself and its history from languages like "Japanese" or "Spanish". And populations of English speakers have separated and grown on their own, which is why English speakers from England sound different than Americans.

Likewise, it is fallacious to assume that populations give birth to exact copies of themselves. They don't. There are factors at work like genetic drift, genetic mutations, and natural selection. The fact that two consecutive generations don't look visually different is no more relevant than the fact that magazines you read this year have the same English style as magazines read in 2006.

EDIT: You said "yet it is still language. It may have changed but it is not something else now." I could just as well argue that primates and their ancestors are "still organisms". So what? You clearly don't WANT to understand biology. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

If you REALLY, really think that you can disprove hundreds of years of scientific research by playing armchair theologian, then let's see you publish a paper on your research.

Answer 8

If you want to get technical, ALL life on earth came from the same terrestrial tree. Eons ago our ancestors were reptiles. So, don`t get stuck on the apes and humans common ancestor thing. If you go far back enough in time all life on earth has a common ancestor.

Plus you`re not taking into account that X giving birth to X (human) and X giving birth to X (Ape) - X is in two different ENVIRONMENTS.

Answer 9

Your understanding of the process is somewhat flawed. Our ancestor did NOT give birth to an ape and a human.

Basically think of how people have developed differently in different countries due to thousands of years of seperation. This is basically due to particular features that are or were either beneficial for survival or simply more attractive to the opposite gender allowed individuals carrying those features in their genes to breed more often than those who didn't.

Example - any country with vast amounts of sunlight is inhabited by people with very dark skin. This is because increased amounts of skin pigment help to protect the skin from UV rays and people who carried genes that allowed darker skin were able to survive and breed better than those without it allowing the genes to carry on. Similarly, in less sunny countries people with less skin pigment were more successful due to less inhibited ability to create vitamin D during exposure to less sun than those with dark skin.

Now, the split between different species of primate from a common ancestor is not that dissimilar from this. As our common ancestors' population grew it's likely that some would venture out to develop communities elsewhere - this behaviour can be seen in modern primates including man. This split in community is how the split in species happened. Over prolonged exposure to harsher environments, one group would develop differently to another that had less proving time. In our case, we developed a high level of cognative thought, whereas other groups developed higher levels of arm strength, overall size, differing levels of sexual dimorphism, etc.

If this doesn't help to clear things up for you I'll be glad to help you via email.

Answer 10

You demonstrate a near complete ignorance of the workings of genetics, natural selection/genetic drift/gene flow/mutation and the time and scale at which these gradated changes take place.

::head explodes all over laptop::

X didn't give rise to X-->Y and Z. There are changes in the allele frequency in every subsequent generation. Over time, natural forces weed out the individuals whose alleles weren't the most conducive to successful reproduction .

Here's another way of looking at it:

AB + CD-->AC, AD, BC and BD. All of those have a different combination of genetic traits. The ones who are better suited to reproduce more successfully in their environment will eventually outnumber the ones who are less successful reproductively. Do this a bunch of times and you start to see changes in the species. Do this a bunch more times and you get different species.


I'm done trying to explain the finer workings of the evolutionary process when your high school biology class should have done so in the first place.

No offense to you, I've just had it up to here ::indicates::.

*btw, the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the first cell that set all this into motion. It just explains how these changes occur and how species give rise to other species.

Answer 11

We all come from the same source, animals and humans, plants, rocks, everything. Anybody who wants to think that they are different or somehow 'more divine' than another being is delusional. You are related to all other humans, to worms, dogs, fish, and even gold, water vapor, cyanide and stardust. None of these would exist without all of the other of these. Get over being so frick*n' special and get in touch with your existence. Or quit calling yourself a spiritual being.