When did humans and monkeys evolve from a common ancestor?

Question

The probability of beneficial mutations occurring simultaneously in multiple chromosomes of a single cell is extremely low. The probability of the same mutations occurring simultaneously in all cells of a multi-cell organism, is even lower. Needless to say, such random beneficial mutations have never been observed in the lab or in nature. To compensate for the low probability, biologists tend to take the approach of "given enough time it might happen." That's about as convincing as saying that given enough time, a monkey with a typewriter will produce all the writings of Shakespeare. With this premise, biologists have developed various models which yield "millions of years" as the time necessary for such "evolutionary mutations" to occur. Then, once such a time length has been calculated, we find in biology textbooks statements like: "Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor 3 million years ago", as if this was a well established scientific fact. Where is intellectual honesty?

Answer 1

>"The probability of the same mutations occurring simultaneously in all cells of a multi-cell organism, is even lower."

Actually, it is practically zero ... in an already grown multi-cellular organism.

But if a mutation occurs in a sperm or egg cell ... or in newly fertilized zygote as it begins to replicate to form the embryo ... then the chances are pretty much 100% that *every single cell* in the resulting offpring will have that mutation.

Isn't that *painfully* obvious? That's *BASIC* 10th-grade biology.

>" Needless to say, such random beneficial mutations have never been observed in the lab or in nature."

Of course it has! If a weevil develops immunity to a pesticide, that is certainly beneficial *to the weevil*.

>"To compensate for the low probability, biologists tend to take the approach of "given enough time it might happen." That's about as convincing as saying that given enough time, a monkey with a typewriter will produce all the writings of Shakespeare."

If you had done *ANY* research you would know that the "monkeys-and-typewriters" argument is ridiculous and long refuted. Evolution is not just *random*. There's this little thing called 'natural selection' (which most creationists now acknowledge) and this is NOT random.

>"With this premise, biologists have developed various models which yield "millions of years" as the time necessary for such "evolutionary mutations" to occur."

I have to agree there. But with a few clarifications. It is not just millions of years for those beneficial mutations to occur, but also includes the time needed (the generations) for those mutations to spread into the population. That is the part you misunderstand ... mutations ... good, bad, and neutral ... are occurring *all the time*. But TIME is what allows the good ones to spread, the neutral ones to linger, and the bad ones to die out.

And second, if you are implying that scientists are no more precise than "millions of years", then again, you haven't done much research. They know quite well how often mutations occur, and how long they take to propagate into a population.

The fact that the accumulation of mutations in mitochondrial DNA of humans, as determined by geneological studies of existing human populations, also correlates well to known patterns of migration in recent history, and to historical migration 20,000 40,000, 170,000 years in the past (as confirmed by archaeological evidence), and other hominids that branched off 500,000, 1 million, 2 million years ago (as confirmed by both DNA from extinct species like Neanderthal, and archaeological and fossil evidence), and other primates 5 million, 10 million 20 million years ago, and on and on.

These are NOT numbers drawn out of a hat. All the numbers from *many* different fields of science, all FIT.

>"we find in biology textbooks statements like: "Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor 3 million years ago", as if this was a well established scientific fact. Where is intellectual honesty?"

I would ask you the same question. Since no biology book actually *says* that ... where is *your* intellectual honesty?

Where is your "intellectual honesty" when you ask a question about the common ancestor between humans and monkeys, when you clearly have no interest whatsoever in the answer?

(The answer, BTW, is 25-30 million years ago ... for the common ancestor between monkeys and humans ... and about 3-5 million years ago between apes and humans.)

Answer 2

To add to what others have said to debunk your self-described "intellectual honesty", there is a huge fallacy in the writing Shakespeare by accident scenerio.

If a beneficial mutation occurs, there may be a reward in improved ability to survive and have offspring. It is not completely random as you seem to believe. No doubt Shakespeare could be reproduced in a similar manner if there was a reward over 20 million years every time a correct letter was typed, but try to enter a wrong letter and it brings the end of the line for that strain of monkey.

Answer 3

Intellectual honesty is knowing you are correct because your ideas and opinions are based of fact. Fact are the bases of knowledge. Evolution is fact. Creation is not fact, it is faith based, therefore intellectual honesty does not exist with those that claim Creation is how life became on Earth. Intellectual honesty requires an answer to debate and questions, not circular arguments and word games.

The evidence for human evolution is there, it is factual. If you choose not to accept reality, then that's your choice. But, attempting to force your denial on others is just plain ignorant. If you are a religious person, do something more along the lines of helping your fellow humans be better citizens. Instead of trying to brainwash them with lies.

I've included just the one site. You may visit it if you choose to be more enlighten about human evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I don't believe Baton is a biologist. Every biologist knows we humans did not evolve from monkeys. We had a common ancestor. In fact her reply is very suspicious, considering what is common knowledge.

Answer 4

Evolution is led to by mutation presented about by one of those motives. counting on our surroundings certain mutations will stay and some will die out. Chimpanzees and human beings are not 'both' advanced in words of intelligence as this may require them to have similar mutations and be experiencing an similar issues and environments. do not assume that evolution potential more suitable suitable in words of intelligence. It in simple terms makes it more suitable probable for an organism to proceed to exist and as human beings and chimpanzees are nevertheless residing and effectively surviving in our environments then evolution has favoured us both.

Answer 5

So intellectual honesty means making something up about a talking snake in a tree and everyone just deciding to believe it because our parents do?
You say that evolution isnt convincing, yet a fairy tale about a 600 year old man building an arc is evidence to you?
Six Hundred Years Old !!! Thats your argument !!??
Intellectual honesty? You dont even begin to understand that phrase.

Answer 6

I am a biologist, but I do not believe that we descent from monkeys. We have the same features, and bone structure, but we are two completely different animals/organisms/living things however you want to put it. We were created by God and each animal is unique, some have similar features/bone structure that are given to that particular organism to give them the ability to do that they were made to do. Biologists say. that if an animal is a descendant from another, their ancestor's aren't supposed to still be alive... because they descended frmo them. So, if monkeys were our ancestors, they're not supposed to be in existence, right?? We would be a more evolved/mutated version of them.

Answer 7

To me the only link they have is they were both created by God. The big difference is man was created in the likeness of God