did humans evolve from apes?

[LAwLz]

What a stupid ass question, evolution from apes. Apes are still around so I am pretty sure that theory is mute.

 

Darwinism = Ignorance (or lack of logical thought)

Similar doesn't equal same.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you are serious then you might want to do a bit of research before calling others ignorant.

It is possible for part of a species to evolve in one direction while another part evolves in a different direction. That explains why both apes and humans are around. If you don't believe me then look at dogs. Huge variety and they all come from selective breeding. What you are saying is basically like saying "I don't believe poodles exist because we now have labradoodles".

[SansVarnic]

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you are serious then you might want to do a bit of research before calling others ignorant.

It is possible for part of a species to evolve in one direction while another part evolves in a different direction. That explains why both apes and humans are around. If you don't believe me then look at dogs. Huge variety and they all come from selective breeding. What you are saying is basically like saying "I don't believe poodles exist because we now have labradoodles".

Yes I was serious. Even Darwin recanted his theory before he died.

Selective breeding is not evolution.

I know and understand what evolution is,  I am more inclined towards the theory of adaptation and natural selection than the theory evolution.

[SansVarnic]

Before going further though.....

 

OPs question is click bait and 

 

 

OP had to know this will happen.

Started Three flame wars he has.

I smell a 

Spoiler

troll poster

not that I would call anyone a troll specifically, just that there is a hint of troll odor in here.

Edited December 20, 2015 by SansVarnic

[LAwLz]

Yes I was serious. Even Darwin recanted his theory before he died.

There is no evidence for that. It's just something Christians like to say because they think it somehow makes the theory of evolution weaker, even though it is based on observable facts and not just what Darwin believed. That's the great thing about facts. They are true no matter if you believe in them or not.

You can read about it on creation.com.

The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people’s attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves.

Selective breeding is not evolution.

Ehm, that is exactly what it is. Evolution is "chance in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such process as mutation, natural selection and genetic drift". Selective breeding fits that description perfectly. The only difference between it and natural evolution is that it is us humans who guide the evolutionary path instead of natural selection.

 

 

 

I know and understand what evolution is,  I am more inclined towards the theory of adaptation and natural selection than the theory evolution.

I think that statements proves that you do not understand what evolution is. Can you please explain what the "theory of adaptation and natural selection" is and tell me how it differs from evolution.

 

Both adaptation and natural selection are mechanics that allows for evolution to occur.

What you are saying right now is like saying "I don't believe in cars. I believe in four wheels attached to and powered by a combustion engine for transportation".

[LokiFire]

No.

[Fred Castellum]

Let's see who paid attention in class now.... 

[SansVarnic]

There is no evidence for that. It's just something Christians like to say because they think it somehow makes the theory of evolution weaker, even though it is based on observable facts and not just what Darwin believed. That's the great thing about facts. They are true no matter if you believe in them or not.

You can read about it on creation.com.

Interesting, this is the first time I have seen this. Unfortunately it is a he said she said thing so I will refrain from referencing it again in a Darwin debate.

 

Ehm, that is exactly what it is. Evolution is "chance in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such process as mutation, natural selection and genetic drift". Selective breeding fits that description perfectly. The only difference between it and natural evolution is that it is us humans who guide the evolutionary path instead of natural selection.

Direct Human intervention is still not evolution it is forced breed, if it happens on its own then I would accept it.

 

I think that statements proves that you do not understand what evolution is. Can you please explain what the "theory of adaptation and natural selection" is and tell me how it differs from evolution.

 

I am referring to Darwin's theory of adaptation. Where an organism 'adapts' to its environment. The application of which is what I do not agree to. I agree that an organism will adapt to its environment but to evolve into something entirely different? no I cannot agree to that.

There is no direct linage of evolution of ape to man but in theory only and I do not agree with the theory. 

 

What you are saying right now is like saying "I don't believe in cars. I believe in four wheels attached to and powered by a combustion engine for transportation".

That is not what I am saying.

[techguru]

I think the problem alot of people have...is they either don't really understand what evolution is....or they are misunderstanding exactly how evolution happens/works

 

evolution can be observed over a rather short amount of time with small insects...bacteria...mold...viruses...etc

[TopWargamer]

No, and before you hate, here's my cat tax:

 

[Misanthrope]

I think the problem alot of people have...is they either don't really understand what evolution is....or they are misunderstanding exactly how evolution happens/works

 

evolution can be observed over a rather short amount of time with small insects...bacteria...mold...viruses...etc

 

That's not really the problem. Sorry if it offends people (since I don't know anybody on this forum doing this specifically) but the problem is Fundamentalist Christians (Mostly pastors and other people who directly benefit from it) spreading lies to serve their agenda. Let's not beat around the bush, it's exactly what they're doing and who is doing the damage here. People are "not informed" and "don't understand" a lot of topics but it takes a special kind of dipshit to start spreading misinformation and lies about scientific research with the most stupid of arguments only to offer their own theory: "A magic man in the sky did it in 6 days because it says so here in this book, that's my proof"

[Megahurt]

We are apes, and our common ancestor with other apes would also be considered an ape, so yes, but it all depends how far back you go.

[dalekphalm]

I think the problem alot of people have...is they either don't really understand what evolution is....or they are misunderstanding exactly how evolution happens/works

 

evolution can be observed over a rather short amount of time with small insects...bacteria...mold...viruses...etc

While I agree with that, your question is still flawed. We didn't evolve from Apes - at least, not as we understand them in the modern context. Apes and humans evolved side by side from a common ancestor.

 

Unless you're talking in the technical sense (which is still a flawed question, since you don't explain what you mean by "Ape"), in that both humans and modern apes are all primates of the same family of species.

[techguru]

While I agree with that, your question is still flawed. We didn't evolve from Apes - at least, not as we understand them in the modern context. Apes and humans evolved side by side from a common ancestor.

 

Unless you're talking in the technical sense (which is still a flawed question, since you don't explain what you mean by "Ape"), in that both humans and modern apes are all primates of the same family of species.

now your just playing with words

 

obviously we didn't evolve from what modern chimpanzees are...

but whatever we did evolve from..would look like what we would call an APE

[iamdarkyoshi]

Humans DEVOLVED from turnips.

[techguru]

Humans DEVOLVED from turnips.

all hail the turnip overlords

[Virtual01]

We came from apes. Which came from weird little cat mammal things. Which came from big cat reptile/mammal things. Which came from lizards. Which came from amphibians. Which came from fish. Which came from random shit in the ocean.

[dalekphalm]

now your just playing with words

 

obviously we didn't evolve from what modern chimpanzees are...

but whatever we did evolve from..would look like what we would call an APE

In that question - which is far different from your question - Words are everything, words and definitions are super important when discussing evolution - then possibly, some research shows that the "Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor" was a creature quite similar to a modern day Chimpanzee. But they've found no direct fossil evidence for the last common ancestor.

 

Some of the more recent theories suggest that the original species branch happened, but then there was several million years of hybridization where the two divergent species continued to interbreed.

 

So, sure, you could say that I'm splitting hairs or being pedantic. But I think it's important to make that distinction.

 

Humans and chimps are both of Hominids - as are Gorillas too. Humans and chimps are also part of a sub family called "Pan" - because genetically, humans and Chimps are closer than Chimps and Gorillas are.

 

Using the layman's term "Ape", people are referring to Chimps and gorillas, etc, and generally do not include humans in that.

 

And I don't expect the layman to know that "Ape" also includes all great apes - which humans are a part of.

 

Anyway, I guess we're getting off topic here.

 

Humans ARE apes, in the technical biological sense, so we didn't "evolve" from apes, because we still are. Humans evolved from a different species, that was also part of the ape family, which has a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

[Misanthrope]

In that question - which is far different from your question - Words are everything, words and definitions are super important when discussing evolution - then possibly, some research shows that the "Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor" was a creature quite similar to a modern day Chimpanzee. But they've found no direct fossil evidence for the last common ancestor.

 

Some of the more recent theories suggest that the original species branch happened, but then there was several million years of hybridization where the two divergent species continued to interbreed.

 

So, sure, you could say that I'm splitting hairs or being pedantic. But I think it's important to make that distinction.

 

Humans and chimps are both of Hominids - as are Gorillas too. Humans and chimps are also part of a sub family called "Pan" - because genetically, humans and Chimps are closer than Chimps and Gorillas are.

 

Using the layman's term "Ape", people are referring to Chimps and gorillas, etc, and generally do not include humans in that.

 

And I don't expect the layman to know that "Ape" also includes all great apes - which humans are a part of.

 

Anyway, I guess we're getting off topic here.

 

Humans ARE apes, in the technical biological sense, so we didn't "evolve" from apes, because we still are. Humans evolved from a different species, that was also part of the ape family, which has a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

 

So you do know that the term "Ape" is basically a layman's term, and as such the main reason for the fucking topic was just to word "Do you believe in evolution by natural selection" slightly differently? He was right you were basically just correcting semantics, you should just move on with the topic if you actually have something to say other than language policing. 

[dalekphalm]

So you do know that the term "Ape" is basically a layman's term, and as such the main reason for the fucking topic was just to word "Do you believe in evolution by natural selection" slightly differently? He was right you were basically just correcting semantics, you should just move on with the topic if you actually have something to say other than language policing. 

My point was that the "laymans" term of Ape refers to monkeys and chimps, etc, and does not include humans. The question is going to be very confusing to people who aren't well educated on the subject.

 

Which possibly was the point of the question.

 

Anyway, there isn't too much actual discussion going on. Humans are apes, and evolved from a common ancestor with modern primates. If anyone has more to discuss, I'll jump back in.

[Misanthrope]

My point was that the "laymans" term of Ape refers to monkeys and chimps, etc, and does not include humans. The question is going to be very confusing to people who aren't well educated on the subject.

 

Which possibly was the point of the question.

 

Anyway, there isn't too much actual discussion going on. Humans are apes, and evolved from a common ancestor with modern primates. If anyone has more to discuss, I'll jump back in.

 

[Griffscavern]

What?

Chimps can't use guns >.>

I beg to differ.

https://youtu.be/GhxqIITtTtU

[Coaxialgamer]

NO...

Humans have evolved from skeletons.

[killcomic]

How can people even be arguing about this..?

Oh, wait. There are Americans in this forum. 

 

*Slowly step backs and leaves them to their deep fried Jesus guns...*

[Murdoch]

Yes I was serious. Even Darwin recanted his theory before he died.

 

Well that's not true, but regardless. Why would that matter if he did? It's not like he was the only one making these realizations, a large part of the reason he published On the Origin of Species when he did, was because people such as Alfred Russel Wallace, were coming to the same conclusions and were hot on his heels.

 

And the most vital point is this. Science doesn't work that way, it's a collaborative effort, you can't just release a paper like that, then simply change you mind and pretend it didn't happen.

 

A simple case of trying to play the man, because you'd have to be perverse to attempt to dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that backs up his theory of evolution.

[Admiral Naismith]

I have a friend who is a paleontologist and he's having great difficulty finding a church community that will accept him.

 

Anyone care to help?

Unitarians? Pretty much will take anyone who isn't a complete *sshole.

 

Unless your friend is Ross I don't think that will be an issue.