Monkey to Man

[URAIN]

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

 

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

 

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))

[insane_alien]

The process of evolution IS still running.

 

The only problem is that it is a slow process. It is more easily observable in species with a short generation time such as fruit flies.

 

Monkeys do not and will never give birth to humans. Evolution and fossil evidence say they share the same common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The species of this common ancestor no longer exists but its offspring such as monkeys, great apes and us still exist. we are cousins.

 

Evolution works by small, almost insignificant changes that acumulate over the generations. just as if you were to look at more distant cousins of your family, they may share a common ancestor in your family tree but the resemblance will get less and less the further out you go.

 

If you want examples of fast evolution, you turn to bacteria and viruses, there is a reason we get flu every year and are worried about a new mutation, that is evolution in action! also, in european humans there is a genetic mutation among some of them that helps protect against the plague thatcan't be found in DNA from before it became a huge problem in europe.

[swansont]

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

 

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

 

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))

 

Not monkeys. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor. Both humans and the other apes are not the same species as the common ancestor; all of the species have evolved.

[michel123456]

(...)If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

(...)

 

It is not true and the process is still running.

[Myuncle]

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

 

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

 

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))

 

 

Evolution is slower now, everything you see around you has been more or less influenced by men (sea, mountains, forests), there is not the same degree of competition like before, if there are too many rabbits we kill them. The passage from ape to man has been very slow, so slow that the first human being never existed, what existed was just a monkey with a bigger brain and especially a bigger muscle in the thumb, how did it happen? Thanks to a simple genetic modification. Every animal that you see is just a branch from the same tree, is the result of millions of years of accidental genetic mutations, some of them are positive and make you thrive, and some of them are negative (deseases that kill the species).

Monkeys can't speak like us just because their larynx is not low enough, but if you train them they can speak very well through sign language. Check the documentary about Koko on youtube, is very interesting, you see the gorilla using sign language, it's quite funny the scene when the woman gives Koko a bottle to feed a doll, and Koko tells her that the bottle is empty...

it's in 8 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmuu8UEi2ko

[kitkat]

The gorilla can understand human words by translating it into sign language but is unable to speak words due to biological barriers. Our pets, cats and dogs also can understand human words but are restricted of using speech due to biological barriers. It reminds me of a time when my two cats got out of the house through a broken window and I couldn't find them. I told my third cat to go find the other two cats and bring them in. I was on the phone and when I said that to her, I really didn't think she understood me.

 

When I got off the phone, my third cat came into the room with the other two cats, I was shocked and amazed that she was able to understand me. The other two cats were not very happy with her the entire day since they hissed at her all day long letting her know they were pissed that they were forced to come back into the house. That was the only day in the entire time I have had all 3 cats that they hissed at the third cat. Coincidence, maybe, I don't think so and I believe she understood every word I said to her. The proof is what actually occurred that day.

 

So while you may point to the slow process of evolution, it still allows cross communication between different species even though they possess traits they do not have in common.

[Arete]

OP - Humans did not come from monkeys. Human and monkeys share a common ancestor.

 

As an analogy - you and your cousins share the same grandparents. You are related, but you did not come from your cousin nor would you expect your cousin's children to gradually start looking more like you.

 

Evolution is slower now...

 

No it isn't. Given the process is not universal, it is impossible to characterize rates of evolution across all biota. Also, I'd say there is extremely strong evidence that anthropogenic impacts on the evolution of most other organisms has a destabilizing rather than stabilizing effect - there's evidence of rapid directional selective sweeps (e.g. peppered moths http://en.wikipedia....i/Peppered_moth, cane toads http://www.canetoads...devolution.html), population expansions (e.g. rats http://onlinelibrary...09.02228.x/full) adaptive radiations (e.g. dogs http://www.sciencedi...16895259390122X) and extinction events (do I really need an example?).

 

Personally I find it difficult to think of an organism undergoing stabilizing selection due to anthropogenic circumstances - and would have to conclude that if there is an overall trend in overall evolutionary rates as a result of humans, it's an acceleration of the process.

 

 

Coincidence, maybe, I don't think so and I believe she understood every word I said to her. The proof is what actually occurred that day.

 

Anecdote =/= proof. It's quite plausible that the situation you describe was due to coincidence than the assumptive cause/anthropomorphism you ascribe

Edited December 27, 2011 by Arete

[kitkat]

The common ancestor is believed to be a squirrel type species so neither man or ape had any resemblance to each other at the time of the split that both went their respective ways.

 

OP - Humans did not come from monkeys. Human and monkeys share a common ancestor.

 

As an analogy - you and your cousins share the same grandparents. You are related, but you did not come from your cousin nor would you expect your cousin's children to gradually start looking more like you.

 

 

 

No it isn't. Given the process is not universal, it is impossible to characterize rates of evolution across all biota. Also, I'd say there is extremely strong evidence that anthropogenic impacts on the evolution of most other organisms has a destabilizing rather than stabilizing effect - there's evidence of rapid directional selective sweeps (e.g. peppered moths http://en.wikipedia....i/Peppered_moth, cane toads http://www.canetoads...devolution.html), population expansions (e.g. rats http://onlinelibrary...09.02228.x/full) adaptive radiations (e.g. dogs http://www.sciencedi...16895259390122X) and extinction events (do I really need an example?).

 

Personally I find it difficult to think of an organism undergoing stabilizing selection due to anthropogenic circumstances - and would have to conclude that if there is an overall trend in overall evolutionary rates as a result of humans, it's an acceleration of the process.

 

 

 

 

Anecdote =/= proof. It's quite plausible that the situation you describe was due to coincidence than the assumptive cause/anthropomorphism you ascribe

 

And then again maybe it wasn't!

[Arete]

The common ancestor is believed to be a squirrel type species so neither man or ape had any resemblance to each other at the time of the split that both went their respective ways.

 

The ancestral simian was likely a lemur-like animal - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519104643.htm but the ancestral hominid (ancestor of modern apes and humans) was unequivocally

\ rather more ape than squirrel like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_kadabba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis

 

 

And then again maybe it wasn't!

 

In the interests of logical honesty - the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion. There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot. Since your positive assertion is supported only by a single anecdotal event, it's speculative at best.

[Myuncle]

Yes, that's what I remember, the common ancestor of the lemur was a squirrel-like or mouse-like creature. In fact if you look at the mice, their paws resemble so much our hands.

[Appolinaria]

Can't believe how similar Ida is to modern day lemurs, and she lived 47 million years ago. Wtf.

[Moontanman]

Our common ancestor? Humans are apes which are a subset of monkeys yada yada yada eventually back to bacteria which also had more primitive or possibly more accurately simpler ancestors, I don't see any reason to deny our relationship to the natural world other than the words written by bronze age goat herders. I'll go with deep time and evolution for the win...

[pippo]

Our common ancestor? Humans are apes which are a subset of monkeys yada yada yada eventually back to bacteria which also had more primitive or possibly more accurately simpler ancestors, I don't see any reason to deny our relationship to the natural world other than the words written by bronze age goat herders. I'll go with deep time and evolution for the win...

 

regarding man from monkeys, I heard that at least one disadvantage from apes evolving to upright bipedals was that man gets way more backaches that apes/monkeys. Lower back aches/pain (the kind Im feeling right now) is a cost of walking upright, even though many advantages of bipedalism are clear. Is this true, people?

 

Thanks

Edited January 5, 2012 by pippo

[questionposter]

Basically, humans didn't come from monkeys, they came from a species slightly similar, and as you go down the line of common ancestry, the ancestors of humans become more and more similar to "monkeys" unless you reach a species that actually did mutate from the said monkey species. Its a very slow built on slight random changes.

[iNow]

I heard that at least one disadvantage from apes evolving to upright bipedals was that man gets way more backaches that apes/monkeys. Lower back aches/pain (the kind Im feeling right now) is a cost of walking upright, even though many advantages of bipedalism are clear. Is this true, people?

Although it's tough to measure whether or not an ape or monkey is having backaches (they don't exactly tell us, or go grab something from a medicine cabinet when it happens), I think the answer is most likely, yes.

 

We evolved on all fours... Before apes we were rat like creatures, and before them we were amphibious creatures, and fish before that... etc. In all of those animals, the weight is displaced across four limbs (except for the fish, who is buoyant in water). When we started standing upright, it put a lot of extra pressure on our lower backs, and our hip bones had to shift, and that often results in pain. Every step we take is like a hammer to our skeleton... from the ground, through the heel, through the knees, the hips, and into the spine. If we were on hands and knees, the force of those hammer blows on each limb would be cut in half... dispersed.

 

I would love for a person better versed in anatomy and evolution than me to jump in here, but I'm rather certain that the basic idea you are sharing is quite correct.

[questionposter]

Although it's tough to measure whether or not an ape or monkey is having backaches (they don't exactly tell us, or go grab something from a medicine cabinet when it happens), I think the answer is most likely, yes.

 

We evolved on all fours... Before apes we were rat like creatures, and before them we were amphibious creatures, and fish before that... etc. In all of those animals, the weight is displaced across four limbs (except for the fish, who is buoyant in water). When we started standing upright, it put a lot of extra pressure on our lower backs, and our hip bones had to shift, and that often results in pain. Every step we take is like a hammer to our skeleton... from the ground, through the heel, through the knees, the hips, and into the spine. If we were on hands and knees, the force of those hammer blows on each limb would be cut in half... dispersed.

 

I would love for a person better versed in anatomy and evolution than me to jump in here, but I'm rather certain that the basic idea you are sharing is quite correct.

 

No, your giving the wrong impression, don't say "we were" or "we are", that's a large part of where the misunderstanding comes from. Humans were never anything other than humans, and any species isn't anything other that the specific species that it is.

 

What happens is one species gives birth to a slightly mutated member, and the genes in that member might make it better for surviving, which would make that particular member survive more which means it has a greater chance to pass that mutation on, and then that mutation might mutate into something slightly different again and become successful and etc. These mutations are usually very gradual in survival as most mutations are harmful or don't do much, a monkey would never actually just give birth to a human, and a fish would never just give birth to an amphibian, that's just too big of a change to even have a chance of happening.

Edited January 5, 2012 by questionposter

[Sorcerer]

I am not expert in this field. In school I had heard that Man was came from monkey.

 

If this is true, then why not now also that process is not running.

 

i.e. Why not now also Monkey is not converting into Man. (Or Monkey is not giving birth to a well knowledge Monkey (Man))

 

This is a very common question from people who have not learnt evolutionary theory, generally this question is taught in schools with a religious agenda. It is supposedly a rhetort to evolutionary theory, but a very weak one, perhaps you will catch a layman up in this trap.

 

During the evolution of humans from their ancestors there were very specific selective processes and the niches for them to fill. (I really can't find the words to put it simpler, sorry I can see by your post that your english isn't very good). In order for any modern apes (for example chimpanzees/bonobos) to be forced to apapt in a similar way, so as to evolve a larger cerebral cortex, these selective processes would need to be repeated. Unfortunately, humans currently fill this niche, chimpanzees/bonobos population is small and even if their environment is forcing them into a similar place, humans will outcompete them.

 

So why aren't they evolving (or havent evolved) into smarter lifeforms, because they don't have the specific selective factors and the available niches that our ancestors did.

 

In other words they are more sucessful (produce more offspring) the way they are now. Perhaps if you manage to survive a few million years (LOL) you could answer your own question.

 

As for history, look at homo erectus, before homo sapiens migrated out of africa there were many populations of homo erectus adapted to niches throughout eurasia and what's now indonesia. We outcompeted them and interbred with them. You could equally ask why they didn't evolve larger brains, well they probably were, it just happened we had the edge.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sorcerer

[iNow]

No, your giving the wrong impression <snip> These mutations are usually very gradual in survival as most mutations are harmful or don't do much, a monkey would never actually just give birth to a human, and a fish would never just give birth to an amphibian, that's just too big of a change to even have a chance of happening.

I appreciate the clarification, but I'm well aware of these things. Hopefully, people older than 10 years old are, too.

[JustinW]

I had heard somewhere of a theory that said, the mutation that seperated humans from apes had something to do with a sugar produced in the body to fight off malaria. I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it though. But interesting non the less.

[iNow]

Small point of clarification... Humans never separated from apes, but actually ARE themselves a type of ape. I'd be curious to read more on the sugar/malaria thing, though.

[JustinW]

I meant the seperation into different paths from a common ancestor. I have been looking for it with no luck so far, but once I find it I'll link it. From what I recall it was said that it was this ability to produce the sugar and deal with malaria better that allowed our evolution to hit a period of acceleration. For all I know it might be all hog wash, but I'll post it when I find it.

 

I have found some more information on the matter. It wasn't that we stopped producing a sugar, it was that the sugar we produced changed. Here is a link.

 

 

 

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-sexual-sugar-molecule-human.html

 

tell me what you think.

[questionposter]

I appreciate the clarification, but I'm well aware of these things. Hopefully, people older than 10 years old are, too.

 

I know your aware of those things, but other people aren't.

[CharonY]

Are you referring to speciation? In that case, yes, kind of. It is proposed that the change in surface sugars at some point may have led to genetic incompatibilities thus separating populations with different surface decorations over time. Note that genetic incompatibilities also exist within a species.

 

It does not necessarily lead to a change in evolution speed. However, it could shape population composition.

 

 

 

Just to clarify, the sugar in question is part of the decoration of cell surfaces (part of the glycosylation of surface proteins, for instance). Certain modifications would be identified as foreign and hence, trigger immune responses.

[JustinW]

Just to clarify, the sugar in question is part of the decoration of cell surfaces (part of the glycosylation of surface proteins, for instance). Certain modifications would be identified as foreign and hence, trigger immune responses.

Which may also trigger responses in reproductive compatabillity right? I may have misspoken about the acceleration. I was basing that statement off of memory which I find to be lacking sometimes.

[pippo]

Well, Inow explained it very well, and many thanks, Inow. Yes, I too understand what you meant by "we were" etc etc.

 

Good point about the weight put on our just 2 legs where the apes had 4 limbs mainly , to bear the weight. I knew it!! haha.....now I can tell my buddy back pain is soooo common in man cuz we morphed from monkeys which probably didnt have this pain!

 

Now that I think of it, I remember a former friend who was a doctor of osteopathy - told me the same thing. They must have studied that real hard in their schooling/program, since they focus so much on back pain.......

 

Ohhhhhhhh.....ahhhhhh......(stretching back muscles, after raking 2 acres of leaves from storm, thinkng maybe I should reach for ibuprofen or aspirin).........glad Im not a monkey though.

Edited January 7, 2012 by pippo