# Evolving from monkeys?



## Mo Deville (Oct 10, 2011)

Hey guys i just have a random question about a science theory, if we have evolved from monkeys would't there still be the in between evolving monkeys to humans? just somthing that iv thought about for a while, anyone got any thing on this?

Cheers Mo


----------



## Green_Buddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Have you been to Frankston???


----------



## Khagan (Oct 10, 2011)

The in between are around if you look carefully... There are plenty people that look like/act like/are less intelligent than a monkey XD.


----------



## Mo Deville (Oct 10, 2011)

Lol no.


----------



## Maximum (Oct 10, 2011)

Probably a topic more suited for the general discussion section, not the general reptile discussion area  Just sayin..

It is definitely a thought-provoking question though, who knows what happened though, it is obvious that evolution takes stage over centuries/millennia so maybe the first cavemen dispatched them all as they competed for territory and they weren't yet evolved enough to prevail and they died out?


----------



## GeckoRider (Oct 10, 2011)

They inbetween monkey/Human was killed by Homo-sapiens Hundreds of thousands of years ago... Thats one theory... the other is...

As previously mentioned the out of Frankston theory  ... Some scientist say the copious amounts of drugs an alcohol in there bodies Prevented there species from Further evolution lol


----------



## Maximum (Oct 10, 2011)

Read my reply gecko lol


----------



## K3nny (Oct 10, 2011)

heard from a history teacher back in high school as well that technically what we classify as Homo sapiens may be very different from the modern human today... Then again classification of species is ridiculously convoluted and complex to say the least.

By in between possibly you are refering to Pithecanthropus erectus?
If you wanna go all out, perhaps they havent all died out... Look at the yowie (and perhaps some other "people")


----------



## thelionking (Oct 10, 2011)

This is a common misconseption. Homo Sapiens (humans) did not evolve from monekys. There was a species WAY WAY back. This species went in two different directions. Part of it evolved to humans, and part evolved to monkeys. Animals are still evolving very slowly, but you could say that humans sort of stop this proccess, as we do not allow for the natural selection proccess to occur.


----------



## Asharee133 (Oct 10, 2011)

Green_Buddy said:


> Have you been to Frankston???


LMAO! That, was an epic comeback.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Oct 10, 2011)

GeckoRider said:


> They inbetween monkey/Human was killed by Homo-sapiens Hundreds of thousands of years ago... Thats one theory... the other is...
> 
> As previously mentioned the out of Frankston theory  ... Some scientist say the copious amounts of drugs an alcohol in there bodies Prevented there species from Further evolution lol



Calm down folks, I live in Frankston, however I was not born here so maybe that makes a difference.



Asharee133 said:


> LMAO! That, was an epic comeback.



Shut up you, anyway, they're not monkeys they are half-orcs


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

mo-deville said:


> Hey guys i just have a random question about a science theory, if we have evolved from monkeys would't there still be the in between evolving monkeys to humans? just somthing that iv thought about for a while, anyone got any thing on this?
> 
> Cheers Mo



1) Human did not evolve from Monkeys, to my knowledge no scientific theory on evolution suggests this. But it is a common misconception perpetuated by those with an agenda to attack science.

2) 







Source: darwiniana.org
2)
A. Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B. Australopithecus africanus
C. Australopithecus africanus
D. Homo habilis
E. H. habilis
F. H. ergaster (H. erectus)
G. H. heidelbergensis, " Rhodesia man," 
H. Homo neanderthalensis
I. H. neanderthalensis
J. H. neanderthalensis
K. Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I
L. Homo sapiens, modern

Source: darwiniana.org


There is a lot of evidence out there on evolution and "missing links" and you only need to look as far as your own family to see "missing links".

Transitional fossil found in Human Evolution - YouTube


----------



## Fireflyshuffle (Oct 10, 2011)

hmmm this was mentioned by sheldon cooper on big bang theory a few days ago


----------



## cmack91 (Oct 10, 2011)

its the aliens man, they got bored tens of thousands of years ago and made us in test tubes and dropped us on this planet as a reality TV show, and now its the longest running show in the universe


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

or the theory that primitive man was genetically altered by ancient aliens resulting in the human race.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> or the theory that primitive man was genetically altered by ancient aliens resulting in the human race.



There is no such theory.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

We are very distantly related to monkeys, we are closest to the apes. Monkeys have a tail and don't have an opposable thumb(?). Apes; Gorillas, Chimps, Orang utans and humans are Homonids and Gibbons are the lesser apes.


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

Australis said:


> There is no such theory.



yes there is mate. Do some research. Not saying it is true but there is definately a theory out there. 
Stop being so negative


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> yes there is mate. Do some research. Not saying it is true but there is definately a theory out there.


Do you mean a legitimate "theory" by the scientific definition or a "theory" as in a proposed explanation? 

I hate this argument. As has been stated, it's a deliberate misquoting of the theory so that people can perpetuate the misconception in those too ignorant/unintelligent to look it up for themselves. As for the part about "would't there still be the in between evolving monkeys [read hominids] to humans" - no there wouldn't. Species evolve to become better suited to live in their environment. So as each new species came about, they were able to out hunt, out breed and generally just out survive the previous ancestors (survival of the fittest). These concepts aren't that difficult to understand. They just seem complex on the surface but if you read a book about it, you will see that it's actually an incredibly elegant, simple solution to the problem of how to survive in an ever changing world.


----------



## Colin (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> or the theory that primitive man was genetically altered by ancient aliens resulting in the human race.



I've seen evidence for this on Stargate Altantis.
ask daniel jackson.. he'll set you straight..


----------



## Red-Ink (Oct 10, 2011)

Colin said:


> I've seen evidence for this on Stargate Altantis.
> ask daniel jackson.. he'll set you straight..



Must be a very popular theory... I saw the same thing on Farscape.


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

I knew I shouln't have posted on here. I forgot all the unemployed player haters troll these threads shooting down any1 who puts out any information.


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Lol because you have to be unemployed to post on here during the day..?
I asked if it is a scientific theory or a general theory. You still haven't answered. Just because you say it's real doesn't make it realistic or viable


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

It is both scientific and general theory. I never said it was real or true i just said that theory is out there. Maybe you should learn how to read mate.


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Lol it can't be both. It's either scientific - ie provable by experimentation or observation - or general - ie some dude said "hey here's an idea...". The latter (and most likely) makes it laughable and deserving of the contempt it has been shown here


----------



## FAY (Oct 10, 2011)

I disagree that humans DID NOT evolve from apes. There are definitely humans out there that have not quite evolved. I have seen this with my own two eyes.


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

saximus said:


> Lol it can't be both. It's either scientific - ie provable by experimentation or observation - or general - ie some dude said "hey here's an idea...". The latter (and most likely) makes it laughable and deserving of the contempt it has been shown here




Every theory starts off as general mate. There is evidence to support the theory, therefore being scientific. I think you are taking things too seriously mate and just looking to shake up this thread. Just because you believe strongly in one idea does not give you the right to shoot down or hate on any other ideas. Grow up. It is a shame what this forum has become.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla,


Please enlighten us... how Aliens (no evidence they even exist :lol contributed to human evolution.. or more importantly how its a scientific theory in ANY way... to even call it a Hypothesis would be giving it too much credit.

Its not really about what you believe.. its what there is legitimate evidence for that matters. For the alien "idea" there is ZERO evidence.


----------



## alrightknight (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> Every theory starts off as general mate. There is evidence to support the theory, therefore being scientific. I think you are taking things too seriously mate and just looking to shake up this thread. Just because you believe strongly in one idea does not give you the right to shoot down or hate on any other ideas. Grow up. It is a shame what this forum has become.



Not everything starts of general, lots of theories have been stumbled across scientifically.

The misconception we have that we evolved from apes I believe is due to creationist/theologists who have no knowledge of darwins theory and decided to use it as an argument. sure we are primates who share genetics with monkeys and apes, as much as lions share genetics with tigers but one certainly has no relation to the other. Of course if we look at bonobo chimps, they are very human like, they walk upright and carry branches as weapons when need be. very interesting stuff.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

We are great apes arnt we? So I think it is correct to say that we evolved from apes.


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> Every theory starts off as general mate. There is evidence to support the theory, therefore being scientific. I think you are taking things too seriously mate and just looking to shake up this thread. Just because you believe strongly in one idea does not give you the right to shoot down or hate on any other ideas. Grow up. It is a shame what this forum has become.


As Aus and AK have said, there is no real evidence which removes it from the category of "scientific". Of course I am taking this seriously. It makes me mad when people who don't understand things like this try to say it doesn't exist because their understanding is too limited. What do you mean "it's a shame what this forum has become"? I'm not allowed to disagree with you? You made a statement that was has no evidence to back it up and we called you out on it. Why does that mean we have to "grow up"?



grimbeny said:


> We are great apes arnt we? So I think it is correct to say that we evolved from apes.


We all come from the family hominidae which is called great apes yeah. The difficult distinction for most people comes from the fact that we come from a common ancestor (hominoidea). We didn't evolve from the apes that we see today


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

As Sax says, we evolved alongside apes from a common ancestor, not from them.

With alien intervention theory......there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.


----------



## Wally (Oct 10, 2011)

I do like to beat my chest occasionally.


----------



## Colin (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> I knew I shouln't have posted on here. I forgot all the unemployed player haters troll these threads shooting down any1 who puts out any information.



I'm professionally employed and work 5 days a week.. as well as moderating on here in my own time..
just because we don't believe in far fetched science fiction alien conspiracy theories does'nt make us unemployed.. 
I think it just makes us less gullible.. 

"the truth is out there"
live long and prosper


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> As Sax says, we evolved alongside apes from a common ancestor, not from them.



We did evolve from them. Not extant species of ape but you would be correct to call the ancestor of the great apes an ape. Just like we dodnt evolve from other extant species of mammals but we did evolve from mammals.


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Nobody is saying that that isn't the case Grim (at least I don't think they are...). Just like, contrary to his belief, nobody set out to attack Grogshla directly until he set the focus on himself.
The original question was why aren't there "gap" species still around. A bit of proper understanding of evolution through natural selection helps to explain why this is. Unfortunately it's difficult to keep discussions about this on track for long before someone gets offended because their "theory" has no support through observation or evidence


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> Every theory starts off as general mate.



Not really true. Most scientific theories start out as models which involve a series of hypotheses. Then when there is lots of evidence of support for a model it can be called a theory until any evidence comes along that discredits that model. A model cannot be called a theory without evidence of support or in the presence of contradictory evidence.


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

The word you're looking for there is "falsifiability" Grim . The backbone of the current scientific method thanks to Sir Karl Popper


----------



## Sel (Oct 10, 2011)

I dont believe in evolution.. and the reason why is another debate ..lol

Debating with APS members is like banging your head against a brick wall..so no thanks! 

p.s Im NOT unemployed.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

Love you sel


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Sel said:


> Debating with APS members is like banging your head against a brick wall..


Haha you make a good point and I've heard this put in another way that I can't repeat here  but it's still good to be able to qualify your own beliefs/arguments since the opportunity to debate with so many different people at once very rarely comes up IRL


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

saximus said:


> Nobody is saying that that isn't the case Grim (at least I don't think they are...).



People are saying we didnt evolve from apes and I think it is important that people dont get the wrong end of the stick. Understanding evolution is alot easier if you look at what animals look like today. We evolved from something that probably looked alot like a chimp, which evolved from something that probably looked like a monkey that evolved from something that probably looked like a lemur.

The probably part comes about because I have never looked into human evolution so am not sure myself. I dont think there is much debate about what our ancestors looked like back then. Someone would have done research on this topic and know about it.

I should add that The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins is a very good book which describes how life on earth evolved. If you are genuinly interested in discovering for yourself how humans came about you should give it a read.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

Most scientists still have problems with our lineages and evolution, like with Neanderthals. We did not evolve from Neanderthals but co-evolved along side of them. They still cannot find direct links and lineages to us down from Apes. They also cannot explain our sudden, massive evolution because no other earthly creature has evolved so far, so quickly. There is still a lot of unanswered questions and the debate is continuing. Unfortunately it is wrong to assume something as simple as 4 legged mammal - Lemur - Monkey - Ape - Human. It is more likely that we evolved alongside of Monkeys, Lemurs AND Apes, rather than from them.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> They also cannot explain our sudden, massive evolution because no other earthly creature has evolved so far, so quickly.



How would you even quantify this. 

There is no doubt there are still alot of questions and we will never be able to know every step in the linneage transition between any two extant species. To achieve this you would literally need to know every single individual in the family tree. 

Im not convinced about the necessity to add excess complexity to the story of evolution. It is likely that we evolved from animals that atleast looked like the animals in the story: 
Lemur - Monkey - Ape - Human
The question is how do you define each of these groups. For example if you were define the ancestor of all extant reptiles as a reptile then I think you could say humans evolved from reptiles. That is an ancestor deep in the human lineage was a reptile. I am inclined to suggest that if the linneage is monophyletic that is in the case of apes then the ancestor to that group is also an ape. 

PS. there is still debate whether turtles split from the other reptiles before or after the mammal reptile split and I cant remember what the most recent scientific suggestion is. If turtles split after the mammal reptile split then I wouldnt necessarily say mammals evolved from reptiles.


----------



## CamdeJong (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla can you offer us any links to PDFs of actual scientific studies in the field. You might like to read up on pseudoscience, which is made out to look like science but doesn't follow scientific protocols (Observation, Hypothesis, Testing etc) and is usually based on opinion and not capable of being fully disproven (how can we say yes or no without scouring the universe for alien life). In order for something to become a SCIENTIFIC Theory it must go under years of testing and testing and not be disproven. Then it can go on to become a law. There is a massive gap between someone coming up with a theory and something becoming scientific theory.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

CamdeJong said:


> In order for something to become a SCIENTIFIC Theory it must go under years of testing and testing and not be disproven. Then it can go on to become a law. There is a massive gap between someone coming up with a theory and something becoming scientific theory.



Mostly true, except scientific theories cannot be proven. That is why they are called theories. Only mathematicians can make proofs, and there for to show a law exists you need to use mathematics. Theories never become laws.


----------



## junglepython2 (Oct 10, 2011)

Australis said:


> Grogshla,
> 
> 
> Please enlighten us... how Aliens (no evidence they even exist :lol contributed to human evolution.. or more importantly how its a scientific theory in ANY way... to even call it a Hypothesis would be giving it too much credit.
> ...



Tell that to all the highly educated hillbillies who are always getting abducted and probed!


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

Grim.... what I'm saying is Gorillas have been evolving for millions of years into......Gorillas, not humans, Chimps have been evolving into chimps, Orangutans etc and Gibbons etc as well. Monkeys have been evolving into Monkeys and Lemurs into Lemurs. None have gotten even close to human evolution. They are still living like animals while we are planning to colonise Mars, have split the atom etc. All these animals and us probably had similar ancestors, not the same but from different environments, evolving down different paths in separate lineages alongside each other. Not from one to the other to the other. Our intelligence has evolved further in 10 000 yrs than any other animal throughout the history of the planet. Dinosaurs evolved for hundreds of millions of years but never evolved basic things like written communication etc.

I quantify what I wrote by saying that we didn't come down a simple line through these animals but along side these animals. Not from the same ancestor but a similar ancestor and have co-evolved, not through any simple lineage.
I also quantify what I wrote about our speed of evolution by asking "No other animal either co-evolving alongside of us or throughout history has come even close to our intellect and we did it in 10 00 yrs or so........WHY???


----------



## junglepython2 (Oct 10, 2011)

Intelligence isn't the grand plan of evolution, or a way to rate how successful a species is. It is simply one of many different strategies for survival and propogation.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I also quantify what I wrote about our speed of evolution by asking "No other animal either co-evolving alongside of us or throughout history has come even close to our intellect and we did it in 10 00 yrs or so........WHY???



Oh you are talking about "evolution" not evolution by natural selection. Our intelligence has not evolved in the last 10 thousand years, modern humans have been arround in the form that you and I are for more than 90 thousand years. If you could find a frozen human from 50 thousand years ago, educate them as any child would be educated in todays world, you would not be able to pick their exam score from anyone elses. The experiment has in a way already been done. Australian aborignals did not have the advanced civilisation that europeans had before europeans came to Australia. However if you put an aboriginal through todays education system they are just as capable at learning as anyone else. Their intelligence has not evolved in 200 years they were always just as inteligent. There is a book that covers this topic called Guns Germs and Steel by Jarrod Diamond. It talks about why some cultures evolved advanced technologies whilst others didnt. The punchline is that these people were not smarter just circumstances in the environments from which they existed led to technological advances that built on each other.


----------



## snakeluvver (Oct 10, 2011)

Although I believe that with so many planets in the universe, there must be life on more than just ours, I find the idea that we were genetically modified by them a bit far fetched


----------



## Dannyboi (Oct 10, 2011)

thelionking said:


> This is a common misconseption. Homo Sapiens (humans) did not evolve from monekys. There was a species WAY WAY back. This species went in two different directions. Part of it evolved to humans, and part evolved to monkeys. Animals are still evolving very slowly, but you could say that humans sort of stop this proccess, as we do not allow for the natural selection proccess to occur.


Natural selection is occuring within human populations. More desirable traits are being picked and less not as much. Seemingly shallow ideals about attractiveness is really just another step of evolution  or you could always watch idocracy and go with that hilarious theory that idiots reproduce more and therefore will eventually lead to the entire human race being stupid.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> Grim.... what I'm saying is Gorillas have been evolving for millions of years into......Gorillas, not humans, Chimps have been evolving into chimps, Orangutans etc and Gibbons etc as well. Monkeys have been evolving into Monkeys and Lemurs into Lemurs. None have gotten even close to human evolution. They are still living like animals while we are planning to colonise Mars, have split the atom etc. All these animals and us probably had similar ancestors, not the same but from different environments, evolving down different paths in separate lineages alongside each other. Not from one to the other to the other. Our intelligence has evolved further in 10 000 yrs than any other animal throughout the history of the planet. *Dinosaurs evolved for hundreds of millions of years but never evolved basic things like written communication etc.
> 
> Not all cultures developed written communication.
> 
> I quantify what I wrote by saying that we didn't come down a simple line through these animals but along side these animals. Not from the same ancestor but a similar ancestor and have co-evolved, not through any simple lineage. If you follow the DNA phylogentic tree back you will find undeniable evidence that we share a relatively recent common ancestor. *I also quantify what I wrote about our speed of evolution by asking "No other animal either co-evolving alongside of us or throughout history has come even close to our intellect and we did it in 10 00 yrs or so........WHY???



Intellect hasn't changed, our knowledge has increased. We have made these technological gains in the last 10 000 years because we have been building on the work other people have done previously.

Edit: Endogenous Retrovirus Sequences! Are the DNA markers that show we share a recent common ancestor with chimps and other great apes. Knew i would remember them eventually. I wont explain them i'll just end up being confusing, best you look them up on youtube or google for a decent explanation.


----------



## CamdeJong (Oct 10, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Mostly true, except scientific theories cannot be proven. That is why they are called theories. Only mathematicians can make proofs, and there for to show a law exists you need to use mathematics. Theories never become laws.



Cannot be proven or disproven, yes. There is actually one Law in Biology (the Law of Tolerance), and I'm pretty sure if a theory lasts a particularly long it, or part of it, can become law.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

Sorry....Embarrassed......missed some zeros.......ummmmmm.........I meant to write One hundred thousand years ago, but it doesn't change the result. Take Homo Erectus for example. They lived from 2 million yrs ago up until they went extinct one hundred thousand years ago, could possibly be related to Homo Habilis and may have evolved from Australopithicus Sediba but in almost 2 million years didn't come close to our level of evolution in one hundred thousand years and were not linked to Homo Sapiens lineage. Neither are we directly linked to Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, we just popped up a hundred thousand yrs ago and we have so far found no direct link back to Ardipithecus Ramidus of 4+ million yrs ago (a sort of ape like creature). I do say so far, archaeologists are still looking and finding new things every day throughout Africa. you cannot think in a simple line of this through this through this to Homo Sapiens. Like the various reptiles and birds, we cannot be directly linked to Lemurs, monkeys or apes but evolved side by side from similar but different mammals in different environments. 
As far as teaching early humans.......I think you would have trouble with simple domestication let alone complex mathematics.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

CamdeJong said:


> and I'm pretty sure if a theory lasts a particularly long it, or part of it, can become law.



This is not the case. Theories and laws are not in any way the same things. Theories are models used to explain the universe. Laws are constraints we know to exist in the universe.



fugawi said:


> As far as teaching early humans.......I think you would have trouble with simple domestication let alone complex mathematics.



If that is a joke about the original inhabitants of Australia I certainly am not laughing!


----------



## littlemay (Oct 10, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> If that is a joke about the original inhabitants of Australia I certainly am not laughing!



Wow, that's a bit of a leap =/


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> Sorry....Embarrassed......missed some zeros.......ummmmmm.........I meant to write One hundred thousand years ago, but it doesn't change the result. Take Homo Erectus for example. They lived from 2 million yrs ago up until they went extinct one hundred thousand years ago, could possibly be related to Homo Habilis and may have evolved from Australopithicus Sediba but in almost 2 million years didn't come close to our level of evolution in one hundred thousand years and were not linked to Homo Sapiens lineage. Neither are we directly linked to Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Neanderthalensis, we just popped up a hundred thousand yrs ago and we have so far found no direct link back to Ardipithecus Ramidus of 4+ million yrs ago (a sort of ape like creature). I do say so far, archaeologists are still looking and finding new things every day throughout Africa. you cannot think in a simple line of this through this through this to Homo Sapiens. Like the various reptiles and birds, we cannot be directly linked to Lemurs, monkeys or apes but evolved side by side from similar but different mammals in different environments.
> As far as teaching early humans.......I think you would have trouble with simple domestication let alone complex mathematics.



But who is thinking in simple lines? 

If you beleive in the theory of evolution you cannot deny that all humans (including the extinct species) and the other great apes have a recent common ancestor.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

WOW....Dude.......Chill.

You don't think one hundred thousand yrs ago a monkey just stood upright and said "Wow this brain thing is cool. It may take 100 000 yrs but if I start the calculations now, we can put a man on the moon". Early humans were not much better than wild animals living in small family groups, hunting Diprotodon and grunting at each other. I'm discussing early Homo Sapiens over the whole planet, not just Aborigines.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

I thought we got past the monkey part... :lol:

Fugawi, do you not accept humans evolved from a common ancestor to apes?

I have a sinking suspicion you might think aliens have been involved. :|


----------



## AirCooled (Oct 10, 2011)

Did aliens chop the legs of the lizards and goannas to make snakes?


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

Australis...When you say common ancester, do you mean a mammal, somewhere between a shrew and a lemur that had cousins in different environments and in distant locations, then yes. When they say recent, if they mean in the last ten million years then again yes. As far as Aliens.....probably not, more a product of the environment but I have to leave the door open due to a lack of evidence disproving it. I have to remember that almost all ancient myths, legends and religions are based on an entity that came from the heavens and created humans, so I can't logically discount it.

When I say a product of the environment, I mean natural evolution but we just haven't found our direct descendants along our direct line yet.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

Unusual take on thinking logically. For me thinking it over logically i would straight away discount the possibilities you mentioned given there is ZERO evidence to support those ideas. 
A few weeks ago i had to watch some Aboriginal (Australian) videos, one told the story of how echidnas came to be, this involved the spines being made of spears! It was a nice video, however it didn't register as a possibility in my mind for an alternative echidna evolution.

Also the burden of proof isnt on science to find evidence against every crazy idea people come up with. If science cant disprove a magic unicorn didn't shake its super dooper magical horn to help guide human evolution.. does it make it a valid idea? plausible until proven otherwise?


----------



## junglepython2 (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> When I say a product of the environment, I mean natural evolution but we just haven't found our direct descendants along our direct line yet.



We would need to be capable of forward time travel to see what our decendants are like. If you mean our ancestors there are plenty of examples of this in the fossil record it is just not complete as fossilistation is very rare.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Oct 10, 2011)

Just putting it out there that god is the creater of all beings. Lol just kidding it's all a load of crap haha


----------



## alrightknight (Oct 10, 2011)

Thats the beauty of science isnt it. We don't know the answers there are gaps we can debate about this but we can all admit that we dont know everything. theories are just that theories, I hope one day we see that darwins theory becomes "the law of evolution". 
As far as why our cousins have not evolved as much as us has a very well accepted theory, that us as humans have prohibited other apes from being able to do so. Natural selection let us take over we were the top of the food chain there was nothing to stop us advancing.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

:evil:


----------



## MC-Boks (Oct 10, 2011)

I’ve always found this passage to be the most eloquent description of ‘descent’, and it doesn’t just apply to humans, but is applicable to any living thing at any given point in history. It comes from the master of making science accessible to all; Richard Dawkins, and is taken from his book _A Devil’s Chaplin._ Happenings are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general -past _Homo erectus, Homo habilis, _perhaps _Australopithecus afarensis -_and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always do. And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.Dawkins, R. 2003 _A Devil’s Chaplin_, Orion Books Ltd, London


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

I personally like Sherlock Holmes creed of logic......"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth". As far as "Aliens" etc, they still remain within the realms of possibility, not impossibility, so I cannot discount them as yet...however improbable.
It may be interesting to note that Apes have 24 pairs of chromosome whereas we only have 23.

I should mention that to get apes and humans genetically similar would take an amazing piece of genetic engineering whereby you would need to fuse the 9th and 14th ape chromosomes and flip them to give you something similar to the human 12th chromosome.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I personally like Sherlock Holmes creed of logic......"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth". As far as "Aliens" etc, they still remain within the realms of possibility, not impossibility, so I cannot discount them as yet...however improbable.



This is why science incorporates falsafiability. It is impossible to prove that aliens do not exist. You would need to be looking at every part of the universe at once, and even then someone could turn around and say they exist but you just cant see them. To make a scientific claim you need to suggest what experiment could be conducted to prove the claim wrong. For example if we found a rabbit fossil that was undeniably from a time before mammals existed we could say that evolution as we know it is wrong. Or if a chimpanzee gave birth to a human baby we could again say our current theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong. It wouldnt mean that science is wrong, just that we need to develope a new model.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I personally like Sherlock Holmes creed of logic......"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth". As far as "Aliens" etc, they still remain within the realms of possibility, not impossibility, so I cannot discount them as yet...however improbable.



Well i guess my magical unicorn did it..however improbable :lol:



fugawi said:


> It may be interesting to note that Apes have 24 pairs of chromosome whereas we only have 23.
> 
> I should mention that to get apes and humans genetically similar would take an amazing piece of genetic engineering whereby you would need to fuse the 9th and 14th ape chromosomes and flip them to give you something similar to the human 12th chromosome.



We are still genetically similar... you are really going the pseudo-science angle now :|

Check this video out.
ape chromosome - YouTube

"i should mention" that every person i have met who didn't believe in evolution had the same thing in common, they didn't even know what it was :lol:


----------



## saximus (Oct 10, 2011)

Australis said:


> "i should mention" that every person i have met who didn't believe in evolution had the same thing in common, they didn't even know what it was :lol:


Bingo


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

Australis said:


> Grogshla,
> 
> 
> Please enlighten us... how Aliens (no evidence they even exist :lol contributed to human evolution.. or more importantly how its a scientific theory in ANY way... to even call it a Hypothesis would be giving it too much credit.
> ...



there iz evidence the government deny it though mate.


----------



## Australis (Oct 10, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> there iz evidence the government deny it though mate.



Same with the magic unicorns


----------



## Grogshla (Oct 10, 2011)

:lol: nice one kiddo


----------



## Wally (Oct 10, 2011)

Can someone tell the aliens to top up my water bowl............ I'm thirsty. Wouldn't mind a feed either.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 10, 2011)

:lol:I shall immediately send "The Greys" over with some Venusian Purple Ale........Watch the skies.:lol:

I must put Magical Unicorns in the impossible file due to the myth coming from descriptions of a Black Rhino and later from Denmark the horns are actually Narwhal horns.:lol::lol:

And Australis....to "say" they are genetically similar is the pseudo science. Saying that that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have only 23 pairs is actually a verifiable, proven, scientific fact. Unfortunately what you don't understand is that you don't just pick up or drop a pair of chromosomes while swinging through the trees one day. The ancestors of the Apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and the ancestors of us had 23 pairs, meaning that our ancestors were similar but slightly different to the Ape ancestors. Someone brought up lions and tigers, that is a good example.....Apes would be like lions, tigers and cheetahs, all Felines, while we would be like wolves, Canines. They had similar but slightly different ancestors.


----------



## Australis (Oct 11, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I must put Magical Unicorns in the impossible file due to the myth coming from descriptions of a Black Rhino and later from Denmark the horns are actually Narwhal horns.:lol::lol:



That is just what the magic space unicorns want you to think... :lol:
Sorry man but magic unicorns have just as much evidence as aliens being involved in helping evolution. Both being ridiculous and all.



fugawi said:


> And Australis....to "say" they are genetically similar is the pseudo science. Saying that that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have only 23 pairs is actually a verifiable, proven, scientific fact. Unfortunately what you don't understand is that you don't just pick up or drop a pair of chromosomes while swinging through the trees one day. The ancestors of the Apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and the ancestors of us had 23 pairs, meaning that our ancestors were similar but slightly different to the Ape ancestors. Someone brought up lions and tigers, that is a good example.....Apes would be like lions, tigers and cheetahs, all Felines, while we would be like wolves, Canines. They had similar but slightly different ancestors.



Ok for starters i never disputed the numbers of chromosomes, i even posted a video supporting and explaining this! you should watch it. 

There is nothing pseudo-science about my comment of Humans and apes being genetically similar.. with genetic similarity being between 96-98% comparing humans to modern chimps. We are more genetically similar to chimps, than mice are to rats!!!!!

Further reading:
Comparing the chimpanzee and human genomes | The Human Genome

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 11, 2011)

Perhaps not swinging through the trees but in utero picking up an extra chromosome (just in humans, not to mention other great apes) isn't unheard of.

Fugawi it is pretty well documented and researched when the human lineage split from the chimps lineage, around about 6 million years ago. For this to have happened we must have had a common ancestor, the exact same animal spawned us and the chimps line. Why do have such a hard time accepting this?

As for Aliens... come on mate



fugawi said:


> :lol:I shall immediately send "The Greys" over with some Venusian Purple Ale........Watch the skies.:lol:
> 
> I must put Magical Unicorns in the impossible file due to the myth coming from descriptions of a Black Rhino and later from Denmark the horns are actually Narwhal horns.:lol::lol:
> 
> And Australis....to "say" they are genetically similar is the pseudo science. Saying that that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have only 23 pairs is actually a verifiable, proven, scientific fact. Unfortunately what you don't understand is that you don't just pick up or drop a pair of chromosomes while swinging through the trees one day. The ancestors of the Apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and the ancestors of us had 23 pairs, meaning that our ancestors were similar but slightly different to the Ape ancestors. Someone brought up lions and tigers, that is a good example.....Apes would be like lions, tigers and cheetahs, all Felines, while we would be like wolves, Canines. They had similar but slightly different ancestors.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 11, 2011)

OK....Here we go.....Firstly, some of you people need to read posts before commenting and flaming. Secondly, let me clarify for those that have not fully read my posts and have made wrong assumptions. I DID NOT bring up aliens. I simply stated that I keep an open mind as far as aliens are concerned. I DO believe that Homo Sapiens EVOLVED through a currently unknown and unfound Australopithecus species, through an also unknown and unfound Ardipithecus species back to a currently unknown and unfound pseudo sub pre ape type of mammalian common ancestor to the ape group. Of course all this is conjecture due to the fact we have yet to find evidence of a DIRECT ancestor of Homo Sapiens through Australopithecus or Ardipithecus. Nor have we found any evidence of the legendary "Missing Link" common ancestor to the other apes. At this moment in time, science is still giving its "Best Guess" on human and ape ancestory by looking at the cousins of our direct ancestors. Right at this moment a Paleoanthropologist named Lee Berger from the University of Witwatersrand in J/burg, South Africa is digging up bones of what is possibly the first intermediate (called Australopithecus Sediba) which could link the older Australopithecus (Lucy like) species with Homo Erectus. This will be the first time science has found any evidence to link the two species.
So if you haven't already guessed, I have spread out in front of me, thorough, up to the minute current information on this subject so beware those who seek to flame.
Amazing how all this started when I corrected someone oversimplifying by saying Lemur to monkey, monkey to chimp, chimp to human. I think that thinking went out at the beginning of LAST century.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 11, 2011)

Im sorry fugawi, I think you are probably genuinly trying to do your best but I'm not quite sure why you keep using the language normally resigned to christian anti-evolution propaganda. For example missing link. What does missing link even mean? 



fugawi said:


> And Australis....to "say" they are genetically similar is the pseudo science. Saying that that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have only 23 pairs is actually a verifiable, proven, scientific fact. Unfortunately what you don't understand is that you don't just pick up or drop a pair of chromosomes while swinging through the trees one day.



What do you mean by this? We can measure the similarity of any two species very easily. Secondly chromasomes are readily rearanged in evolutionary time. If you take the 20 pairs of chromasomes of a mouse and the 23 of a human you will find that none of them match up, but bits of all the human chromasomes will have matches to different spots in the mice chromasomes because the chromasomes have re-arranged.



fugawi said:


> The ancestors of the Apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and the ancestors of us had 23 pairs, meaning that our ancestors were similar but slightly different to the Ape ancestors.



This bit just isnt true. Chimps and gorillas both have 24 chromasomes, and humans have 23. However chimps and humans are more closely related than chimps and gorillas so, probably what happened is somewhere in the human linneage after we split from chimps, our ancestors lost a pair of chromasomes, probably by incorporating it into the other 23 sets of chromasomes that we had. "apes" do not have different ancestors to humans. Each linneage has some ancestors that are specific to their own evolution and then going back further each species has ancestors that it shares with other apes.


----------



## fugawi (Oct 11, 2011)

*Missing link* is a nonscientific term for any transitional fossil, especially one connected with human evolution; see Transitional fossil - Missing links and List of transitonal fossils - Human evolution.
If you still don't understand, perhaps you could say "Common Ancestor".

Do you understand "Evolutionary time" at all. In the last 4.5 million years, direct ancestors of Homo species have gone through at least 3 significant evolutionary changes with several thousand failed changes that led to extinctions. Gorillas, chimps, orang utans and gibbons also went through major evolutionary changes with lots of extinct failed off shoots as well. What this tells us is that when we broke away from apes, the animal we broke from was possibly a type of Pre Ape like creature, not anything like a chimpanzee. This animal could have looked like anything, a Giant Ground Sloth, a bunny rabbit, simply put........WE DON'T KNOW, science doesn't have any fossil record....AS YET. Science has no fossils beyond 4.5 million years ago along the human lineage so anything beyond this time is in a grey area of we simply don't know.


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 11, 2011)

fugawi said:


> *Missing link* is a nonscientific term for any transitional fossil, especially one connected with human evolution; see Transitional fossil - Missing links and List of transitonal fossils - Human evolution.
> If you still don't understand, perhaps you could say "Common Ancestor".
> 
> Do you understand "Evolutionary time" at all. In the last 4.5 million years, direct ancestors of Homo species have gone through at least 3 significant evolutionary changes with several thousand failed changes that led to extinctions. Gorillas, chimps, orang utans and gibbons also went through major evolutionary changes with lots of extinct failed off shoots as well. What this tells us is that when we broke away from apes, the animal we broke from was possibly a type of Pre Ape like creature, not anything like a chimpanzee. This animal could have looked like anything, a Giant Ground Sloth, a bunny rabbit, simply put........WE DON'T KNOW, science doesn't have any fossil record....AS YET.* Science has no fossils beyond 4.5 million years ago along the human lineage* so anything beyond this time is in a grey area of we simply don't know.



Not entirely true, there is a fossil that is thought to be 36 million years old that fits into (or very close to) our lineage.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 11, 2011)

fugawi said:


> *Missing link* is a nonscientific term for any transitional fossil, especially one connected with human evolution; see Transitional fossil - Missing links and List of transitonal fossils - Human evolution.
> If you still don't understand, perhaps you could say "Common Ancestor".
> 
> Do you understand "Evolutionary time" at all. In the last 4.5 million years, direct ancestors of Homo species have gone through at least 3 significant evolutionary changes with several thousand failed changes that led to extinctions. Gorillas, chimps, orang utans and gibbons also went through major evolutionary changes with lots of extinct failed off shoots as well. What this tells us is that when we broke away from apes, the animal we broke from was possibly a type of Pre Ape like creature, not anything like a chimpanzee. This animal could have looked like anything, a Giant Ground Sloth, a bunny rabbit, simply put........WE DON'T KNOW, science doesn't have any fossil record....AS YET. Science has no fossils beyond 4.5 million years ago along the human lineage so anything beyond this time is in a grey area of we simply don't know.



The apes are a monophyletic group, which includes humans. By being monophyletic the most recent common ancestor of the apes would itself be called an ape. So we have not broken away from the apes at all because we are apes ourselves. 

Why do you question my understanding of evolutionary time? 

Ofcourse I understand that we have evolved in parrallel ( i mean that we have both evolved through out the period of seperation, rather than parralel evolution) with the modern apes but it is unlikely that the pre-chimp human, was all that different from the animals we now call apes. It shared a common ancestor with todays gorrillas. We can certainly make predictions about what such an animal looked like, and I would suspect that we have fossils for apes that are more than 6 million years old, whether they are a direct ancestor of you and I or not. The question is do you need a direct ancestor to understand what our real ancestor might have been like? Just because we dont have a fossil that we know to be a direct ancestor of ours does not mean that we have no idea what they were like. They were ofcourse an ape. 

Interestingly there was a paper in nature earlier this year McLean et al that shows that human evolution has progressed via the loss rather than gain of genetic material that gave us human specific traits. 

If you want to be philosophical and talk about only things that we "know" then I suspect science isnt for you, because science isnt about "knowing". Only mathematicians can "know" things, and at any moment good scientists will throw away what they have previously understood if evidence suggests that it was wrong, this has happened many many times throughout history.

Maybe you should do some reading on phylogenetic inference


----------



## fugawi (Oct 11, 2011)

Haven't heard of that one, but that just re-inforces to a much greater extent what I have been saying. If the human lineage went through 3 major transitional evolutionary changes in 4.5 million years then imagine how much different that ancestor would have been 36 million years ago. Certainly no chimps back then........


----------



## snakeluvver (Oct 11, 2011)

I wish I could read all these posts but I honestly couldnt.


----------



## MC-Boks (Oct 11, 2011)

fugawi said:


> As far as "Aliens" etc, they still remain within the realms of possibility, not impossibility, so I cannot discount them as yet...however improbable.



So... To get to the bottom of this alien intervention, we need to know just how probable it is. And we can know this if we work out exactly just how improbable it actually is.

Come on Zaphod, get your ship working on this problem.


----------



## DeadCricket (Oct 12, 2011)

Bah, no evidence aliens exist? I've got two for that one! 

A. Its a whole lot harder to prove that in the amount of planets (I'm not going with the infinite universe thing, just the ones that hubble can presume exist) that earth would be the ONLY one with life. Little arrogant to think we are that special don't you think

B. Life comes in many different forms! It wasn't all that long ago that we believed that photosynthesis was required for life, turns out that's not even true! What's the other one called? Myosynthedis or something? One single cell of bacteria originating anywhere outside of earths atmosphere would be an alien. 

Remember everyone, the earth was flat at some point. There could be 'alien' forms floating inbetween here and the moon, we just may not know how to see them! Not everything has to fit into our perceptions.


----------



## Colin (Oct 12, 2011)

certain aliens have cloaking technology like the klingons, romulans, asgard etc thats why we can't see them


----------



## crocdoc (Oct 12, 2011)

Fugawi, as grimbeny pointed out, humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. DNA tells a far better tale than chromosome number and our DNA has a 98.6% match with that of the two species of chimps. All sorts of screw-ups can and do happen when chromosomes pair up during meiosis, so producing a new line with a different chromosome number is no big deal and has happened in many evolutionary lines. Think donkey and horse, same genus, different chromosome number (which is why mules are infertile). The Australian elapids have varying numbers of chromosomes. Heck, there are two species of tree frog in North America, _Hyla chrysoscelis _and_ Hyla versicolor,_ that are indistinguishable by external features, yet one has twice the chromosome number of the other. They were very clearly once one species, but then somehow a tetraploid population split off.

The significance of us being so closely related to chimps is that it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to picture what our common ancestor may have looked like. Definitely not a ground sloth, but in all probability just another ape - probably similar enough looking to chimps that the average school kid wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It is estimated that the split between humans and chimps took place around 7 million years ago and we have fossil evidence going back almost to that point - the Australopithecines have small brains, brow ridges and large prognathous jaws (sometimes even a sagital crest), which are all ape features, yet had the very human traits of upright stance and non-prehensile big toe. There's an intermediate form staring us in the face already. It's not a common ancestor, but its pretty close to the source.

The other thing to keep in mind is that all animals have to adapt to their own environment. Something can't just live as a 'missing link'. It'll have features in common with its descendants but will probably also have its own little features as well, so expecting something that is exactly half way between us and the chimps isn't likely to be fruitful. 

The whole concept of 'missing link' itself stems from the way evolution is so poorly portrayed in the media and (unless things have changed) even in school textbooks. Everyone has seen the chart showing a conga line of hunched over hairy creatures gradually going slightly upright as they move forward, until the guy leading the procession is an upright, hairless, man, straight out of Hollywood central casting. That visual is so much a part of our culture that they even use it in a current Red Bull ad. The other mammal always used to show evolutionary process is the horse, again a single line starting with a tiny three toed version and leading to the modern horse. The reason I think these are poor portrayals of evolution is that these two animals, humans and horses, are not the norm and are evolutionary losers when it comes to speciation. There are only a handful of species of wild horses and asses today and there is only one species of human (and a small handful of apes). Most evolutionary lineages don't consist of a single, weedy little line going from one species to the next, but huge branching trees with dozens, sometimes hundreds (or even thousands - think of the murid rodent evolutionary tree) of descendants, many of whom go extinct in the process, but many of whom live. No one ever questions the link between rats and mice, do they, nor needs to see a common ancestor half way between the two to believe they are related.

Because of these poor examples, the human and the horse, the general public can usually only think of evolution as a straight, single lineage, rather than as a branching tree. That's why the original poster of this very thread was asking why, if we evolved from monkeys, there aren't intermediate forms of monkey-humans running around.


----------



## Australis (Oct 12, 2011)

Great post crocdoc. 

Hopefully now the search for the crocoduck can end... someone better tell Kirk.


----------



## Scleropages (Oct 12, 2011)

Magical Unicorns.

Thats all I have to say.


----------



## Colin (Oct 12, 2011)

forget the unicorns.. the kracken from clash of the titans found in nevada 
'Kraken' sea monster lair discovered in Nevada, scientist claims | thetelegraph.com.au


----------



## Red-Ink (Oct 12, 2011)

Colin said:


> forget the unicorns.. the kracken from clash of the titans found in nevada
> 'Kraken' sea monster lair discovered in Nevada, scientist claims | thetelegraph.com.au



Awesome... nothing like a sea monster with a bit of artistic flair, what more can you ask for?


----------



## Scleropages (Oct 12, 2011)

Colin said:


> forget the unicorns.. the kracken from clash of the titans found in nevada
> 'Kraken' sea monster lair discovered in Nevada, scientist claims | thetelegraph.com.au



But Unicorns are magical , not forgets them!


----------



## saximus (Oct 12, 2011)

Colin said:


> forget the unicorns.. the kracken from clash of the titans found in nevada
> 'Kraken' sea monster lair discovered in Nevada, scientist claims | thetelegraph.com.au



Hahaha "Smokin' Kracken"


----------



## waruikazi (Oct 12, 2011)

I lol'd at that too! Hahah



saximus said:


> Hahaha "Smokin' Kracken"


----------



## longqi (Oct 12, 2011)

I am living proof of our ancestry


Just look at my back
I go in fear when visiting areas where they still hunt Orangutans


----------



## Bel03 (Oct 12, 2011)

WOW! :shock: This thread is.......different.......maybe if i read it all it may have made some sense........but seriously? If we were created by aliens, BJ wants to phone home! :lol: Sorry, but i love ET!


----------



## Mo Deville (Oct 12, 2011)

Lol I lost track of this thread a long time ago!!!


----------



## Scleropages (Oct 12, 2011)

haha I can sum it up in once sentence....


MAGICK UNICORNS and Longqi's FURRY BACK = ALIENS!!!!!! 0.O


----------



## Australis (Oct 12, 2011)

Colin said:


> forget the unicorns.. the kracken from clash of the titans found in nevada
> 'Kraken' sea monster lair discovered in Nevada, scientist claims | thetelegraph.com.au



^ Even scientists can get caught up in whimsical ideas :lol:


Another news item on this subject. 
Kraken monster ruled ancient seas? Scientists wary of new theor | Alaska Dispatch


----------



## FAY (Oct 12, 2011)

Austy is definitely an alien. Just look at his avatar (taken of himself with his own camera) he tells me!


----------



## Australis (Oct 12, 2011)

My avatar evolved on earth... unless aliens helped dinosaurs evolve as well :lol: ... sorry i mean "magic sky daddy" unicorns.


----------



## crocdoc (Oct 12, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, you keep mentioning these three major changes:


fugawi said:


> If the human lineage went through 3 major transitional evolutionary changes in 4.5 million years


What were those three changes and what makes them objectively major?

I do have a question about aliens, though - why are they so fond of Iowa cornfields inhabited by photographers with shaky hands? Also, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH ELVIS?!


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Oct 21, 2011)

fugawi said:


> I also quantify what I wrote about our speed of evolution by asking "Noother animal either co-evolving alongside of us or throughout history has comeeven close to our intellect and we did it in 10 00 yrs orso........WHY???


The following data is from the link that you provided. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

border="1" style="border: currentColor; border-collapse: collapse"
|- 
| style="width: 213px" |
*FOSSIL*

| style="width: 220px" |
*TIME SPAN (years before present)*

| width="205" style="border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
*CRANIAL CAPACITY*

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Ardipithecus_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
4.4 M 

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
300 – 350 cc

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Australopithecus_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
4.4 – 2.0 M

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
375 – 500 cc

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Homo habilis_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
2.5 – 1.5 M

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
510 – 800 cc

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Homo erectus_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
2.0 – 1.0 M

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
900 – 1100 cc

|- 
| width="638" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 6.65in; background-color: transparent" |
*To complete the picture -*

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Homo sapiens neaderthalensis_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
350,000 – 30,000

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
1450 cc

|- 
| width="213" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 159.6pt; background-color: transparent" |
_Homo sapiens sapiens_

| width="220" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 165.3pt; background-color: transparent" |
200.000 - present

| width="205" style="border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.9pt; background-color: transparent" |
1350 cc

|-
From my reading of the information you have provided, I determine a time span of around 4 million years in which the brain size of humans, (as indicated by the cranial capacity of skulls) increased to its present level.

10,000 years ago human society changed immensely with the Agrarian Revolution. People were able to produce plant foods (grains) in large quantities, so much so that they could store food and were no longer tied to collecting it on a daily basis. Domestication of animals followed as there was sufficient food to feed them as well. More importantly, it allowed for individuals to take up and develop other pursuits so the roles of individuals became diversified and large aggregations of people not involved in agriculture began to develop. This was given an even greater boost with the industrial revolutionand the development and utilization of electrical power. 

So what you are looking at over the past 10,000 years is not evolution of intellect. It is social and technological evolution. As was pointed out, it is the development of knowledge that has allowed the human race to achieve what it has. The expansion of knowledge over this period has been at an exponential rate.

Blue


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Oct 21, 2011)

*Human evolution*
Humans are believed to have evolved from an ape-ancestor, somewhere out of the changing Dryopithecines during the Miocene era. Somewhere between 8 to 6 million years ago the split between modern apes and modern humans occurred. Unfortunately the fossil evidence around this period is rather scant and there are a number of possible candidates on the human lineage. What is commonly accepted is that the line gave rise to the Australopithecines (refer to Australis’ post #12– very nice!), which developed in east Africa and Southern Africa. There were two general forms, the robust and the gracile. Robust were more vegetarian (a bit like Gorillas – they had the sagittal crest mentioned by *Crocdoc *to attach the large jaw muscles required for eating tough vegetable matter) and gracile, which were more omnivorous and opportunistic. Human stock is thought to have arisen from the gracile form. Homo appears to havefirst developed in east Africa but then spread to Europe and Asia.

As humans do today, human ancestors displayed a lack of specialisation or adaptations to a specific mode of existence. They were behaviourally adaptive. So learning new behaviours was part of their survival strategies. Learning requires memory, memory requires nerve patterns in the brain, the bigger the brain the more you can learn, the better the chance of survival. Couple this with erect posture and no longer walking on your hands and you have the ideal scenario for developing tool use and then tool making.

*Odd Bods & Sods*
There is no “*missing link*”. This was simply a phrase coined by a remarkable man named Eugène Dubois. It has since been misused to the hilt. 

There is apoor understanding of chromosomes. Much of the DNA found in human chromosomes is “junk”. It does nothing. 

Genetic variation is part and parcel of sexual reproduction – crossing over, independent assortment of chromatids and recombination. These happen all the time. That is aside from mutations – which can be environmentally induced or result from errors in transcription during replication plus...

Whole chromosomescan be dragged to one sex cell if the spindle fibre to which they are attached fails to split at the centromere (point of attachment) – so one cell receives 24chromatids and the other receives 22 – a process known as meiotic nondisjunction (alluded to by Crocdoc).

A scientific theory is that which provides the best explanation of the known facts. Falsification refers to part of the armoury of science in gathering those facts – along with controlled experiments and scientific method generally. Theories can be and often are refined over time as new information that is not catered for by the existing theory comes to light. 

A law is an indisputable given e.g. The law of gravity – any two masses will exert a forceof attraction on each other. Nothing can exceed the speed of light – at c massbecomes infinite.

Neanderthals are _Homo sapiens_ – ice age genius!

If you have calluses on your knuckles you are reading the wrong thread. Don’t go out after dark, stay away from strange celestial lights (street lights included) and don’t answer any adds in the newspaper or on the net asking for swingers – they don't use trees.

Blue


----------



## damian83 (Oct 22, 2011)

thelionking said:


> This is a common misconseption. Homo Sapiens (humans) did not evolve from monekys. There was a species WAY WAY back. This species went in two different directions. Part of it evolved to humans, and part evolved to monkeys. Animals are still evolving very slowly, but you could say that humans sort of stop this proccess, as we do not allow for the natural selection proccess to occur.



thats pretty much on the money
it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
although we are closer to dna in pigs, go figure.....


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Oct 22, 2011)

damian83 said:


> thats pretty much on the money
> it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> although we are closer to dna in pigs, go figure.....


 
A few bits that are not technically spot on but the main thrust is good. A shared common ancestor is definitely not the same thing as “evolving from”. If anything, it is evolving with, in parallel. All species are continuing to evolve. To get a handle on it, think of one million years of evolution being required to change sufficiently to warrant new species status. That is pretty much the minimum required. 

Only the pendants, like me, need bother reading the rest….

There is a difference between sequences of genetic code(genome) and genes – we have 96% of the former in common with chimps.
I think you are referring to the Hominoidea rather than Hominidae. 
6 – 8 to million is more commonly accepted as the branching point of hominids from chimp ancestor. 
First Primates were around 65 M and first mammals 200 M. The Wikepedia estimates for first placental mammals don’t really make sense. First chordates are more like 530 M. 990 M would put you into the pre-Cambrian (540+ M) – the late Proterozoic to be exact. I think the name speaks for itself. Around the 500 M mark is more likely for the first protochordates.
The pig comparison does not include the entire genonme. Only those genes coding for proteins. Given the common biochemistry shared by mammals that is not surprising. Genetic comparisons have been done with pigs because they have a similar digestive system (omnivorous) to human and have been used as source of medical materials for humans – insulin and heart valves being two major ones.

Blue


----------



## Jungle_Freak (Oct 23, 2011)

We have 96% of the same genes as chimps ?
Well what about that other 4% ?
We must get that 4% from them darn aliens i guess. ha ha ha 
TWILIGHT ZONE theme playing in my ear ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lol


----------



## Mo Deville (May 16, 2012)

Jungle_Freak said:


> We have 96% of the same genes as chimps ?
> Well what about that other 4% ?
> We must get that 4% from them darn aliens i guess. ha ha ha
> TWILIGHT ZONE theme playing in my ear ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lol



see hybrids are cool and natural, smarter, better looking chimps!

here's one of my faves im saving up for, to plug into my breeding projects!


----------



## Jason.s (Jun 1, 2012)

Heres proof.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 2, 2012)

mo-deville said:


> see hybrids are cool and natural, smarter, better looking chimps!





mo-deville said:


> here's one of my faves im saving up for, to plug into my breeding projects!



You do realise of course that should you fail to produce offspring initially, it will require periodic repeated matings until the female is gravid. That may involve an extensive amount of time and effort on your behalf. I can only but wonder if you are prepared to commit to that which may be required? I can only wish you well and hope that you have what it takes to see the project through to completion. 


In re-reading this thread it is rather frightening to see the mis-information put out by some, using the names of fossil hominids and hominoids but totally incorrectly ascribing their lineage. Thankfully there was a significant percentage of posters who had a good understanding of hominid evolutionary lineages and put the known evidence to the fore. Not to mention the confusion of cultural evolution with biological evolution – hopefully sorted out by the example of Australian aborigines making the transition from a stone culture to a modern culture. If posters are going to comment on something, they should make some effort to ensure they are au fait with the facts first. Otherwise they run the very real risk of spreading falsities and incorrect understandings.

Blue


----------



## Jason.s (Jun 2, 2012)

I'll be a back up for the breading project if you like!!


----------



## moussaka (Jun 2, 2012)

Some quick comments after reading this thread through:

The difference in human/great ape chromosome number is most likely due to our chromosome 2 being formed from the fusion of two chromosomes currently separate in the ape lineage sometime after the human lineage split.

The 'we're 98/99/96% genetically the same as chimpanzees' line is a little misleading - while there's only a few percent difference in our base sequences, most of the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees derive from changes not linked to changes in the specific base sequences per se but rather gene copy number differences, regulatory changes, transposition events etc.


----------



## thelionking (Sep 29, 2012)

Dannyboi said:


> Natural selection is occuring within human populations. More desirable traits are being picked and less not as much. Seemingly shallow ideals about attractiveness is really just another step of evolution  or you could always watch idocracy and go with that hilarious theory that idiots reproduce more and therefore will eventually lead to the entire human race being stupid.


Well yeah, but not proper natural selection. I mean, (not that I have anything against this) we keep crippled and diseased people alive and I guess that would cause more of our human population to be genetically diseased. But we have so many humans I don't think it matters


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 22, 2018)

Wrong! we are all primitive bone fish.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 22, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> Wrong! we are all primitive bone fish.


Placoderms aren't toooooo primitive.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jan 23, 2018)

Well done! - that explains the pharyngeal gills slits in our embryos. 


Hang on… 
One small problem. (Well two actually.) Placoderms went extinct and the last time I tried breathing under water I almost drowned. Those damned gills don’t work very well.


----------



## SpottedPythons (Jan 23, 2018)

Curses... why are we keeping the specimens whose gills are dysfunctional? That ain't natural selection.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 23, 2018)

oh shoot he knows!


----------



## Foozil (Jan 23, 2018)

We've been found out!


----------

