Do you believe in Evolution?

[GSARider]

All that I tend to get back from Theists is the 'faith' arguement - it's teh be all and end all as far as most are concerned. It all tends to get uncomfortable for them when I bring up why their 'faith' isn't making them destroy all idols around them (in the case of Muslims) and putting to death any idol worshippers or forcing them to convert. In the case of Christians, they tend to get rather uncomfortable when you tell them that Jesus was a Jew and never a Christian and his intent was never to start a breakway sect...

[bozo]

Just watched David Attenborough's new series, which was shown last night in the uk, on Darwin's " Tree of Life ". It is unmissable and is a series so don't miss it!
For those of us who are no experts on evolution, it makes Darwin easy to take in, and it's also a fab piece of anti-creationism.

Now a question for you experts, and one I've seen faith-heads raise, if we evoved from apes, why are apes still around?

The programme last night didn't explain, so can somebody help me please?

[lukec]

We are apes. A common misconception is that all evolution is anagenesis- an ancestral species evolving into a "replacement" species. If this were so, and there was only one organism when life began, then there would only ever be one species on the planet! You might as well ask, well if we evolved from single-celled organisms, why are single celled organisms still around? The answer, of course, is that evolution doesn't have to work this way. There is also cladogenesis, which involves the branching out of the "tree". Yes, we share a common ancestor with the apes of today, but this does not mean we replaced them. Let me try to use a very hypothetical example.

There are two landmasses, separated by sea. The western one is completely covered in jungle, and is colonized by a very large population of apes, who live in these trees. One day, a storm carries a small population of these jungle apes over to the eastern landmass. Near the coast, where they land, there is jungle similar to their home, but the central continent is covered in plains. For a while these apes stay in the jungle, but over time it quickly becomes overpopulated and those which can venture successfully outside their jungle to get food do well. There is then, a selection pressure which encourages upright standing (which not only increases view in the plains, but also frees up the hands for carrying). So, apes which are better at this are fruitful, and multiply . Of course, this whole time, apes in the jungle on the original continent are fine and dandy, not changing at all since there is no change in environment.

Not sure if this makes sense, I'm hopped up on cold meds.

[bozo]

We are apes. A common misconception is that all evolution is anagenesis- an ancestral species evolving into a "replacement" species. If this were so, and there was only one organism when life began, then there would only ever be one species on the planet! You might as well ask, well if we evolved from single-celled organisms, why are single celled organisms still around? The answer, of course, is that evolution doesn't have to work this way. There is also cladogenesis, which involves the branching out of the "tree". Yes, we share a common ancestor with the apes of today, but this does not mean we replaced them. Let me try to use a very hypothetical example.

There are two landmasses, separated by sea. The western one is completely covered in jungle, and is colonized by a very large population of apes, who live in these trees. One day, a storm carries a small population of these jungle apes over to the eastern landmass. Near the coast, where they land, there is jungle similar to their home, but the central continent is covered in plains. For a while these apes stay in the jungle, but over time it quickly becomes overpopulated and those which can venture successfully outside their jungle to get food do well. There is then, a selection pressure which encourages upright standing (which not only increases view in the plains, but also frees up the hands for carrying). So, apes which are better at this are fruitful, and multiply . Of course, this whole time, apes in the jungle on the original continent are fine and dandy, not changing at all since there is no change in environment.

Not sure if this makes sense, I'm hopped up on cold meds.

Thanks for that lukec, I'll try to understand, like I said, I'm not well versed in this field!

[lukec]

I know I always plug this book... but if you can get your hands on it... Evolution, by Donald R. Prothero... the name pretty much says it all.

[leo-rcc]

See other apes as distant cousins, not our great grandparents. It's grossly oversimplified but it is the easiest explanation.

[Tiberius]

The whole "we evolved from apes so why are they still around" is probably mainly down to the terminology used. By all accounts, we evolved from "apes", but these apes were nothing like today's apes. They were completely different species, and all modern apes today (inc. humans) evolved from them. The reason we used the name "ape" is the same reason we call the fossil Tiktaalik a "fish"; because it looks like one and it is easier to describe it as one than invent another type of animal to compare it to.

Really you can look at it like this:

Ancient Apes
|
--------------------------------------
|                       |                       |
Humans       Chimpanzees      Gorillas

[bozo]

Thank you all for continuing my education!
Keep it coming!

[IamAwake]

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html
Here is a site with some pretty good information, including pictures, of old skulls and bone fossils documenting some ancestors of us humans. We didn't "evolve from monkeys" as some say. We share a common ancestor. That is straightforward and easy to understand, yet most people don't seem to realize that that is the theory.

somewhat different subject, but.... has anyone been following on the advances regarding tool use of chimpanzees and some other primates? Those guys (well usually females) are using tools! in one case, a sort of spear to stick into a hole and kill this little animal that likes to hide in hollowed out trees. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm
and other tools for other jobs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...himps.html

I gave a speech in college about that with a little humor and Planet of the Apes images projected behind me. Probably about 70 percent of the audience were creationists, but only out of ignorance as a result of our location in the Bible Belt. Still, when I didn't mention the words "evolve" or "evolution", they stayed with me about how the chimps are becoming more advanced and that caused some astonishment at these discoveries. I asked them at what point would we need to give chimpanzees rights as they are becoming more advanced. Won't happen in the near future, but if given the chance, it is possible that chimpanzees could evolve to a similar level to our own. Wouldn't that be insane?! That angle could make a good movie too. If I had said "They're evolving!" I would have probably been met with arguments. I said it without that touchy word, though, and the facts spoke for themselves unquestioned.

[Edwardo Piet]

Just watched David Attenborough's new series, which was shown last night in the uk, on Darwin's " Tree of Life ". It is unmissable and is a series so don't miss it!
For those of us who are no experts on evolution, it makes Darwin easy to take in, and it's also a fab piece of anti-creationism.

I saw the first episode - it was brilliant!

I just forgot what day that was on. What day (of the week) was it? I don't wanna miss next week!

Now a question for you experts, and one I've seen faith-heads raise, if we evoved from apes, why are apes still around?

The programme last night didn't explain, so can somebody help me please?

Why wouldn't they still be around?

They've reproduced - the best 'SPECIES' doesn't win out, its who/what reproduces the most, its the genes - and they're still around.

As evolution is like a tree and not a ladder - they; and us apes too, - are descended from a common ancestor.

And they're still around because they're well - still around.

They've survived because they've reproduced. Whether there's less other apes than humans or not - if they survive they survive.

Its not the species that compete. Its not even the individuals that compete.

Its reproduction that competes - its the GENES that compete.

And for instance - with the title of Dawkins' first book - The Selfish Gene - the stress is NOT on the word selfish - its on the word gene - as I've heard Dawkins say himself. The title has been misunderstood in the past; at times.

Its: The Selfish GENE.

Its NOT: The SELFISH Gene.

If there's a stress at all - its on GENE and not selfish.

So other apes are still around because their genes have survived (by being passed on through reproduction) and are different enough for them to not be considered humans - by us humans.

Hence we ask questions like: Why are other apes still around?

Well because they are! They've survived. But it ultimately comes down to genes and reproduction. Not individual selfish survival or survival of the 'species'.

We ask questions like: "Why are OTHER apes still around?" and yet there's less than 2% difference in DNA between chimps (and also bonobos) and humans.

I believe I heard on the program that that's about the same difference between a lion and a tiger or something?

Also I heard on QI that if you shaved a lion and a tiger completely bare they'd look basically identical.

Except tigers also have striped marking on their skin. That's how you tell the difference.

So lions and tigers are a lot closer than I thought as well - at least in my experience - I thought there was more difference than that