[atmisk]

Is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off them as a result of evolution?

Also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

I believe it is and some people doubt that

[charlotte234s]

Some people don't believe evolution is correct because it does not follow with their religious beliefs. Science is yet to show determinately that evolution is true, however, we share something like 98% of our genetic makeup with some chimps, so... it's up to you to decide if it's true or not.

[Skell]

In my opinion that statement is for the most part true and correct. Some others won't.

What do you feel?

[asking]

Science is yet to show determinately that evolution is true.

This is incorrect. The idea that all species on Earth today evolved from earlier forms is true, proven true, and accepted without doubt by virtually all modern biologists. No practicing biologists are in doubt about this. It is as well accepted as other scientific theories, such as gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, the cell theory, etc.

Asking

[asking]

is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off of them as a result of evolution?

Yes. We actually ARE great apes! (Although because early biologists didn't want to say that, we got stuck in a different group.) But, in fact, we branched off from among the other apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas). They are like our cousins. Somewhere back in time, we share a common ancestor, a great grandparent, if you will. Most biologists think we are most closely related to the chimpanzees and bonobos.

also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

Yes. This paragraph is essentially true, although due to some writing errors, there are little mistakes here and there. But that is a problem caused by the person who wrote the paragraph, not with the theory of evolution.

By the way, last Saturday was the 148th anniversary of the first publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species, and therefore "Evolution Day."

I posted about evolution earlier this month and addressed some of these questions here:
<https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirituality/atheists-do-not-believe-how-111864-56.html#post701713> I hope this helps, Atmisk.

i believe it is and some people doubt that

It is true that many people doubt the theory of evolution. But they are not biologists, and science is not a popularity contest. It's not a matter of getting the most votes for or against from non scientists or from scientists in unrelated fields. It's great that so many people are interested in science, but non scientists don't get to say, "I don't like gravity and because my friends and I don't like it, it's not true." Same for evolution, relativity, and other scientific ideas. I respect that some Christians object to evolution on religious grounds. I think they are justified in their dislike of the idea. But it's not true that any real biologists are in doubt about it. As far as science is concerned, evolution is an irrefutable fact.

Hope this helps clarify.
Asking

[Fr_Chuck]

No of course humans are not decended from apes, is that not the silly thing a person ever thought of. First there is no evidence at all, that it is possible, and the idea of mass evolution from primates beyond being silly, one would ask why the others did not evolve but stayed apes, guess they did not want to have to work, build houses and the such.

So no we are not

[jem02081]

is it really true that we are related to great apes and that we branched off them as a result of evolution?

Yes, The evidence is overwhelming & compelling. I would also add that all of modern biology and medicine is built on this foundation.

Also is this whole thing true:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been...

Yes!
You can “formally” call evolution a theory as you would speak of gravity as a theory. But the theory part refers to the explanation (Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of general relativity). In a similar manner “The theory of” evolution refers to the mechanisms by which the process occurs (eg natural selection).

Do you know what mitochondria are? All multicellular organisms (animals & plants) have mitochondria in their cells and all of these mitochondria (in human, apes, fish or trees) are thought to have a common ancestor. The most widely accepted theory (endosymbiotic theory) is that all of these mitochondria are the descendants of a bacterium that was taken up by a primitive cell. Don’t think that could happen? Look up coral algae symbiosis.

[charlotte234s]

I suppose you are right, evolution is obviously something that happens, but I meant that, it's yet to prove that we descended from apes.

[red_cartoon]

For the theories like Gravitation, we have got absolute proof. Newton, Kepler, Galileo and other scientists of the past have done tremendous work to prove this true. In the beginning the church did not like that idea at all. But today the church agrees. We have got rigorous mathematical proof now, how can anyone disagree.

Now for the theory of Evolution, scientist are yet to present a rigorous proof, be it mathematical or in any other form. So right now, nobody can prove that Evolution true. Neither can anyone prove Evolution false or wrong. So evolution is still an ongoing research. We are waiting for the result of the research. In the mean time you can be a part of the game ( i.e. become a scientist and participate in the research ) , support either of the teams and cheer for them. Or do whatever you want to. Just remember not to discriminate people on their favorite team in the game of evolution research.

[jem02081]

For the theories like Gravitation, we have got absolute proof. Newton, Kepler, Galileo and other scientists of the past have done tremendous work to prove this true. In the beginning the church did not like that idea at all. But today the church agrees. We have got rigorous mathematical proof now, how can anyone disagree.
.

Which theory of gravitation do we have absolute proof for?
Newton?
General Theory of Relativity?

Absolute proof doesn't reside in science... only in religion.
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

[red_cartoon]

Which theory of gravitation do we have absolute proof for?
Newton?
General Theory of Relativity?

Neither.
What we have today is OK for today, but usually turns out to be 'limited' or 'special case' and sometimes 'wrong' in tomorrow. What I wanted to say is, the story of gravity has come a long way since middle ages. These days the church does not try to burn someone who thinks sun is not rotating around earth.

Absolute proof doesn't reside in science ... only in religion.
In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

I think you are partially correct. Science rejects an old theory when a better explanation is found for the phenomena. But in religion ( think of all the religions, not just the well known monotheist 'higher' religions) most of the myths are conflicting with reality and followers just believe them. What do you think about that ? :)

[asking]

In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

And the idea that humans are descended from and in fact a species of ape is perfectly consistent with all the evidence. We are as similar to the other apes as dogs are to wolves and foxes (all members of the dog family). Likewise, we share with other apes the same sequences of DNA and similar behaviors. We even have the same digestive tract as other apes. :) The fossil record likewise shows a long sequence of different apes that become more and more human over millions of year, bigger and bigger brains, standing upright, etc.

No biologist or anthropologist is in any doubt that humans are descended from apes and that we are a kind of ape--in the same way that dogs, wolves,and foxes are related, or parrots and parakeets, or crickets and grasshoppers. They are different yet similar because they share common ancestors. We too share a common ancestor with the chimps and gorillas. For the purposes of science it is "proven."
Asking

[Fr_Chuck]

Law of Gravity, darn, I was flying and floating around all day till I learned it was illegal, did not want to be arrested for breaking the law of gravity.

Course I have been to some of my family reunions, perhaps the missing "link" is hiding there.

But on a serious note I am not sure that even in the idea of evolution it is fully accepted that man and ape are that related,
In that there was perhaps a early animal that both may have came from, but the ape, monkey and the such are not in the direct line, but off shoots from an earlier line. ** not my belief of course but from some of the books I have read

[asking]

Fr_Chuck, You are very funny!

But honestly, the idea that humans are descended from an ape lineage is completely accepted by biologists and anthropologists. It's not accepted by some non scientists, and the reasons for that are understandable, and religious. But as far as scientists who know the field are concerned, it's been accepted for over a hundred years, and every year there's more supporting evidence and never any than contradicts the idea.
For scientists, it's a done deal.
Asking

[KBC]

And if man did not evolve from the great ape who did man evolve from?

Dinosaurs?
Fish?
Single celled amoeba?

With the factual evidence available today,showing, say, birds adapting to certain environments,or prairie grasses.

I live and study sand prairie,we have shown, beyond any doubt the evolution of the grasses needs to have short controlled burns to release their seed pods,this is evolution and adaptation necessary to survival.

With the last paragraph I state this, If grass needed to adapt, birds needed to adapt, where is it so difficult to see where humans had to adapt,meaning EVOLVE from something else,not just suddenly 'Be there'?

[charlotte234s]

Where does absolute proof reside ANYWHERE in religion? I'd like to see that.

I believe in God, I believe in evolution. I think that we are relative of apes, but do I think we are descendants? No, but if science proves it, I will change my opinion. Until then, I don't rely solely on religion, the bible is not strictly factual, and 100% correct, just a book written by man.


Math proves gravity, I'm fairly certain.

[red_cartoon]

We are most probably not descendants of the current day great apes, but cousins perhaps. From common grand parents or grand grand parents may be. But we are family nonetheless.

I like to believe in evolution because it gives feeling of being a very responsible member of the BIG family. Love all animals/plants/beings. Take care of the world etc.

[asking]

We are most probably not descendants of the current day great apes, but cousins perhaps. From common grand parents or grand grand parents may be. But we are family nonetheless.

I like to believe in evolution because it gives feeling of being a very responsible member of the BIG family. Love all animals/plants/beings. Take care of the world etc.

Right. We are definitely not descendants of the modern apes, in the same way that we can't be descendants of our own first cousins, for example. I also enjoy that close knit feeling of family with other primates (although sometimes some of them embarrass me :) ). And just as DNA tests can confirm that we are related to our own parents and siblings, DNA tests confirm that we are related to our great ape kin.
Asking

[inthebox]

Asking:

"The fossil record likewise shows a long sequence of different apes that become more and more human over millions of year, bigger and bigger brains, standing upright, etc. "

Can you show the links to prove this?

For example:
From
'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome

"Clearly, factors other than DNA sequence are necessary for such "punctuated" duplicative transposition events to occur during genome evolution. During the divergence of the human/great-ape lineage from the Old World monkey lineage, the genome MAY
have been particularly permissive to segmental duplication events. The scientists SPECULATE that the molecular driving forces behind this "punctuated" duplicative activity may have been changes in transcriptional status or chromatin conformation"

The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.


The dna of humans and apes may be very similar but that does not prove they came from the same ancestor.

If I were to compare a average home and a shopping mall
They have similar features:
Doors
Windows
Plumbing
Electrical circuits
Similar if not the same building materials

This is not proof that the home and the mall had "a common ancestor." What is known is that there was or is a builder[s].

[jem02081]

Asking:
Can you show the links to prove this?

Every year the fossil record grows richer. Every year the gaps shrink & the confidence grows. Can there ever be enough proof for someone who already believe he know the truth. A truth which doesn’t need any factual evidence?

Asking:
The words may and speculate, I purposely emphasize. Those are not words demonstrating FACT.

Yes, they’re speculating about what accounts for the observed “temporal bias in gene duplication events”. This is a reasonable speculation given that punctuated equilibrium (see Wikipedia) is a well established theory in evolutionary biology and that transcriptional activity & chromatin conformation have will described roles in other structural changes in DNA (euchromatin).

What they are not speculating about is that “regions of the human genome have been hotspots for acquiring duplicated DNA sequences – but only at specific time-points during evolution”

Read the press release & if you want more understanding of the topic the press release refers to an article (Horvath et al. Genome Research 15 (7): 914. (2005)) which is available for free from Genome Research. Genome Research is one of the best scientific journals in this field. This is a paper about the evolutionary analyses of a human centromeric region, but this is a tough read ;) For more general info, I found a site (The Evolution Evidence Page) that gives a good introduction to “comparing human & ape chromosomes as evidence for common ancestry”.