I'm not too sure where to post this ridiculous question I've been thinking about. Biology is my best guess. There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't believe this theory, but that's besides the point) If this is so, why are there still apes? I know it sounds so stupid and there's probably an easy logical explanation, but I never claimed to be a genius:) Just something I wonder from time to time.

We ivolved from a certain type of ape, other species were left behind and are still evolving, but very slowly.

I know the creation theory for catholics is beautiful and I would like to think about that too but I have read too much and studied too much to believe that I came from adam and eve, etc.

Victorians, before Darwin, believed that they were conceiving because god wanted it so; I really have a problem with that. I am so glad Darwin straightened them out !

So... lets hear it from the peanut gallery!! Or the Victorian peanut gallery, whatever...

Tickle doesn't have it quite right.

Both we and modern day apes are evolved from a common ancestor which was an ape which is now extinct. Here we branched from one another, evolving under different conditions which forced us to end up looking different.

Be sure to realise that evolutionary theory is one of the most solid and far reach theories in science. It has applications in many of the sciences and has been altered over the years to fit new evidence (scientific theories are not static like religious theories).

I see no reason to suppose that other species are evolving very slowly, what brings you to that conclusion tickle? Why are they any slower at evolving than us?

Wow. Thanks guys for all the input! It all makes sense to me. I am Catholic and my beliefs are firm, but I enjoy learning and I don't ever discriminate or lecture people who have different beliefs. Heck, my husband is an atheist that believes in evolution:) I'm going to try to attach a document that is quite an interesting read that my husband sent to me. It's pretty long but I thought someone might find it as interesting as I did. Reading this document is actually what got me wondering this in the first place! If anyone has some downtime and would care to read it. Anyway, thanks again!

Oh my, there are glaring holes all over that document.
There is no premise of duality.
The 'student' description of heat/cold made no sense and proved nothing except create FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt). Making the night darker? What does that prove? Absolute 0 is when activity in atoms ceases to happen, what's the argument about it getting colder than that? Please explain it to me.
Making the argument that one has not observed evolution with one's own eyes is no different than belief in a book written 2000+ years ago, except... the scientists has evidence of evolution.

NeedKarma- I didn't say I wrote it or could explain it. Again, I never claimed to be a genius. I just thought it was an interesting read. I appreciate and respect any beliefs and opinions. And I also appreciate and respect people who know what they're talking about, as it seems you do:)

Cap was correct in his explanation but I'm going to dumb it down a bit. Lets talk about dogs. The dogs in our homes are "canine domesticus" but they started as wolfs "Canis lupus" we still have wolfs because they are still successful in their environment even though some of them took a different path. This is called divergence when group of a species adapts to take advantage of a environmental niche that the whole species can't take advantage of. This happens most often some members of a species get left on an island separated from the main population. Life is always changing every generation is slightly different than the one before and these slight differences over millions of years make the amazing difference we have today.

Actually, capuchin, I realize that Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Why would we not suppose that chimpanzees are learning more over time and they actually have us to assist them, therefore the process would be shortened. Chimpanzees born in captivity show amazing intellilgence and problem solving skills.

I probably used the wrong teriminology in 'very slowly'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katieperez

There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't belive this theory, but that's besides the point)

---

I suggest you try reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Speciesor at least a synopsis of it.

If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, then what do you believe in? Creationism as detailed in the Bible? If so, that's fine, but do you understand that there is almost no scientific evidence to support it? That religious people who believe in creationism do so out of pure faith in the Bible? On the other hand, there is a good deal of scientific proof behind Darwin.

ScottGem- Yes I do believe in Creationism as detailed in the Bible. And I understand that my beliefs are based on faith and there is very little or no evidence to support my beliefs. I may not be that academically advanced but I am not totally nieve. Thank you for the wikepedia link about Darwin. It's been a while since science class and who couldn't use a brush up? I have found myself questioning my religion from time to time, because there is so much scientific proof behind Darwin. However, in the end, I find more comfort in my faith in God. I will never ever try to push my beliefs on someone and as I stated earlier, I enjoy learning about things and have an open mind. The original question I asked was not a challenge, it was a very simple question that I had been wondering about. Michaelb 'dumbed it down' and it made perfect sense. Like I said, I felt silly for asking in the first place.

Don't feel silly for asking anything - if you can't do that on an anonymous internet discussion board where can you do it? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Tickle doesnt have it quite right.

Both we and modern day apes are evolved from a common ancestor which was an ape which is now extinct. Here we branched from one another, evolving under different conditions which forced us to end up looking different.

Be sure to realise that evolutionary theory is one of the most solid and far reach theories in science. It has applications in many of the sciences and has been altered over the years to fit new evidence (scientific theories are not static like religious theories).

I see no reason to suppose that other species are evolving very slowly, what brings you to that conclusion tickle? Why are they any slower at evolving than us?

---

Doesn't it seem odd that the "ape" that you claim we evolved from is now extinct? When did it become extinct? Why are we as humans still not evolving into bigger and bigger and completely different beings? Or did evolution of humans just stop?

Mountainman, we are still evolving. Why do you think we are not?

It doesn't seem odd that the ape is now extinct, no. Their offspring, by definition of the theory of evolution, were more fit to compete for food and mates. Leaving any that do not evolve to be better to become less numerous and eventually extinct.

You contend that we are still evolving in the biological sense? I don't see any proof of that!

Well you're probably not looking in the right places for proof. How about all the different homo- species fossils that have been found?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katieperez

I have found myself questioning my religion from time to time, because there is so much scientific proof behind Darwin. However, in the end, I find more comfort in my faith in God.

---

See the thing is I don't believe there is a direct conflict between creationism and evolution. The only time such a conflict exists is when one subscribes to a totally literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that one can maintain and find comfort in their faith in God without disputing the findings of Darwin.

Have you ever seen or read Inherit the Wind? I believe that some intelligent force created our universe. Did that intelligence specifically create an Adam and Eve? Did that intelligence create the flora and fauna as they exist today? I don't believe that because science doesn't support it. But I believe that intelligence create a framework of biological, chemical and physical laws that shaped a figurative Adam and Eve.

So my point is that you don't have to feel conflicted between your faith in God and what science has proven. You just have to understand that the Bible need not be taken totally literally.

Capuchin, I am not the expert on the evolution theory.. how have we evolved in say the last 2000 years or does only minor occur every say million years?

It is indeed interesting to contemplate whether man will continue to evolve, and if so, in what way? The theory of evolution is all about "survival of the fittest" - that is, those individual creatures who have a particular modification in their genes that give them an advantage in surviving long enough to have more babies than the other creatures will have a better chance of passing their genes on to subsequent generations. For animals this typically means that those who are better able to out-run predators, or who are better able to find food, or who are better able to survive the elements, or who ar more disease-resistant, will tend to have more babies than those who aren't, and so their positive traits are passed on.

But for modern humans our ability to survive to the age of 20 or 30 and have babies has little to do with these things any more. Consequently the tendency for "strong" traits to be passed on over "weak" ones in humans in the future will be tremendously diminished. For example, diabetics who used to not survive past childhood can now live to have plenty of children with the help of modern medicine. Consequently we may find the percentage of people who have diabetes increasing over time. Same thing with asthma. The leading cause of death among teenagers is accidents - so perhaps those who are most daring (careless?) will have fewer babies. Put all this together and it may be that the human race could become a bunch of sickly wimps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

It is indeed interesting to contemplate whether man will continue to evolve, and if so, in what way? The theory of evolution is all about "survival of the fittest" - that is, those individual creatures who have a particular modification in their genes that give them an advantage in surviving long enough to have more babies than the other creatures will have a better chance of passing their genes on to subsequent generations. For animals this typically means that those who are better able to out-run predators, or who are better able to find food, or who are better able to survive the elements, or who ar more disease-resistant, will tend to have more babies than those who aren't, and so their positive traits are passed on.

But for modern humans our ability to survive to the age of 20 or 30 and have babies has little to do with these things any more. Consequently the tendency for "strong" traits to be passed on over "weak" ones in humans in the future will be tremendously diminished. For example, diabetics who used to not survive past childhood can now live to have plenty of children with the help of modern medicine. Consequently we may find the percentage of people who have diabetes increasing over time. Same thing with asthma. The leading cause of death among teenagers is accidents - so perhaps those who are most daring (careless?) will have fewer babies. Put all this together and it may be that the human race could become a bunch of sickly wimps!

---

But is this more adapting than biologically evolving?

Just something interesting:

"Lincoln was 6 feet 4 inches tall, at a time when the median height of adult men in the United States was 5 feet 6 inches."

President Abraham Lincoln : Health & Medical History

"The average male American mens height is 177 cm, which is 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot - 10 inches tall. (for white males*)."

Mens average height chart

Hmmmmm... :)