Evolution

[Voski]

I am taking physical anthropology and we are learning about evolution.

Now if humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor why didn't they all just become humans. I don't understand why there would still be monkeys. What caused them to be "left behind" if that makes any sense.

[SuburbanSmoker]

ok so this is basically what is generally accepted about evolution. so basically evolution is a change in inherited traits in populations) populations being the animal) from one gerneration to the next. These changes are caused by a few things. the first is variation. variation is a result from the different genes that get passed on to offspring, which in turn produce their inherited traits. when two organisms reproduce, the result is an organism with varied genes. This also goes aong with reproduction, another huge part of the evolution process. One most people are familiar with is naural selection. This meaning that organisms who are able to thrive in their surroundings are the organisms that reamain around. They in turn pass these useful traits to their offspring who have the tools to survive. this is also known as darwins survival of the fittest. Humans came about through this variation. as our brains developed more, we gained useful tools wich basically jumped us to the place where we are now in the food. chain. Hope this kind of helps.



o and antoher thing to think about for all your serious people, have humans taken ourselves out of the chain of evolution due to the lifestyle we have grown accustummed to.



(sorry if my spelling is off i am really tired =/

[Tuscani]

IMHO evolution makes a helluva lot more since than men and women being made outta (forgive my lack of biblical knowledge) dust and a rib? just makes no sense.... seeing is believing.


edit due to late night spelling errors lol Edited February 25, 2009 by Tuscani

[a_shimoon]

I'll try to explain it as simply as possible based on my basic understanding:

1) Multiple species can co-exist that specialize in different things. The better the species adapts to its specialty, the better it does.

2) At some point in our history, we branched off from our shared ancestor with monkeys.

3) One of those branched species lead to what is known today as humans. We specialized in what we do, and we did well at it.

4) Also, another one of those branches led to modern day monkeys. When the species branched out, the genetic pool started to become more and more dissimilar. They became specialists of the trees. They did well at their specialty. Hence why they still exist today.

5) Just because we share a common ancestor does not mean that only one of us can exist today. We just chose (in a Darwinian sense) different specialties, and both did fine at it (although we did better, there's enough room in this world for them too).


Does that kind of clear it up?

Edit: Grammar. Edited February 25, 2009 by a_shimoon

[wpw36]

look into the book only a theory by ken miller. i am currently reading it and it is kind of an eye opener

[Bye bye now have fun]

because the fork happened when some got a mutation and other didnt

[Karot]

"although we did better, there's enough room in this world for them too)."
Actually, you cannot call any evolution better than another evolution unless you are referring to a specific environment. Since monkeys are still alive, they just simply evolved different, not better.

[Dylank0010]

I completely disagree that it is as simple as filling in specialty "niches" (my ecology professor would shoot me for using that word). There are a ton of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, w/e that have evolved to be generalists. I think you could count us among them. Being that koalas eat eucalyptus and that's it, they are specialists. Humans, barring personal preference, can get by eating just about anything when compared to other mammals. As stupid as it sounds, I recommend you watch the movie "time machine." actually does a decent job of showing how humans could diverge again.

Personally, I think evolution is hard to understand simply because the time scale required to see a complete divergence is mind boggling. Archeologists, paleontologists, even anthropologists talk about a millennia like it's a week. a day usually in terms of paleontology. Just try to think of how two separate groups of a species could change if they got split up and migrated to different regions. The interactions might be somewhat the same between members of the same species for awhile, but undoubtedly the environment will be different to some degree, imposing, unknowingly to the species and over a LONG period of time, it's own variability. This would cause one group to have to adapt to conditions that the other would never experience.

I hope this helps. Not sure what I'd do if I found out I've been wasting my parents money for 3 years on getting a biology degree, just to find out I can't explain something as well known as Darwinian Evolution. lol. Edited February 26, 2009 by Dylank0010

[AKammenzind]

I am taking physical anthropology and we are learning about evolution.

Now if humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor why didn't they all just become humans. I don't understand why there would still be monkeys. What caused them to be "left behind" if that makes any sense.

Wait... you're 18+ right? Because I thought that for most people outside of the bible belt that is cleared up in middle school.

Monkeys weren't "left behind" any more than we were. They exist in the same time as we do, and have merely evolved differently from a distant common ancestor. The same goes for other species.

[erufiku]

In related news, a draft of the Neanderthal genome was recently completed. Just an example of how evolution led to a different "variation" that was not as succesful as homo sapiens sapiens.

[fineout]

"were all the result of a monkey having buttsex with a retarded fishfrog" -Mr. Garrison

[Canon]

think of it this way. humans have a common ancestor. yet we look all different, i mean skin color wise. people have adapted and changed based off of where they lived at. theoretically if we stayed separated for hundred of thousand or millions of years we would all be very very different (similar to how monkeys and humans are now). we wouldnt be able to reproduce with eachother and everyone would have different characteristics based off of diet, climate and many other things. this is how it is believed that we evolved from apes.

now saying that i dont believe in macro evolution. i believe in God and believe in the big bang. i believe God created us separate from the animals. but i do believe that species can and do change to adapt to their environment, sometimes they even can divide and eventually not be able to reproduce with one another.

[dafunk5446]

Evolution, to me, is the best model to understand life on earth. It is clearly obvious that there is evolution and it is proven. Now evolution does not provide all the answers and their are holes in the theory (which is why its called a "theory" not a "law"). One thing that I do have a problem with, is the time frame on which human's evolved. To me it just seems rather small amount of time for the large developments that occurred. The scale on which hominids evolved seems alright, but the genus Homo is a small time frame. Now obviously there is more evidence to support the opposite of my claim, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Like Canon said, I too believe in god and the big bang. I don't, however, believe in a supreme being god. I see god as a collective consciousness of all things, living and non-living. All energy is connected and recycled. Just my idea.

[Will_Evo]

I am taking physical anthropology and we are learning about evolution.

Now if humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor why didn't they all just become humans. I don't understand why there would still be monkeys. What caused them to be "left behind" if that makes any sense.

Wait... you're 18+ right? Because I thought that for most people outside of the bible belt that is cleared up in middle school.

Monkeys weren't "left behind" any more than we were. They exist in the same time as we do, and have merely evolved differently from a distant common ancestor. The same goes for other species.

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

[dafunk5446]

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

I agree in many respects, there are very large holes in the evolutionary time line, and that is part of my problem with how quickly humans developed.

Fossils, however, are a rare occurrence. It takes very specific conditions to create fossils. If you think about when an animal dies most times its going to be ripped apart by scavenger animals. This cause displacement of fossils and exposure, which leads to decay. Sure we have shit tons of fossils laying around but thats only cause we are talking millions of years. When you think of how many animals were alive over that time period, it is a very very small amount.

As for the evolution of monkey's, they havent stopped evolving. They are just at the point were their evolution is conducive to their environment. That however does not explain why there are no in-between-ers, which is a very big problem for me.

[An1m]

I am taking physical anthropology and we are learning about evolution.

Now if humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor why didn't they all just become humans. I don't understand why there would still be monkeys. What caused them to be "left behind" if that makes any sense.

Wait... you're 18+ right? Because I thought that for most people outside of the bible belt that is cleared up in middle school.

Monkeys weren't "left behind" any more than we were. They exist in the same time as we do, and have merely evolved differently from a distant common ancestor. The same goes for other species.

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

What are you talking about? There's a shit-ton of fossils of species that are intermediate between others. There's also a shit ton of fossils in the fossil record showing where certain species branched off from others. We have Turkeys, We have eagles, we also have velociraptor fossils. Common ancestor, species fork. As far as humans, other great apes and other hominids go, there are also plenty of fossils of early man and of other apes. No living creature on earth has stopped evolving, we are all evolving, however evolution is very hard to see. Humans have vestigial bones, like the tail-bone, and organs, like the clitoris and appendix which were much more useful at earlier times. Clitorises have shrunken and appendixes are basically obsolete now. This is evolution. Just because we haven't sprouted wings or developed telekenesis does not mean that we have not been evolving. The melanin in my skin, that makes my complexion much darker than those of many other people is evolution at work. In Africa people needed protection from the harsh sun and to absorb an optimal amount of sunlight for vitamin E. The same is true for people in other climates which is why they evolved different skin tones.

I haven't found any sunken ships with buried treasure, recently though I've looked around a bit. I suppose that means that there are truly no ships that have ever sank whilst carrying precious cargo, according to your logic with regards to the amount of fossils people have found. Finding and excavating things like sunken ships and fossils requires a huge amount of resources and man hours. If everyone in the world were constantly on the prowl for these things we would certainly find more, alas this is not the case. Also, people HAVE been finding fossils for thousands of years. They did not know what the hell they were dealing with so they'd grind them up and use them for "medicines" and "potions" thinking that they were dragon bones etc...

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

I agree in many respects, there are very large holes in the evolutionary time line, and that is part of my problem with how quickly humans developed.

Fossils, however, are a rare occurrence. It takes very specific conditions to create fossils. If you think about when an animal dies most times its going to be ripped apart by scavenger animals. This cause displacement of fossils and exposure, which leads to decay. Sure we have shit tons of fossils laying around but thats only cause we are talking millions of years. When you think of how many animals were alive over that time period, it is a very very small amount.

As for the evolution of monkey's, they havent stopped evolving. They are just at the point were their evolution is conducive to their environment. That however does not explain why there are no in-between-ers, which is a very big problem for me.

Okay let's stop using the word "monkeys." Humans are apes. Humans evolved from apes. Our closest ancestors are apes. We have found many "in-betweeners," not just neanderthals. We've found hobbit like hominids, we've found cro-magnons, we have found Australopithecus and lots of other hominids. I don't know where you guys are getting your information but it seems that you have not tried to find out if these so-called "in-betweeners" exist. There are "in-betweeners" for so many species that currently inhabit today's earth that it blows my mind, humans are not exempt from this list. Just because there may or may not be a "missing link" does not mean it never existed. We didn't know of any ancient species, until we did-- if you know what I mean.

Evolution often tends to happen, amongst other reasons, when populations of the same species are isolated. Say by an ice age which keeps populations from migrating. They then develop in isolation over tens of thousands of years. They adapt to their new environments, they evolve.

[Hippo_Master]

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area.

[Hippo_Master]

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area..

Hence the lack of "in-betweeners" Edited March 2, 2009 by Hippo_Master

[Will_Evo]

I am taking physical anthropology and we are learning about evolution.

Now if humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor why didn't they all just become humans. I don't understand why there would still be monkeys. What caused them to be "left behind" if that makes any sense.

Wait... you're 18+ right? Because I thought that for most people outside of the bible belt that is cleared up in middle school.

Monkeys weren't "left behind" any more than we were. They exist in the same time as we do, and have merely evolved differently from a distant common ancestor. The same goes for other species.

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

What are you talking about? There's a shit-ton of fossils of species that are intermediate between others. There's also a shit ton of fossils in the fossil record showing where certain species branched off from others. We have Turkeys, We have eagles, we also have velociraptor fossils. Common ancestor, species fork. As far as humans, other great apes and other hominids go, there are also plenty of fossils of early man and of other apes. No living creature on earth has stopped evolving, we are all evolving, however evolution is very hard to see. Humans have vestigial bones, like the tail-bone, and organs, like the clitoris and appendix which were much more useful at earlier times. Clitorises have shrunken and appendixes are basically obsolete now. This is evolution. Just because we haven't sprouted wings or developed telekenesis does not mean that we have not been evolving. The melanin in my skin, that makes my complexion much darker than those of many other people is evolution at work. In Africa people needed protection from the harsh sun and to absorb an optimal amount of sunlight for vitamin E. The same is true for people in other climates which is why they evolved different skin tones.

I haven't found any sunken ships with buried treasure, recently though I've looked around a bit. I suppose that means that there are truly no ships that have ever sank whilst carrying precious cargo, according to your logic with regards to the amount of fossils people have found. Finding and excavating things like sunken ships and fossils requires a huge amount of resources and man hours. If everyone in the world were constantly on the prowl for these things we would certainly find more, alas this is not the case. Also, people HAVE been finding fossils for thousands of years. They did not know what the hell they were dealing with so they'd grind them up and use them for "medicines" and "potions" thinking that they were dragon bones etc...

Yes they exist in the same time we do, but it doesn't explain why our closest relative has stopped evolving all together. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes time and many phases...if you truly believe in evolution, then you must realize that we should still see Neanderthals running around and every phase before them alive and going. Same goes for every other species...to me evolution is flawed in that is can explain how we got here but can't explain why EVERY living thing on earth has stopped the process. Also, don't you find it odd that we havn't found, not just Neanderthals, but any large amount of inbetween fossils of all the other species? If this process truly takes millions of years, then the earth should be chalk full of the inbetweens, thats trillions upon trillions of dead generations of animals...so why havn't we found alot? It doesnt make any sense.

Just so you know, I neither believe in creation or evolution...I refuse to believe in things that cannot be proven, especially in those two instances where one rules the way you live and the other says I, in all my smarts, and decision making life, came from an ape who eats his own crap.

-Evo

I agree in many respects, there are very large holes in the evolutionary time line, and that is part of my problem with how quickly humans developed.

Fossils, however, are a rare occurrence. It takes very specific conditions to create fossils. If you think about when an animal dies most times its going to be ripped apart by scavenger animals. This cause displacement of fossils and exposure, which leads to decay. Sure we have shit tons of fossils laying around but thats only cause we are talking millions of years. When you think of how many animals were alive over that time period, it is a very very small amount.

As for the evolution of monkey's, they havent stopped evolving. They are just at the point were their evolution is conducive to their environment. That however does not explain why there are no in-between-ers, which is a very big problem for me.

Okay let's stop using the word "monkeys." Humans are apes. Humans evolved from apes. Our closest ancestors are apes. We have found many "in-betweeners," not just neanderthals. We've found hobbit like hominids, we've found cro-magnons, we have found Australopithecus and lots of other hominids. I don't know where you guys are getting your information but it seems that you have not tried to find out if these so-called "in-betweeners" exist. There are "in-betweeners" for so many species that currently inhabit today's earth that it blows my mind, humans are not exempt from this list. Just because there may or may not be a "missing link" does not mean it never existed. We didn't know of any ancient species, until we did-- if you know what I mean.

Evolution often tends to happen, amongst other reasons, when populations of the same species are isolated. Say by an ice age which keeps populations from migrating. They then develop in isolation over tens of thousands of years. They adapt to their new environments, they evolve.

Forgive me I think you may have mis-interpreted what I meant. Let me start by clarifying the first part of my post. I mentioned that evolution takes time and very gradual steps, I understand the theory BUT as these gradual changes may happen, evolution in theory never stops...therefore, we wound't just need fossils of the in between species, we should also see living inbetweens too. If evolution is true, then I should see a whole generation of the inbetweens, not just for us, but for every living thing on this planet. It would be ignorant to say otherwise...you can't say they died off, because then how does evolution work if the evolving species dies off due to lack of adaption...they couldn't of just dissappeared? Where are all the evolving species...you mean to tell me that every species on the planet evolved at the same time? Cmon now...it is a huge hole in the theory of evolution that you cannot refute.

Now as for the second part. Yes I understand there have been findings, and I understand that it takes very specific conditions in order to make a fossil, and many man hours to find them..BUT check this out...in order for a species to evolve one trait about them..say to grow wings for instance...we can agree that evolution says it takes millions of years, lets low ball it and say 1 million years in this case to grow wings. That means that 20,000 generations of that animal(Saying it lives to be an average age of 50{Much higher than most animals live}) lived and died in the process of growing wings....now how many of these animals consisted of each generation? Its gotta be alot for evolution to work...one of them can't evolve by itself, and certainly not all of them do...so we are looking at a population per generation of at least say 10,000. That is 200,000,000 animals in 1 million years to change just ONE trait. Now times that by the amount of different animals on the earth and you have a number that would be yielding much larger quantities of the inbetweeners...I think the specific fossils we have found are not proof of evolution rather proof that just as humans, other specieis reproduce and have mutated kin. We have children born with extra legs, mutated spines, extra arms/hand etc...

Now no doubt we adapted a bit, I cannot say that the Neanderthal is not a early human, but it did not evolve as you would to believe..I believe we as humans adapted a bit, but we did not come from apes...and apes from a dog or whatever you want to believe. Nor do I believe that any man can say where the earth and all its contents came from...you know what the problem is with our theories, religions, and every other thing we say to try and explain our existence...the fact that we as a species...can only explain the here and now...what about life outside of earth? what about the trillions of planets in our solar system alone? Something happened...but there is no way humans know the answer..or can even get close.

-Evo

[dafunk5446]

Okay let's stop using the word "monkeys." Humans are apes. Humans evolved from apes. Our closest ancestors are apes. We have found many "in-betweeners," not just neanderthals. We've found hobbit like hominids, we've found cro-magnons, we have found Australopithecus and lots of other hominids. I don't know where you guys are getting your information but it seems that you have not tried to find out if these so-called "in-betweeners" exist. There are "in-betweeners" for so many species that currently inhabit today's earth that it blows my mind, humans are not exempt from this list. Just because there may or may not be a "missing link" does not mean it never existed. We didn't know of any ancient species, until we did-- if you know what I mean.

Evolution often tends to happen, amongst other reasons, when populations of the same species are isolated. Say by an ice age which keeps populations from migrating. They then develop in isolation over tens of thousands of years. They adapt to their new environments, they evolve.

No, I have TRIED to do research in this area, I am a history major interested in prehistory and early civilization. I have taken numerous archeology classes, so I know pretty sure I know what your talking about. As for your arguments, yes there are a lot of in-betweeners, but it doesnt explain anything. I wasnt suggesting that there is a complete missing link to humans and without it the theory is bunk. I was saying that there are holes in the picture thats all. If you look at the diffences between austropithicus/hoomo genuses there are large gaps in development, we do not have to many "in-betweeners" that show a clear deviation between one species and another. It is relativley clear jumps in evolution. Not saying that this is wrong and not understandable, like I said fossils are rare, and homininid fossils tend to be even more so. I am just saying that these jumps are quick and little information between them. As for Homo floresiensis, it is still heavily debated wether this is a different species or a case of insular dwarfism. Insular dwarfism isn't commen but it is no means rare, and if it is a different species it is a deviation of homo erectus and evidence of an inneficent "model" that died off. Either way you split it they aren't all that important in the evolution of humans, since they are either an unrelated species or a variation of humans due to environmental pressures.

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area..

Hence the lack of "in-betweeners"

Yes, it has long been thought that modern humans were the reason homo erectus and neanderthals died off. But your arguement would also suggest that humans should have killed off gorillas and chimps as well, since they are competition as well. In theroy there should still be isolated pockets of other hominids around, especially the earlier ones. This is somewhat supported by the fact that gorillas and chimps once inhabited much larger areas and are now in isolated areas. (even smaller now due to human encroachment)

[Hippo_Master]

Okay let's stop using the word "monkeys." Humans are apes. Humans evolved from apes. Our closest ancestors are apes. We have found many "in-betweeners," not just neanderthals. We've found hobbit like hominids, we've found cro-magnons, we have found Australopithecus and lots of other hominids. I don't know where you guys are getting your information but it seems that you have not tried to find out if these so-called "in-betweeners" exist. There are "in-betweeners" for so many species that currently inhabit today's earth that it blows my mind, humans are not exempt from this list. Just because there may or may not be a "missing link" does not mean it never existed. We didn't know of any ancient species, until we did-- if you know what I mean.

Evolution often tends to happen, amongst other reasons, when populations of the same species are isolated. Say by an ice age which keeps populations from migrating. They then develop in isolation over tens of thousands of years. They adapt to their new environments, they evolve.

No, I have TRIED to do research in this area, I am a history major interested in prehistory and early civilization. I have taken numerous archeology classes, so I know pretty sure I know what your talking about. As for your arguments, yes there are a lot of in-betweeners, but it doesnt explain anything. I wasnt suggesting that there is a complete missing link to humans and without it the theory is bunk. I was saying that there are holes in the picture thats all. If you look at the diffences between austropithicus/hoomo genuses there are large gaps in development, we do not have to many "in-betweeners" that show a clear deviation between one species and another. It is relativley clear jumps in evolution. Not saying that this is wrong and not understandable, like I said fossils are rare, and homininid fossils tend to be even more so. I am just saying that these jumps are quick and little information between them. As for Homo floresiensis, it is still heavily debated wether this is a different species or a case of insular dwarfism. Insular dwarfism isn't commen but it is no means rare, and if it is a different species it is a deviation of homo erectus and evidence of an inneficent "model" that died off. Either way you split it they aren't all that important in the evolution of humans, since they are either an unrelated species or a variation of humans due to environmental pressures.

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area..

Hence the lack of "in-betweeners"

Yes, it has long been thought that modern humans were the reason homo erectus and neanderthals died off. But your arguement would also suggest that humans should have killed off gorillas and chimps as well, since they are competition as well. In theroy there should still be isolated pockets of other hominids around, especially the earlier ones. This is somewhat supported by the fact that gorillas and chimps once inhabited much larger areas and are now in isolated areas. (even smaller now due to human encroachment)

We do kill off gorillas and chimps, that's why gorillas are endangered.

But they aren't a threat. Most gorillas or primates would resort to fight or flight in the presence of a human no matter what, most of the time flight unless cornered or protecting young of course. Gorillas tend to live in area that are mostly uninhabitable to humans, as do other primates. Some cultures do in fact kill and eat primates as well. Humans do not tend to live in very close proximity to most forms of primate as well, close enough to have the primates become a threat, therefore no need to kill them. There is also the fact that human's brains are capable of more complex feelings of sadness, compassion, pity, etc... so killing does not always feel like the necessary thing to do. Humans can react based on emotion is comparison to pure instinct, which makes us different then more primitive life forms.

[Zinite]

Okay let's stop using the word "monkeys." Humans are apes. Humans evolved from apes. Our closest ancestors are apes. We have found many "in-betweeners," not just neanderthals. We've found hobbit like hominids, we've found cro-magnons, we have found Australopithecus and lots of other hominids. I don't know where you guys are getting your information but it seems that you have not tried to find out if these so-called "in-betweeners" exist. There are "in-betweeners" for so many species that currently inhabit today's earth that it blows my mind, humans are not exempt from this list. Just because there may or may not be a "missing link" does not mean it never existed. We didn't know of any ancient species, until we did-- if you know what I mean.

Evolution often tends to happen, amongst other reasons, when populations of the same species are isolated. Say by an ice age which keeps populations from migrating. They then develop in isolation over tens of thousands of years. They adapt to their new environments, they evolve.

No, I have TRIED to do research in this area, I am a history major interested in prehistory and early civilization. I have taken numerous archeology classes, so I know pretty sure I know what your talking about. As for your arguments, yes there are a lot of in-betweeners, but it doesnt explain anything. I wasnt suggesting that there is a complete missing link to humans and without it the theory is bunk. I was saying that there are holes in the picture thats all. If you look at the diffences between austropithicus/hoomo genuses there are large gaps in development, we do not have to many "in-betweeners" that show a clear deviation between one species and another. It is relativley clear jumps in evolution. Not saying that this is wrong and not understandable, like I said fossils are rare, and homininid fossils tend to be even more so. I am just saying that these jumps are quick and little information between them. As for Homo floresiensis, it is still heavily debated wether this is a different species or a case of insular dwarfism. Insular dwarfism isn't commen but it is no means rare, and if it is a different species it is a deviation of homo erectus and evidence of an inneficent "model" that died off. Either way you split it they aren't all that important in the evolution of humans, since they are either an unrelated species or a variation of humans due to environmental pressures.

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area..

Hence the lack of "in-betweeners"

Yes, it has long been thought that modern humans were the reason homo erectus and neanderthals died off. But your arguement would also suggest that humans should have killed off gorillas and chimps as well, since they are competition as well. In theroy there should still be isolated pockets of other hominids around, especially the earlier ones. This is somewhat supported by the fact that gorillas and chimps once inhabited much larger areas and are now in isolated areas. (even smaller now due to human encroachment)

We do kill off gorillas and chimps, that's why gorillas are endangered.

But they aren't a threat. Most gorillas or primates would resort to fight or flight in the presence of a human no matter what, most of the time flight unless cornered or protecting young of course. Gorillas tend to live in area that are mostly uninhabitable to humans, as do other primates. Some cultures do in fact kill and eat primates as well. Humans do not tend to live in very close proximity to most forms of primate as well, close enough to have the primates become a threat, therefore no need to kill them. There is also the fact that human's brains are capable of more complex feelings of sadness, compassion, pity, etc... so killing does not always feel like the necessary thing to do. Humans can react based on emotion is comparison to pure instinct, which makes us different then more primitive life forms.

Humans are not apes. Humans did not evolve from apes.

Humans and apes/monkeys/chimpanzees all evolved from common ancestors. There is a very important difference between the two concepts.

[Zinite]

It's like on the Gallapagos islands, with the finches. There was one common species of Finch, then it travelled to different islands and adapted and evolved to better suit it's environment.

What probably happened with the primates was that one group was living in a place which called for evolutionary measures - no fur, a larger brain, feet suited for walking/running opposed to climbing/eating, spinal column for walking completely upright, a differnt skull shape to house a different shaped yet smarter brain... etc. Since these evolved primates, the first "humans", were extremely adaptable to any environment, they could spread rapidly. The primates in other places did not need to evolve to adapt, therefore they stayed the same as the "human" population grew and grew.

We know there are in fact primitive forms of human that resemble primates much more than the Homo-sapien does. The Homo-sapien appeared and started killing off, interbreeding, and forcing these lesser evolved humans out of their land area..

Hence the lack of "in-betweeners"

There seems to be a misconception about this 'missing link' of fossils. People say that there is a 'missing link' between our ancestors and our current evolution state.

This argument is a straw man. Every fossil record ever found is a 'missing link'. Every fossil ever found fits somewhere in the chain of evolutionary history.

[An1m]

Humans are not apes. Humans did not evolve from apes.

Humans and apes/monkeys/chimpanzees all evolved from common ancestors. There is a very important difference between the two concepts.

That's funny because I thought Humans were Great Apes, hominids, just as are our closest ancestors the Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. I also thought that humans shared over 98-99% of their DNA with Chimpanzees and Bonobos which would be very curious if we were not extremely closely related. Obviously we evolved from common ancestors as the other great apes, we deviated somewhere, but we do not know exactly where yet. However this is the beauty of science, in time we may know. With religion and the conviction that some god created humans, which is completely unscientific, unfalsifiable and unfruitful, the issue will always be speculation. I find it bizarre that people who have trouble dealing with evolution because of perceived holes simultaneously "believe" that a god created man, which has absolutely no proof, zero.

Someone said we can not explain where all the other planets and solar systems come from. Untrue. There are multiple theories about the origins of the universe. I will focus on the big bang which is the most widely accepted. To start we know that matter can not be created or destroyed. It is eternal, it has always been here and it did not need a god or a creator to exist. Actually I'm not going to explain the big bang because that would be time consuming and tedious, but I'll skip to the good part. Primordial nucleogenesis. The reason that the conditions conducive to forming planets were around. Matter gathered together, all matter has a gravitational pull, the more mass the matter has, the larger its gravitational pull, these balls of matter become the inhabitants of the cosmos: stars, planets, cosmic rock etc...

Earth, spinning rock core, extremely hot surface, no atmosphere, volcanoes, many erupstions, eventually an atmosphere begins to form in the midst of volcanic activity, condensation from volcanoes begins to fill basins on the earth's surface, these are the oceans. Conditions for life slowly take shape. Many millenia of evolution, and here we are today. Or... god said let there be ______________ and there's the explanation for anything.

Every second grader knows that matter can not be created or destroyed. Why then do people insist on believing that a god has to have created anything or that time is linnear. Time is something people have created to keep themselves organized. If it makes you feel better, the universe is god. It uses all of its resources, it strives for equillibrium. It wastes nothing, it creates everything, it destroys everything, it creates nothing, it destroys nothing.

Earth never started to exist, earth was never created and neither were any of us. We are all products of the universe. We have all existed for eternity, in one form or another and we will always continue to exist in some form. We are microcosmic, personifications of the way the universe works. We too create and destroy nothing. We can only change things from one form to another, chemically, physically, aestethically. We eat things provided to us by the earth, via the sun's energy. We expend all of this energy through heat or other means but it is all returned to the universe in the end.

[Zinite]

Humans are not apes. Humans did not evolve from apes.

Humans and apes/monkeys/chimpanzees all evolved from common ancestors. There is a very important difference between the two concepts.

That's funny because I thought Humans were Great Apes, hominids, just as are our closest ancestors the Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. I also thought that humans shared over 98-99% of their DNA with Chimpanzees and Bonobos which would be very curious if we were not extremely closely related. Obviously we evolved from common ancestors as the other great apes, we deviated somewhere, but we do not know exactly where yet. However this is the beauty of science, in time we may know. With religion and the conviction that some god created humans, which is completely unscientific, unfalsifiable and unfruitful, the issue will always be speculation. I find it bizarre that people who have trouble dealing with evolution because of perceived holes simultaneously "believe" that a god created man, which has absolutely no proof, zero.

Someone said we can not explain where all the other planets and solar systems come from. Untrue. There are multiple theories about the origins of the universe. I will focus on the big bang which is the most widely accepted. To start we know that matter can not be created or destroyed. It is eternal, it has always been here and it did not need a god or a creator to exist. Actually I'm not going to explain the big bang because that would be time consuming and tedious, but I'll skip to the good part. Primordial nucleogenesis. The reason that the conditions conducive to forming planets were around. Matter gathered together, all matter has a gravitational pull, the more mass the matter has, the larger its gravitational pull, these balls of matter become the inhabitants of the cosmos: stars, planets, cosmic rock etc...

Earth, spinning rock core, extremely hot surface, no atmosphere, volcanoes, many erupstions, eventually an atmosphere begins to form in the midst of volcanic activity, condensation from volcanoes begins to fill basins on the earth's surface, these are the oceans. Conditions for life slowly take shape. Many millenia of evolution, and here we are today. Or... god said let there be ______________ and there's the explanation for anything.

Every second grader knows that matter can not be created or destroyed. Why then do people insist on believing that a god has to have created anything or that time is linnear. Time is something people have created to keep themselves organized. If it makes you feel better, the universe is god. It uses all of its resources, it strives for equillibrium. It wastes nothing, it creates everything, it destroys everything, it creates nothing, it destroys nothing.

Earth never started to exist, earth was never created and neither were any of us. We are all products of the universe. We have all existed for eternity, in one form or another and we will always continue to exist in some form. We are microcosmic, personifications of the way the universe works. We too create and destroy nothing. We can only change things from one form to another, chemically, physically, aestethically. We eat things provided to us by the earth, via the sun's energy. We expend all of this energy through heat or other means but it is all returned to the universe in the end.

I hope that whole thing wasn't a response to me... overkill.

Yes, humans are primates, as are monkeys/apes etc. Yes, we share 99% (or whatever the figure is) DNA composition with other modern primates.

I know that you understand that humans are not the same as modern monkeys. There are some people that don't understand this distinction though - and that was who I was going for.