Evolution Question

If we evolved from apes - when why do we still have apes.

Why did chimps/gorilllas/orang-utans etc get left behind.

Just a thought

We didn't evolve from apes or monkeys but we do share common ancestry. That particular argument from creationists is a lot like people arguing that rocks are crushed into stones so why are there still rocks today? Simply put, some rocks are not crushed into stones.

Next creationist question (I particularly like the one about why the Banana is so perfectly shaped for the human hand including the handy ring top pull like a can)

Here's Quillasoup's entertaining take on evolution, 10 minutes well spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Duck is right, we never evolved from apes. This is a common ploy used by those who dismiss evolution and favour creationism; i.e. "God did it with the flick of his wrist"!

I always thought the idea we come from apes was an evolutionary one - not creationist.

I reckon then that we must have been mermaids to start with. Sprouted legs and lived on land.

That was close to my theory ...

We come from Trilobites ......

Just watch the video and in ten minutes you'll be better informed than millions of creationists.

Nope just a mis-interpretation by the creationists and folk who have little grasp on the basics of good science.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurevol...reationists.htm

Apes and humans are believed to have evolved from a similar ancestor. You could call apes cousins, rather than parents.

Accepting creationism is the very definition of wilful ignorance on the same scale as flat Earth or geocentricism. Nothing short of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalalaalal very loudly.

Another one to giggle at

http://creationmuseum.org/

Unbelievable ...

This is the same feeling I have with 'Genesis'.

Okay. Just out of interest, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Where's the hard concrete proof of the process of evolution? There's a lot of circumstantial stuff, granted, but that doesn't constitute proof does it. Circumstantial evidence wouldn't cut it if I was trying to offer that as proof for some paranormal claim.

So? How could it be proven to a Creationist that evolution is the truth?

Proof for evolution is not circumstantial it is an irrefutable fact proven to the point of being a mathematically improbable that it could be wrong

Here's four irrefutable facts that nail down evolution and destroy any notion that creationism is anything other than fantasy.

1.Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA

Basically Neanderthal DNA differs significantly from Human DNA but has all the same evolutionary markers. So we have evidence of Non human, intelligent,primate evolution. Creationists hate that particular fact.

2.Chromosomal infusion

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, Chimps have 24, we did not lose a set of chromosomes (that leads to catastrophic failure of the species) the pair fused way back in our evolutionary history and the genetic markers are there to prove it when looking at the genome. I can take that further and talk about the centromere markers but I suspect I'd put people to sleep. Chromosome number 2 is our fused pair, fact.

3.Retro-viral DNA
Again taking it down to its simplest form, virus can invade both egg and sperm, grafting itself into the DNA sequence and appear in all progeny. Now we see cross species retro-viral DNA but the more amazing fact is that we see the same markers for this at the same place in both species. The chances of this happening in the same place on 3 billion base is very small but retro-viral DNA accounts for 4% of the human genome so chance becomes so mathematically improbable as to be non existent. What's more the retro-viral map corresponds perfectly to the phylogenetic trees that have been comprised by Evolution.


4. Summation
See comparative anatomy or I'll link to this video that gives a nice explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM&feature=relmfu

That'll teach Les for asking that sort of question!

As far as I can see, there isn't one unified theory of evolution at the moment. Survival of the fittest doesn't work any more - right? Now it's all about adaptability. The organisms that can best adapt to their environment are the ones who survive and their offspring carry on those traits. Now the latest one is convergent evolution, which is used to explain creatures who appear to have developed unrelated traits. Things like the Duck Billed Platypus. Is that right?

The theories are changing to answer questions which don't fit into the currently accepted one. Isn't that just a case of science quickly throwing in a new theory to cover the failings of the one that has been proved incorrect?

But unlike religion, that is exactly what science does when there isn't a unified theory. You make it sound like science is an organised religion where there is a science think tank, who are desperately trying to come up with 'excuses' for those theories which transpire to have fault.

But unlike religion, that is exactly what science does when there isn't a unified theory.

Yes, it does. But doesn't that also show that, far from being a proven theory, the whole question of the validity of evolution is still uncertain?

Of course its always changing as does everything in science and that is sciences strength. As technology develops we discover better evidence. It is a process of refinement, at no point is everything thrown out but rather built upon and expanded. I highly doubt though that during this process of refinement we will discover that we did in fact stem from two fully formed humans 4000 years ago.

With regard to a unified theory my last point on summation proves that there is a common thread through all evidences and is one of the corner stones of Evolution. A little uncomfortable when folk mix their scientific metaphors Unified theory is a whole other discussion.

But unlike religion, that is exactly what science does when there isn't a unified theory.

Yes, it does. But doesn't that also show that, far from being a proven theory, the whole question of the validity of evolution is still uncertain?

I would say it is as near as certain as could be reasonably argued. I would say incomplete is a better word to describe it.