Wol. Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why dont all species evolve into more that they are ? Why is it only humans that can read, write, laugh, cry so on .... What drove us to evolve and for monkeys to stay the same ? All species are constantly evolving - the process hasn't stopped and it never will as long as there is life. Monkey's didn't "stay the same" they evolved - into monkeys! Mankind and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. Read a book about evolution as you don't appear to fully understand it. You might find it interesting and it will answer all your questions. Why are we so far in front of other species tho ? Did we have help ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why are we so far in front of other species tho ? Did we have help ? Yeah, from God (puts on tin hat and hides) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Chimps More Evolved Than Humans By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 17 April 2007 09:36 am ET Since the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes can be said to have evolved more than human genes, a new study suggests. The results, detailed online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradict the conventional wisdom that humans are the result of a high degree of genetic selection, evidenced by our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities and bi-pedalism. Jianzhi Zhang of the University of Michigan and his colleagues analyzed strings of DNA from nearly 14,000 protein-coding genes shared by chimps and humans. They looked for differences gene by gene and whether they caused changes in the generated proteins. Genes act as instructions that organisms use to make proteins and thus are integral to carrying out biological functions, such as transporting oxygen to the body’s cells. Different versions of the same gene are called alleles. Changes in DNA that affect the making of proteins are considered functional changes, while “silent” changes do not affect the proteins. “If we see an excess of functional changes (compared to silent changes) the inference is these functional changes occurred because they were positively selected, because they were useful in some way to the organism,” said study team member Margaret Bakewell, also of UM. Bakewell, Zhang and a colleague found that substantially more genes in chimps evolved in ways that were beneficial than was the case with human genes. The results could be due to the fact that over the long term humans have had a smaller effective population size compared with chimps. “Although there are now many more humans than chimps, in the past, human populations were much smaller, and may have been fragmented into even smaller groups,” Bakewell told LiveScience. So random events would play a more dominant role than natural selection in humans. Here is why: Under the process of natural selection, gene variants that are beneficial get selected for and become more common in a population over time. But genetic drift, a random process in which chance “decides” which alleles survive, also occurs. In smaller populations, a fortuitous break for one or two alleles can have a disproportionately greater impact on the overall genes of that population compared with a larger one. Chance events could also explain why the scientists found more gene variants that were either neutral and had no functional impact or negative changes that are involved in diseases. There is still much to learn, the scientists say, about human and chimp evolution. “There are possibly a lot of differences between human and chimps that we don’t know about, [perhaps] because there are differences in chimps that nobody has studied; a lot of studies tend to focus on humans,” Bakewell said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why dont all species evolve into more that they are ? Why is it only humans that can read, write, laugh, cry so on .... What drove us to evolve and for monkeys to stay the same ? All species are constantly evolving - the process hasn't stopped and it never will as long as there is life. Monkey's didn't "stay the same" they evolved - into monkeys! Mankind and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. Read a book about evolution as you don't appear to fully understand it. You might find it interesting and it will answer all your questions. Why are we so far in front of other species tho ? Did we have help ? Physically, we're not actually that far in front. The main difference between us and chimpanzees is essentially our ability to communicate. Language is what has got us so far in front, and why did we develop that? Well, evolution essentially boils down to being lucky. With language we developed complex relationships and societies, and could develop and communicate complex ideas. It's said that first language was developed, and then reason, as you need language for true reasoned thinking. Most estimates of when we developed language range from 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. If you think that the predominant portion of our evolution has came after that (in the last 10,000 years especially) then it shows you what a huge effect just one thing can have on the evolution of a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) The Wings on Flightless Birds In 1798, sixty years before Charles Darwin?s first book was published, a French anatomist, É´ienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire, traveled to Egypt with Napoleon where he witnessed and wrote about a flightless bird whose wings appeared useless for soaring. The bird that Hilaire described was an ostrich, but he described it as a "cassowary", a term used back then to describe various birds of ostrich-like appearance. Ostriches and cassowaries are among several birds that have wings that are vestigial. Besides the cassowary, other flightless birds with vestigial wings are the kiwi, and the kakapo (the only known flightless and nocturnal parrot), among others. In general, wings of a bird are considered complex structures that are specifically adapted for flight and those belonging to these flightless birds are no different. They are, anatomically, rudimentary wings, but they could never give these bulky birds flight. The wings are not completely useless, as they are used for balance during running and in flagging down the honeys during courtship displays. Hind Leg Bones in Whales Biologists believe that for 100 million years the only vertebrates on Earth were water-dwelling creatures, with no arms or legs. At some point these ?fish? began to develop hips and legs and eventually were able to walk out of the water, giving the earth its first land lovers. Once the land-dwelling creatures evolved, there were some mammals that moved back into the water. Biologists estimate that this happened about 50 million years ago, and that this mammal was the ancestor of the modern whale. Despite the apparent uselessness, evolution left traces of hind legs behind, and these vestigial limbs can still be seen in the modern whale. There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits. It was reported recently that whales and hippos were distantly related. Erector Pili and Body Hair The erector pili are smooth muscle fibers that give humans ?goose bumps.? If the erector pili are activated, the hairs that come out of the nearby follicles stand up and give an animal a larger appearance that might scare off potential enemies and a coat that is thicker and warmer. Humans, though, don?t have thick furs like their ancestors did, and our strategy for several thousand years has been to take the fur off other warm looking animals to stay warm. It?s ironic actually that an animal, sensing danger is near, would puff up its coat to look scarier, but the human hunter would see the puffier coat as a warm prize, leaving the thinner haired weaker looking animals alone. Of course, some body hair is helpful to humans; eye brows can keep sweat out of the eyes and facial hair might influence a woman?s choice of sexual partner. All the rest of that hair, though, is essentially useless. The Human Tailbone (Coccyx) These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would?ve been killed instantly. The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness. As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes. To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish. It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see. Wisdom Teeth in Humans With all of the pain, time, and money that are put into dealing with wisdom teeth, humans have become just a little more than tired of these remnants from their large jawed ancestors. But regardless of how much they are despised, the wisdom teeth remain, and force their way into mouths regardless of the pain inflicted. There are two possible reasons why the wisdom teeth have become vestigial. The first is that the human jaw has become smaller than its ancestors? and the wisdom teeth are trying to grow into a jaw that is much too small. The second reason may have to do with dental hygiene. A few thousand years ago, it might be common for an 18 year old man to have lost several, probably most, of his teeth, and the incoming wisdom teeth would prove useful. Now that humans brush their teeth twice a day, it?s possible to keep one?s teeth for a lifetime. The drawback is that the wisdom teeth still want to come in, and when they do, they usually need to be extracted to prevent any serious pain. The Sexual Organs of Dandelions Dandelions, like all flowers, have the proper organs (stamen and pistil) necessary for sexual reproduction, but do not use them. Dandelions reproduce without fertilization; they basically clone themselves, and they are quite successful at it. Look at any lawn for the proof. If dandelions were to revert to sexual reproduction, they might not retain whatever traits they have that allow them to be pests to gardeners everywhere. If flowers can begin reproducing in this manner, does that mean animals, even humans could too? Asexual reproduction can be a good strategy in an environment that is constant if a species is well suited to those conditions. It doesn?t take a scientist to figure out that humans wouldn?t last long if the condition set forth was no sexual contact with others. Therefore, the human sexual organs are probably in no danger of becoming vestigial. Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior) Only females exist in several species of the lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus, which might seem like a problem when it comes time to propagate the species. The females don?t need the males though, they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. So basically, the females don?t need the males; they just produce clones of themselves as a form of reproduction. Despite the fact that it is unnecessary and futile to attempt copulation with each other, the lizards still like to try, and occasionally one of the females will start to ?act like a male? by attempting to copulate with another female. The lizards evolved from a sexual species and the behavior to copulate like a male -- to engage in fake sex -- is a vestigial behavior; that is, a behavior present in a species, but is expressed in an imperfect form, which in this case, is useless. Male Breast Tissue and Nipples The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, ?Was man descended from woman?? The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous. The Human Appendix In plant-eating vertebrates, the appendix is much larger and its main function is to help digest a largely herbivorous diet. The human appendix is a small pouch attached to the large intestine where it joins the small intestine and does not directly assist digestion. Biologists believe it is a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor. Interestingly, it has been noted by paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer in his text The Vertebrate Body (1949) that the major importance of the appendix ?would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession,? referring to, of course, the large number of appendectomies performed annually. In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The Human Tailbone (Coccyx) These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would?ve been killed instantly. Humans - Crafted from DNA so perfect that it gave us a tailbone. Maybe Adam and Eve were actually cats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Is it any wonder when if you dare to admit to believing in a divine being that created the Universe you are rounded upon and laughed at. I'm actually surprised more Christians don't get laughed at. If I went to work and said I believed in the Tooth Fairy, I'd expect to be sniggered at. My answers are now likened to a sketch off Billy Connolly wanking! That's the final straw.. Well at least you didn't cut and paste your answers straight from Jehovah's Witness websites like you did last time there was a debate about evolotion/creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol. Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Proving evolution exists does not dismiss the existence of a God ( the nipples thing is because male and female gender is not decided straight away btw) The infallibility of God was created in the dogma surrounding religion, A God may well have designed a world to evolve with us as will continue to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 the nipples thing is because male and female gender is not decided straight away btw Yes it is, as soon as an egg is fertalised the sex is decided. In humans however the sex hormones don't assert themselves till a few weeks in to pregnancy, but the sex is not undecided at any point, it just doesn't matter in terms of fetal development. This is once again a flaw in humans, I'm struggling to think of another species where the sex hormones don't immediately suppress the development of features unique to the other sex. I guess this is just another example of that "perfect" human DNA that God gave Adam and Eve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 20, 2009 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2009 The Human Tailbone (Coccyx) These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would?ve been killed instantly. Humans - Crafted from DNA so perfect that it gave us a tailbone. Maybe Adam and Eve were actually cats? Jesus that made me laugh :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Im just giving examples of un-intelligent design. I think its actually a pretty important statement. Whether its my work or not doesnt matter? Modern Christians didnt write the bible, but theyre always quoting from it! If anything Jondaken, you and Julie are the ones bringing nothing to the debate, which is expected , as you have nothing to offer but opinions. You have no evidence or facts to back up anything you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. No because you just ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs. Quoting massive passages of someone elses work is what a debate is about. You bring evidence to the table and go "what do you say about that?" and then the other party either dismisses it WITH REASON, or ignores it and looks like a fool. There is nothing opinion based about vestigiality, it exists, it's there for everyone to see, and it shows evolution HAS taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 20, 2009 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Couple of things I'd like to pick you up on here. 1) Quoting others work - Isn't going to get him anywhere? Well other than showing potential evidence of evolution. 2) I'd also like to point out that those providing links to the Bible as evidence of the existance of God are also linking to "massive passages of someone elses work" which is also a matter of opinion rather than fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The Human Tailbone (Coccyx) These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would?ve been killed instantly. Humans - Crafted from DNA so perfect that it gave us a tailbone. Maybe Adam and Eve were actually cats? Jesus that made me laugh :winkold: I've watched red dwarf, I know it's possible. That even showed you can create a breeding population from just one pregnant cat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Proving evolution exists does not dismiss the existence of a God ( the nipples thing is because male and female gender is not decided straight away btw) The infallibility of God was created in the dogma surrounding religion, A God may well have designed a world to evolve with us as will continue to do so. Evolution disproves The book of genesis emphatically though! If the first book of the bible is complete and utter tosh, then why are people expected to believe any of it!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Proving evolution exists does not dismiss the existence of a God ( the nipples thing is because male and female gender is not decided straight away btw) The infallibility of God was created in the dogma surrounding religion, A God may well have designed a world to evolve with us as will continue to do so. Evolution disproves The book of genesis emphatically though! If the first book of the bible is complete and utter tosh, then why are people expected to believe any of it!? Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Sorry, but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Sorry, but "Chimps More Evolved Than Humans " So you'll agree with that? Walk into Oxford and they will all agree with you that that is fact? Mk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Brum, quoting massive passages of someone elses work (which by the way most of it is mere opinions and not fact, which goes against everything science is) is not going to get you anywhere in this debate. Sorry, but "Chimps More Evolved Than Humans " So you'll agree with that? Walk into Oxford and they will all agree with you that that is fact? Mk. Who is to say that any animal is "more" evolved than another. All creatures evolve to best suit their own particular environment. I thought you were responding to the long list of vestial organs, which are indeed facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts