What i can't understand about evolution....

Hey Peg, Because at some point the hairiness of hominids changed from the kind and thickness of apes to the kind and thickness of humans. We don't have fossil evidence of hairiness, as this stuff rarely fossilizes, so actually the hairiness of ancestor apes is assumed (why do we assume that the ancestors of chimps were hairy?).Our hair is not really significantly different from chimps. The hairs on my arms are at about the same density, it is just that the development of hair is not as complete - human hair is generally more juvenile, arrested in development (along with other features).This is an interesting topic of it's own, and I have discussed some elements of it on this thread, if you are interested.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi again Peg This is "evo-speak" for the result of speciation. Speciation is where a "parent population" (the group of organisms that share hereditary traits through reproduction) divides into two (or more) "daughter populations" that inhabit different ecologies and where gene flow between the two "daughter populations" is blocked when they are isolated by reproductive behavior or physical obstacles.In the graphic of Pelycodus above the two branches are "daughter populations" while the trunk is the "parent population"Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

and hi again, Peg, No, the "earlier apes" are NOT still here today. There are no fossils from the apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) that are still here today. Nor do any of the fossils from the times of evolved species (hominids/neanderthal etc), and that have become extinct million years ago, match modern apes. What is here today are species that have evolved from the same common ancestors.This is one version of the human phylogeny:
This is another phylogeny

As noted, there is some disagreement between the two (and these are not the only ones), however the overall pattern is similar.There is also genetic evidence for the pattern of spreading human populations:

quote:

---

Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.
...
"Genetic evidence tells us that Homo sapiens are of recent origin and arose in Africa," said S. Blair Hedges, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University.

​

"African populations have the most ancient alleles [gene pairs that code for specific traits] and the greatest genetic diversity, which means they're the oldest," Hedges explained. "Our species probably had arisen by 150,000 years ago, with a population of perhaps 10,000 individuals."
...
By around 100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated the Earth, including H. sapiens in Africa, H. erectus in Southeast Asia and China, and Neandertals in Europe.

​

By around 30,000 years ago, the only surviving hominid species was H. sapiens.

---

The earlier hominids that lived were eliminated by competition with the surviving hominids, Homo sapiens, while the remaining apes stayed in an ecosystem that did not have human competition, evolving over time, generation by generation, into the apes we see and know today.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Which only proves that not all analogies fly. ;-)This would be a better one: we are up there somewhere, and all we see is a thick layer of clouds below us: there are simply no foundations visible. But we might notice that the cloud pattern is not the same everywhere. And by thinking smart, we might find out that this indicates the presence of foundations below some of those places with different cloud patterns. So, based on that, we build a "hanging-down" building from the top down in those areas, and if we are right, we will meet a foundation right below where we started, so eventually the building van be detached from its "crane". If we are wrong, the bulding will eventually become too heavy for our crane, and with lack of a real foundation it will rip off.Still not perfect analogy, but a lot better already. It doesn't "get stuck", because it is not concerned with the origin.I have actually no idea how to explain it any clearer than I and others already did. We are running in circles... That's actually the reason why they are making any progress at all, in anything at all, and why we aren't sitting in a hole in the ground anymore like 5000 years ago. Not such a bad approach, over all...

Hey Peg, That would be true if the only purpose of evolution were to explain the origin of life. It isn't. Evolution is about explaining the relationships between living organisms, the relationship extends into the past. We only need to go as far back as establishing a common ancestor between species "A" and species "B" to determine whether their relationship is due to descent from a common ancestor.For humans and chimpanzees we do not need to know about the origin of life, only the common "parent" population for the two "daughter" populations.When it comes to explaining the diversity of ALL life, then in practical terms we only need to get to the first floor - the first living species - to then determine whether all life actually is related to one common ancestor or not.The fundamental difference between creation and evolution is that creation needs origins. Biology is concerned with the top floor - the life we know today. Evolution only needs to look at the development of changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Rarely does this get down to the first floor, instead it is concentrated on the top floor, with excursions into lower floors via the fossil record and genetic relationships.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

That's the source of your problem. You think that the ape where man evolved from is identical to modern apes. they were different species of apes which are long gone. As I said, the earlier apes are gone. Gorillas, Chimps and the other modern apes (including us) have all been evolving. I think that despite the fact that you've been consistently confusing earlier apes with modern apes (as if they were one and the same), there is indeed some validity to your question that must be addressed. You are asking why did some of the early apes evolved into human beings while some of the other early apes evolved into modern apes (which to your point of view is a much noticeable change). I love using analogies to explain things like that because I believe that helps people think about them more clearly. Ask yourself why did some of the early civilizations like the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Incas, etc evolved highly elaborate societies, while other early civilizations, like the pygmy, Eskimo, bushman, etc didn't. The short answer is "different historic contingencies". The world is complex and variety is the rule. different populations are subject to different evolutionary pressures and will grow apart over time. Besides, we should never forget that even when two different populations are subject to similar evolutionary pressures, they will still grow apart due to the intrinsic randomness of evolution. Evolution is a historic process and as such is unpredictable and unrepeatable. Bringing it back to the point of your original question, early apes are believed to have been forest dwellers. Due to climate change, savannas advanced. some of these early apes found themselves forced to adapt to the new environments or die. The rain forest didn't disappear entirely though, and some of the early apes survived there and lead to modern apes such chimps and gorillas which still live in those environments to this day.I hope that helped.

Gday, "boys and girls" ?So,
you're the adult who knows the truth about God,
but evolutionists here are just children who still believe in fairy tales?
Hmmm?Why do you have to be so rude?
Especially when showing total ignorance of the subject and inability to learn anything about it? But you didn't look for it.
You never looked for it.
It never even occurred to you to look for it.Why is that ?A few seconds looking will get you these sites :
Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/K.Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

This would be an analogy that can only be derived by terribly wrong understanding of evolution. Instead of having all of us understanding what your misconceptions are why don't you work on relieving yourself of them. Let go of whatever beliefs you have and start afresh.Where Annefan's modification of the analogy is a great improvement upon yours, I prefer thinking of the science of evolution (and any other science as well) as a jigsaw puzzle. We can work on little bits of it at a time. Each bit we complete gives us a better understanding of the whole. Sometimes we'll have an English cottage over here and Gozzilla over there and won't understand how they go together. There will be all kinds of arguments as to who is in errror. But the next thing you know enough of the puzzle is done to see that the Godzilla bit is an advert for a movie. Everything is concordat once again and the Godzilla boys n' girls get a Nobel prize.Edited by lyx2no, : PC

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

a family tree would come in real handy right now

hi radz, so this is based on an assumption, not evidence.Im wondering how many other aspects of evolution are based on conjecture, and how much really can be based on actual evidence?

RADZ are there any current/living species where this is seen to occur?perhaps an example will help me visualize (my right brain speaking)

hi Peg, No, it is an assumption based on evidence. The evidence is that both chimps and man have similar types of hair when young, and that the hair covers the bodies of both in the same general density. Thus it is logical to assume that a common ancestor would have the same pattern rather than have each species evolve it independently. It depends on whether you mean that science is all based on wild guesses with no evidence, or whether you mean that some educated guesses are engaged in as well as documentation of the facts.What is not fossilized cannot be based on fact - it is missing. Fossils, however, are not conjectures. The ages of rocks and other items that can be dated by various means are not conjecture.Obviously when an "artistic rendering" is used, it is conjecture, but it is informed conjecture - informed by knowledge of the way bodies work, muscles, skin etc.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Helper,welcome to evc it was said earlier that some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles...apparently they are the same and havnt changed in hundreds of thousands of years.
So, what does this imply? Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment and therefore has not had need to evolve? Or Does it mean that evolution is not random but rather directed somehow?

Humans and apes. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.There are several species of mammals that have lower levels of hairiness, whales, elephants, pigs, mole rats, for instance. Loss of a feature, where the loss does not inhibit survival and breeding (or where it enhances survival and breeding) is not a problem in evolution, there are many examples ... some we call vestigial.Does that help?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

hey Peg, No, it means that their basic ecosystem has not changed significantly. They have not changed significantly, but they are different. So are sharks and coelacanths.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •