why DID we evolve into humans?

No, the species that are ancestral to humans have died out. That wasn't the question you asked though. You asked:

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

So again, back to my original question which took a long time to address. Why did the primates die out and humans and other animals who are supposedly creating offspring that will turn into other species as well, have not died out? Do only the fit survive? If so, then why again do humans breed defective babies and what other explanation do you have for these primates dying out? Thank you.

"Survival of the fittest" is a relative term. 'Fit' does not necisseraly mean: stronger, faster, smarter, bigger, etc. 'Fit' means whatever it takes to survive in any given environments.So, while in a desert it's probably not very benifficial to have thick layers of fur and blubber, it's a great advantage to have when you are in the Arctic. See how it works?

Is it not true that the the weak and strong die of every species die? Yet their offspring all live on. So why did these primates who supposedly gave birth to offspring that turned humans not keep breeding their own kind, but instead, nothing but "mutations"? Whereas, apes have been breeding apes, humans have been breeding humans, dogs have been breeding dogs, lions, lions, tigers tigers, and so forth.

Because humans, dogs, lions and so forth never breed "true".Each one born is only a good match to it's parents not a perfect match.If there is anything selecting those that breed into the next generation based on those differences then the population HAS to change. It simply can NOT be held stable.If two animals are different enough genetically they can not interbreed. If enough changes pile up over time then lions will not be able to interbreed with their own nth generation descendants. Every single "lion" in the chain can breed with all of immediate ancestors and descendants and all of the "lions" around it but eventually it will have a great-great-great-....great grand son that it can not breed with. (If they were both alive somehow of course ).Your statment about one animal producing one like it is wrong. They are NEVER alike they are just very close in one generation.

Hey Carico -Let me tell about some personal experience, with mice I worked with in a research environment - all of the mice in a large population had black fur. They were interbred for hundreds of generations, and all that was ever produced was black mice. Then one day two of these black mice mated, and three of the eight mouse pups in their litter were white. No human had done anything to these mice other than keep them in a cage and let them eat and breed and sleep.Do you accept the fact that after dozens of generations of only black mice, a few white ones were born?

Everybody, all together now:"But they were still mice!"Just so Carico didn't have to.

If the poulation HAS to change, then why have humans not changed into a species so different from themselves as to be given the name of another species? Humans are still the same as they have been since the beginning of recorded history. None of us has wings or four legs or fins. We still have the same organs and looks that we've had since the beginning of recorded history.Within the human poplutation there are many variables. But there are actually fewer variables within the ape population. So within each species, the traits can change. But one species can NOT acquire the traits of another species unless he is capable of breeding with that species. Humans cannot acquire wings unless humans can mate with a species with wings. Therefore, humans can not acquire ape characteristics unless he can breed with an ape, nor can an ape acquire human characteristics unless an ape can breed with a human. This again, is basic biology.

Recorded history has been about 10,000 years (tops). Homo sapiens (from an archeic form to modern has been around about 200,000 years. Homo as a genus has been changing for about 2,000,000 years. The time scales are rather different.In addition, evolutionary change does not occur at a constant rate. We may well be moving slower than we once were. You are becoming boringly repetious here. Animals can acquire new characteristics without breeding with a different animal with them. This is what a mutation does. This has been explained to you 10 or 20 times this week.I have read most of them and I can see that some are pretty confusing. Others however have been rather simple and straightforward. Rather than just repeating yourself in what can only be discribed as a pig-headed fashion why don't you get one thing and work from there?1) A population of animals CAN aquire a new characteristic without breeding outside that population. Period full stop.White mice can arise from a purely (repeat PURELY) black population.Do NOT go on about this being too small or anything we will get to that. This IS a population acquiring a characteristic WITHOUT breeding with another animal with it. Ok? Simple? Got ONE simple FACT yet? Just one?Your above paragraph is factually incorrect.

Recorded history is an incredibly short period of time, in the broad scheme of things. The "wings, four legs, fins" idea is a straw man- we share our general body plan with most other terrestrial mammals. Evolutionary theory would not predict such radical changes within a few thousand years. This is actually not true. Nuclear genetic diversity among chimpanzees, for example, is equal to or greater than that of humans, and mitochondrial DNA shows much greater diversity in chimp lineages than human (see this genetics article (.pdf)). None of these scenarios are predicted by the theory of evolution, so why do you bring them up?This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:26 PMThis message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:30 PM{edits: trying to fix link}This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-12-2005 09:32 PM

There reaches a point in evolution where a species fits its niche (environment) really well - it has been 'optimized' so to speak - and so any further change would be for the negative.There is no reason for humans to evolve wings or fins at this point, because neither would increase our survival or reproductive success (would you mate with someone that had fins?). There is a special name for this type of natural selection that maintains a species as-is - it is called "normalizing selection".If the niche (environment) changes, or a new species invades the niche, then new selective pressures may cause a species (human or otherwise) to further evolve.I'm also still interested in getting a response to my previous message to you, I think it may be best for you to begin to understand evolution theory one step at a time, rather than trying to put it all together at once, complete with how humans came to be.If you want to try having a one-on-one discussion with me on the subject, let me know.Thanks.

Your link isn't right - you've got "href=" inside a dbcode url code (and the quotes screw it up as well ).Your original:
this genetics article (.pdf)).Fixed:
this genetics article (.pdf)).At least on IE (spit).Edit: I see you fixed it while I was typing in - oh well This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 12-12-2005 09:34 PM

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Thanks for trying to help... I originally tried to use the usual html tags, but then the link wasn't recognized (maybe can't use a href=" here?), so I hurriedly went through a couple of iterations, trying to get the dbcode right.I will test it in preview, in the future.

The reason humans don't have wings is that we were not created with the genes to have wings. We cannot acquire that gene unless we are capable of producing offspring with a species who has wings. We don't just suddenly "mutate" into acquiring the gene to have wings. That is how basic biology works. Each species breeds within its species and there is a natural sperm barrier wich renders one species incapable of breeding with another. And that's what defines a species, not calling a man an animal or plant. Therefore, animals and primates are 2 distinct and separate species that each breeds within its own species.Sorry but again, reality has shown that the gene to have wings does not come from cold or hot weather, or the dislike of being on land. It comes from mating with a species who has the gene for wings. Again, mating is how genes are passed along from one offspring to another. It's simple reproduction.So far, the theory of evolution, one step at a time, contradicts basic reproduction and how genes are passed along. So until you can not only explain, but give proof of how one species can acquire the genes of another without the mating with a species who has that gene, then we can't go any farther.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 11:13 PM

Nope, there is no danger of you reading. We are safe.