If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

evearael said:

That's not quite true:
Genesis 4:22 "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah."

Click to expand...

I believe this was in reference to tools, not actual ages..

Todd, the caveman I refer to lived before Adam and Eve. John the Baptist lived in caves too, but would not classify him has a caveman par say. Man has evolved in just 2,000 years. We are stronger, taller, live longer. We have parts to our body we no longer need. The apendex for one.

jeffrey said:

Todd, the caveman I refer to lived before Adam and Eve. John the Baptist lived in caves too, but would not classify him has a caveman par say. Man has evolved in just 2,000 years. We are stronger, taller, live longer. We have parts to our body we no longer need. The apendex for one.

Click to expand...

We're still the same species as we were 2000 years ago jeff, they had a shriveled appendix just like ours.
And we live longer through our modern science, not through any selective pressure, and that's only in the west, many people in Africa still do not see old age.

But anyway, you're right, you're talking about two different things. I assume the cavemen you're talking about are our sister species, the Neanderthals? They were human, but they weren't our type of human. For example, they couldn't speak - accept in a sort of baby talk.
They're bone structure and musculature were very different to ours. They're brains were quite a bit bigger, but it seems they were not as imaginative nor inventive. They never invented the throwing spear for example.
Anyway, they only lived in Europe and we outcompeted them long before biblical times. Any cave men described in the bible were our species.

Whether medical or not, which I'm sure it has something to do with it, if you took someone from now as a child and placed him/her back then, they would still be bigger, taller, and most likely live longer. Change does not happen overnight, it takes thousands of years.. The changes are slight, but they are still changes. Medical, from climate, or for what ever reasons, changes, are changes.

jeffrey said:

Whether medical or not, which I'm sure it has something to do with it, if you took someone from now as a child and placed him/her back then, they would still be bigger, taller, and most likely live longer. Change does not happen overnight, it takes thousands of years.. The changes are slight, but they are still changes. Medical, from climate, or for what ever reasons, changes, are changes.

Click to expand...

I disagree, western humans stopped evolving as soon as the selection pressure was removed. We aren't adapting, nor are we removing degenerative genetic disorders from our population anymore.

I think if we chose a child at random and put them 2000 years in the past, they'd more like die earlier than the native people.

Halcyon said:

I disagree, western humans stopped evolving as soon as the selection pressure was removed. We aren't adapting, nor are we removing degenerative genetic disorders from our population anymore.

I think if we chose a child at random and put them 2000 years in the past, they'd more like die earlier than the native people.

Click to expand...

The only reason being if they fell to a disease that there body was not immune to. But we will never know.

Halcyon said:

I disagree, western humans stopped evolving as soon as the selection pressure was removed.

Click to expand...

Careful ...

Jayhawker Soule said:

Careful ...

Click to expand...

Well, i'm willing to concede that i'm wrong if you can suggest some selection pressures that people living in western societies are under.

Halcyon said:

Well, i'm willing to concede that i'm wrong if you can suggest some selection pressures that people living in western societies are under.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to speak for Jay, but check out the OP in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30170&page=5

Halcyon said:

Well, i'm willing to concede that i'm wrong if you can suggest some selection pressures that people living in western societies are under.

Click to expand...

Hmmm? Selection pressures....which college to go to, which cell phone plan to use, which car to buy.......

The Economist reports studies of human genomes around the world:

The team identified several hundred genes that had undergone recent selection in at least one of the populations being studied. Some were not surprising. Genes involved in the generation of sex cells, and in fertilisation, are known from other work to have strong selective pressures on them, and those pressures clearly continue in modern humans. Nor was it much of a shock to discover selection, in Europeans, for changes in four skin-pigmentation genes known to be involved in reducing melanin content.

Perhaps the most intriguing results were those connected with food metabolism. The gene for alcohol dehydrogenase is undergoing selection in Asia, as is that for processing sucrose (table sugar). Meanwhile, the genes for processing two other sorts of sugar, lactose (found in milk) and mannose (found in some fruit) are changing in Europeans and Yoruba respectively. Fatty-acid metabolism, too, is changing in all three populations. And Europeans are having the toxin-disposal systems in their livers modified.

Some brain genes are also changing, including two that control the size of brains, and two involved in susceptibility to Alzheimer’s disease. And three genes that control bone growth have been modified in Europeans and East Asians, while the Yoruba have seen changes in genes that control hair growth.

Click to expand...

Well, in this case I yield that some populations, especially those in Asia whose medical resources are inferior to western countries, may be experiencing some adaption to changing foods.
Without seeing the stats (i'm not subscribing to these journals for the purpose of one thread) i'll have to base my argument on this rather poorly written synopsis.

Ok number one, selection involving germ cells and fertilisation.
Helpfully this synopsis fails to mention where there findings originate, the process of selection on this basis is obvious though - those with better fertilisation rates pass on more of there genes and so their genes are selected for. This happens in all species.
But uh-oh, what have we got in the west now? Yep, you guessed it in-vitro fertilisation, and very advanced it is now too. This bypasses ALL selection pressures involved in fertilisation for those who can afford the procedure - those in the rich western countries. That's one debunked, next...

Skin pigmentation in caucasoids.
This has been going on for tens of thousands of years, if not longer. I don't know where they've found recent studies showing further reduction in melanin, but it certainly wasn't in the west. Why?
Vitamin suppliments. The only reason for melanin reduction is to gain more vitamin D synthesis from sunlight. In the west if a person is deficient in vitamin D they show symptoms, then they go to their GP and s/he prescibes them vitamin suppliments. Selective disadvantage removed...

Alcohol dehydrogenase increasing in Asian populations.
I can buy that, people become alcoholic in China they get cirrhosis and die. Are most Asian countries medically up to the standard of western states? Nope. This point is moot in reference to my original suggestion.
However, i do accept that some selection may also be occuring in the west as well, people die young from alcohol related deaths and they fail to breed. They survive their addiction because of better degeneration of alcohol, they get to breed. The problem then arises with liver transplants which give the individual a second chance to pass on any addictive habit forming genes they possess onto their children

Lactose digestion changes in carcasoids.
Well, much like the skin pigmentation example this has been going on for many thousands of years. What are the changes they are talking about though? They don't say these changes are beneficial. I suggest the changes they are talking about are more likely an increase in lactose intolerance within the population. Why? Because lactose intolerance is easily diagnosed and so dairy produce can be avoided. These people pass on their intolerance and so the genes spread. It is reversing the natural trend for improved lactose digestion in our ancestors. If anything, this is devolution.

They suggest that brain size is changing. Well, maybe in third world countries where smarter people survive and stupid people die. I don't know about you, but i know many many stupid people that are breeding here in the west.

Alzheimers does not usually affect people until they are past middle age, most have had children by then. I can't see how these genes can therefore be affected by selection pressure and would suggest an alternative reason for their findings, if that is their findings are even valid.

As for the Yoruba, i don't know enough to comment. However last time i checked west African countries haven't been on the cutting edge of medical advancement. Adaption in these people i can accept. But i'm talking about evolution in western societies...

In closing, i originally stated that i believe evolution of the human population in western societies has plateaued. We have removed almost all selection pressure that would otherwise weed out the weaknesses in our population.
We have asthma, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy, hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, huntingtons disease as well as cancers of the breasts and lower digestive system - all of which are hereditary (an increased chance of development in the case of the cancers). These are increasing in western populations, and in other populations influenced by western medicine.

We have stopped evolving because we have the ability to help our weak and sick, to let them live normal lives and pass on their genes.
If we are being entirely technical, we could say we are evolving as there have been changes in gene frequency. However, in nature these changes which lead to micro and macroevolution are always positive changes. In western cases they are negative, it is the opposite to natural selective pressure driven evolution and thus, in my humble opinion cannot truly be classified as being the same thing.

In reference to my discussion with Jeff. The reason a child we selected at random would probably die earlier if sent back in time 2000 years, is a combination of lack of immunity to wiped out disease (smallpox for example) and the fact that they are reasonably likely to have a debilitating disease that without our modern medicine would kill them.

jeffrey said:

Todd, the caveman I refer to lived before Adam and Eve. John the Baptist lived in caves too, but would not classify him has a caveman par say. Man has evolved in just 2,000 years. We are stronger, taller, live longer. We have parts to our body we no longer need. The apendex for one.

Click to expand...

I thought you were wrong about the appendix, but you are right. I could have sworn I had been told that the purpose (believed to be to to protect the human when eating tree bark) was an old wive's tale.

Seriously, why are there still chimps?
I am not a complete ignoramus. I was a theology and fine arts major @university. Book-learnin' never did me no harm, but it never was able to answer the question above. Can anyone enlighten me?

Long story short, ask Halcyon He has explained it in this thread anyway, so just read his posts and you will be enlightened. Have fun!

Brother Jeffrey said:

Seriously, why are there still chimps?

Click to expand...

First of all, your question is defective: the theory of evolution does not say that humans 'evolved' from chimps, but that humans, chimps, and apes diverged from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.

Secondly, as I've probably said too many times, evolution is not a ladder but a sieve: random change is filtered by selection pressures to occassionally produce new species. Nothing about this process mandates the elimination of the ancestor species.

Brother Jeffrey said:

I am not a complete ignoramus. I was a theology and fine arts major @university.

Click to expand...

Apparently your major and your university conspired to render you a complete ignoramus when it comes to the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, education has failed many in precisely the same manner.

Brother Jeffrey said:

Book-learnin' never did me no harm, but it never was able to answer the question above.

Click to expand...

Then you might consider reading one of the many fine texts on evolution.

Jayhawker Soule said:

First of all, your question is defective: the theory of evolution does not say that humans 'evolved' from chimps, but that humans, chimps, and apes diverged from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. And who says you cant teach an old trucker dog new tricks.

Jayhawker Soule said:

First of all, your question is defective: the theory of evolution does not say that humans 'evolved' from chimps, but that humans, chimps, and apes diverged from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.

Secondly, as I've probably said too many times, evolution is not a ladder but a sieve: random change is filtered by selection pressures to occassionally produce new species. Nothing about this process mandates the elimination of the ancestor species.

Apparently your major and your university conspired to render you a complete ignoramus when it comes to the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, education has failed many in precisely the same manner.

Then you might consider reading one of the many fine texts on evolution.

Click to expand...

Not having studied evolution, is not the fault of the university in any way, if you have been to university?, you would know that subject material, i.e. course selection is not mandated along such lines(science, evolution and other such nonesense)...
I have a question regarding this "natural selection" or sieve you speak of. If survival of a species is base' pon survival of the fittest, then why not help, panda's, dolphin's, komodo dragons et.al into extinction. If it is inevitable that tigers should be extinct why not hunt down the last one to adorn my mantle-piece?

Brother Jeffrey said:

Not having studied evolution, is not the fault of the university in any way, ...

Click to expand...

One would think that a "University" would include basic scientific literacy as a prerequisite, but perhaps not ...

Brother Jeffrey said:

If it is inevitable that tigers should be extinct why not hunt down the last one to adorn my mantle-piece?

Click to expand...

That is an inordinantly stupid question. On what grounds do you presume that it is more "inevitable that tigers should be extinct" than, for example, theists?

Jayhawker Soule said:

One would think that a "University" would include basic scientific literacy as a prerequisite, but perhaps not ...

That is an inordinantly stupid question. On what grounds do you presume that it is more "inevitable that tigers should be extinct" than, for example, theists?

Click to expand...

Of course "university" does not require that one study any particular theology, science, or belief.
The theory of natural selection, is 'pon wot grounds I presume that a species 'pon the edge of extinction (like toger's or polar bears) should become extinct.
Of course, since I am indeed a "theist", I don't actually accept scientific theory as fact. I do not truly believe that bengal tigers deserve to be extinct more than say, scientists?

hmm... my University has basic "gen-ed" requirements like a general Science cource, general English, and eaven Physical Education.

Natural selection is not killing off the Tigers, humans with guns and a misplaced sence of "apreciating beauty" are. Left to live naturally they are in no danger of extinction.
(the Cheeta on the other hand is having problems due to its specalized nature)

wa:do