If Man was a Monkey.....

[questor]

the earth is supposed to be around 4.5 billion years old. at some point life appeared and genetic material appeared. at around 200 million years ago, mammals appeared carrying with them mammalian genetic material. the oldest hominid is now figured at 6 million years, a relative newcomer to life's stage. during the time between abiogenisis and now, we have to believe that a one celled life form metamorphosed from slime into a human being. if evolution is to be believed, all life evolved from original slime. the cockroach , even at 300 million years has remained a roach. a turtle at 200 million years has remained a turtle, but man evolved from a beast into natures highest creation in a few million years, even though his environmental surroundings were the same as rodents, roaches, and monkeys. in, other words what environmental pressues caused huge jumps of sophistication in ancient monkeys to cause human beings while monkeys remain apes?

[Tarantism]

well, check this out.

 

http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/man/tit1.html

 

enjoy,

(((tartanism)))

[CraigD]

… but man evolved from a beast into natures highest creation in a few million years, even though his environmental surroundings were the same as rodents, roaches, and monkeys. in, other words what environmental pressues caused huge jumps of sophistication in ancient monkeys to cause human beings while monkeys remain apes?

When you speak of “huge jumps in sophistication” separating ancient primates from human beings, you appear to be equating genomes with behavior. I think this is an incorrect correlation.

 

It’s certain that, with regards to some very specific behaviors (eg: language, technology, abstract thinking) Homo Sapiens is very different – more sophisticated is an apt way to describe the difference – from other ancient or modern species. We know, however, that the genome of H. Sapiens is very similar in size and content to nearly all other mammals. In terms of size, H. Sapiens doesn’t have the largest genome among the mammals (a family of non-descript rodents are the current mammal record-holders), mammals don’t have the largest genome among animals (some very odd looking fish hold that record), and animals don’t have the largest genome among all life (quite a few plant have genomes that dwarf animal genomes). Even allowing for estimates of the amount of non-coding “junk” in the various genomes, it’s clear that, in terms of the amount of biological information we contain, H. Sapiens is far from the “pinnacle”.

 

It’s also clear (to all but the most imaginative biologists and philosophers) that, in terms of our success as a species in shaping the world, eliminating competitors, and, most importantly, thinking and communicating, that we are the pinnacle of terrestrial, and as far as direct, observed evidence can tell, all life. To use a common aphorism, when it comes to genes and intelligence, size really doesn’t matter.

 

Human behavior – talking, having civilizations, Religion, and Science – does not by any reasonable analysis appear to require the most advanced genes. Evolution appears to result in a steady increase over time in the size and complexity of genomes, but this increase does not appear to correspond directly to the emergence of the traits we consider to make us the most advanced species on Earth. These traits appear to be, in a precise sense, accidental. Whether one sees in this change, or a divine creator, is at present a matter of faith.

[questor]

if you consider the vertebrate family tree, and you believe man and apes had a common ancestor, how did the great divergence in intelligence and body style occur so quickly ? the ape branch has had the same number of years to develop brain function as the human, and shows no sign of doing so.

the family tree of man is not reasonably explained when you consider Neanderthals suddenly showed up world wide relatively recently and then went extinct (for what reason? ) and then were miraculously replaced by Cro-Magnon only 30-40,000 years ago. where were the Cro-Magnons hiding until their sudden appearance ? what was the lineage of these people? why did other primates die out ? this extinction for no apparent reason is almost as good a story as evolution.

[pgrmdave]

First of all, how do you measure "nature's highest creation"? Who is to say that we are better than other animals? Surely, we are more intelligent, but is intelligence the only factor?

 

And animals which have remained similar for long periods of time have done so because their particular niche in their environment has remained the same. As for monkeys, apes, and hominids, they have evolved to suit their particular niches. Apes are far superior to humans in terms of size and strength - they are successful in their niche and don't need to evolve to survive. Monkeys are much more agile, can occupy trees where humans and apes cannot, and have no strong evolutionary pressures to evolve. Hominids were unable to compete with many other animals due to a lack of strength, lack of claws, sharp teeth, or armor to protect it in a fight. They were not exceptional in any way, so they were able to become more intelligent. This slight bit of intelligence was their niche. The unintelligent quickly died, and only the intelligent hominids reproduced. Unintelligent apes don't die out, so they continue to reproduce, which means that advanced intelligence never really surfaces.

[Tormod]

the cockroach , even at 300 million years has remained a roach.

 

This was commented upon a few days ago - there are some 3,000 species of cockroach, so your argument does not hold up.

 

The timescales involved is indeed very large. Hominids have evolved over millions of years. The skills we have today are hard to trace because speech and thought capability are not visible in the fossil record.

 

Considering you are posting in the biology forum and not the theology forum I assume you want a science answer and not a Christian answer. Thus, the answer is that the variety of species, and in particular the fact that there have been numerous numbers of hominids up until quote recently, is in itself evidence of the evolutionary process.

[Tormod]

BTW here is a brief walkthrough of homind evolution:

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

[questor]

Tormod, just because some things are unexplained does not mean they all belong in Theology or Philosophy where people can ignore them. my point is very simple. the apes supposedly preceeded the hominid. once the hominid appeared his IQ developed rapidly. his cranial capacity increased and he developed

sentient intellectual capacity while the ape remained an ape. all this while the

environment remained similar for both families. the reference to the cockroach seems to confuse people. since the cockroach is many millions of years older than the human, why hasn't he evolved into something more sophisticated than a roach if evolution is a forward moving process. if evolution has a purpose and is used to improve a species or to better adapt a species to the environment, why has this process benefitted humanity but not some lesser creatures ? as another aside, what was man before he was an ape? was he a rodent, a lizard, a lemur ? where did the 6 million year old

hominid come from?

[CraigD]

my point is very simple. the apes supposedly preceeded the hominid. once the hominid appeared his IQ developed rapidly. his cranial capacity increased and he developed sentient intellectual capacity while the ape remained an ape.

The terminology above is imprecise to the point of being disengenious. “Ape” refers to modern species in the superfamily Hominoidea, which includes the “great apes” - Human beings, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans – and the smaller, “lesser apes” – Siamangs and various gibbons. Each species in this superfamily is roughly equally genetically distant from their earliest common ancestor. This primitive, ancestral, extinct animal was not genetically an “Ape”, not a gorilla, not a human being. Gorrillas did not “remain apes” any more than gibbons, or human being, remained gibbons or human beings.

 

Some modern animals are genetically more closely related to their ancestor species than others – Lemurs, for example, appear to be genetically much closer to their 40-million year old ancestors than do any of the apes.

 

It’s important to understand that, as techniques in DNA sequencing produce more and more genomic data for more and more modern species, and computers allow rapid statistical analysis of their genetic differences, modern cladistics is becoming an increasingly formal, number-based science. Increasingly, to deny its conclusions requires that one deny the conclusions of molecular biology.

[questor]

Craig, your quote:

'' Each species in this superfamily is roughly equally genetically distant from their earliest common ancestor. This primitive, ancestral, extinct animal was not genetically an “Ape”, not a gorilla, not a human being. Gorrillas did not “remain apes” and more than gibbons, or human being, remained gibbons or human beings.''

 

what was the primitive, ancestral,extinct progenitor of man?

what is the meaning of your last sentence?

in reading your Wikipedia article on cladistics, i would say there is much ground still to be covered. i agree that biochemical and molecular investigation will someday reveal the truth.

 

my question still is : if the hominid line and the ape line had the same length of time to evolve into its present state, why have humans reached their sophistication and apes are still swinging from trees?

the answer is, either evolution is random or it is purposeful.

[Vending]

Why haven't roaches evolved?

 

There has been no selective pressure great enough to cause roaches to evolve is the obvious answer. If you work within the frame of natural selection, then this MUST be the answer. The real question you should be asking then is, "Why has there not been pressure significant enough to bring about the evolution of the roach?"

 

if the hominid line and the ape line had the same length of time to evolve into its present state, why have humans reached their sophistication and apes are still swinging from trees?

 

Again, you are asking the wrong question. You should be asking, "What pressures would favor the stability of an ape? Have there been any pressures that have caused the ape to evolve into something else? Why haven't there been pressures significant enough to force fruther evolution of the ape"

 

Clearly, there have been presures that have forced the ape to evolve into something else. We know this because we are here. As to whether there have been further pressures upon the ape, well, perhaps you can come up with an event that you feel should have forced some type of adaptation within the apes. Keep in mind that pressure does not nessesarily mean that evolution must happen, it merely provides the motive force for evoution through natural selection.

 

either evolution is random or it is purposeful.

 

If you belive that evolution is brought about by changes in an organisms genome, then it is quite difficult to see how evolution could be anything BUT random (unless you are counting genetic engineering, as in crop plants).

[Tormod]

since the cockroach is many millions of years older than the human, why hasn't he evolved into something more sophisticated than a roach if evolution is a forward moving process.

 

Why should it? Evolution is a natural process that favors the species that can survive in their environment. Roaches are extremely well adapted. They have no need to evolve into anything but a roach. But you missed my point - cochroaches come in many varieties and fit into many niches. If that confuses you, then you need to study it.

 

Here you can cockroach taxonomy:

 

The Cockroach Home Page

http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/kunkel/cockroach.html

 

Cockroach FAQ:

http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/kunkel/cockroach_faq.html

[CraigD]

… what was the primitive, ancestral,extinct progenitor of man?

I am unaware of names for the extinct ancestor species common to the Ape Hominoidea superfamily. (marked by the red dots on this diagram from Jared Diamond’s “The Third Chimpanzee”). As it’s traditional not to name species for which no live or fossil specimens exist, I don’t know that any or all of them even have names.

 

Such species are better thought of as “cladistic placeholders” – we have a reasonable estimation of the structure and sequence of their genomes, but not precisely what they looked like, or how they behaved. The ability to extrapolate that from inferred genetics is beyond the present capabilities of molecular biology.

what is the meaning of your last sentence?

The sentence had a typographical error. It should have read “Gorillas did not ‘remain apes’ any more than gibbons, or human being, remained gibbons or human beings.''

 

What I mean is that it’s incorrect to assert that Gorillas or gibbons somehow did not descend from their common ancestral species, while humans did. Numeric cladistics reveal that all 3 species have changed about equally from their common ancestor. The change, took each species in very different directions. Genetically, gibbons are not more similar to gorillas than they are to human beings. Chimpanzees are significantly more similar to human being than they are to either gorillas or gibbons.

 

What is confusing to many people is that, at first glance, chimpanzees look more like gorillas than they do like human beings, and have certain very noticeable physical and behavior traits, such as hairiness, language, and tool use. This perception is deceptive, however.

in reading your Wikipedia article on cladistics, i would say there is much ground still to be covered. i agree that biochemical and molecular investigation will someday reveal the truth.

I agree. For me, one of the most exciting aspects of living now has been literally watching this science emerge – I recall sitting around drinking with programmers and biologists in the 1980s, talking about how these disciplines would come together, than watching, and whenever possible, participating in making it actually happen. Now, anyone with internet access can actually access gene sequence libraries, and run numeric comparisons of them!

my question still is : if the hominid line and the ape line had the same length of time to evolve into its present state, why have humans reached their sophistication and apes are still swinging from trees?

See above. I would say that modern apes – a designation that includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans – are all sophisticated, but sophisticated in very different ways. Although humans have traits – primarily greater intelligence – that allow us to be far more successful in reproducing, controlling our environment, and, on a dark note, killing our species’s competitors and preditors – we are not somehow “more evolved”, but rather “differently evolved,” or, if I may be a bit biased and conceited, “better evolved”.

[goku]

i didn't know you could get dna from fossils :confused:

[TRoutMac]

the answer is, either evolution is random or it is purposeful.

 

You forgot one option… "either evolution is random, purposeful, or a big lie".

[CraigD]

i didn't know you could get dna from fossils :)

You can, but not very complete, intact DNA. Further, the older it is, the shorter the intact sequences tend to become. It’s believed that recoverable DNA can only survive for about 100,000 years.

 

It’s important to note that modern computational cladistics (more widely known as “computational systematics”) does not typically rely on DNA recovered from non-living tissue. Instead, it focuses on comparing the DNA of living species, and computationally determining the most likely sequence of genetic changes that could have produced a particular genome. Where these projections intersect for several species, it is likely that these species shared a common ancestor with the calculated genome. Cladistics does not directly tell us precisely when that ancestor lived, not what it looked like – for this, the cladistic data must be correlated with recovered fossils and strata, old-fashioned examination of fossil anatomy, various chemical and radioactive dating techniques, and educated guesswork.

[TRoutMac]

You can, but not very complete, intact DNA. Further, the older it is, the shorter the intact sequences tend to become. It’s believed that recoverable DNA can only survive for about 100,000 years.

 

And this may yet be true… that DNA cannot survive intact for more than 100,000 years. However, the discovery of soft tissues (blood cells, blood vessels, elastic tissue) within the marrow cavity of a T-Rex femur in March of 2003 may indeed pose a serious threat to this "belief", and several others.

 

Because the fossil was recovered from limestone believed to be 70 million years old, it is stated dogmatically in the media reports that the T-Rex expired 70 million years ago. If this is true, (and most of you will insist it is) and if they have been able to extract DNA from these tissues, then obviously a paradigm shift is going to have to occur. The question is, which paradigm will be abandoned?

 

It seems highly unlikely (and equally unscientific) that the estimated age of the fossil will ever be questioned.

 

When asked if we will be able to find dinosaur DNA, Mary Schweitzer said this:

 

"If you had asked me that question a year ago, I would have said absolutely not. Now I never say never. Everyone knew that soft tissues don’t last more than a month, but we’ve got them in a T. rex."

 

In an article accompanying the new study, Lawrence Witmer, paleontologist at Ohio University said this:

 

"If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting."

 

Also consider this quote from Mary Schweitzer:

 

“We don’t have any chemistry that explains how these soft tissues still exist, This is just the start of something that hopefully will go in a million directions and give us information that we’re not even looking for.”

 

The point is that as much as we do know about biology, we still have tons to learn. And much of what we think we know may, in fact, be based on totally incorrect assumptions which, if we are unwilling to challenge, will prevent us from ever discovering the truth.

 

I do not claim that I know dinosaurs are recent. What I claim is that this discovery reveals that, on a scientific basis, we cannot really be sure of just when dinosaurs existed. And additionally, what we think we know today is always and forever at risk of being wiped out completely by what we may discover tomorrow. On a scientific basis, we must be ready to abandon a paradigm if and when it is rendered obsolete by new discoveries.

 

To be fair, although the T-Rex tissues were found in March of 2003, I cannot find any more recent article explaining whether DNA was ever found in those tissues. I would think that nearly 3 years would be enough time for scientists to find DNA if any had remained, and I would think that if they had found DNA in those tissues, finding an article about that discovery would not be difficult. However, perhaps they're still working on it and perhaps these things take more time than I realize.