I think people are interpreting the meaning of evolution wrong!

[napi21]

There's been so much talk about it today becaause it's Darwin's b-day. I've been thinking about this for quite a while and those who say man evolved from apes are wrong, but so are those who deny evolution.

I was raised in Pgh. and I remember visiting Fort Pitt and thebuilding that was the soldiers quarters there. The bunks were not only very sparse, but less than 5 ft. long. I saw the same when I visited the Alamo in Tx. People were very short then and our population has evolved into a much taller average stature. I see no reason not to believe God created all species...man woman included, but they were very different than the people we see today. Smaller, shorter, much shorter lifespan, etc.

The two theories can co-exist, and I'm having a hard time understanding what all the fuss is about!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. One is a religious belief,

one is a scientific fact.

Sure, they can exist together, but you don't hear the people who accept evolution as a reality going all batshit crazy because the Garden Of Eden people are teaching that theory in their churches.

It's sort of like marriage - there is the religious ceremony, which has no legal standing, and there is the civil ceremony, the signing of the marriage certificate, that is the legal one. They certainly have nothing to do with one another, but if you don't have the signed and sealed marriage certificate, you're not legally married, just as if you have a big Catholic wedding in a church, it doesn't matter at all, because - again - without the signed and sealed marriage certificate - you're not legally married.

i don't care who teaches the Garden of Eden story, but I do not want religion taught in public schools as if it's factual, because it's simply a fairy tale, and it only belongs in a Creative Writing class.

[Mojambo]

2. Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and Apes simply evolved from a common ancestor.

They went their way and we went ours.

I don't know why religious people find it so objectionable.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. It hurts their egos

Their religion tells them they are special snowflakes from Jesus while evolution tells them they are dirty animals.

[Stellabella]

11. They think that if they can 'prove' evolution wrong, that's proof

that God exists.

For Bible literalists (i.e. fundies) they literally do think that the universe was created by God in six days. Because their minds are so small and their 'faith' so weak, they see evolution as a challenge to the basis of their lives.

[Marr]

67. Do you think their faith is weak?

I think their faith is quite strong, personally. They realize that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the creation story found in their religious texts, and they choose the religious text anyway. It doesn't say much for their ability to reason, but it does show a strong religious faith.

[nebenaube]

22. er...

the common ancestor was a great ape... modern primates went their way and we went ours.

[tkmorris]

38. Bit of a stretch to call it a "great ape"

It's more accurate to say that it was neither ape nor human, but it's descendants would eventually become both.

[Kellen RN]

45. Personally I think of humans as tall, upright walking,

fairly bald apes, who, on average, are a little more intelligent.

We are smart primates. An alien would probably classify us as apes.

[zagging]

46. Ya, well...

I'd classify them aliens as dinner.

On edit: Mmmmm. Alien gravy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. We are (great) apes, according to scientific conventions

Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas (chimpanzees meaning both the common chimpanzee and the bonobo).

Therefore, if you regard both chimpanzees and gorillas as great apes (and I think everyone does), then humans are too.

It's certainly a stretch to say that chimps, gorillas and orang-utans are all great apes, but their common ancestor wasn't. And since that common ancestor was also an ancestor of ours, I think we can say we are descended from apes, even if you think we have evolved so much that we no longer fit the description of 'ape'.

It's analogous to birds and reptiles; birds are more closely related to crocodiles than snakes are; so strictly, birds and reptiles form one huge group. Even if you think that birds have evolved so much that you shouldn't use one word for this group (but instead call it something like the 'bird-reptile clade'), you can't really say that the common ancestor of birds and crocodiles was not a reptile at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. No, no. It was the "Grape Ape".

[4lbs]

42. The latest report is that Neanderthals and Humans also evolved from a common ancestor.

It's just that through that evolution and natural selection, humans were better able to adapt to the changing world than Neanderthals. Thus, the Neanderthals became extinct while humans thrived.

[Marr]

66. Humans *are* apes.

We're in the ape family.

Also Creationism and Evolution cannot both be right. They're mutually exclusive. Creationism isn't a theory, either-- it's a religious myth.

[Avalux]

3. I think your post is well meaning,

However, there is no room for 'interpretation' when it comes to evolution. Evolution is a very specific scientific theory explaining the origin and existence of life on earth based on evidence. It would probably be worth your while to pick up Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and read it than for me to drone on and on. For example though -

Men being of shorter stature a couple of hundred years ago compared to now is not evidence of evolution. A fish that 'grows' legs and moves from water to land IS evidence of evolution.

And in spite of what fundies would have people believe; Darwin did not think evolution was contrary to the existence of a god. God might exist, 'he' just didn't create the world 6 thousand years ago and he didn't create people - he created one celled organisms.



:hi:

[alarimer]

9. People were shorter years ago largely because of lack of food.

And medicine. So the fact that people are taller these days is not in itself evidence of evolution in humans. There are some ongoing studies that show changes in gene frequency over the last couple of thousand years so we are evolving at least on some level.

[smalll]

24. You are correct. Ever since civilization began, for example,

average life expectancy didn't range far from 30 years old, mostly due to malnutrition, which also made us short. Then something happened in Western Europe (first) that took life expectancy up to 40 in 1820 and up to 55 by 1910. (And which concurrently raised our stature.)

Maybe the Enlightenment, liberal democracy, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, even capitalism itself ( :scared: ) were actually Good Things!

[girl gone mad]

51. I believe life span was a function of disease and complications..

of child birth more than nutrition.

Height has varied throughout human history. It's related both to genes and diet, but is not necessarily an indicator of health. Japanese people have the longest life spans and are also not very tall, and shorter people in every race tend to live longer (go visit a retirement home some time).

[Xipe Totec]

4. Which two theories?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. did God create cockroaches billions of years ago?

bacteria too and viruses too?

[BlooInBloo]

7. Sure - the blind and the dumb rarely have a problem permitting vestigial appendages...

to be kept on for no reason other than to pay lipservice to stupidity.

Once all arguments of the form "you can't more from less" are given up as lost, there's simply no intellectual use for religion. There may be a-intellectual uses for religion... Well, no - Nietzsche covered that end of it, actually (sig).

But in a nutshell, it is permissible to view Darwin's entire project as a meticulous demonstration - a recipe even - of precisely HOW you can - WILL, even - get something greater from something lesser.

[alarimer]

8. The correct statement is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor.

This is not wrong, but an incontrovertible fact.

[greyl]

29. Exactly.

I think some people get caught in a trap when responding to a Creationist exclaiming "We didn't evolve from no damn apes!".
The reflex is to argue "of course we did you ignorant fool", but that's committing a technical, yet crucial, error.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. What would you call the most recent common ancestor of chimps and gorrillas?

Because that is also an ancestor of ours. Chimps and gorillas are both apes; shouldn't their ancestor be one too?

[greyl]

59. When creationists make the exclamation "we didn't evolve from no damn apes",

they are obviously talking about modern, non-extinct apes. They don't believe in evolution, remember?
That's the context of my post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Fair enough, but I wouldn't call it a 'technical error' then

more a 'tactical mistake in the approach to the argument'. It's not that it's wrong, just that it's not the best way to get your points across.

[HamdenRice]

58. Not exactly. Muriel_volestrangler's post asks the right question.

You probably mean we did not evolved from modern apes. But the species that both modern chimpanzees and modern humans evolved from was itself an ape -- an extinct ape.

So it is correct to say "we evolved from apes." The ape we evolved from was probably something like (or a contemporary of) Nakalipithecus nakayamai.

It is not correct to say we evolved from any living ape, but it should be obvious that the common ancestor of modern apes and modern humans was itself an ape.

[greyl]

60. "The correct statement is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor."

Yes, it should be obvious.
Please note the context of the thread and of my post. My post was about the response to the famous question "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?".

State the definition of ape you are using at the moment. Under some definitions, humans are apes.

[HamdenRice]

62. "...humans and apes shared a common ancestor" and that ancestor was itself an ape

There's no dancing around this one.

Want context? Your statement,

'when responding to a Creationist exclaiming "We didn't evolve from no damn apes!". The reflex is to argue "of course we did you ignorant fool", but that's committing a technical, yet crucial, error"'

is wrong.

Humans evolved from apes. So did modern apes. End of story. Get over it.

[Nevernose]

10. The two theories really can't coexist

Or at least, they shouldn't coexist.

One theory is supported by reams of evidence. The other theory has nothing -- absolutely, without doubt, incontrovertibly nothing -- to support it other than logical fallacies, a laughable understanding of the scientific method, and wishful, bronze age thinking.

And while I'm a jerk, I do appreciate where you're coming from. Even the silly God theory is not irreconcilable with evolution -- just look at the Evangelical Lutheran, the Presbyterian (North), or the Roman Catholic ideologies for support. Most mainstream Christian religions support, in some way, the theory of evolution.

[TahitiNut]

12. Here's a little mental exercise for you.

If Time itself is a part of Creation, then when did Creation take place?

:freak:

[Warren Stupidity]

13. People with religious beliefs can also believe in evolution

but creationist nonsense cannot co-exist with a belief in the validity of Darwin's Theory. If you think your god 'created all species', you cannot also believe that those species evolved from simple to complex organisms. Well you can of course hold both of these beliefs in your head, but they simply contradict each other.

Religious people who also believe in the validity of Darwin's Theory tend instead to view God's role in creation as more of a prime mover than the literal depiction in genesis of a micro-managing creator of all things great and small. Darwin's Theory illuminates a transcendent marvel - the universal life force itself revealed - and in that transcendent marvel many who are religious find common ground with Darwin's Theory.

The fact that our malnourished ancestors were quite a bit shorter than us illustrates how we adapt, but so far not that we have evolved. The great apes and humans share common evolutionary ancestors, the evidence for that is simply overwhelming, and unless you subscribe to 'the great satan put this stuff there to fool us' it is best to simply accept that as a fact.

[Solon]

14. You are confusing medical advances and better nutruition with natural selection...

they are two separate things. While things such as height and some diseases are inheritable, that doesn't mean that people being, on average, taller than they were a hundred years ago is evidence of evolution. Its evidence that we are eating more calories and have better vitamin intake than people in the past, and our lifespans are a direct result of medical advances.

You theory isn't a theory, its pseudoscience at best, superstition at worst.

[zagging]

15. It's not that they CAN co-exist.

They DO co-exist, and they are both meaningless to my life. Absolutely pointless. If evolution happens, BFD. If there is a god, BFD.

[Enthusiast]

55. They might be meaningless to

your life but The Theory of Evolution is central to understanding and permitting advances in today's biology and genetics. It's called science. The Theory of Evolution is huge! Learn something. Don't go through life ignorant, otherwise you are no better than the foolish Republicans.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. The problem is that most people, yourself included, are scientifically illiterate.

FWI, the recent increase in height has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It is entirely a product of changes in nutritional status and childhood diseases and other environmental factors.

If you don't understand what all the fuss is about, I wouldn't sweat it. It's probably not the sort of thing you should waste your time worrying about. If you do decide to worry about it, you might want to educate yourself about it first.

[zagging]

17. Nutrition is a part of natural selection

To say categorically that nutrition, and the ability to take advantage of it, is not a part of natural selection is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Getting run over by cars is part of natural selection too.

That doesn't necessarily mean that people getting run over by cars today and not 200 years ago is due to evolutionary changes. It probably has more to do with the fact that there are automobiles today and weren't back then. And that's every bit as relevant to this discussion as your point is.

[zagging]

21. Sure

Assuming that the rates of automobile accidents could affect natural selection in a population not affected by automobile accidents.

[Silver Swan]

19. Better nutrition and access to food

most likely has made many humans taller, but also has made made humans fatter.

How come one is considered okay, but the other leads to panic about so called "obesity?"
Fat humans are just fulfilling their genetic potential, just like tall humans.

[girl gone mad]

52. You make a good point.

Our societal gains in height and weight are both due in large part to our easy access to cheap, abundant food. It's interesting that one is considered a positive indicator of health while the other is considered an epidemic illness.

In reality, both of these physiological changes are based on the same artificial, and likely temporary, conditions.

[serrano2008]

20. Exactly! No matter what evolved from what - the first creatures on earth were created by God.

Unless they evolved from rocks, which I'm sure some of the smartest people on DU believe and will argue belligerently (subject real, message sarcasm)

[nebenaube]

23. uh wrong...

try amino acids in brine activated by UV and lightning forming into single cell organisms that evolved and differentiated... Where you sleeping in high school? Well actually there is a leap from proteins to single cell. Maybe thats where he/she comes in.

[zagging]

25. Of course...

...Where ya gonna get all those amino acids? From a beaker in the lab closet?

[Greyhound]

31. Were you on the football team or just another lunkhead that thought

science class was for nap time?

We are doomed...

[zagging]

35. I played football and skipped science

My kids' knuckles drag on the ground. All I can hope for is better nutrition and medical care...over time.

[Greyhound]

41. Two possible replies;

the sarcasm tag would have been useful in the first reply...

or please tell us you were joking about having produced offspring...
:sarcasm:
(see, it makes things more clear)

[zagging]

43. I don't know about the amino

But you've got the acid part down pretty good.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. As a person who understands evolution is a fact, that whole amines + lightning thing is effin' weak.

Unless you were sleeping in high school you must realize there is a huge leap from a single amino acid to a protein, let alone a cell, let alone replication.

[serrano2008]

27. Oh wow...you got it figured out...

I apologize, I didn't know that you knew exactly how all of life started on earth and animals and intelligent human beings were created.

So the real question is, what the hell are you doing on your computer? You should be a multi-bagillionaire with all of the money you would get if you weren't talking out of your ass.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Science is based on evidence.

There is zero- ZERO- scientific evidence for anything resembling deliberate "creation". There are, of course, no fossil records of the earliest chemical reactions on the proto-Earth, but a lack of definite evidence does not PROVE, for instance, that the Bible is literally correct. In fact, the Bible has been demonstratably wrong on several specific points pertaining to reality.

So, no fossil evidence for the earliest steps of life means "God" did it, eh? Whose God? Which God? Zeus? Pan? Aphrodite? The Yanomamo Pelican God? Oh, let me guess- your specific denomination-specific Deity, which has existed in human mythological terms for a fraction of our history. How convenient, that you happen to have stumbled upon the one true religious explanation that has no proof to back it up, whereas the rest of those belief systems apparently were conjured out of thin air.

Let me explain this slowly, ok? Life evolved from primitive forms- we know this, we have a VERY good idea of the history of life- and life's evolution- over the 4.7 Billion yr. history of the planet. The fact that we don't have all the details or evidence for the earliest formation of life (again, because this is the place where there is the least remaining rock and physical evidence, combined with the fact that chemicals and very small lifeforms don't necessarily leave a fossil record) does NOT mean that "God" is hiding in the gaps, any more than a lack of fossil record at any certain point in history means, automatically, that "God" is hiding in there. Hey, maybe God showed up on the proto-Earth as it was being bombarded by asteroids and waved a magic wand, or maybe something else happened. But a lack of evidence does not mean science is flawed, nor is it some kind of "proof" for anyone's pet theological explanation.

[Greyhound]

28. Let's be clear. There are not two theories, there is one theory and one belief. Does that

make it any clearer for you?

Second, human evolution does not happen in a century or two, people were smaller and lived shorter lives primarily because of nutrition and inherent danger in their world. If you suffered a compound fracture of the femur in the "wild west", you almost certainly died. Today, you might still die but it is far less likely because we have medical facilities and transportation and knowledge that did not exist then.

Humankind did not evolve from apes, try reading The Origin of Species or something more contemporary written by someone that actually understands Darwin's theory.

[greyl]

32. Sharp point. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

39. Let's be clear, "gravity" is a "theory" The common usage of the word has been perverted,

and that is one of the biggest problems.

Evolution can in fact, and often does, happen in a century or two but the distinguishing characteristic of an event like that is a bottle-necking of the given population. Lets say some smiggllemuffins live a hypothetical island and 98% of them can only eat one kind of plant or they will die. 2% of the smiggllemuffins like and consume that same plant, but in a pinch, they can eat a different plant and get by. A parasite hits the island and kills all of the plants that 98% of the smiggllemuffins must have to live. The 2% who are able to use the other plant become the new prototype.

Obviously this concept does not apply to modern humans of recent times. I just thought it was good information to have out there.

[Greyhound]

40. That's why I qualified it with "human evolution" and you are right about the

lack of understanding of the word.

I am not aware, and if mistaken please enlighten me, of any evolution in humanity occurring in a couple of centuries. It would be potentially cool if it were the case, we might have a greater hope of surviving our own, formerly useful, but self-destructive tendencies.

[Maru Kitteh]

44. I was speaking of species in general, but the "eve" findings suggest a bottleneck in human evolution

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

If a bottleneck did occur as the data suggests, whatever characteristics this female had, allowed her to continue while most others failed. Her genetic expressions then became dominant among the survivors of whatever caused the bottleneck in the first place.

[JVS]

30. We didn't evolve to be taller. We're now taller because we have better nutrition...

and medical care,

In order for us to have evolved to be taller, there would have had to be some kind of process by which generations of tall people are more successful in breeding over time.

[zagging]

33. That process being...

Better nutrition and medical care...over time.

[TahitiNut]

36. It's natural selection. Only tall people could raise their heads above the deluge.

:dunce:

[Greyhound]

34. Oh, and before you further demonstrate your lack of understanding, Darwin's "death bed

conversion" is a bald faced lie.

[tkmorris]

37. Oh FFS...

Napi, I humbly submit to you that in order to form an intelligent opinion about a given subject it is necessary to learn as much as you can about the subject before attempting to do so. I'm sorry, I'm sure you're a nice person and everything, but you clearly skipped this step.

[H2O Man]

48. Cro Magnons

(one example of archaic man) was, on average, quite tall.

[Control-Z]

50. But, but. but

I was told in Sunday School that people used to live to be 700 - 900 years old. Reverse evolution? They must have been really tall too, huh?

[varkam]

53. Well, except that...

there were things alive before us that we evolved from. We didn't just "poof" into existence.

[ima_sinnic]

54. read something like The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins to get a better understanding of evolution.

Some posters have suggested that you read Darwin's original writing, but I think a more current writing would be a little easier to understand, plus it has insights into Darwin's theory that have developed over time.

The full title is The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, by Richard Dawkins (1996)

[Enthusiast]

56. napi21

"I think people are interpreting the meaning of evolution wrong!"

You got that right! Napi, you should read up on evolution. We did evolve from an "ape-like" ancestor. Science is in 100% agreement on this. See, this has been verified by both genetics and fossils(cladistics). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

[LeftinOH]

57. We didn't evolve from apes.. we ARE (still) apes! Taxonomically speaking, that is.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. So, let me get this straight. "God" created "Adam and Eve", but they were Munchkins?

Wow. How kind of you to accomodate scientific fact in such a reasonable fashion.

Actually, people still ARE evolving, but the reason we've been getting taller has to do with better nutriton. And we didn't "evolve from apes", we share a common ancestor with them. Go back far enough, and you're related to your cat. Even further, and you're related to the bushes in front of your house. We share 60% of our DNA with bananas (some Republicans, I suspect a higher percent) ... Evolution is a FACT. The scientific history of life on this 4.7 Billion yr. old planet is well understood- and proven. Whether it accomodates itself to what anyone was taught in Sunday School isn't science's problem. Science is concerned with truth, period.