Discussions
We descend from monkeys?
Posted by muzungumalaika • 4/20/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: monkeys theory, the origin of man
What is your opinion about?
User Comments
-
-
rightly said..
As long as people can distinguish between opinions and facts.. the world will be a better place
-
I agree with you!
-
opinions are the same as facts... I saw that on Fox News
-
-
Don't tell them... I suspect, based on some experiences on BC, they would consider us devolution-
Well, it's really not fair to say that any one species is "more evolved" than any other species.
-
-
Now now. They have opposable thumbs. That means they deserve a living wage and voting rights too. -
THE PROBLEM IS WHERE WE COME FROM? RATHER IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND A REPLY
-
www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
77. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) [Atheist leaves in frustration.]
(11) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(12) Therefore, God exists.
-----------------------------------
Unless I misread your post, it sounds like you're going to mimic this to the T. -
The Problem is WHY DO YOU SHOUT?
and we come from a certain place close to midway in the body.. -
not so,
we are all aliens -
VDK - LOL!
-
-
Well you might have but I didn't
-
Reminds me of a joke. A young child asks her mother where the human race comes from and she replies "God created Adam and Eve, they had children and this is how the human race was born". Later she asked her father and he replies "We evolved from fishes to mammals and eventually to monkeys that evolved into the human race". She goes back to her mother and asked her "Dad says we're monkeys and you say we're God children, who is right?" And mum replied "We're both right, he was talking about his family, I was talking about mine"-
LLLLLOOOOOOLLLLL!
-
-
LOL to the joke above!
Here's one more version about where do we come from....look what happened 10 thousand years BC...
22050hz.blogspot.com/2009/04/kgb-found-egyptian-artifacts-believed.html -
Actually, we don't descent from monkeys.
We are apes.-
Well, perhaps not. This video's a little dry and boring, but it makes an interesting argument:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3q0QtE5yuk -
Thanks, great video.
-
-
Both religious and atheists people are probably wrong because they both BELIEVE that the Bible has the answer on one side and that Science has the answer on the other side.
For example Big Bang Theory is often used as an explanation of the origin of a "natural darwinian evolution" towards life ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1hVx7BsvjU ) but as this BBC article told us, even the originator of the Theory did not agree:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1503721.stm-
[Both religious and atheists people are probably wrong because they both
BELIEVE . . . that Science has the answer on the other side.]
*sigh* Another person misuses the word "believe" to imply "believe without proof." Or I'm reading your post wrong.
[For example Big Bang Theory is often used as an explanation of the origin of a "natural darwinian evolution" towards life but as this BBC article told us, even the originator of the Theory did not agree:]
Who cares? The person who comes up with a theory does not dictate what logical conclusions can be drawn from the theory. -
Correction Fred Hoyle is not the originator of the Big Bang Theory.. he just coined the name.. as a derisive theory, as wikipedia tell us..
Richard Dawkins shows his middle finger to the Creationist's theory.. if he were to coin the phrase "The Hocus Pocus theory" and the name were to become popular.. would you quote Dawkins in such a context to say the Creationists are wrong?
and more to the point.. would you say Dawkins is the originator of "The Hocus Pocus theory"? -
I'm scientist: science is about being able to question established theories to advance Knowledge, or we would never have Relativity Theory or Quantum Theory. Einstein was even proven wrong with Quantum Theory as he said "God (in scientific sense of Nature not religious sense") doesn't play dice. But today some physicians think that Einstein may be right again because the Heisenberg uncertainty in Quantum Theory may come from the limitation of our mathematical formalism.
So you see Science is a pendulum. In fact Big Bang Theory and the Chord Theory are now questioned if they weren't just pure interpretation or abusive extrapoletion. -
I read an article in New Scientist about a fractal-based model of the universe. I'll try to dig the link out.
-
-
ok: according to science the possibility exists ...
-
As the probability exists that your computer was created with physical law of electronics without any design
-
-
We are not sure of everything here! For sure there is only death!
-
Sure we are of something: some of physical laws but not of all and not of profound interpretation of those already known like quantum mechanics.
-
Yeah. The results speak for itself.
-
-
The problem of life existence is still a mystery for Science, they call it the Singularity that is we know the physical law AFTER the Big Bang, we don't know the law just before.
-
ok we learn from books, we hear a lot of opinion but do we have replies practically, we have testimonials trhough hystory but who knows where is the truth!
-
I think Adam and Eve are not the truth, but well, I'm from the monkey family...
-
I join your cause in the respect of all religions faiths
-
-
The practical consequence of all these debates are intolerance from one part or the other. This sucks. People have the right to believe or to unbelieve but it is unfortunate that often Religious/Atheism become wars though it's sometimes just a pretext from Politicians to ignite quarel for divide and reign is the rule.
People want certainty, they hate doubt, whereas reasonable doubt is the right way to choose. For example believing in Personified God or Astrology is unscientific as for what the Bible says but that doesn't mean that doubt about something else doesn't exist whatever it is since science is still not capable of proving how life appeared that is create an accelerated simulator of the Universe which will give a man or even a simple virus at the end -
I'm not here for a war between religions and non religions, I respect both and don't want to complaint, the only think I want is to talk a bit about this. Sorry but people will never find certainty on this issue, and i respect the middle way, the moderate position, but I think that all these teories are always a sort of justification for human be in life
-
Doubt may be even necessary for being able to live. Imagine that Science demonstrates with certainty that we are just electronic creatures in a giant computer (theme of Matrix): how many would want to suicide ? Whereas even if you suspect that such idea may be true, as long as it isn't proved, you would continue to live because it would be stupid to commit such an irreversible act under so much uncertainty
Maybe Life is indeed about accepting Doubt or a necessary Illusion, well this is just an hypothesis of mine.
-
-
ELITETHINKER:
This can be a good hypothesis.
You that are a deep thinker, are you afraid of death? I know this is not the right place to talk about, but i'm curious to know-
I'm afraid of suffering if this happens violently for example in an accident. But After that "event" it wouldn't frighten me in both cases: if I do not exist any more, well I won't be conscious of anything so great, if there is something after death then great also I will still be "alive" so happy end in every hypothesis
-
-
Well, I can understand you,
a very kind friend of mine always says to me that i think too much and that sometimes this too much thinking lead me to a negative thought, but I don't find anything bad in thinking and make answers to myself and to people with whom I interact, even if replies are almost impossible to come! -
It is called the THEORY of Evolution. No one said it was factual truth back when it was formed.
-
Though a theory in a scientific circle does actually mean a conclusion that has been pretty thoroughly tested, analyzed and largely accepted (as supposed to hypothesis or conjecture), it is nevertheless true that you cannot actually prove something in the field of science. In the field of mathematics you can, but in the field of science you actually cannot (which is why math is more fun).
In particular, the theistic claim that God "aged" the universe cannot actually be rebutted and we really cannot know whether it is true or not by science, neither can we know if the whole world is an illusion anyways. Science is useful for many things, but don't bank your life on something that will up and by itself tell you not to trust it.
-
-
MOnkeys? I don't think so. Screw Darwin... Hahaha... -
Anyway don't ask me why but I like the theory and I like to think that we descend from monkeys
-
We actually descend from bacteria, the monkey part came far, far later...
-
You like to joke Farangra, This can be true, but I like to jump the stage, i feel confortable in the jungle!
-
-
Must be the reason I always feel like hanging on trees...
-
I came straight from the Goddess - 'coz I'm a Goddess. Duh.
-
this is a quite shocking affirmation,
dear friend, we are simple sinners here, isn't true farangrakthai? -
Sin is actually a word I do not like, or even understand. Too dependant on your beliefs instead of your rational thinking...
-
very clever answer, I was joking a bit, hope you understood this!
-
-
No
-
THINGYS: Where are you' Maybe you can reply to the answer,
-
Well here is the problem..... and since everyone will skip over the problem like it doesn't exist, it's probably not worth mentioning... But still, there is a serious flaw with the idea of evolving from a monkey.
There is a missing link between neanderthal man and modern man.... The gap is large and there is no getting around it. The hole exists and has NOT been filled.
We have uncovered vast archeological finds that predate this missing link. We have uncovered vast archeological finds that begin charting modern man's development.
The missing link, however, is still missing....
Here is the next problem..... and it's the BIGGEST problem.
This missing link - which presumably roamed the earth for a few million years..... SHOULD be the most FINDABLE link of all. We should be digging up bones for this missing link, long before we'd find the bones of Neandertal or Cromag.... Why? Because it would exist in layers of sediment ABOVE Neanderthal. It should have been the FIRST bones we had found..
Also, since man would have been MOST developed at that time, we should have found far MORE artifacts, tools, pottery, weapons, etc....from this time period.... We should have found their bones and artifacts together.... We haven't. We didn't.
There most definitely is a break in the chain.... in a place the chain should NOT be broken...
Also, carbon dating now suggests that there was an overlap where both Neanderthal man and modern man co-existed during the same time period.
This also creates a serious problem for evolutionists...
How do you have millions of years of evolution co-existing together at the same time.
With no archelogical evidence gaping the two...
Now this does not discount evolution one bit. But it does propose a problem as to where modern man came from.-
Well done explanation, thanks. And your opinion is?
-
Well, if the question is "did we descend from monkeys" - and current fact has modern man seemingly dropping into the picture prior to the ice age, but not long before... I'd say you have two different species that are related, but not connected. And science has not connected them like it must.
That is not to say I don't agree with evolution.... The average height of a man has increased what.... an inch or so?.... since the 1700's. There are other similar examples of this with other species.
But no, I do not believe man evolved from monkeys - and the archeology doesn't currently support that.
School text books haven't been updated with the science which poses this problem - because there's not another theory to run to at the moment. It's in a holding pattern until something is found to present a better argument. -
A major problem was the lack of fossil intermediaries. It was only in the 1920s that such fossils were discovered in Africa. In 1925, Raymond Dart described Australopithecus africanus. The type specimen was the Taung Child, an australopithecine infant discovered in a cave. The child's remains were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the individual's brain. Although the brain was small (410 cm³), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.
The australopithecines are now thought to be ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong. Both australopithecines and Homo sapiens are part of the tribe Hominini. Recent data suggests australopithecines were a diverse group and that A. africanus may not be a direct ancestor of modern humans. Reclassification of australopithecines that originally were split into either gracile or robust varities has put the latter into a family of its own Paranthropus. Taxonomists today place human beings as well as australopithecines and related species in the same family as other great apes, in the Hominidae.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
-
-
This is not really a matter of opinion, and can't be decided by a poll. It is a matter of history that is being uncovered every day. And by the way, I don't think it is correct to say that we descend from monkeys. I think the preferred way to say it is that monkeys and humans have common ancestors.-
And exactly what history has been uncovered that links Neanderthal man to modern man? Where are the bones? Where are the morphed bones inbetween the two?
Or better yet, where have there been two or three lines of direct lineages found running concurrently?
Modern man drops into the picture completely unprecedented right at the time Neanderthal numbers were shrinking with the coming ice age...
A million scientists and archeologists wait with baited breath on your reply. -
rightly so.
-
-
The truth is we call came from star dust, the death and birth of stars in the universe made us who we are now. Why this happened in here and why it happened will likely not be solved unless we could recreate the process. We are simple the result of the universe trying to understand itself....-
Oops, made some bad Grammar mistakes in that LOL
-
-
Yes the universe in itself is the most misterious "?" of the human being
-
Wow, look at all the trollbait in this thread.
-
are you cynical?
-
I prefer "analytical."
-
-
I have the impression that all I'm going to say next will be deeply analised and will come back as a bomerang, I wonder what you would like me to say
-
I don't really have an opinion about what you should or shouldn't say. If you made a cogent inductive argument, or a sound deductive argument, I would acknowledge as much. If your reasoning falls short, I will be quick to point out its flaws.
-
-
Well I don't feel like having any cogent inductive, deductive arguments, I don't need to demostrate anything, I don't want to make any homework and psycologist test, I'm going to tell you when I will,
-
If you don't feel like exercising good reasoning, then you probably should not present your arguments (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) into the eye of the public.
Any set of propositions containing at least one premise, an inference, and a conclusion is an argument.
And it's not just me; other people are just as analytical.
-
-
Well I'n not so analytic as you, I just open the discussion I feel, I'm an indigenous or a monkey or who else, as you like, and I am quite happy of myself!
-
Well, apparently, but why do monkeys exist right now??? If we came from them, we are the only ones who should exist at this point in time, not them, because they evolved into ourselves right??
-
The statement "We descended from Monkeys" is sort of incorrect because it brings up the wrong thought process. The animals that you know as monkeys now are not what we came from and that's not really what the theory points to. Humans and monkeys evolved down different paths but it's likely we he had a common ancestor. This is why we we have very similar traits because we are part of the Primate family.
-
-
I kind of wish we evolved from German Sheperds. That way all of us would be able to run fast and play frisbee for hours on end.-
Not to mention we'd be used to eat people who get tear-gassed at riots.
-
-
-
Ha! -
You can't help it huh
-
LOL! Now go shave!
-
-
I don't. My family has one branch of pure blood ostrich, one branch pure blood tiger, one branch pure blood wolf, and one branch pure blood orca whale... see, no monkeys.
-
Here's a list of the transitional fossils of humans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils-
Yeah, and if you study that list very hard you'll see nothing that marks detailed transitions between neanderthal man and modern man. That's the whole problem of "the missing link".
There is extremely thorough cataloging that goes backwards...all the way back to 4 million years ago.
Modern man drops in there before Neanderthal man dies out. They existed at the same time (according to carbon dating)....
The problem isn't with mutations.... there's plenty of that.
But there's at least a million years of mutations that would have had to occur to get from neanderthal to modern man... and we don't have that.
Why? Those artifacts should be all over the place.
If we can dig up bones from 4 million years ago... why would archeologists be missing the most recent mutations?
You can't connect an apple to a banana and just say "heck they are both fruit, so they are related" -
Neanderthal man went extinct. There is no link, save a little bit of breeding with other ancient humans so that a few of their genes still survive today.
-
Any kind of fossil is a rare find. There's nothing of which there should be plenty of fossils.
-
There were a lot of branches that went extinct along the way of our evolution. They wouldn't have been in our lineage more like the cousins of our lineage.
-
-
Let's take an anology: the Pentium PC descends from the PC 486 which descends from the PC 386 which descends from the PC 286 which descends from the PC 8088 which descends from the PC 8086. Do all these descendances really prove something about the existence or not of an Intelligent Designer behind
Bible's God is rubbish from scientific point of view but the Evolution Theory doesn't even solve the mystery question of Origin of Life because in "between" each specie, it is not a CONTINUOUS "integration" if I can speak like that so what happened in DISCRETION ?-
What about the Commodore 64?
-
One of my cousin had a Commodore 64 so I remember a little bit but its destiny was short-lived since it became a single lineage in the phylogenetic tree of computers - as far as I know since I'm more expert on PCs than on these exotic species
-
Evolution theory does not address the issue of origin of life.
-
-
-
I am no monkey relative -
They're feeding me peanuts, so you must be right! -
I have mixed feelings on the subject. Have you considered the reverse opinion?
By thingys
-
This is really amusing, the reverse opinion? Why not????
-
-
I'm pretty sure that my next door neighbor is the "missing link"!
-
I could add even more to the subject but finally I would rather create a post on my blog so that it will live for posterity
theelitethinker.blogspot.com/2009/04/coming-soon.html -
I thought we came from aliens! You know, Annanuki...or something. -
SOME of us evolved from monkeys. Others are yet to evolve. I would put Regis Philbin and Geraldo Rivera in that second category. But I am no scientist.-
Nope, we'd throw those two back
-
Still others seem to have remained in the previous lizard stage, and I'm guessing that's where Micheal Moore & Eugene Robinson fit.
-
-
well, none of us discovered some new theory? Can you imagine a blogcatalog theory about our decendents...
-
Sure
Mathematician Stephen Wolfram talks about the incompleteness of Darwin Theory
www.elitethinker.com/2009/01/stephen-wolfram-talks-about.html
Stephen Wolfram is the famous founder of Mathematica Software. Forbes made an interview with him about Darwin's Evolution Theory in an article untitled "God, Stephen Wolfram, and Everything Else". This is an interesting excerpt from the Magazine:
"One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.
In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destiny—and Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all that important."
The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper pattern—an underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well: "Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer. " He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you understand it, it's actually very simple."
Wolfram based his opinion upon his new theory about cellular automata he compiled in a free book online : "A new kind of Science". You can also watch a seminar from him on youtube:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU -
1.) just because someone doesn't understand how it could be, doesn't make it not so
2.) There are different theories of evolution that don't require god. Darwin seems to be winning the race for public top of mind but another theory focuses more on mutation than natural selection.
3.) A grad student a few years ago developed a simple software that could evolve into complex working software that solves its own problems. No god required. -
Xmarks:
1) And when was that ever the argument? Seems to me that this guys working off of math.
2) The only mention of God in this man's post is the title of a referenced article. No part of the argument rests on it.
3) Considering as no natural selection is possible in that case, I'd say you're proving your "opponents" point.
Look, there is nothing in science one way or another that can lead you towards or away from God. That's your path to take. In fact, if you want to be really scientific, let's take Schrodinger's Cat and assume that God both exists and doesn't exist at the exact same time. Without science you can be an atheist. With it you can be a believer. I am. It makes no difference. -
1.) in the quotes is mentions how "we have never really been able to explain . . . " That is a basis for some of his explaination.
2.) I didn't mention god in my point #2. Why do you?
3.) I don't have an opponent. The lack of natural importance selection does not disprove evolution. It just offers an alternative scientific function of evolution.
-
-
but this is not a BC's member theory
-
you asked our opinions
-
-
YES RIGHT:
BUT AFTER ALL THESE REPLIES I WAS WONDERING HOW IT WOULD BE IF SOME OF BC MEMBER INVENT A NEW THEORY ABOUT WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM! -
It's a shot in the dark (fnar fnar) but I think we come from sperm and eggs.
-
-
Why it is so hard to say: I don't know! -
Sorry, I meant to say:
Why is it so hard to say: I don't know? -
Don't look back! I think the apes are catching up.
Evolution must be pretty dumb if we're the end result. -
in today's science news... a new evolutionary piece -New fossil evidence of missing link for seals, sea lions, walruses...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422132832.htm
Maybe tomorrow they will find the ones "missing" to end this debate about primates : ) -
Seems like we don't descend from monkeys. We are monkeys!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
