During most of history civilization selected genetically for intelligence. Men who had the intelligence to become merchants, government officials, money lenders, scribes, professionals, and so on usually did so. They became prosperous and had more children who survived and reproduced than unintelligent men, who often had no surviving descendants at all. This is why races that have practiced civilization the longest have higher IQ averages than races that have been introduced more recently to civilization. I am describing a civilization as a city based culture where the government has an effective monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. During the twentieth century selection for intelligence reversed, both in the United States, and internationally. Those with IQ's below 100 had more children who survived and reproduced than children with IQ's above 100. While this is happening, computer technology and automation - which depends on computer technology - are replacing the better paying jobs that most people have the intelligence to learn. Soon, they will replace all jobs that require little intelligence to perform. If current trends continue, a growing percentage of the world's population will be congenitally incapable of doing anything useful.
About six million years ago the Rift Valley in eastern Africa opened up, dividing the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. That common ancestor was the ape from which humans evolved. The part of Africa that our ancestors lived in was fairly dry and devoid of trees, so our ancestors had to develop the ability to move more quickly than chimpanzees can on flat, treeless land. The following website has a picture that shows what our ancestors probably looked like about a million years after they separated from chimpanzees. Above the waist they still look like chimpanzees. Below the waist they are evolving human legs and feet. https://psyche.co/ideas/do-humans-really-have-a-killer-instinct-or-is-that-just-manly-fancy
Evolution favors innate rather than acquired characteristics. Improving the quality of the environment does not improve the quality of the species. By enabling individuals to survive who otherwise would not, an improved environment leads to evolutionary decline. This is why the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty have led to increases in crime and illegitimacy, and why spending more money on public schools has not led to better academic performance.
Proof only occurs in math. And mathematical theorems are not the same as scientific theories. Yes, scientific theories can become accepted fact (e.g., the theory of evolution).
Sorry dude. Evolution is speculation. There is no evidence one species can change to another. None. Nada.
Theories are theories and cannot not become facts unless proven. And all scientific theories are developed by logic and reason process. You have a statement and a reason to prove your statement is true. Simple Geometry proof problems. Scientific problems follow the exact same process. This is why things like the Big Bang are just theories because their is no final conclusion that it's the way the universe began. However, there are many who want it to be and say the Big Bang is "Settled Science." There is no such thing as "Settled Science." Man-made Climate Change is not settled science. It's speculation as there is nothing to prove it's proved. The loony left try to say CO2 is a pollutant. It's not. Never has been. Nor is there any correlation between Global Warming and CO2. The theories used are shams and proven false. But, it is a way for Government to control the masses and eventually the reason to eliminate masses of humanity. Population Control A reason for Genocide.
Were you there about 6 million years ago? Was anyone there about 6 million years ago that writes about this? No. It's purely observational archeology with a spin on what is observed based upon your belief system. Where you begin your analysis from. If you say evolution developed two different species from one, that's your belief system looking at the evidence and information and coming to a conclusion of what happened. But, there are no actual facts or evidence to prove it. Only speculation. You say the common ancestor was an ape. Where is it? Where is this missing link? You are assuming humanity began in Africa. There is no factual evidence of this. In fact, the bones of so-called human ancestors like "Lucy" are nothing more than an ape. The manipulation of archeologists has been documented trying to force apes into looking like humans. Well documented. Your so-called ancestors had to develop to move more quickly on flat surfaces? First, you have to prove that the Rift Valley divided the common ancestor. Then, you have to prove this caused chimps to walk upright and this caused their bone and muscle structures to fundamentally change including their DNA and other biological changes. There is no scientific evidence of this. Archeology is not science. It's all about interpretation of what we see or observe.
Correct but we did evolve with the rest of the members of our Hominidae family from a common ancestor And it you are unaware of that proven fact, then your opinion on evolution is a typically uninformed one.
And, what is that common ancestor? Your reasoning is circular at best. Although, we did evolve from Adam and Eve, our true common ancestor. At least those who are human.
DNA evidence indicates that the most closely related animal to humans is the chimpanzee, and that the split between us happened about six million years ago, which is the same time that the Rift Valley formed. Chimpanzees clearly look like humans. They have ears like ours, hands like ours, they even have fingerprints on their hands. Humans and Chimpanzees share about 99% of our genes.
Speciation is when two populations of one species change enough from one another to be recognized as two different species. Evolution is when a population undergoes genetic changes. The Theory of Evolution describes how we got the diversity of species we observe. You are not using the terms correctly. As.for "speculation": do you really think it is compelling for you to say that? If you believe something that gets you laughed out of a 7th grade science class...its time to go back and start over.
Evolution doesn't address abiogenisis. Also, there is zero evidence of the Adam/Eve story being literal. Evolution is a process whereby life forms undergo inheritable change. It's a process that is witnessed in labs as well as nature. The mechanisms have been examined in minute detail. There is nothing circular about that.
Not true. The process of speciation has been observed... more than once in the last few years. A few queries will provide the instances. As for ‘man’ being ‘developed’ from Apes, I don’t know any scientist that understands evolutionary theory that suggests man developed from apes. That characterization of evolution was a Victorian era purposed maligned summary of Darwin’s Origin of the Species has been perpetrated by critics that have never understood what Darwin’s hypothesis proposed that still remains to be falsified among the countless number of findings that support the subsequent evolution (pun intended) of evolutionary theory. The prevailing hypothesis and a massive number of corroborative findings across science disciplines suggest modern human species and modern ape species are descended from a common ancestral lineage... and with at least by one measure, share a significant proportion of their genetic composition. Is the modern human species related to those of modern apes, even monkeys? The empirical evidence suggests it’s more likely than not. The evidence suggests we even share common ancestry with dolphins, mice, and bacteria... for that matter, all life as we currently know it.
So, when I see an adult say this (which is embarrassing in it's own right), I think it is their duty to answer a question. Be specific: What evidence would compel you that humans did evolve from apes? (Humans ARE apes, by the way. And the most recent common ancestor between humans and chimps was also an ape.) Again, be specific. And realistic. I have a hunch you won't be answering. And that will tell us everything we need to know about you, in this topic.
There is still a terminology problem with that. The issue is common ancestery - not the name a taxonomist might propose for that common ancestor. At some point, a population divided. It could have been for any of a myriad of reasons - there are many possible reasons to choose from and it seems most common for there to be multiple factors at work - not just one. Darwin found an island where life forms had been issolated for a very long time. The separated populations continued to evolve (as all life does). But, without the interbreeding, etc., change did not stay in sync. Instead, change was guided by success in the different locations. At some point, enough change had happened that the two (or more?) populations had become permenantly differentiated. Again, what names are used is more of an issue of description and communication of what is found. And, it is most commonly resolved by taxonomists. As anyone in any biological field knows (from labs studyig genomes to foresters and home gardeners), these names do change as more is learned.
But what will not change is that all apes and all of their ancestors going back to their most recent common ancestor are apes. It's the definition of "apes". Though i see your point, changing their names doesn't affect my question, at its heart.
Let's remember that apes have evolved AND humans evolved. On the human side we have Neanderthals, etc., etc. Finally we got modern man, with modern man pretty much displacing all the rest. On the ape side we got all sorts of variation, too. Suggesting that is all defined by using TWO names and only two names doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't describe or communicate what happened. And, whatever our common ancestor might have been wasn't a modern ape anymore than it was a modern man.
You entire post makes little sense to me, as humans ARE apes. The most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans was an ape. The most recent common ancestor of all apes was an ape. All extinct species which evolved from this common ancestor were Apes. This is the definition of ape. Yes humans evolved from apes. Just as mammals evolved from a mammal.
It's not an attempt to describe the process. It's an attempt to present facts about the lineage of humans in contrast to the false statements of another poster.
Yes, apes evolved from mammalian precursors. We share most closely with the great apes. But, there were many earlier divisions where evolutionary lines resulted in lesser apes, monkeys, etc. And, earlier than that there were splits that gave evoutionary lines that turned into platypuses, kangaroos, wolves, rats, and all the rest of the mammals. So, I think we say that "Great Apes" includes Apes, humans and Chimps. And, each of those have evolved since the time when we were one. Before that the great apes divided from the lesser apes - which includes a good number of species that have evolved to this day. Mammals came from some reptiles called Therapsids which were a kind of mammal-looking reptile. That's where mammals got their start. Those early versions tended to be small, which may have helped them survive the end of the dinosaurs and from there were able to flourish. Therapsids evolved from earlier life forms. And, of course there were huge numbers of times when there were evolutionary divisions that became extinct. We had large numbers of dinosaurs of various sizes and shapes. Now our only living remnant are the birds. And, that doesn't even scratch the surface of the number of extinctions. In fact extinctions have come in big bunches with even those bunches not accounting for most species that have gone extinct, as I understand it.
All apes evolved from one common ancestor. And it was an ape. This includes humans, which are apes. Yes, it can be said that apes evolved from mammalian precursors, just as easily as it can be said that they evolved from fish precursors. I pretty mich agree with every word you are saying.
NOT to be critical. I'm just sure I'd be WAY wrong if I tried to determine what you mean in this post.
