Humans May Not Have Evolved from Apes

[Chakra-X]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

This actually makes more sense, if both ape and human branched off some other species.

 

[Deathshot]

Next to come is Fonzie.

 

[Pain]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

This actually makes more sense, if both ape and human branched off some other species.

Yes, it's called a common ancestor. Did you believe we evolved from modern apes?

 

[Chakra-X]

Yes, it's called a common ancestor. Did you believe we evolved from modern apes?

Basically. I thought Lucy deviated from apes of her time, not that both ape and man came from an ancestor that was neither.

Hmm. Even though I believe in evolution, perhaps that misunderstanding is one of the bigger reasons for problems on both sides.

 

[Deman]

Basically. I thought Lucy deviated from apes of her time, not that both ape and man came from an ancestor that was neither.

Hmm. Even though I believe in evolution, perhaps that misunderstanding is one of the bigger reasons for problems on both sides.

That is one of the biggest things. Even though I usually feel I have a firm grasp of it, I'm often put in my place by those who know more. I can't count the number of times I've just heard misconception after misconception in arguments.

 

[Pain]

If you believe you have some misconceptions, a good way to become familiar with the way it works (evolution or anything else) is to listen to a professional of that particular field. Seek out many different people who know more about it than you do, and you will learn. Watch videos, read books, listen to debates.

Just make sure they're actually a professional. I'm looking at you Intelligent Design.

If I might offer a starting point:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]

That's just a small piece of his lecture. If you're still interested the whole two hours can be found here:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/ame]

 

[Majin_You]

Yes, it's called a common ancestor. Did you believe we evolved from modern apes?

I'm almost positive I heard that same misconception brought up in class when I was taking physical anthropology a few years ago. It's quite common; people will look at modern great apes (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos) and try to figure out how we derived from them when, in fact, an anthropologist will tell you that you should be looking back down the line at a common ancestor.

 

[Dienekes]

I've never heard someone knowledgeable about evolution say humans evolved from apes. That's why most of the time people /facepalm when naysayers ask, "So what? We came from gorillas? Huh? Pfft."

 

[imkongkong]

The thing is that many of these are just theories, meaning they are not in hard facts.

Merely guesses and 'stabs in the dark' of maybes.

It may be fun to think about how it all started, but no one can say with 100% certainty that is the true faultless explanation of it all.

 

[MC]

The thing is that many of these are just theories, meaning they are not in hard facts.

Merely guesses and 'stabs in the dark' of maybes.

No.

Theories are not "merely guesses and 'stabs in the dark' of maybes." Theories are used to organize and explain data (e.g. facts, laws, observations, hypotheses, etc.), usually for something specific (e.g. gravity, evolution, big bang, general relativity, etc.).

It may be fun to think about how it all started, but no one can say with 100% certainty that is the true faultless explanation of it all.

You're right.

We can never be absolutely certain about anything - ever.

 

[imkongkong]

No.

Theories are not "merely guesses and 'stabs in the dark' of maybes." Theories are used to organize and explain data (e.g. facts, laws, observations, hypotheses, etc.), usually for something specific (e.g. gravity, evolution, big bang, general relativity, etc.).

Through observations and limited testing and understanding are theories derived. To boil it down to the very core of it, it's a guess to explain something that isn't fully understood.

All which is in relation to one's own society and background of understanding.

EDIT: And it's been attested by history to the fallacy of these guesses, as many of theses theories have been either disproved, inconclusive, or flat-out wrong.

Examples:

1. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore
2. The earth is not flat
3. There are countless stars as before it was believed to be a few thousand

In conclusion, theories are not always right but guesses or stabs in the dark to explain something that is not fully understood, or may not even be correctly understood for that matter.

 

[Pain]

1. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore
2. The earth is not flat
3. There are countless stars as before it was believed to be a few thousand

In conclusion, theories are not always right but guesses or stabs in the dark to explain something that is not fully understood, or may not even be correctly understood for that matter.

A scientific theory is used to explain something that is well understood from current facts.

Tightening the definition of what is and isn't a planet is not a theory or a guess.
The belief that the Earth was flat was never scientific. People looked out to the horizon and just assumed it ended there. No facts or science involved.
The amount of stars in the sky is not a theory either.

 

[imkongkong]

A scientific theory is used to explain something that is well understood from current facts.

Tightening the definition of what is and isn't a planet is not a theory or a guess.
The belief that the Earth was flat was never scientific. People looked out to the horizon and just assumed it ended there. No facts or science involved.
The amount of stars in the sky is not a theory either.

1. Astronomy is a pseudo science, because most of the findings from those areas that are very hard to reach are merely based on observations, and observations of course are information gathered from looking. Based on observing these "planets" it was decided before that Pluto was a planet, based on the scientific process. It was the science back then and now, and was the general accepted idea Pluto was a planet, theoretically. It was a theory.
2. People in those times observed the Earth as being flat, and it was generally accepeted it was flat. But due to our own modern technology that theory was then put aside. That was the theory or guess back then.
3. Same thing. Back then the stars were observed from mere eye-sight and to telescopes. Through that method of data gathering did they come up to that conclusion. That was the generally accepted theory back then. Through modern technology was that theory wrong and another put in place.

 

[Pain]

You're still not grasping what a scientific theory is. None of those fit the bill.

Astronomy is not a pseudo science. I can assure you red and blue shift are well documented and provable 100% of the time. The fact that the definition of what is and isn't a planet has become more detailed, and as a result excluded Pluto, is not a theory.

The Earth was known to be round before Columbus set sail. It had nothing to do with modern technology. The fact that people couldn't see around the horizon and made an unsupported assumption is not scientific, and is not a theory.

Again, counting is not a theory.

Now, take gravity for example. We can see the effects, and these effects can be reproduced to such a degree that we can predict accurately how mass affects other mass. However, the precise mechanism by which gravity functions is as yet unknown. Therefore we need to create a theory by which the facts we observe can be explained.

 

[imkongkong]

According to Mr. Webster



Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

Theory = speculation, unproved assumption, hypothesis

Scientific method = collection of data through observation and experiment

Based on Mr. Webster the Planet of Pluto, the Flat Earth, and the Observation of Stars are theories.



http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pluto_e.htm

The object was dubbed by its discoverer with the provisional name Xena (either an American comics figure, or Greek for the stranger woman). Currently it is three times as distant from Earth as Pluto. Because in the year 2003 Pluto still was considered a planet, some astronomers drew the conclusion that UB313 had to be the tenth planet. Others however demanded that the time had come to degrade Pluto from planet to asteroid. This position seems to have won at the recent convention of the IAU in Prague, at least to some extent. On August 24 2006, the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union issued for the first time a formal definition for the term planet and also a classification for other celestial objects.

This is the new definition:

* There are eight proper planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
* Besides these, there is a number of dwarf planets. Among them Pluto, 2003 UB313 and Ceres, which orbits between Mars and Jupiter, discovered in 1801 and previously considered the largest asteroid.
In the coming months it was to be decided which other objects should be dwarf planets
* The other celestial bodes orbiting the Sun, e.g. asteroids and comets, are now called small solar system bodies.

Pluto before was considered a planet, some astronomers concluded UB313 to be a planet as well (some, meaning not all were able to come to a clear agreement back then). They also tweaked and created a new definition for what a planet is.



Tweaking and changing the current definitions and theories in science is going to always be a constant process. Science will never be 100% faultless and perfect. What more are falliable theories that aren't 100% provable. Many things that science was able to accomplish of course have advanced us, but only to a certain extent.

 

[Nemix]

i don't belive we EVOLVED from apes lol
and if we even evolved from apes... why are there even apes on the planet?
should'nt they evolved too ^^

 

[Pain]

You may as well be giving the definition of the word "cat." You keep missing the fact that a scientific theory is not synonymous with the common use of the word theory. I'll leave it to you to look up for yourself.

The only thing in your examples that even has the word theory associated with it is the flat earth theory, and that's about as theoretical as intelligent design.

 

[Majin_You]

i don't belive we EVOLVED from apes lol
and if we even evolved from apes... why are there even apes on the planet?
should'nt they evolved too ^^

No, not necessarily. Not all members of a species will "evolve" just because other members do, especially when there are distinct populations of the same species. That would imply that there is absolutely no ecological niche left for the progenitor species. I'm sure that does happen in some cases, but I wouldn't wager that it always happens.

 

[Prozac]

What Maj is saying, simply said.
When the same species live isolated from eachother, one might get traits the other doesn't have.

One example comes to mind, where a group of Jellyfish were isolated from basically everything else, and over time they actually lost the ability to "sting", while their kin still had that ability.

 

[Chakra-X]

According to Mr. Webster



Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

Theory = speculation, unproved assumption, hypothesis

Scientific method = collection of data through observation and experiment

Based on Mr. Webster the Planet of Pluto, the Flat Earth, and the Observation of Stars are theories.



http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pluto_e.htm



Pluto before was considered a planet, some astronomers concluded UB313 to be a planet as well (some, meaning not all were able to come to a clear agreement back then). They also tweaked and created a new definition for what a planet is.



Tweaking and changing the current definitions and theories in science is going to always be a constant process. Science will never be 100% faultless and perfect. What more are falliable theories that aren't 100% provable. Many things that science was able to accomplish of course have advanced us, but only to a certain extent.

People throw the word "theory" around to easily. "Hmm...This girl has too much over the top make up on...I have a theory that this chick is a whore". That's not a theory. A real "theory" is part of the scientific method, so is an "hypothesis". You are thinking of a "hypothesis", which is more or less an educated guess through observation. A REAL theory is after the hypothesis has been proved enough times.

However, a "theory" is one step below a "law" which is absolutely concrete.