CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Humans didn't evolve from modern day apes, but we do share a common ancestor with them. Here's a very rudimentary phylogenetic tree showing some of the branches of primate evolution. A complete phylogenetic tree would have many more branches. Below is just a few of the many pieces of evidence showing that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
HUMAN CHROMOSOME 2
All great apes except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. This would typically indicate that the species are not related. However, sometimes two chromosomes can fuse together into one. Now that scientists have been able to map out the genomes of humans and other great apes they were able to look to see if there was a fused chromosome in humans that matched two chromosomes in other great apes. If they didn't find it, then that would prove that humans do not share a common ancestor with the great apes. If they did find it, then it would be yet another piece of evidence proving that humans share a common ancestor with other great apes. In 1982 they found the fused chromosome, and it matches up beautifully with those of other great apes. Here is a video that explains it in more detail.
ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES
An endogenous retrovirus (ERV) is a virus that inserts itself into the DNA of germ line cell (sperm or egg). Since it has altered the DNA of a germ line cell it will be passed down to future generations of the animal that it infected. Here is a simple analogy to explain it. Think of a retrovirus as a sentence. Think of DNA as a book. The retrovirus inserts itself (the sentence) into the DNA (the book) under the chapter titled "Reproduction." So, now the book has an extra sentence in it. When the animal reproduces (makes a copy of the book) it will have the extra sentence in it.
Throughout history lots of different species have been infected with retroviruses. I we look at the ERVs in the DNA of these different species we can see a clear pattern of one species inheriting the same retroviruses as the species they evolved from. The ERV is located in the same location of their DNA sequence as their ancestor. Let's go back to the book analogy for a second. If we look at the book titled "Chimpanzees" we can see that there is a sentence in red text on page 118 that says "I'm bob, the retrovirus". Now if we look at the book called "Humans" we see that it also contains the sentence "I'm bob, the retrovirus" on the exact same page. If we continue to examine the two books we find numerous other sentences like "I'm Stacy, the retrovirus", and "I'm Kip, the retrovirus." Both books have the same sentences on the same pages, and they are all written in red text, while the rest of the text in the book is black. If Chimpanzees and Humans were not related, the chances of them having the same ERVs in the same positions are astronomically small. The odds of just 5 matching ERVs are 1 in 2,025,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, but we have more than a dozen.
Scientists have examined the ERVs in numerous other species the results form a phylogenetic tree that closely matches the the other phylogenetic trees that scientists have created based on the fossil records, DNA analysis, hemoglobin analysis, protein sequencing, and chromosome structure. There is no way all of these trees could match up just by coincidence. Here is a video that explains how a phylogenetic tree is created based on ERVs if you're interested. This page shows how all the phylogenetic trees match up.
CRITIQUES
There are some arguments against ERV, and I think it is only fair to include them. I've also included explanations as to why those arguments are not valid.
Very interesting. Again though this is still saying that we didn't evolve from apes. It is more along the lines of "retrovirus is what propagates evolution" or at least higher forms of it in complex organisms.
Yes, I suppose if we keep to the exact wording of the debate title, then this probably should have been on the other side of the debate. I went more with what I though was the actual intent of the debate than the exact wording. I assumed he was more interested in knowing if humans and apes are related, but that may be an incorrect assumption.
CytC is a protein conserved in all species, with the protein being identical in everything from yeast to humans.
The way DNA maps to protein means that a particular combination of 3 base pairs corresponds to 1 amino acid in a protein. However, there are more than 1 combination of three base pairs that give the same amino acid, meaning that there is more than one sequence of DNA that can yield an identical protein.
This means random mutations over time can add changes into the cytochrome C gene and not modify the protein that it produces at all.
Cytochrome C genes in many species have been analysed, with the comparative differences of the cytc gene matching exactly the prediction of common descent.
This is not a trivial correlation, with the number of possible combinations and arrangements of the cyt c gene being in the order of 10^38.
But to clarify, as well as having massive incontrovertible evidence of common descent, including this, the phylogenic tree, the innumerable transitional form that shows the progressive evolution of hominids, DNA analysis, and the stuff above; it is clear that not only did we evolve from apes, we are still apes.
There is no objective way to classify or group different species of ape in a way that excludes humans.
Imagine a species is divided, for whatever reason. Perhaps a flash flood has changed the flow of a river, perhaps a drought has caused the species to range further for water and divide themselves, perhaps a food shortage has done the same. Perhaps there is a combination of multiple reasons that cause a species to divide into two separate populations that are physically removed from one another. They are still the same species.
One group of the species is living under very similar conditions to the original biome; the other group is under somewhat different conditions. The former group is already fairly well adapted to the biome, but the latter group struggles to survive. The latter group is shaped by stronger (relative to the species capabilities) and more importantly different selective pressures.
Now, give it time. As the different conditions favor different traits, the two populations begin to diverge. Given enough time, the group under different conditions will eventually change to the point where they are no longer genetically compatible with the original group.
Now, we have two different species- one evolved from the other, while the ancestor lives on.
Humans are a different species from apes. We are classified as coming from a relative family. We may have had a common ancestor but under your reasoning we are the same species as a bacteria. Science has deduced the earliest life to single celled organisms that do indeed follow the pattern you describe but let me tell you. We did not evolve from apes. You just spewed to me a lot of mumbo jumbo that makes no sense to the debated question. DID HUMANS EVOLVE FROM APES?
now... did we evolve from an earlier ancestor that was a different species then?... and is what we see a strong relationship tree between us, apes and other mammalian apelikes? (baboon for example)
Apes are not a species. They are a family. And humans are part of that family, along with chimps, gorillas, etc. We are classed together based on a set of traits that seperates apes from other families of primate. Our direct ancestor was an ape as well, as were the common ancestors that link us to other members of the ape family. So yeah, we descended from apes, just not any that are still around.
Apes are their own species inside the hominidae family. We did not evolve from apes we evolved from a different species that grandfathered the current primate species that we have today. Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes being the key word there. we descended from an ancient being that would classify as a member of the hominidae family. However, apes are a separate evolutionary track then human. The differences between human and ape are huge as well as their similarities.
"Apes" are not a species, but rather a group of species. Humans are in fact a member of the great ape family. Humans are not a different species from apes- we ARE apes.
The common ancestor that homo sapiens sapiens has with other modern members of the great ape family, was itself a great ape.
Your confusion lies in what the word 'ape' means. Humans ARE apes, that evolved from apes, those apes also being the ancestor of modern apes. If anything, the idea that humans evolved "from" apes is incorrect because humans are still in fact apes.
I was specifically addressing your idea that one species cannot evolve without its predecessor disappearing with an assertion that this is not the case and an example of conditions that would cause this- I was not addressing the idea of humans evolving from apes.
That's not how evolution works. Let me give you an example to help clarify the process. In a species, one of the animals has some sort of mutation. That animal continues to breed and passes along this mutation to its ancestors. Only that one animal and its descendants will have that mutation. All the other animals of that species that don't descend from the one with the mutation will stay the same. For example, some humans are born with dwarfism. That means people with dwarfism evolved from average sized humans. Thinking that monkeys shouldn't exist if humans evolved from them is the same as thinking that average sized humans shouldn't exist because dwarfs evolved from them, or black people shouldn't exist because white people evolved from them. They are all just different branches of the evolutionary tree.
Technically speaking, humans didn't evolve from the monkeys we see today. Both humans and all the other primates evolved from a common ancestor. Each species of primates is just another branch on the evolutionary tree. Here's a very rudimentary phylogenetic tree showing some of the branches of primate evolution. A complete phylogenetic tree would have many more branches.
A dwarf can have a full sized baby, and a midget can too. Even if it is two midgets who breed they can still have full grown children. I agree on a common ancestor however our common ancestor is called neandrathol. Which implies it wasn't human. My argument is just stating we didn't evolve from apes. Apes are what are around today.
(Edit: I was wrong Neanderthals were not a direct ancestor but we are closely related. Anywho, your rudimentary tree supports what I am saying anyway.)
I just used dwarfism as an example to show how a mutation in one person doesn't mean the entire species evolves. Perhaps it wasn't the best example because, as you said, they can give birth to normal sized children, but I'm sure you get the point I was trying to make.
My argument is just stating we didn't evolve from apes. Apes are what are around today.
You're correct, we didn't evolve from modern day apes, but we are related to them. They are loooooooooooong distant cousins. The only point I was trying to make was that just because one species evolved from another one doesn't mean the species they evolved from can't exist at the same time. If a group of humans eventually broke off from mainstream society and evolved into a new species, that doesn't mean all of the unevolved ones will die out, so they can exist at the same time.
just because a new species evolved, doesn't mean the species it evolved from disappeared, extinction only happens when a species cant survive any longer due to supply shortage and climate change. chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons are fine in the jungle, the theory of our evolution is a chimp human common ancestor species was forced out of the jungle in search for food, and according to biology the need to survive will spark evolution (passing genes down that make the offspring slightly better suitable for a certain lifestyle, changes to species in different parts of the earth will cause species to branch off to many different species and in our case, complex hunting branched us off from other apes as did living in the Savannah, ocean interaction which causes hair loss and upright evolution, being were not built for hunting like wolves or lions, but we had hands and medium sized brains.) and sometimes extinction, i'm not trying to dis Christianity or anything, but even a christian can agree not all of the bible is true, and we evolved from apes, look at our bone structure, skulls, behavior, DNA etc., its all pretty similar.
What theory says that because evolution doesn't say humans evolved form chimps. It says we share a common ancestor, which lived around 7 million years ago. If it was still around it would be called an ape, but it was not a chimpanzee.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes, evolved from a common ancestor. Much like how modern birds evolved from dinosaurs of old, no dinosaurs exist. If humans evolved from apes, no apes would exist.
Same with the wooly mammoth and the elephant. Elephants lived because wooly mammoths died.
since you are a black dude I have to let you know that black people were the first humans to evolve from apes according to the leading theory of evolution. The rest of humanity, other than Inuits, Eskimos, oriental Asian and Red-Indian races, evolved from you apparently
Well I should point out that its not possible to know the skin color of the first humans I mean yes we know humans evolved in Africa but what isn't known how ever is if humans evolved as black people or if the black skin color was a latter adaptation by those who remained in that area. I bring this up because under the fur of most apes their skin is actually white due to lack of exposure to the sun and humans were apes that learned to walk up right then began to gradually lose the fur leavening the pale unadapted skin underneath given the slow multi generational pace of genealogical adaptation it is theorized that the first humans were very pale and that the black skin of modern Africans was a latter adaptation. That being said however race is more than skin color it's genes and when you look at the physiological characteristics of Africans they do share more common physical traits with homo erects. Than say Caucasians which more closely resemble Cro Magnons. This dose support the theory that the first modern humans evolved in Africa.
No idiot, It's a logical follow up to his argument. DO you use any of your retarded alters to actually argue or are you just blobbing nonsense under different nicknames?
your pretty dumb, modern day whites, africans, asians etc. share a common ancestor with neandertals, and the common ancestor is white, its name is homo heidlbergensis. theres more than one human spieces, incase you didnt know.
No. They came from a common ancestor of apes down the line. There is no theory that says we evolved from apes, that is a common misconception. We did not evolve from a ancestor of the apes.
