Is there any proof monkeys formed the human race?
I am curious how many believe we are made from monkeys.
no way
Side Score: 28
|
 |
yes there is proof
Side Score: 50
|
|
|
|
|
6
points
No, monkeys haven't the capacity to form humans. They do however share common ancestry with us. To be more accurate we share a common ancestor with other apes not monkeys but in turn they both share a common ancestry with monkeys. If it is proof you are after just google it, it is no coincidence that humans share 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees and in turn to varying lesser degrees with other apes such as orangutans, gorillas and bonobos. As another debater has stated, look at the similarities between a chimp and a human, you don't even need to shave the poor animal to see it. It is quite obvious that a juvenile ape and a human are very similar and when you compare this with fossils of earlier man the picture becomes glaringly lucid. Man is an evolved monkey give or take a few ancestors along the way. Side: NO WAY
The question itself is flawed, and shows that the debate creator doesn't have a proper understanding of evolution. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, but did not evolve from them. It would be more accurate to say, do we share a common ancestor with Apes, as homo sapiens have more in common with great apes than we do with monkeys. Unfortunately, I must end up on this side of the argument, even though I think that evolution is a fact. If you state that it is just a theory, then you don't understand how scientists use the term. Side: NO WAY
1
point
Sorry I have to dispute you here. I see your intentions as good, but still not totally accurate. All primates are descendant of "old world" monkeys. That includes apes and homo sapiens. So we can still be considered, in a general sense, monkeys. Example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/ I think you might be doing a minor disservice to the side of the argument that you actually support. Side: yes there is proof
1
point
We were not "formed from monkeys" in the understanding of the debate creator. The theory of evolution makes no such claim. No reputable scientist has made such a claim. We share a common ancestor with other apes (yes, we are apes too). The genetic and anatomical evidence for this is overwhelming. Side: NO WAY
It's a common miconception that Darwin said humans evolved from apes. In fact he just said they MAY have common ancestors not one formed the other. The "evolution inquistition" is admanat to drag science through the mud and move the goalposts if needs be to prove something that cannot be. These guys have been caught out before look up "piltdown man" Next they'll be saying Lead and Hydrogen are equivelent to Gold simply because of same atomic mass. Side: NO WAY
1
point
there is no proof that I know of or found while searching for relevant answers to this debate, other than Darwin's theory. although many people believe it, I'm not completely satisfied with the proof(s) that Darwin gave. anyway right now all I can do is believe the theory and live with it. Side: i dont know
No proof in the almost identical genes between apes and humans?? How much proof do you need? Most species are differentiated by only a small percent, and it is unique to this planet that most species are composed of the same raw elements. The only thing you could possibly hope for is finding a planet with that missing 1-2% we seem to have with chimpanzees. Side: yes there is proof
No proof in the almost identical genes between apes and humans? nope.... How much proof do you need? enough to make me believe that we did evolve from the monkey race. Adam and Eve weren't monkeys. I'd rather believe that than this monkey business. Most species are differentiated by only a small percent, so??? apple and orange taste similar, but that doesn't make them the same species. The only thing you could possibly hope for is finding a planet with that missing 1-2% we seem to have with chimpanzees. i don't think a shaved monkey looks like me when i check the mirror every morning. there seems to be a lot of difference... i don't have a problem if you want to be called a monkey race. I prefer Adam and Eve to that. Side: NO WAY
|
8
points
As much as modern Theists would like to delude themselves into believing that Darwin claimed we came from modern apes, this is simply not the case. He said that modern day humans and Apes shared a common ancestor. Given the 2% DNA difference between the two and the fossilized findings of our ancestors that form a straight link to us, I'd say he was dead-on. Further details and evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: yes there is proof
Take a look at a shaved chimp, then take a look at yourself and tell me again there is no proof. If you cannot see it you are blind. It's evidence that hides in plain site. Or evidence that is ignored. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ Side: yes there is proof
2
points
5
points
Slight difference. Tennis balls are man-made, not naturally grown like oranges. Now, if you were to examine an Orange and a Lemon, I'd think you'd find that they are very similar in both texture and density. Apart from the color and slight shape, they're virtually identical. The conclusion? Oranges and Lemons may have had a common ancestor. Side: yes there is proof
We actually are monkeys, in the same way that we are apes, primates, mammals, eukaryotes, bilaterals, etc. However we are not descended from modern monkeys. We are descended from ancient monkeys, which primates are descended from, which we diverged from. The proof? One of many DNA-based research reports The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees to a well established phylogenetic standard, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts. Retroviruses are unique among RNA viruses in their ability to integrate DNA copies of their genomes into the genome of the infected cell. On occasion, integration takes place in a germ-line cell, giving rise to an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), which can be inherited by the offspring of the infected host, and may eventually become fixed in the gene pool of the host population (1). The genomes of vertebrate species contain dozens to thousands of ERV sequences (2), some of which were acquired in evolutionarily recent times, whereas others derive from “ancient” times, as indicated by their identical site of integration in more than one species (1, 3, 4). Typically, ancient proviruses have sustained numerous point mutations, deletions, and insertions, rendering them incapable of expressing virus. No biologically active viruses have been associated with the ancient proviruses. Despite their abundance in vertebrate genomes, and some other especially useful features described below, ERVs have rarely been exploited as phylogenetic markers (5–10). In a few instances integration site polymorphisms have served as a source of phylogenetic signal (6), or as markers for linkage analysis (11), but the usefulness of orthologous ERV nucleotide sequences has never been fully explored. Here we report the application of ancient human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) sequences to phylogenetic analysis on a time scale spanning recent primate evolution. HERVs can be organized into at least a dozen distinct groups, which vary in size from one to thousands of members (1, 12). Cross-hybridization and PCR studies consistently reveal that most HERV families are also found in other primates, including apes and Old World monkeys (OWMs) (12–19). Many HERVs, including the ones used in this study, are the result of integration events that took place between 5 and 50 million years ago, as indicated by the distribution of specific proviruses at the same integration sites (or “loci”) among related species. The evolution of primates has been the subject of intense study for well over a century, providing a well established phylogenetic consensus with which to compare and evaluate the performance of ERVs as phylogenetic markers. Side: yes there is proof
there is no proof that I know of or found while searching for relevant answers to this debate, other than Darwin's theory. although many people believe it, I'm not completely satisfied with the proof(s) that Darwin gave. anyway right now all I can do is believe the theory and live with it. Side: i dont know
First of all, it's apes not monkeys. Secondly we're not an "alien" to this planet. We evolved here also. We can't look at a chimp and say "I come from that" but we can look at a chimp and say "I share 99% of my DNA with that" therefor we are related as a species. Side: yes there is proof
|
