There’s no such thing as a "lower" or "higher" organism. Each has evolved to fit a particular niche in its environment. For example, most apes today live in heavily forested habitats, whereas humans originally evolved to live in plains areas.

1. Darwin did not claim humans evolved "from" apes. Have you read any of Darwin’s actual works? Ever hear the term, common descent?

2. Assume we’re talking about amphibians going from a wet swamp to a dryer land environment. Do they become more reptile like? Well yes and no. Yes in that toads do have leathery skin. Could they also gain a kidney that produces uric acid? Maybe.

But the point is, if you had a toad that had all the characteristics of a reptilian crocodile, it would still not be one. Classification is based on cladistics(origins). Read up on convergent evolution.

Highly unlikely since humans already occupy that ecological niche. If apes started living in plains, they might adapt to it differently from how our human ancestors did and evolve into something completely different. Or they might be outcompeted and driven into extinction by the humans already living there. It’s hard to say since so much of evolution depends on random chance.

It seems that it’s a common misinterpretation that evolution creates a higher organism. Besides the confusion between apes and humans are still mystefied by what really is the missing link that had diverged. The evidence would just probably rely on the explanation about the common descent that mith just replied

Nowhere did Darwin say that humans decended from apes (impllying that apes changed into humans)! Remember that evolution does not deal with individuals but with the entire population.What evolution teaches us is that organisms change over time and moderan day apes have a common ancester as humans. That is not quite the same thing.

According to The Bible, Adam is primitive.

But unlocking of God’s secret made from his seed homo sapiens.

Humans produce live offspring, not seeds.

Adam’s seed is specific – from his loins and his nipples(ribs).

Adam’s seed is the key to creation of human.

So, since Adam was created nude, I suppose that would make us humans gymnosperms?

Sorry, I know, bad joke!

Gymnosperms grow on his ribs.

But today Adam’s sons plant their seeds in women wombs.

Actually Adam is not one human, but generation of androgenates, planted one from other.

That would be very interesting to see, humans walking around with pine trees growing out of their ribs.

Ribs = lactating nipples

After long starvation folowing with repletion male lactation is usual. Adam was carryed in Eden!
And some animals(like bees to plants), have assisted him in autogenesis there.

If Adam is new specie, he need woman of this specie – then she must be taken from him.
Among any animal species the male is taken from female, but there female is heterogamous(ZW).

The truth is hidden in The Oldest Book.

Gymnosperms = non-flowering seed plants. Sorry, but gymnosperms cannot grow from the ribs of a human.

In fact, their seeds have not fruit cover.

Eva is from Adam’s nipple. And his sons are cnceived like her.
At first, in Eden, they ate "fruits" from Adam’s ribs.

OK enarees, this is a scientific forum, not the place for mystical divagations. So please provide logic reasonning and facts that could support your assertions…

And I imagine that if as it is said, the proof is in the pudding, this is the kind of pudding with ingredients that would not all be considered legal or advisable…

Think!

Variety of species

If one specimen evolved in new specie through mutation, how in just moment and place evolved his partner, mutated in just same specie?

In a special case: Adam is new specie, but he haven’t partner of his specie – androgenesis is the answer. This is hidden in The Book of THE CLAN and in the book of Darwin, who is son of CLAN. (Among birds the answer is parthenogenesis.)
By androgenesis are selected new genes. And the daughters of new specie tempted some of Adam’s similars.

How did we ever get onto this topic? I thought we were supposed to be discussing evolution.

Dear sob:

On behalf of the scientists that contribute to this forum, I apologise. You asked good questions, but nonsense has crept into this thread, as so often happens in this forum.

The formation of new species is a one-time affair. It occurs by the slow accumulation of genetic changes over long periods of time. All organisms are shaped by the environments in which they live. They adapt to changes in a way that helps them to survive and reproduce. Humans and the apes that live at the present time are different. At some time in the past, we all shared a common ancestor. That ancestor lived in an environment that is different than today’s environment. Today’s apes are different than the common ancestor was. So you have different apes living in different environments. The genetic changes that are always occurring are therefore different. If all humans were to disappear, today’s apes would continue to change in response to their environments, and maybe in time one or more species would acquire characteristics similar to our own, but they would not be the same. Perhaps they could even become very intelligent, and walk on two legs as we do, and develop social systems more advanced than their present systems, maybe even become scientifically advanced, but they would not be human. They would be like humans in many ways, but genetically, they would be different. There is such a thing called convergent evolution. As the name implies, different organisms can evolve similar structures or behaviours from different starting points. But convergent evolution only occurs on a small scale: perhaps similar organisms can independently evolve similar structures if they live in similar environments and have similar needs. Never have two different species evolved over time into the same species. All species continue to change over time, some slowly, some more quickly, depending on the strength of the pressures that are causing the changes. Stable environments don’t force organisms to change. Changing environments do. Humans, and the dandelions on your front lawn, are evolving now in response to the changes that are occurring in our environments. That weed killer you spray on your lawn will kill most dandelions, but not all. The survivors possess some minor genetic difference that allows them to survive. This difference is passed on to the future generations through normal reproduction (just as you probably look a bit like one or both of your parents). Other environmental changes, such as increasing temperatures, will also lead to genetic changes in the dandelion populations. Some day, long in the future, today’s dandelions will no longer exist. But their descendents will, and they will be different from today’s dandelions. There’s always only one road to any species. The world of today has never existed before and never will again. The environments in which our species evolved no longer exist, and so today’s apes, which are different from the apes we evolved from, will and can never evolve into us. But we are special, aren’t we. Thanks for your questions. Keep them coming, and don’t let the nonsense divert you from trying to understand what evolution is.

Dwelling into the rethoric of lower and higher animals is a fallacy, since the distinction can only be made relative to an omitted preposition: lower in terms of lineage, adaptability, organism complexity, etc are all different degrees wich can be adressed in your ambiguous question, some of them conflict with your own logic.

But, despite the semantics, i think i know where you’re going with it, and i have to say that particular issue has troubled me too. The Origin of Species alone, as presented by Darwin, can’t explain a lot of things. Only the phenomenon of speciation is made clear, what causes new families to emerge is something that only macro-evolution can begin to adress. Wich in my view is the scientific equivalent of a bandage. "There’s too many missing links and darwin didn’t leave a manual on the subject, so we’ll just go forward with the idea of evolutionary leaps and hope no one notices how much that sounds like methaphysics…" The matter gets even worse when you boil it down to chemical evolution or the origin of life, that’s the big bang of biology, no one can say for sure what happened up until the first multicellular organism.

Of course the problem with macro-evolution is it’s empirically unprovable (apart from "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny")There’s just no way to observe it in action. In answer to your question, new races and subspecies of animals and plants are being discovered on a daily basis, there’s no problem there. New genus or families however are a completely different problem, it’s not impossible, in fact such discoveries have happened in the past, but on very inospitable conditions where either it was unthinkable life could exist, or there was no technology to explore it (fungi and insects mostly). And when they do get discovered it’s very hard to pinpoint their ascendency, they just get fit as best possible into the big tree of life.

Predisposition is a big issue here, as scientists we are allways looking at life in darwinian terms, we should be seeking as much theoretical neutrality as possible, the same way a field ethnologist would try to strip himself of his cultural bias to better understand a foreign people. We should not be teaching evolution the same way a priest teaches the bible (as a cosmogeny), that’s probably what got us into the whole creationist dispute in the first place. It’s still only a theory people (a brilliant but flawed and incomplete one), let’s not get carried away. We’re only half-way through the big puzzle at best. My hope goes to epigenetics and a complete understanding of neurology before accepting Darwin as the Messiah. And we might find in the process we’ll need a completely different concept to understand life.

Also, i hope a 2000 year-old book is not the pinnacle of our enlightnement or we might aswell give up on evolving.
pun intended 😉

Wow. I wonder what would take for someone to believe in that. For a book like that to be possible, you would either have to believe in a noosphere where universal gnosis (god if you will) rests undisturbed and eternal, accessible only to extremely intuitive people (since it was written and translated over and over by men – actually, men with a lot of rooted pagan beliefs) whose ability somehow was never rivalled before or after the bible in whole of Men’s existence; or you’d have to believe in the ancient astronauts theory: spiritual or technologically superior beings who took upon the task of educating the human race after the flood, bestowing upon us the gifts of art, agriculture and science as all the myths seem to corroborate, and giving us all their knowledge just before leaving, wich we were too primitive to understand in any other form than cryptic allegories, therefor transmitted along the ages in a code nobody really understood yet somehow reached us today intact enough to be decyphered. That’s an hell of an imagination (and not very christian of you)! Unless of course you just believe in it out of faith.

I must say, lifemare, for someone presenting an other-than-evolution viewpoint, you are at least doing us the dignity of putting at least some thought into your statements. Rather refreshing from the usual creationist rubbish, I find. In fact I am even willing to forgive you for misquoting me; the quote you attributed to me was actually spoken by enarees, not I. Scroll up and verify your source.

That said, I will disagree with you on this:

Not completely true. In fact, in my currenty biology class I have been surprised to learn about new genera and even a whole new phylum that are very new discoveries. Also, the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is a false one that (as far as I am aware) is not substantiated by any known evidence. In my opinion, common sense dictates that enough small changes produce big changes, and so a lot of microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution. I see no problem there.

sorry about that, edited.

yes i’m aware of that, i’ve said as much in my post. Deep-sea invertebrates are constantly being added to the tree, new algae, caldera microorganisms, usually we’re talking about very uncharted territories like the australian outback, the polar regions, the tropical jungles, etc. You got me curious though, do you remember wich phylum you talked in your class? would like to know.

Well, i didn’t meant it was a different field. Macroevolution can be explained by common descent in a gradual accumulation of microevolutions within a species. But there’s also the belief that evolutionary leaps (ie:single-generation differentiation, homeotic mutants) fit best with paleontologic data. Though i may be wrong. Either way i don’t disagree with the possibility, but it’s still early to carve it in stone.

Adam(Prehuman) is androgyne – he had lactating nipples. He made autogenesis and autogenetic clan.
THEY hide the secret.

Without autogenesis – not selection. Among mammals autogenesis is male property.

Darwin is liar from THE CLAN.

The phylum is Cycliophora, a peculiar form of invertebrate that so far has been discovered to live only on the mouthparts of marine lobsters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycliophora

As far as quick evolutionary leaps, Dr. Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God makes the point that what appears to be rapid evolutionary changes may have been very gradual. A few inches of geological strata can mean the difference between millions of years, and what appears to be a short time in the fossil record (especially comparing it to the age of the earth itself) may have been a very gradual change. I’m not saying that rapid change is impossible, but I think it’s importance is a bit overplayed.

lol! What the hell is wrong with you man? are you on peyotl or something?

thanks, i’d heard of that one. check this out, it’s a little more recent and a freak finding! 😀

It’s a very reasonable argument, but there’s got to be something more. I mean, take the Cambrian explosion for instance, in a period of just 8my almost every class of animals we know of sprung into existence. There’s a lot we don’t know about the relationship between genetics and the environment or what was going on at the time to catalyze such an event, i haven’t read the book, but it may be that dr. Miller is right and wrong at the same time. Considering it took us 5my to evolve from monkeys and we’re talking about a minute change in dna… and even with our own timeline, there’s so many gaps, junctions, twists and dead-ends it’s hard to see the continuum of it. I know i shouldn’t be comparing different ecossystems, ages and species, it’s all too relative (look at the coelacanth remaining unchanged for all this time), but still, you have to wonder…

Darwin knew the truth, but hid it.

If Adam was mutation, how in the same time and in the same place spread exactly the same mutation(Eve)?
Not only Adam, but all new species.

Mutation mean destruction.

I’m no expert in genetics, but I remember reading that the development of all animal embryos is controlled by a few genes called Hox control genes. Experiments have shown that even a minor mutation in a Hox gene can cause major changes in the animal’s body. It may be possible the Cambrian explosion was the result of the initial development of these genes and the various animal phyla resulted from the many ways in which these new genes could be put to use.

As for the comparison to human evolution, I think the evolution of humans and the Cambrian explosion is an apples to oranges comparison. Humans evolved in an environment already crowded with life, whereas the world was relatively uninhabited at the time of the Cambrian explosion. It could’ve been as simple as animals adapting to conquer previously inhospitable environments.

This is so scientific. 😆

I think we’ve lost sob.

Evolution occurs when it is necessory. Some apes evolved into man because
either they moved to a new environment or their existing environment changed.

———————————————-

Evolution only occurs when it is necessary. Some apes evolved into man because
either they moved to a new environment or their existing environment changed.

——————————————————
juliana

Why "some" – only one ape.

how can you evolutionists not see that humans are higher organisms than, say, pond scum? Do you see pond scum solving complex math problems or some of life’s most confounding myteries?…can they build tall buildings or fly to the moon or land a spaceship on mars? Can they love others, get married, build a house, hold a job, balance a checkbook, pay bills, etc? Do they have the same capacity as we do to learn about the world around them? Goodness…What is your definition of "higher" if these things I just mentioned aren’t included?

Don’t get too worked up about this particular issue, supersport. It’s only a matter of semantics. Some people just feel that it’s "politically incorrect" to refer to different organsims as higher or lower. All extant species have been going at this evolution business for the same amount of time, ie. since life began, they’ve just taken different routes to get to the present. And most of these species are fairly equally well adapted their respective environments (some are losing the battle). From these perspectives, no species is higher or lower than any other. Of course we’re a little more complex than pond scum. But be careful, some of my best friends live in ponds.

I don’t think "higher" is a term that can be applied to biology. Complexity yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean "higher." For example, we humans (What proud creatures we are!) are among the most complex and intelligent species on the planet. All of our glorious technology and advanced social structure, with our governments, laws, and so-called morals, all of the cities and machines we’ve built, our ability to quickly cross continents, oceans, fly through the skies and even into outer space, certainly gives us reason to be pleased with ourselves, doesn’t it? We might even dare to call ourselves civilized, so far are we above the lowly pond scum! And yet what do we do with this wondrous superiority? We destroy the environment and we kill each other. Do you call that civilized? Pond scum may not be able to solve calculus equations, but they certainly live a very peaceful existence compared to our senseless slaughter of everything around us. So if I had to choose which organism were the higher life form, I would pick the one that most lives in harmony with itself and its environment, and that’s certainly not humanity.