Can you see that we evolved from primates?

[ranchodeluxe]

you see even though we know the dinos are in the birds ancestry, no one classifies birds as dinos. they are now Aves or Avifauna.

I do. I often call bird dinosaurs, because that's what they are.

look up "birds" and find out the facts next time. i have never in my life heard someone call a bird a dinosaur. i suppose you call a bird house a dinosaur house or a bird bath a dinosaur bath as well. let me guess ...bird watching =dinosaur watching for you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Birds are still dino's, it's just not much use referring to them as such. You'd presumably class a bird as an animal, right?

you see even though we know the dinos are in the birds ancestry, no one classifies birds as dinos. they are now Aves or Avifauna.

Well, you would be right if we were still using the antiquated Linnaean system of classification. However, most, if not all, modern biologists use cladistics to classify living organisms. Under cladistical rules of classification, one can never evolve out of a clade, thus once a primate always a primate. So yes, we do classify birds as dinosaurs and we do classify humans as human, ape, monkey, primate, placental mammal, mammal, chordate, and animal.

 

[australopithecus]

look up "birds" and find out the facts next time.

The fossil record indicates birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period, around 150-200 million years ago (Ma), and the earliest known bird is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx, around 150-145 Ma. Most paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event approximately 65.5 Ma.

 

[Nemesiah]

Could it be that evolution is happening (Of course it is) but just on a diferent terrain?

By this I mean animals and primitive humans evovled their bodies since those were their greatest tools of survival (and in the case of many primates the brain yes), nowadays the body (brain included) can be pretty much "crap" and the individual can still be biologically succesfull thanks to the society that surounds it (think obese CEO with 19 year old bimbo surgically enhanced trophy wife or two destitute homelss drug addicted iliterates havind their third child on wellfare); sure, in mating human males prefer youth and health (to survive child labor and be able to take care of it and feed it) in their mates an human females prefere stauts and wealth (to provide for and defend the offspring), both look for simetry as it denotes health and in having "sexy" sons and daughters they increase that those will themselves reproduce.

Nowadays however the original body doesn't affect the survability of the offspring so much, so maybe we are evolving more "intelectually" becoming shewder, more prone to be deceitfull, less interested in the wellfare of those around us (not our biological families, i'm talking the satrving homeless down the corner who no one helps), more able to focus on non survival tasks (like wasting your life behind a computer screen)? maybe the "next step" in the evolution is not some taller or stronger human but a more bastard human? a human that is "geared" towards surviving against todays preasures which are largely (at leas in the civilized parts of the world) artificial? (Really the most "succesfull" (in the economical "doing well" sense, not the true success in life or true happines but those that society admires so much) guys are those that trade things that do not exist yet at prices that have not been set for money that has not been printed)(HYPERBOLE).

I understand that evolution takes millions of years, I don,´t think that there will be tryllu cuantifiable diferences in the near future, but I believe that maybe fisically we're done evolving (noticiable changes, by definition all of us are evolutions "next step") "naturally" (though genetinc tampering could theoretically transform the species I believe), maybe now the evolution we have to look for is intelectuall (the kind humanity already has had which was coupled with an expansion of the skull, the expansion od the female waist, and the need to give birth to defenseles "premature" offspring that could not survive one day on their own) but now it will be a "distilation" of some socal characteristics more that a fisical change.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

rather that slowing mans evolution i believe technological advancements may be the catalyst for changes in mans evolution.

Based on what evidence?

the introduction of processed food to mans diet has caused a significant shrinkage of the jawbone in man already. we have less teeth now and this is the reason why we have impacted wisdom teeth. the smaller jaw can no longer support the amount of teeth we had before. genetic engineering is also a factor that could come into play sometime in the near future.

 

[australopithecus]

the introduction of processed food to mans diet has caused a significant shrinkage of the jawbone in man already. we have less teeth now and this is the reason why we have impacted wisdom teeth. the smaller jaw can no longer support the amount of teeth we had before. genetic engineering is also a factor that could come into play sometime in the near future.

Source?

 

[Inferno]

Ranchodeluxe, you seem to have missed every point so far made. Your informations are incorrect, your ideas apparently based on a bunch of photoshopped pictures and your unwillingness to see error... well... let's not go there.
Take a look at this video, especially the minutes 06:00-08:00. AronRa - Geerup's Terrible Lizard Classification

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

the introduction of processed food to mans diet has caused a significant shrinkage of the jawbone in man already. we have less teeth now and this is the reason why we have impacted wisdom teeth. the smaller jaw can no longer support the amount of teeth we had before.

We do not have fewer teeth. That is why we have impacted wisdom teeth. If we had fewer teeth, they would not be impacted. Furthermore, this is a phenomenon among people of European ancestry, thus the cause could be do to a founder effect for this phenomenon, not an environmental one. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

here are some illustrations that show species have changed over time. evolution clearly shows us that one species can evolve into a new species so why wouldnt that hold true for primates as well? just because it hasnt happened yet dont mean it cant or wont happen. history shows me that it will eventually given enough time.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

you havent contributed anything to the thread other than defending others view and then insulting me so i must say im thinking you are a pretty amazing brown noser at this point fella. :lol:

So, would I be adding to the discussion if I were to argue this topic with people who know much more about it than I? No, I think not. But I thought it would be helpful if you understood that you are being perceived as entirely missing the points being made against yours.

Also, what reason would I have to brown nose people who I do not know?

But I digress, carry on...

 

[Squawk]

Err, who here said new species can't evolve?

First up, a couple of points of clarification. Changes in size and structure in humans due to diet over the past couple of hundred years is not evolution. The fact that people are, on average, a few inches taller than they were 500 years ago is not evolution. We're simply looking at the effects of society, improved diet, better healthcare etc.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals, with the population of humans being several billion. You'll need around 6-7 generations before you're likely to meet a common ancestor with your next door neighboor, for someone on the other side of the world far longer.

In such a population gene propagation and fixation take huge amounts of time. Observed changes in phenotype over such a short period of time are 100% due to local factors and nothing at all to do with gene propagation through the population. Such differences cannot be inherited, and since evolution is descent with inherent modification it's trivially shown not to be evolution.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

i understand exactly what you guys are saying. you are saying that primates can never evolve away from being primates and i am saying that given enough time it is possible that a new creature could evolve from primates but no one will agree with me about this but i dont care if someone agrees or not. so we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[australopithecus]

you are saying that primates can never evolve away from being primates and i am saying that given enough time it is possible that a new creature could evolve from primates but no one will agree with me about this...

Any 'new' creature that evolved from a primate will still be a primate. No one is saying an animal can't evolve from extant primates, just that that animal and it's descendants will always be primates.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

Ranchodeluxe, you seem to have missed every point so far made. Your informations are incorrect, your ideas apparently based on a bunch of photoshopped pictures and your unwillingness to see error... well... let's not go there.
Take a look at this video, especially the minutes 06:00-08:00. AronRa - Geerup's Terrible Lizard Classification

the reason i am providing photoshop pictures is because no one knows what changes are going to occur in mans future only a concept artist can give us an idea of what kind of changes might occur but i dont think you can understand this apparently i have touched on a concept that is very difficult for others to understand or accept.

 

[australopithecus]

...apparently i have touched on a concept that is very difficult for others to understand or accept.

:facepalm:

Maybe you should read our replies?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

i understand exactly what you guys are saying. you are saying that primates can never evolve away from being primates and i am saying that given enough time it is possible that a new creature could evolve from primates but no one will agree with me about this but i dont care if someone agrees or not. so we will just have to agree to disagree.

You are still looking at classification through a Linnaean lens. Of course primates can evolve. In our lineage alone, they have evolved into monkeys, old world monkeys, apes, great apes, and humans. That is just one branch that the primate lineage has taken; there are many others.

What we are saying is that according to our modern understanding of classification, once a primate always a primate (please read this link to learn about it). Yes, new species can evolve, but according to cladistics, they will still be classified as primates. Remember, primate is not a species level classification. It is a clade that holds many species within it.

 

[Laurens]

Human evolution has slowed in a genetic sense, however it has been occurring extremely rapidly in a technological sense.

It's still evolution, just in a different medium.

 

[Nemesiah]

As I understand what this guys are telling you is that yes, humans MAY evolve wings, beaks and talons, however this new species would be a branch from the "human" branch that is itself a branch from the primate branch, and while maybe those guys will feel the "primate" as far removed as we do the "fish" they wil be a sub branch of primate and there is nothing they can do about it, even if by then they call thmselves "Avians"

I don't know the names but i figure it is something like this

Corded -> primate -> human
Corded -> primate -> chimpanzee

both coorded, both primates

in the future it MAY be

Corded -> primate -> human -> avian
Corded -> primate -> human -> dwarf
Corded -> primate -> human -> elf

all of them corded, all of them primates, all of them human

The fact that we ARTIFICALLY say "okay from here to here is another species" has relevance only as a way of clasification, true, humans CAN'T (and shouldn't) breed with chimpanzees, and that makes them efectivly diferent but if you go back both lines far enough both have ancestors that could have mated with each other (at least that's how I undestand it) of course those ancestors would NOT be called the same, maybe a velociraptor and me have lungfhish-type ancestors that could have mated with eachother, but it certanly wasn't a human and a velociraptor that could have mated with eachother since only in the state of texas did humans and dinosaurs coexist peacefully about 6000 years ago.

It is important to understand that mamals eveolved into cats and dogs but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE will cats evolve into dogs or viceversa, they may evolve into dog-looking felines but they will always have the feline description in their clasification.

I hope this makes sense, if not please POLITELY point out the flaws in this idea.

 

[Squawk]

Nem makes a good point, which I'm going to strengthen.

If, by some freak occurance, over the next 50 million years, a particular lineage of cats evolved in such a way that it became reproductively compatible with the dogs (ie, it became indistinguishable from a dog), that species would still be a cat.

Now, that brings up all kinds of questions. For starters the odds of such an event occuring as so astronomical that evolutionary theory actually ignores it as a possibility. It's the principle that allows us to infer ancestry, the idea that if X is the set of all possible genomes, then the probability of independently arriving at the same viable genome twice is essentially 0.

However, it serves as an example here, highlighting the principle that we are discussing.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

I hope this makes sense, if not please POLITELY point out the flaws in this idea.[/quote]
your ideas are fine. i like your ideas. but im suggesting this.


........................................................100 thousand yrs........1 billion yrs.......................1 million yrs...........................100 billion yrs
corded....->............. primate....->..... human -> .............. human/?..... -> ............... unknown......->................ new species no longer primate or human
..................................................................................................genetic engineering->.....new species explosion............................................

this is purely speculative but for me this seems very plausible given this kind of time frame. also genetic engineering could play a large factor here.