Childlike behavior has been observed in the common chimpanzee and the bonobo. What is this behavior and what are its consequences?
The animals that are evolutionarily closest to humans are the common chimpanzee and the bonobo. These species are quite similar to each other, and in fact until the twenties of the last century they were considered as one biological species. Still, there are differences between them - evidence of about 2.5 million years of separate evolution, since the two lineages separated.
Many researchers believe that some of the differences stem from differences in individual development - the bonobos show certain signs of "paedomorphism", that is, maintaining characteristics characteristic of young people even in adulthood. An example of paedomorphism can be seen in several breeds of dogs, which in adulthood show the flattened nose and large eyes characteristic of puppies.
In the adult bonobos, they retain some characteristics of the structure of the skull typical of infants, in contrast to most great apes. They also show in their adulthood behaviors that are considered childish, such as a tendency to play. Victoria Wobber from Harvard University in the USA and her colleagues decided to check whether it is possible to attribute to the "developmental delay" of the bonobos also other differences in their behavior and between the chimpanzees, and especially in the social behavior. Their findings were published in the journal Current Biology.
Effects of late puberty
In the first experiment, the researchers tested the tolerance of individuals of different ages, as expressed in their agreement to share food with other individuals of their own sex. It turned out that although young individuals of both biological sexes demonstrated the ability to eat side by side and even share food, in chimpanzees this ability gradually disappeared as the individuals matured. In contrast, the bonobos maintained the same level of tolerance at all age levels - in line with their reputation as friendly and calmer apes than their relatives.
In the second and third experiments, the researchers tested the development of the social skills of the great apes. In the second experiment, they gave bonobos and chimpanzees of different ages the opportunity to ask for food from human experimenters, and tested whether they learned to ask only from those who held food in their hands. In the third experiment, the great apes were asked to learn which of the experimenters was "generous" and willing to share food and who was not, and then the researchers tested whether the great apes were able to change their behavior when the experimenters reversed their roles - the generous becomes stingy and vice versa. Asking for food is a common and natural activity in both of these biological species, and young individuals often ask adults for them.
The researchers wanted to imitate the situation in which young people have to choose from whom, among their group members, to ask for food - they will be more successful if they ask only the adults who are more likely to respond to their request, and not from those who do not have food in their possession, or who are not inclined to share. In both experiments, the ability of the more mature bonobos was lower than that of chimpanzees of the same age, and was similar to that of the baby chimpanzees.
From this, the researchers came to the conclusion that developmental delay is at the root of the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos when it comes to social behavior, and the researchers even suggest that a common mechanism is behind physical paedomorphism, the delay in acquiring social skills and the tendency to tolerance and sharing resources.
The most interesting question is what can be learned from this conclusion about another ape - man? It is known that developmental delay played an important part in the evolution of man, where the two examples given about the bonobo are more extreme: the skull with infantile characteristics and the tendency to play, are even more true in relation to man, and there are many other examples of paedomorphism in man. Man is also a tolerant animal and tends to cooperate more than most great apes. Is there a connection between the things? More studies will probably be required to answer this question.
83 תגובות
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
It seems to me that Reuven has a problem.. He has never taken any course in paleontology.. Fortunately, he can 'take' some lectures from Prof. Yoel only on YouTube..:
Great homework
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPP08IujkAU&feature=related
Comparison of different hominids, even creation 'scientists' have not yet decided for sure whether it is a 'man' or a 'monkey'.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html#fn1
Strange where this ignorance about transitional fossils comes from
To Reuven with great respect
Okay, okay, first of all I'll make it clear, I'm full of prejudices, I believe in Darwin's theory and only doubt things that I'm comfortable with, and blindly believe everything I'm told.
But I also think yesterday was hot. I can't prove it. I can only talk about people's memory and the results of obeying physical laws, which were also handed down to me and accepted into the bosom of a world view without question, because it is convenient and it makes the world simpler. All the more, I cannot prove that there was a war of independence, because I only hear stories and see pictures, which may have been created out of nothing at some stage of existence. But even if I believe in the existence of such a thing as the past, that memory does not deceive me and it is something recorded, I still cannot accept in my head that there once was someone like Alexander the Great, I can only assume that there is a connection between the objects and the stories that I am able to be aware of in the present.
Obviously, science touches the truth here and there and maybe not at all. It's great to be a skeptic. But there is a difference between being a skeptic and believing that man is not descended from the same ancestor as the ape. Every evidence obtained by the scientist as well as the logician who sits at home and ponders, is biased by the complexity of his imagination, the richness of his language and the subtleties of his perception, and even more so by the axioms that guide him, such as time, family and the connection between different sensory perceptions.
I don't think there is one truth. Maybe there is one, but it's not convenient for me to believe in it. As has been said here before with some rudeness, you are free to believe what you are comfortable with, as long as you don't lose anything from it. But if it bothers you that people treat you like an idiot then the best thing you can do is hang your ropes on their nails, or prove them, in their own language, wrong. Of course, if you are wise and knowledgeable enough, you can find an alternative truth, and still it will not be free of axioms, from which it is impossible or inconceivable to find something basic, to justify or completely contradict their correctness.
When a particular cell is duplicated, an error may occur. It is called a mutation. Sometimes it kills - cancer and such - sometimes it is harmless, and sometimes it is simply meaningless.
The harmless mutations, the ones that change you but not to the extent that you are affected by the change, if they happen in the sex cells they may be passed on to some of the offspring, and sometimes several accidental mutations like this, over several generations, create a genetic difference so that the creature after the mutations is more suitable for its living environment (Earth , willow, egg) from the creature that lacks the same mutations. This new creature, almost identical to its predecessor, will survive longer and produce more offspring, which will also contain the same mutations.
Of course, the previous creature sometimes survives and sometimes simply becomes extinct. And sometimes, before it becomes extinct, individuals are born from it with different mutational series than those of the first, but they too, in their way, increase the survival of the organism.
That ancestor may have been more ape-like than man, and the apes adapted to their living environments more efficiently, so to speak, one that required less genetic changes.
That's why nowadays there are unicellular creatures alongside multicellular ones, according to the accepted explanation (which I hold, as mentioned, because it's convenient). It's all a matter of momentary adaptation to the environment. There are features that are useful at a certain moment, then comes an ice age and many animals that previously thrived become extinct. That's how there is evolution - development, in Leaz. This is not something that strives for perfection, it is a mechanism according to which a living creature (animal or plant) that survives in its environment and produces offspring, is the one you will see when you go for a walk in the grove tomorrow, and not the living creature that is its sibling, who may have survived better and produced more offspring, and the same goes for them, except that one The reasons for their prosperity was, it is said, the MZA, and when it changed (as in the case of the ice age) those siblings became extinct, and only the cousins survived, in small groups, because although they did well in the previous MZA, they were able to survive in the new climate as well. If the MZA had changed differently, perhaps the siblings would have been the ones to survive, and perhaps the whole family would have perished or vice versa.
that's it. This is what I believe. And I will not kill for this belief, and if one day a dark regime (cynicism) rises up around me and tells me that I should speak only Swahili and believe that humans were created by bubbles of creation that escaped from the heads of the seven omnipotent gods of creation, I will embrace this belief as much as I can , and I will marry a woman who is of her faith (at least outwardly) and I will also educate my children, as much as possible and if possible while giving correct reservations, because these are the new circumstances, and I have an interest in surviving and surviving my descendants.
Amber M.
I explained that Darwin's theory did not come to support, contradict or bring an alternative to belief in one God. Belief in God (one or many) comes to meet the inner needs of some people and is not connected to the world outside the mind of the believer (although religions constantly try to connect it to the external world). The actual phenomena in which faith is manifested are only related to the actions of believers (or non-believers who refer to faith).
The possibility of accepting both schools of thought depends only on the person's will.
Regarding the formation of the Jewish people, I said that you may be right, but I did not really refer to this possibility, rather the intention was not to express an opinion on the subject.
Legal C,
The question was related to another person's response. What does it mean that there is no connection between belief
To one God, to Darwin's theory. You think it is possible to believe in both schools of thought, even in one god
And also in Darwin's theory. In your opinion there is no contradiction between the two, you see the possibility of combining the two. Regarding the formation of the Jewish people, thank you for your honest answer.
Reuben,
A person cannot testify to his own objectivity, because he is not objective in this matter either.
If the question has a specific purpose, say it and don't go round and round.
There is no connection between Darwin's theory and the belief in one God, they have no common or opposing goals and they do not relate to the same things. The religions oppose the theory of evolution because it leaves the basis of their validity under their feet.
As for the formation of the Jewish people, you may be right, but again, there is no contradiction with evolution.
Legal C (67 not 69
In relation to my claim, yes, there is a degree of objectivity, since I am not inclined either to this side or to the opposite side. The question has a specific purpose. If the belief in one God, caused his formation
of the Jewish people as a nation with its own state, would Darwin's theory have caused the same result.
R.H.
Logic, it's not true. People go to war with logical arguments, then,
It turns out that it was an evil act. A religious person is different from any other person, he too can be influenced by his neighbor, the environment and other considerations.
to R.H.
Both the link is missing and the lack of knowledge, if something is missing from the puzzle, it is a sign that it is incomplete.
Why ignore what is missing, because it might spoil the faith?
Complete the puzzle and then we will decide, if this is the truth and we can develop a whole discussion about that as well.
A number of years ago, a certain researcher claimed to have found it, after an examination, it was found to be a fake.
Even the murderer who confesses to the murder, if there is no body, is entitled. Bring a closed matter from all ends,
that no questions arise. As long as there is room for doubt, it is not closed.
Reuven
It is not the link that is missing, but the knowledge about those 'links' is missing
And the truth is:
that man was created from the monkey. And today there is still a lack of knowledge about the link(s) that will fully connect the two races.
L. H.
A scientific conclusion is also a form of coercion. It is a partial truth that tends in a desired direction, in order to obtain arguments that kiss the
The truth, but it is not the truth. Truth and science are two parallel lines. Newton's laws were also seen as an iron rule, for many years, today it is known that some of them do not hold water up there in space. That is, if today there is a scientific conclusion that is accepted by everyone, it does not mean that it is true. You can live very well, even with a false axiom, until it is unfounded,
with time in the future. What's more, a very important link is missing, which will complete the puzzle in the evolution of man from ape.
You are probably familiar with the concept: "No body, no murder". There is no link, the truth is partial. Truth cannot be partial.
Reuven 67,
You finally brought up an interesting point. This response clarifies the source of your mistake. And what you don't understand is that unlike science, religion can be chosen. If the principles of Judaism do not seem to you, you can be a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.
On the other hand, the scientific conclusions are imposed on us objectively without any dependence on our will or mood. You simply do not know the experiments and observations that led to the conclusions and it seems to you that there is some choice or belief here. The scientist sometimes resembles a detective who investigates a crime and against all his wishes it turns out to him that his best friend is the murderer. Do you think something so wants to believe that man and monkey have a common origin? No, all the evidence points to that.
The evidence that there are many religious scientists who accept the principles of evolution because they are logical people and have no choice but to listen to the voice of reason.
Reuven (69),
A mistake on your part: a. There is no objective person, everyone considers things in a way that is influenced by their ("prior") information, their feelings, etc. The only way to arrive at a truly objective consideration is by summarizing the considerations of many people with appropriate qualifications. B. Not in every situation two opposing claims are of equal weight in terms of their correctness: often one of them (or maybe both) is unfounded on its face.
Lanaam,
I do not believe that if a person believes in something, it saves him from something else, or brings him into the Holy of Holies.
Because if you know half-truths, it still doesn't mean you know the whole truth.
to Zio
It is very clear that this is the goal, everything is open, there is no topic in the world that is closed, that is not subject to examination, clarification, criticism
for investigation. The days of blind acceptance of any innovation, idea or theory are over. Also a medicine that is supposed to save you
From death, can kill you.
Lanaam,
It is possible that I am in a deep and dark well and it is possible that those who claim this, are staying in the darkness and darkness and only imagine that they are touching the sun. Maybe for a change, the wise threw the stone into the well (even wise men make mistakes) and the unwise (I try to keep clean language with everyone), tries to get the stone out of the well.
deer,
I claim, just as everything can be true, everything can equally be wrong. Here, you have posted a certain response
The one that refers to me, could equally be true and equally could be untrue. I consider things
objectively. I have a very important question for you. Would the Jewish people have consolidated as a nation with its own state,
With a magnificent culture and his own book which became the moral code of all nations, if he believed in evolution, that man descends from the monkey and he believed in the big bang. I am not asking for reasons of religion or belief, my question is objective and free of any biased touch.
And back to the World Cup matters:
I was looking for an article in which to post this nice link and since the World Cup was already mentioned here and I didn't want to go back to an old article I decided to do it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwRYYeEk5Eg
Noam, maybe he is even the river? And in general, if my memory is correct, it was a well and not a river.
Someone before compared Reuven to that fool who throws a stone into the river, and a hundred sages try in vain to remove it.
I disagree with that.
Reuben is himself the stone that was thrown into the river, a stone that wants to remain deep in the darkness because it is good there. Let's stop the efforts to save those who don't want to be shadowed.
By the way, there is a potter's course in the depths of the dark river, so he won't be bored.
Yela, who's the next potty?
science responders,
I am afraid that many of you do not understand Reuven (if I am correct in my understanding of him).
Reuven, like many other good commenters, is not religious and does not wish to be religious.
To be religious means to listen to someone, to believe that someone in this world is telling the truth - that there is truth and there is truth (and no matter how religious in the case, this truth may be unfounded).
The commenter in question does not want to believe that something external is true - he is the knight of postmodernism and subjectivity. For him, nothing is true unless he invented it.
As such, any theory that is acceptable enough will annoy him and immediately draw his criticism (mostly, this amounts to "I don't agree" and sticking to mantras) - if he manages to think of "another theory" - great, and if not, no problem - you can adopt any foreign theory It is also marginal enough for the choice to come to testify to a "lack of conservatism" and an "open mind".
I am sure that if he has religious positions, then they are not conventional religious, but take two or three things from the Kabbalah and another single statement of this or that rabbi from a repentant conference - and even those are best understood as crookedly as possible.
So why do you think he is religious?
Because like the establishment religion, this type of commenters also fear information and try to avoid it - since the knowledge will oblige them (assuming they are not the only genius of their generation) to converge on the accepted scientific theories that will be such, simply because they are the most suitable to the facts.
Therefore, the best thing for him in order to preserve the bubble in which he lives, is to simply avoid accepting scientific truths and cry all the time that the other readers are not ready to hold a real discussion.
to Reuven,
Aren't you part of the prejudiced majority? After all, this is a prejudice, even if a part of you believes that Harim has a prejudice or you don't have a prejudice, don't you?
to Reuven
Is the decisiveness of your response "there is such a thing..." also open to discussion?
Come on Reuven, let's start discovering the fire...
A coherent perception is a great thing, and prejudice is found in Drel at all on your side and not on this side.
There is no doubt that everything is open for discussion and the word "discussion" is just as important as "open": if you want to discuss, discuss, and don't blurt things out!
The majority here came to the discussion with a prejudiced opinion and a consolidated view, as if everything they claim is a Torah from Sinai that I must accept,
Indisputably. There is no such thing, everything is open for discussion, from the creation of the universe to the last of the insects.
to the robot underground,
There is such a thing, an invertebrate in the development of evolution, from ape to man. There were quite a few charlatans who claimed to have found her,
It was finally discovered to be a forgery.
Oh, right…
4 horns, just like a human.
You were probably right
The truth is that these guys are hanging on high trees. Fermat also said "I have an elegant proof, but due to lack of space on paper I did not write it"
deer,
What you describe is the gorilla. A chimpanzee has 4 horns.
Say,
Do you know someone who twists the facts left and right based on his ignorance just to prove that there was no evolution, and also promises that when the time comes, he will deploy his stunning alternative theory to us.
http://www.kaspit.com/blog/index.php
Well Reuven, as I thought you are not serious. "In due time you will receive an answer" What are you trying to make a mysterious impression? Is this how you conduct a discussion? After all, it is clear to all of us that behind this sentence is simply ignorance and the fear of revealing it.
And Reuben, I suggest that you look at your own eyes in the mirror and think who really believes in things without proof just because "his ancestors" told him, is it you who are religious (and it won't help to say that you write on Shabbat, that's not how a person's religiosity is measured) and who is willing to bravely accept the truth about him Because he understands that the truth is imposed on him and evasions will not help.
In the meantime, continue with your evasive nonsense, but not with me.
Reuven, do you require everyone to accept your answer "when the time comes you will receive an answer"? And what about you, maybe you too will wait for an answer when the time comes?
You can also start asking what is the purpose of all these seeds here, why are they here and who brought them…
Reuben,
First, if everything is true then everything is true…
Second, the origin of man is not from the monkey, but man and chimpanzee have a common ancestor. If you look back far enough you will find a common ancestor for all animals (and in fact all creatures) on Earth (and maybe in other places too...)
Third, there is no missing link. There is a gradual transition (very slow and many stages) from one creature to another - this is called development - until a new species is created. Hence there are many missing links that the transition from one to the other is so small as to be impossible to differentiate between them.
Fourth, even if there were missing vertebrae, the chance that the remains of all the missing vertebrae were preserved and that they would be discovered and that it would be possible to reconstruct them is extremely small. So don't expect to find one specific "missing link".
Fifth, your creationist approach (which may not be religious) - "Man was born with human qualities...", "Man got 100 and the monkey got 98..." does not allow you to accept the facts as a whale. Either open your mind and try to understand or go study Gemara.
L. H.
In due time you will receive an answer. Explain to me how so many species of plants were created. How it started, from one single seed,
How many seeds and where did the seeds come from?
R. H. and Noam
If you are right and the chimpanzee is so close to man,
How do you explain that, unlike a human, a chimpanzee has gills, three horns, tentacles, a long, furry tail, eight legs (not two), wings with feathers, and besides, they chirp, they don't have a brain, a heart, or a digestive system of any kind, and they stand an average of 130 meters tall (However, their weight is only slightly more than 10 kg because they are filled with helium of course).
In short, there is no similarity between chimpanzees and humans and therefore it is impossible that they came from a common place - evolution is wrong and don't try to confuse us with facts.
Lanaam,
Everything is true, but the link that should definitively verify the origin of man from the ape is missing, they are trying to locate it. If it doesn't exist, it means it's not true.
Reuben,
After all, we have already understood the point and there is no point in repeating it again and again, you think that man and monkey do not have a common origin.
So what do you think the person finds? Why is it so hard to answer?
Maybe because it is clear to you that any alternative theory you will present suffers from so many holes and problems that evolution is concrete next to it?
Reuben,
You will surely be happy to know that many vertebrae have been found on the way from monkey to man, and you can find countless scientific articles about it - this is of course provided that you agree to open your eyes - with your eyes closed you will not find anything.
But it's already starting to get ridiculous - you don't make the slightest effort to obtain known and easily obtainable material, and you continue to seal yourself off from reality. is not that a loss?
There is no such thing as the missing link. The mechanism of evolution is a very complex mechanism and we are constantly learning more about it.
On the other hand, just as you know that if you throw a stone it will fall to the ground, so the foundation of evolution is also solid. An attempt to claim that it is not so would be a lie, or a lack of understanding.
As time passes, only more confirmations are found. I understand that your problem is that your origin and that of all of us is from the monkey and earlier than a sea animal and before that from a less complex creature, seems difficult to digest. How come he and I are so different? You say to yourself. But the evidence is there, and evidence that stands up to the most difficult tests that exist.
What are those proofs? Carbon dating, skeletons, the human genome project, hundreds of thousands of years of people studying this topic.
If you choose not to believe it because it will harm your religious belief and thereby make you a less good person in your view, it is your choice to choose to ignore the facts. But the way to ignore the facts is not to argue with people who understand, because this kind of thing will lead you nowhere except more questions.
Lanaam,
If it is established, as you claim, why have they been searching for decades for the missing link that connects the monkey
for human development. This means that the matter is not closed and there is no full confidence that it was so. If so, it is established
You can give up looking for the missing link, and that's the end of the matter. This means that the thing is not complete, without the missing link.
You don't have to answer, maybe someone else will. Maybe if the missing link is not found, it will undermine the whole thing.
Reuben,
There are often proofs, and very convincing ones, but those who insist on closing their eyes will surely not be able to see them.
A little courage, a lot of effort to read and understand, and you will be on the right path.
You won't want to - nothing will help.
The theory of evolution is a well-established scientific theory, for which confirmations are received all the time. Although its principles are simple, it is very complicated - do not be impressed by popular explanations that may give the mistaken impression that these are just stories.
It's much, much more grounded than you might imagine.
I think the discussion is exhausted.
Lenaam
I thank you for the reasoned comments and tolerance, even though my words contradict your view.
It is not possible to establish an axiom, based on hypotheses and theories, however logical they may sound. There is no scientific proof
that it is so. Science has the duty of proof to establish facts. Why with regard to other hypotheses, science rejects them, because there is no scientific proof. The same here as well, there is no scientific proof that man is descended from the monkey. Why believe something that has no scientific proof.
who is next?
Reuben,
It is clearly seen that you do not make an effort to deal with the arguments and information that are brought to you.
If you insist on remaining willfully ignorant, no one can change that.
As you noted yourself, you feel much better when you don't feel like a descendant of the monkey, of any kind, and who are we to spoil the warm feeling of ignorance and darkness in which you are.
In the end, this is a free country and everyone is allowed to choose their own way (within the law), and you made your choice. All other discussion with you is a waste of bandwidth.
If you still want to try to understand, start reading what they wrote to you, and most importantly, stop fearing the truth. It's not easy, it takes some courage, but it's worth it. Try and see.
To the anonymous user,
If there is no conclusive proof and only half-truths, it means that it is not appropriate to establish that man descended from the monkey. In my opinion
The conclusion that man derives from the monkey must be canceled until science proves this explicitly, one by one,
As 1+1=2.
To cry or to laugh is the question.
To 0
You state that there was a common ancestor, man and monkey. Based on what, because others convinced you to?
In the end, the common expression is that man descends from the ape, no matter how you define it, man is a descendant
of the monkey If the argument were that the common ancestor of man and monkey was not a monkey, everything would sound and look different. But, as we know, this is not the case. When things are repeated over and over again, even a lie becomes the truth. This is a type of brainwashing that religion makes use of, sometimes also science, in politics and parties, in advertising and marketing and anyone who can convince others
in his righteousness. If the question upsets you, I would ask you not to use words such as: "nonsense" and the like. It spoils
And detracts from your own things, or this is the goal unconsciously.
What a bush of nonsense!
Especially to Reuven, but also to everyone else who repeats his chewed and misguided pan mantras:
*Man did not evolve from the monkey!!!!!"
Man and monkey are distant relatives. They descend from a common ancestor. That there was no chimpanzee and there was no man.
Perhaps it would be simpler to explain it in the context of orders of magnitude that our human minds are used to thinking about - decades. Think of your family tree. It is said that 50 years passed between your grandfather's birth and your own birth. You and your cousin (your mother? her brother? his son!) - you are related. You have a common grandfather (mother's father). Of course you can't be said to have evolved from your cousin, can you? It is likely that you differ from each other in various features, for example in your appearance. It is possible that one is red-haired and one is brown, for example. However, you share a significant portion of your genetic material. That is: in the space of a few decades, we have two creatures that are remarkably similar genetically, and have a common ancestor. Let's run this story forward a few tens of millions of years, the distant cousins that were created (first, second, third cousins, etc.
) are genetically very different from each other, to the point that they are different races.
So are humans and chimpanzees. We have a common ancestor. We are distant cousins. That's why our genetic makeup is so similar. The more the genetic load of creatures (and plants and fungi, etc.) is different from us, the more distant we are from it, meaning that the ancestor was not 50 years ago but 6 million years ago or 100 million years or a billion years ago...
Now, after we have concluded that humans *did not* evolve from the monkeys we see today, all of Reuven's questions are revealed in their basic ignorance, we see that they are unnecessary and attack a distortion of the theory (and of reality) and therefore there is no need to answer them.
Some researchers claim that a change of the jaw in a certain type of monkey allowed the brain to grow and the development of the brain basically allowed that type of monkey to become another creature (man).
Reuven
The wording of your question is incorrect.
It is not 'the human mutation that was created in the monkey and not the bear'.
But the mutation that gradually turned the monkey into another creature (man) is what determined the new race (man).
Why did this happen i.e. why did the mutation cause the monkey to change and turn him into a man? This is a question that still does not have an unequivocal answer.
Reuben,
You asked: "Why didn't the human mutation occur in the bear, for example, why did it occur in the monkey?" Who decided."
There are questions that even you should be able to answer on your own.
I will give you 2 hints:
1) Evolution is a process of ** small ** gradual and slow changes.
2) Where are small changes required and where are huge changes required?
Now please read your question again, and try to answer it yourself. I'm sure you can.
Thank you, I feel great. still you dodge How do you think man was created? What is the sequel coming? Are we in a series of sequels? A simple question, how do you think man was created?
amazing:
The situation here is much more wonderful.
The wise actually make an effort and take out the stone but he just throws it back.
The stone just doesn't interest him. What he's interested in is teasing the wise.
amazingly
You are not worth a single word of response, keep eating your heart out.
to R. H.
This is not an evasion, let's start with the fact that the man and the monkey did not drink the same soup, they are two separate entities. I'm not a religious person, if you haven't noticed, I post comments on Shabbat as well. In any case, I feel good, knowing that I didn't have a grandfather who was a monkey. Try the feeling, you will feel much better. To be continued.
Lanaam,
Why the human mutation did not occur in the bear, for example, why it did in the monkey. who decided
How does one idiot manage to drag so many comments,
It has already been said that 100 sages will not be able to get a stone out of a well
who threw one fool.
Reuven 21,
It's a dodge. If you read a little about evolution you would know what it says about the origin of the monkey. But that's not what the debate is about, we agreed that you are right and man and monkey have no common origin. Now don't shy away and let's debate your counter thesis, if you ever present it.
Between us, it's clear that you come from the religious direction. So how do you and the other religious whose only evidence is a book written thousands of years ago come and preach to scientists who rely on hundreds of thousands of observations and experiments, who research and test themselves and the theories constantly that they "accept evolution as a Torah from Sinai"????
Who relies on the Sinaitic Torah as a Sinaitic Torah???? There is no more oxymoron than that.
Reuven
In the future when there will be a creature more developed than man, then that creature will be 100 and man will be 99 or 98... (I'm trying to explain to you in your own words, maybe you will understand that way).
Listen, for example the person can tell you that the tree grows over time, this is because the person can detect a change happening in the tree.
A butterfly, for example, cannot know that the tree is growing because the butterfly has not lived long enough to see the change in the tree.
The correct link (and there are many more of course):
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
Reuben,
Again a basic misunderstanding.
The number 100 does not represent the number of genes, the person did not receive the most genes nor the most chromosomes carrying the genes.
In general, the number of genes is not a measure of development and refinement, you are simply not in the right direction.
About 6 million years ago, there was absolute identity in the genes of man and chimpanzee - 100% identity. The evolutionary process caused a slow change of 2% over the period, between man and chimpanzee. There was no sudden jump, which caused some of the monkeys to become humans the next morning, there was a slow and long separation process, and the process still continues (slowly - remember, slowly).
If a creature is discovered whose genes are more similar to a human than the chimpanzee is to a human, this will of course have far-reaching consequences, but if Grandma had wheels...
You don't have to take everything for granted, you have to research and ask, that's great.
But you do something completely different, you develop innovative theories without understanding the basis, without studying the existing knowledge, and you feel great, it seems to me, if you try to refute something you don't understand. That's not how you build a wall (and you don't expand knowledge either).
Examples of evolutionary trees can be seen here:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%
95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
Reuben (20) It's not that man has 100, monkey 98 and other animals less. Every organism has 100 percent of its genes. It is said that a person and a certain monkey have 98 percent genes in common.
to R.H.
Tell me where the monkey came from.
to Judah,
Why then, was there a situation where a monkey became or evolved into a man. It was possible to continue living without man.
If we take the number 100 to represent man, and the monkey 98, and so on in descending order, toward the animal and the plant, the conclusion
It is that each production received in advance, a fixed dose of genes and with that he had to manage, in nature. It follows that man is
A separate unit from the monkey, since he received 100 different from the monkey who received 98. The 100 that the person received in advance became a person with him, without the need for the mediation of the monkey family. If he resembled a monkey, it is because of the conditions, survival and environment.
This very being, which received the most abundant and largest dose of genes, already then from the division, the potential for the development of the intellect and intelligence, when the time comes, lies in it. Why did those who received less than a hundred genes not develop at a higher level, because the missing 2 makes all the difference between man and monkey. So man is not from the monkey family
And Reuven, when you write your thesis, don't forget what you wrote in 16 "Unlike others, I do not accept, anything, as Torah from Sinai."!
Reuben,
OK, let's say you're right, man is not descended from ape. So what is your thesis? Where did man come from? Enlighten our eyes please.
to Reuven
In order for the monkeys to survive, they must adapt to the dominant factor in their environment - man. They will not become a human because then they will have to compete with him
They will become pets like wolves became dogs, all according to the demands of their immediate environment.
They have no need and time to become human
These processes last tens of thousands of years and I am not sure if they will have enough time to do this and survive.
But I know that you will continue to claim this because it is a claim of evolution fools who think that the fact that monkeys do not become humans today shows the incorrectness of evolution.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lanaam,
I know what you know and what everyone else knows. Unlike others, I do not accept anything as the Torah from Sinai. There are doubts, questions, misunderstandings not lacking, as a result of other insights.
Lanaam,
Suppose that tomorrow they will discover production from the sea, which is at a difference of 1% compared to man. After all, not all creatures in nature have been tested yet,
What then will the scholars claim, that we are the product of the same creature with the 99% in relation to a person who is 100%
Reuben,
Maybe you will start to understand what is being read? You just didn't understand anything!
Who said there is no duplication???
I said ** that evolution ** is not a replicating machine, don't you understand the difference?
Who said evolution is random???
Evolution as an overall process is not random at all, nor is it directed by a higher power.
Listen, it's not easy to explain even simple things to you, because you don't make even the slightest effort to understand the basics.
In short, the mutations are random (that is, the reproduction of the species is not always exact), therefore changes are created from time to time that become extinct or continue their existence according to their contribution to the resistance of the species in the changing environmental conditions.
Reuven, this is the basis for understanding evolution. Take a simple book and start from there.
Lanaam,
Why do you claim that there is no reproduction, there is reproduction of all productions that exist in nature. From the smallest insect, to the largest and everything in between, in a regular cycle and it is not random. Why do you then claim that evolution is random?
Reuben,
Indeed yes, you nailed it!
All animals and plants have a common origin!
The evolutionary process also led to the splits that you see today as different species of animals and plants.
Well, maybe all is not lost for you
Lanaam,
A 2% difference is enough to determine that man is not descended from monkeys. There are also 3% differences from other animals,
In relation to man, in nature. In the same way, it can be argued that man is the same animal that he is, 3% less than man.
Reuben,
Evolution has no will and no possibility to spur it on. Moreover, the constraints often cause the extinction of species rather than their development, which is probably what happens to the great apes. In the tough competition they probably lost.
The splits in the evolutionary tree happen all the time, and it's not so clear to me why you expect a split that happened 6 million years ago to repeat itself again. Evolution is not a replicating machine, which at the push of a button will produce the same product again. Evolution is a collection of random changes, which are determined under the pressure of environmental constraints, and they have already tried to explain to you - without success it turns out - that the environmental constraints change all the time, so the chance that a certain split will repeat itself is zero.
I have a feeling that you are not really interested in expanding your knowledge, and you do not put any effort at all, or maybe you are afraid, of trying to understand new things. If this is indeed the case, you are wasting your time and ours and you should find a different type of site, which is more suitable for your level of understanding.
Turns out there's still a long way to go before some people drop the token:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=JVRsWAjvQSg
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
To Judah
You claim that a monkey has no constraints, to become a human. According to their current state in the wild, their situation is extremely bleak. The man and the monkey
competing for the same territory. So that's enough, in order to spur them on for their survival, to want to be human.
Lenaam
It is true that it is slow, you are talking about 6 million years, why after 6 million years, which is quite a long time, from an evolutionary point of view, for the development of man from ape even today. Why if it happened once, it doesn't happen a second time, subject to the evolutionary process in terms of time needed for this.
Yehuda
There is no problem here in achieving any goal, it is about evolutionary development. The needs of the monkey, survival.
My question, why did man develop from the monkey, until a certain period and beyond that the production of man from the monkey was stopped.
If evolution created man from the monkey, even today we should have seen a monkey developing into a human. Evolution is not dead, it is alive. Why was the production of man from the monkey stopped? Why were different types of people created over the years, and today we don't see such a development.
Reuben,
I wonder if you are serious - it is not easy to decide.
Evolution never stops, and that is the only correct thing you have said in all your recent comments, but evolution is an extremely slow process.
The divergence between humans and chimpanzees began about 6 million years ago, and after all that time, the difference between the two species is less than 2%
On this scale of speed, what processes do you expect to notice?
to Reuven
Why do you think that the goal of the monkeys is to evolve again into a human? Once upon a time, the monkeys were subjected to constraints, which caused them to evolve towards a human - a creature that goes on for years with a big brain.
The constraints that act on the apes now do not have to be the same because their environment is different from what it was five million years ago, for example then there was no man.
Unfortunately, I fear that the constraints acting on the monkeys will cause their destruction.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Arya Seter
I'm talking about today, why doesn't man evolve from the monkey in our time. If it happened once, why won't it happen again? Evolution never stops. Even if different human types evolved, from the beginning,
They were created as having human qualities, qualities that make man human. If they couldn't survive, it's because of rivalry
between the races or as a result of a genetic defect or, all the races joined into one unit, from which man evolved in his form
Current.
Reuben enough for the demonstration of ignorance! Do you know how many types of humans there were in the last millions of years, of which how many were until tens of thousands of years ago?
Another view of the origin of man.
In my opinion, the primitive man did not come from the monkey race. He was born as a creature with the qualities of a human being, from the beginning. Being
And man learns by imitation, he adopted the way of life of the monkey, in order to survive, including his way of life, until the stage where man realized that he was different from the monkey, so their ways parted. If the origin of man is from the ape, why do we not see the development of other types of man, which develop from the ape. If there was one option, why not a second and a third. They do not have the unique qualities that exist only in a human being. Without human qualities, there is no man,
There is a monkey. Man and monkey, two different races.