What do you think of the theory of Panspermia? That would mean that we are not descendent of the apes, right?
452956
Panspermia- that means aliens were the first life on earth, they seeded the first life, which shud be a lower life form.\nI dont agree.\n\nAnd then we evolved from the alien first life!! So, it does not disprove the evolution theory still.\nNExt, if the alien first life was just a lower life-form, it proves that they could not have had space ships (which evolved human beings havent fully mastered). Hence panspermia not feasible!!
656137
We have common ancestory.  We didn't come from them(that would be akin to saying that someone came from their brother or sister) related-Yes, decended from-No.\n\nThis question seems to be a curious religious "fish hook". In mentioning "came from" in the question it seems to indicate there is a certain level of acceptance that there is such a thing as decendancy, lineage etc(and that it is possible that it could happen between species).  The theory of evolution is nothing more than lineage over the loooong term.  Find some pictures of your ancestors, think about how many generations seperate you.  Set aside for a moment any preconcieved notions you may have, take a good look into the intelligent eyes of a chimpanzee.  Maybe we aren't that different after all.    \n\nDo you look like a monkey?  Yea, and I smell like one too.  ;)
60008
Evolutionary processes can be of two types with respect to the pattern that can be seen. \nIn anagenetic (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This happens in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \nCladogenetic (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. Our direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens.\nA simple Google search will lead you to data from primate evolution research
1144143
I agree...men didn't come from apes!
535293
No you don't know the answer. You know that "that's the way god made it" or "we evolved that way", but either way, you can't truly and accurately know if you are right.\n\n---\nBTW, if you believe that "we evolved from chimpanzees", you need to refresh your memory on what exactly the modern evolutionary theory says. Don't put words in Darwin's mouth that he never said.
17501
Okay, first things first. We didn't come from "chimps." Humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor, but man is on a different evolutionary step than Bonzo, not a higher one.\n\nObviously, if you accept evolution (which you should, as it makes a whole lot more sense to anyone with an iota of reason), you cannot accept the Adam and Eve myth.\n\nThe competition of the fact of evolution and the theory of creation are mutually exclusive. Adam and Eve did not exist. They are part of a story made up by people with no better way to explain the world around them. It is a sad thing indeed that even in the twenty-first century people still cling to this made up tale.\n\nIf I told you that I had a magic potion that made you invisible, you'd ask for proof. But if some book says that the world was created 6,500 years ago (thousands of years after the Babylonians invented beer!), it is accepted without hesitation.\n\nSo sad. So sad.
292034
We all had a common ancestor.  It just so happens that apes evolved differently to suit their environment than humans; we didn't evolve from each other, just divergently from our ancestor
428487
We are "Homo Sapiens Sapiens"... note that there are 2 Sapiens there, it is not a misprint.\n\nOther species of 'Primates' are not classified as 'Human' because they do not match the structure and development of what we now know as human.\n\nRealise that genetics are not the sole reason for choosing what is human (a banana ia actually 50% same as human in genetics). What defines a human is also the capability for commuicating with other humans, determining right from wrong, and operating in a way that other humans operate.\n\nContrary to popular belief, We are in no way descended from Neanderthals, they are a seperate branch of the evolutionary ladder. We are also not descended from monkeys, they are also a seperate branch. As such our ability to breed with such creatures is impossible... it is like mating a dog and a dolphin (which are very close on the evolutionary ladder).\n\nWe are descended from a now extinct group.\n\nThe question you should be asking is how far back do we go before we are no longer called human?
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
517863
This is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution.  The theory of human evolution does not claim that humans came from apes.  Instead, it says that many millions of years ago, there was a species that was neither a human nor an ape.  This species split into at least two groups.  Over millions of years, one of those groups gradually changed to become what we now know as apes, and one of them gradually changed to become what we now know as humans. \n\nWhether you choose to believe the theory of evolution or some other explanation for how humans came to be is an entirely different matter.  That's something you have to decide for yourself--a bunch of strangers on the Internet can't tell you that.
417092
People did not evolve from apes at all.  My beliefs tell me that God created all things and nothing evolved from anything.  If you want to know where you came from and what your here for I URGE you to go to fathersloveletter.com and watch.  TRUST ME!!!!  You will never have any questions about creation, apes, or what u are here for at all.  Good Luck and God Bless
620386
We would sound really irritating and people would play tricks on us all the time by walking up behind us and plugging up our  breathing hole in our backs. I don't believe in evolution though, or why are there still apes? Adaptation is natural and selective breeding is mutations that we are good with, like with dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. But to think that we were apes is just nonsense, even Darwin recanted most of his theories before he died.
391353
fossil evedence of what?  that you came from a monkey?  I did not evolve that way.  We belive there was a flood, we belive in dinosaurs so the fossils pose no problem we just don't belive that we came from monkeys so yes we can go to natrual history musuems, i have visited quite a few with my church by the way
55009
"Given where mankind has achieved from even the year 1901 to now where can man go or achieve by 2101?"\nWho knows, maybe our "superiority" will lead us to finally blow ourselves up. :-P\nI absolutely agree with Professor Beatz; I only wish to add one thing. You make it sound as if the whole evolutionary process is a matter of random events. In fact, randomization occurs in the generation of variability (mutations, crossing-over), but natural selection is not random. Evolution does not have a purpose, but neither is it aleatory.\nAlso, evolution is not a "one-time deal" unless you are considering it as a process leading to humans. That is arrogant. \nAnd thinking that evolutionary processes in other places of the universe will work as they did here and lead to human-like beings is more arrogant, in my opinion.
1170584
The word  evolution means to evolve to change. So if we  came from apes how come we still have apes, after all if man went with an ape the ape population would no longer be around, I've never heard of such utter rubbish in my life, we were created by a power beyond our understanding, just look around you, what do you see, take a seed, how does it grow into a tree etc etc. It only takes a bit of common sense.\n\nGloria(BSYA)
971103
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
1149838
Well since it is strongly argued among anthropologists that homo sapiens is not a direct descendant of neandertals but instead we are both ancestors of some lineage involving homo erectus.\n\nI guess that would be like taking a chimpanzee for a wife.  But then there are recent arguments that there was a lot in interbreeding between the two species and that the inferior neandertals genetics gave in to ours and they became extinct.\n\nMaybe it would be more like taking something that is maybe partway between a chimp and us.  Even though chimps are our closest living relatives, genetically speaking, they are certainly more different from us than neandertals were.\n\nTo answer your question, no! No, I wouldn't.