Could cats have evolved from lemurs?
542279
No, there are fairly major differences in their fine skeletal anatomy, especially their teeth that indicate that cats and lemurs evolved from completely different lineages of early mammals.\n\nThe primates (such as the lemurs) evolved from an insectivore lineage, and the earliest primates back in the Cretaceous would have looked rather similar to the modern tree shrew (Order Scandentia).\n\nThe carnivores evolved from condylarth stock (which also gave rise to the ungulates and the whales eventually), through early predators like Cimolestes, the cohort Ferae and from earlier Carnivores very similar to the Viverrids.  Modern civets and genets are probably most like the very early cats.
559225
Much of the support for the idea that snakes evolved at sea is their close phylogenetic relationship with the extinct group of marine reptiles, the mosasaurs.\n\nBoth snakes and mosasaurs share a number of unique characters, such as a hinge in the middle of the lower jaw, loss of the symphysis joining the two halves of the lower jaw, and the stabilization of the spinal column (the zygosphene-zygantra articulation).  These adaptations seem to have been a major evolutionary success, and led to adaptive radiations of the mosasaurs, snakes and the aigialosaurs (another extinct related group).\n\nIf the group (often called the Pythonomorpha) evolved at sea, it would explain a lot of the other adaptations (such as reduced or modified limbs) that these groups show.  However, more and more the fossil evidence seems to indicate that the Pythonomorpha probably evolved on land, and then each group developed adaptations ideal for marine environments totally separately.\n\nThis solution is not as elegant as it would be if all of the adaptations in the Pythonomorpha occurred at the same time, but it appears that sometimes evolution does not occur as elegantly as we might like.\n\nA terrestrial origin for snakes does explain some of the other unusual features of snakes, such as their eyes which show signs of having been reduced or completely lost at one point, and then an entirely new visual anatomy developed as they re-emerged from a subterrainean existence.
369122
Humans didn't come from apes- but apes and humans share a common ancestor, if you go back a few million years. The difficulty that people have is that they mistake the name of something (which is fixed) to the actual organism. A species is a dynamic flow of genetic material. What we see today is a snapshot of that, in this time frame. When we find a fossil, that is another snapshot from another timeframe. If we found enough fossils we would be able to show the movie of humans and apes diverging from a common ancestor. Given the conditions that are necessary for fossils to form, and the relative rarity of hominids (the group that humans and apes belong to) this is not likely to happen. \n\nYou can see genetc change by looking at the way we breed dogs. Dachunds and Saint Bernards are both Canis lupus, but a male dachund would find it near impossible to mate with a Saint Bernard. If all other dog breeds were wiped out, they would speciate, evolving into different species. One could argue they are well on the way. Inheritance can be observed by the similarity people share with their parents. \n\nAdam and Eve, sadly, are a myth. What race would they be?
970510
They are distantly related.\n\nThey share the same taxonomic clade:\nKingdom (Animalia), phylum (chordata), subphylum (vertabrata), class (mammalia), order (Carnivora) but it ends there, cats go on to have the family Felidae and bears the family Ursidae\n\nAfter family there is still the clades genus and species.\n\nHumans spilt from bears and cats at the order level.\n\nA cat is just as related to a bear as it is a dog, a seal or a raccoon.
864916
hey borat:\n\nhumans and monkeys shared a common ancestor, they are "cousins" not directly descended from each other.
268786
Primates are relatively primitive with respect to other mammals, that is, our characteristics are fairly generalized, with the addition of adaptive characters related to arboreality (life on trees) and sociality. We're related to the Scandentia (tupayas or tree shrews) so we were probably insectivore-like arboreal mammals. If we go further back, we meet the Chiroptera (bats) - Dermoptera (flying lemurs) which have their own specializations. Probably the primates evolved from animals not unlike the first known mammals from the Mesozoic, such as Morganucodon: small shrew-like animals, that evolved toward life on trees.
445160
Actually, Darwin NEVER said we evolved from monkeys! (Quoted from my Biology Professor at LSUA). There is this huge creation/evolution stink going around, but all evolution states is what has already been stated...the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.  Now he DID say we could have all resulted from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, just so happened that the monkey developed one way, and the humans another way, but he doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever.  The result is evolutionary adaptation, the accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.  In modern terms, evolution is defined as a change over time in the genetic composition of a population.  in 1859, Charles Darwin published a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".  Look it up and check that out.
807648
The better question is, "if evolution is true... what cause some of the monkeys to evolve and the others to stay the same?
562437
I know he evolved from a regular domestic cat over millions of years travelling in Red Dwarf through space whilst the crew were in suspended animation.\nLove the Cat! \nCooee!... I'm looking HOT today!
256655
We evolved from primates, but not monkeys specifically.  We did not evolve from birds although we do share a common ancestor with them a long ways back.  Although evolution has not been conclusively "proven" it is supported by a preponderance of evidence and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And hutsong's "evidence" against evolution is primarily fictitious.  Don't be fooled by his authoritative manner - he's still full of crap.\n\nFor a defense of evolution see my answer to this question:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiUBrphbhCO3D7mQOX5JXrrsy6IX?qid=1006032117223\n\nAnd these links:\nhttp://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml\nhttp://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html\n\nOr go to your local library and find an introductory biology book.
1126301
There are two basically different types of saber-tooth carnivores. Both are characterized by their extremely enlarged canine teeth. There are placental saber-tooth "tigers" that looked more or less like felids. The typical saber-tooth "cats" belong  to genus Smilodon. They were large carnivores but not as agile as cats, they were probably ambush-hunters.\nThis is the skeleton:\nhttp://www.dinosoria.com/mammifere/smilodon_002.jpg\nand this is a reconstruction (there are many that differ):\nhttp://www.abc.net.au/beasts/factfiles/primary_ff_displays/smilodon_1.jpg\n\nThe scimitar cat, represented by genus Homotherium, had similar appearance, but with shorter canines.\nThis is its skull:\nhttp://www.bluelion.org/images/BC_06_Homotherium_crenatidens.jpg\nThis is a reconstruction:\nhttp://www.paleocraft.com/images/homotherium.jpg\n\nThese animals inhabited North America during the Tertiary, and Smilodon spread to South America too. \n\nIn addition, there were also marsupial sabertooth mammals, represented by genus Thylacosmilus. These were convergent (evolved independently) and in their case, the enlarged canines were accompanied by the enlarged lower jaw. They were smaller than the placental forms.\nThe skull:\nhttp://www.caspercomsci.com/images/caspercollege/tn_FossilThylacosmilus_Atrox_jpg.jpg\nThe reconstruction:\nhttp://www.paleocraft.com/images/thylaatrox.jpg
627308
maybe the origin of species has something
689042
It is not unlikely that large creatures similar to dinosaurs of the past could evolve from present day reptiles, but mankind will have long been extinct by then.\n\nEDIT: I just remembered a television show called "The Future Is Wild." One of the episodes hypothesizes what they call a "toraton," a sauropod-like creature evolved from tortoises. This isn't some crackpot Hollywood concoction - There were some very reputable biologists behind the show, and they think it's possible.
35457
No Darwinist who understands evolution would ever say that humans evolved from monkeys.  The answer in evolution is that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.\n\nSHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR\n\nRepeat that prase a few dozen times until you finally wrap your head around the fact that only creationists and idiotic atheists who don't understand evolution (but have an agenda against God) would ever say that the theory of evolution teaches man descended from monkeys.\n\nEvolution holds that all life is related.  Hence, you also have a common ancestor shared with the house cat or with the frog, but your common ancestry is more closely shared with the monkey than the cat, and more with the cat than the frog.\n\nPlease check the following link.  Please.  It's not about evolution.
1104159
This idea that apes are still around, so we couldn't have evolved from them is a surprisingly common argument that reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.\n\nSome Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.\n\nSpeciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the Univer
25919
Mammals such as your cat and us evolved from early amniotes called Therapsids, as the Professor stated. Therapsids were sometimes called "Mammal-like reptiles" but in fact, all the "modern reptiles" (lizards, snakes, crocs, turtles) evolved from another "branch" of early amniotes. The things that all amniotes have in common either 1) were inherited from a common ancestor or 2) evolved independently and achieved similar aspect. Most of the times you can tell when this is the case because such features look superficially similar, but not so much under closer examination. For example, vertical pupils are characteristic of many nocturnal animals that are very dissimilar, such as cats, alligators, or some frogs; these were acquired independently and these animals regulate their eyes somewhat differently. However, all vertebrates have one pair of eyes; this is an inherited shared trait.
170837
No, but I think modern monkeys and I had a common ancestor a very, very long time ago.  When a family diverges, they start getting different pretty quickly, depending on who they marry.  If one of my more recent ancestors went to China while my branch went to America, we'd look rather different now, wouldn't we? Why is it so hard to believe a more ancient equivalent, except because you are trying to take literally something which was written when scientific knowledge was extremely primative?\n\nScience and religion have two different goals, two different world views, and two vastly different vocabularies.  Religion is writing about things so beyond human experience that our words just do not fit, and we have to resort to symbols.  When you look at ancient manuscripts and ponder the symbols, you get a lot more than you get from words which have been sorted through any number of translations and interpretations since they were written.  Not a single word of the modern Bible (and remember, you go into a Bible Bookstore, you will find a great many modern versions, not just one) was originally written in English.  The writers had probably never even heard about that far-off island, and English as we know it had not been born.\n\nPlease, don't ridicule those of us who accept the theory of evolution as the most reasonable one.  We have let you continue to label it "theory" once most the rest of us have accepted it as fact.  Don't ask for more!