humans evolved from apes.the theory of organic unfit organisms are wiped off in the struggle for food,mate etc.that waY THERE SHOULD BE ONLY HUMANS THE EVOLVED FORM AND THE MONKEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELEMINATED BY NATURE
215898
First, whoever told you that "humans evolved from apes" doesn't understand the theory ... humans and apes have a common ancestor.\n\nBut your real question (which nobody is addressing) is "if X evolves into Y because Y is more 'fit', then why doesn't X become extinct?"  That often does happen.  E.g. dinosaurs evolved into birds, and later went extinct ... why? because a global catastrophe happened for which the birds were better suited to survive, and the dinosaurs were not. Species become extinct all the time, leaving only their more 'fit' ancestors.\n\nBut it doesn't *have* to happen immediately, and it doesn't have to happen at all.  Just because Y is better than X at a certain task doesn't mean that X must immediately become extinct ... both X and Y may be quite successful.   X may be better at gathering fruit from trees at night.  Y may be better at moving around on the ground during the day.  Both may survive quite nicely in their different environments.  But soon X's will stop meeting Y's for mating purposes and they become different species, the ancestors of X and the ancestors of Y.  It's not that complicated.
41992
Organic evolution is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differeing genetically in one or more traits.These changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of the species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon.\nThe net result is descent with modification.  Intelligent Design proves nothing because it cannot be proven with experiments which form no educated predictions nor hypotheses. To prove there is a God one would look at E=mcsquared.  We know what c and E are but someone had to make or present the m. \nFossils are sufficient evidence in which some resemble ape like ancestors. Human and Chimp DNA are 99.4% identical in protein-coding segments and 98.4% identity overall. Realize that any human is related to any other human by 99.9%. Therefore in structural genes, we differ by only 0.5% from the chimp. If you want more ask, email me at rossman_2003@yahoo.com
9
A tough question as it overlaps science and theology. Since you asked "how the human species evolved?" I'll assume you're interested in the scientific approach to the answer.\nThe current theory holds that Homo sapiens evolved from Hominid ancestors over the course of millions of years through a process called natural selection. Natural selection is the weeding and advancement of species variants over time based on the fit in that species' then current environments. The pressures for "fit" are competitive (with each other, with other tribes, and with other animals) and environmental (weather, terrain, availability of food, etc.). These factors all contributed to the development of our higher brain, which we now use to evolve as a global collective through communication & technology.
44178
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
152372
*Sigh* This question has been asked so many times, it's almost sad. Here's the deal: we did not evolve directly from monkeys and apes. Humans, monkeys and apes all evolved from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR. This common ancestor has since died off. So, let's put it this way: monkeys and apes are our distant cousins, rather than our distant brothers and sisters. That make sense?\n\nHere's a better question: if man DIDN'T evolve from monkeys and apes, why are we 99% genetically similar to them? \n\nThank you, by the way, for stating monkeys AND apes in your question instead of just monkeys. Strictly speaking, we are more related to apes than to monkeys. And yes, there's a difference.
63941
The problem isn't evolution. The problem is the 'science' they use to 'prove' it.\n\nFirst, they started with an unsupported assumption (that the earth is millions / billions) of years old, then they used circular reasoning between varying fields of science to support that precept as fact, then they assumed without any evidence (in fact, in the face of their own evidence to the contrary) that one species can evolve into another.  Fact:  DNA strands of different lengths or different RNA locations cannot combine.  That means in order to produce say, a human, from say, gorillas, a male and a female gorilla would have to have identically mutated genes at exactly the same time at exactly the same place, find each other and successfully mate.  The probability of that happening one time (ape to man) exceeds the most liberal mathematical calculations of probability.  To happen thousands or hundreds of thousands of times to evolve from a single cell organism to any mammal way exceeds ANY mathematical concept of possibility.  What science has done is said "This is what we are going to prove, don't confuse us with the facts."
169224
There is numerous concrete fossil evidence of the lineage leading from apes to man, from the fossils of Australopithecus afarenesis, A. africanus, and other Australopithecines which do not appear to be in the line leading to humans, to the early Homo species, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus, to the archaic Homo sapiens specimens to anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens fossils.\n\nPiltdown man was never accepted as valid by most paleontologists, even at the time.  It was popular with a few British archaeologists, because it was found in England, but it was shown to be a hoax consisting of an orang-utan jaw and a human skull inexpertly modified with a file by paleontologists (the very people whom creationists incorrectly try to blaim for the hoax).\n\nNebraska man was also shown to be a pig's tooth by experienced anatomists and paleontologists, rather than the untrained reporters and doctors who forwarded the claim.\n\nOta Benga was a sad case of racism expounded by an explorer a circus promoter and the insanely racist director of the Bronx zoo.  It had nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, any more than the Branch Davidians in Waco had anything to do with the bible and Christianity.\n\nNone of these cases disproves any of the scientific tenets or proof of evolutionary theory.
36665
Please, give me an example on how it disagrees. Thanks! If we evolved from apes, why are apes still in exsistance?
181365
this is exactly why i don't believe in adam & eve.  i think adam & eve are SYMBOLIC of the first men & women (plural) on earth.  i think that God created evolution & set it in motion.  therefore, dinosaurs came first, and humans evolved after.  we can call those first people "adam & eve."
250740
Didn't they evolve from monkeys?  Oh wait, that was us.
645250
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
221854
people are made from bacteria..\nactually,a human being is a big bacteri..\nwhen a single celled bacteria was formed with another celled bacteria ithey will form a multi celled bacteria..\nwith these process,a human being is created..\nactually,a brain is made up of multi cellular bacteria..\n\nthere is also another theory that explains that we came from monkeys..\nanother one tells about adam and eve.. \nfrom the bible,it states there that god created men from his replica..\nI guess all of it are actually correct..\n\nwell,you just need to choose an answer..\nnobody really knows the truth..
198790
Some Dude gave a great answer-I would add, just for interest, that the human race has exceedingly little genetic variation compared to other animals.  A recent study showed that an average-sized chimpanzee colony has more genetic variation that the entire human race.  This is presumably because at some point in the recent past (150-200,000 years) our common ancestors existed, and evidently our race must have been very close to going extinct, leaving a very small pool of humans with which to populate the Earth.
194163
You're assuming that there is only one way of surviving. Our ancestral ape, from whom both humans and modern apes have descended (contrary to popular belif, we did not descend from the modern apes - we just have the same great-great-grandparents :-)) Now, due to variation, this ancestral species developed into a number of different beasts - some succesful, some not. What we see now as chimps and humans are merely the current state of evolution of two of these branches, both succesful, and both with a long history of extinct intermediate forms connecting them to their ancestor.\n\nOh, and by the way -- the term "the missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that we have not found any solid evidence that humans are evolutionarily tied to the apes. We have dozens of intermediate forms showing this pathway, so there are no links missing. (Of course, what you sometimes hear is that there is no intermediate form between, say, Australopithecus Robustus and Austrolopithecus Boisei and claim that there is a missing link there. But then say that somebody found the fossil connecting the two species. Would that mean that the missing link proponents would stop asking for one? No! Now, we have TWO new missing links - one to link Robustus to the new species, AND one to link the new species to Boisei! Evolution is a continuum, and fossilization is a sporadic and rather 'selective' process, so there will always be something missing from the fossil record. To be intellectually honest, however, you need to not only focus on the gaps, but on the picture the actual fossils paint.)
654091
Ummmm Last time I checked humans have never evolved into monkeys.  However, there has been a lot of scientific research indicating that apes may have evolved into humans over very long amounts of time.   Evolution is something that occurs over an extremely long amount of time... if humans started living in water now- in thousands of years we could live like a fish. Do your research and don't judge people on what they do or do not believe. That isn't very Christian-like is it? Christians are supposed to be really nice and respectful aren't they?  The Bible could hold some truth, or it could possibly just be a way of setting good morals. No one knows for sure if God exists, and thats a fact.  I think you need to do some research.... I mean good grief- you thought we evolved into monkeys. I think you're a little backwards.  haha!
171915
Evolution isn't something that happens instantly, it is a slow process that takes a long time. Humans actually have only been around for a few thousand years and "civilized" humans have only been around for 10,000 years. In fact, hominids (upright walking apes that are all extinct except for humans) have only been around for less than 2 million years. We are evolving slowly but by the time we radically change, we will not notice because the change would have been very very slow.
662909
That is easily explained.  Adam and Eve had all the genetic traits in humans today.  As people migrated and settled in areas, certain genetic traits became dominant from the inbreeding of cultures.\n\nToday's world is bringing us closer to what Adam and Eve probably looked like.  Now that the world is getting smaller and people are having interracial relationships, genetic traits are not so concentrated anymore.\n\nYou really see this in military communities because they are world travellers and start relationships with other cultures, then their children do the same thing, etc.\n\nWhat we see today among animals and people are just the branches of the originals.  That is called micro evolution.  This is the fact that species produce different breeds of a species.  \n\nThere are over 250 different breeds of dogs.  No Christian would argue the fact that they probably share a common ancestor along with the wolf and the fox.  But it was a dog-like animal.  \n\nYou are never going to get a dog to breed with a cat.  That is called macro evolution which is what Christians don't agree with and that there is no evidence for.\n\nScience has proved time and time again that micro evolution is the only proven, testable, reasonable scientific fact.  Macro evolution only exists in the imagination.