What purpose does human emtion have in the theory of evolution?
348163
flock behavior/ pack mentality.  \nit also allows for altrusim and sacrifice- which equates to individuals putting the good of the tribe/pack ahead of that of the invividual. creating a greater liklihood of survival.
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)
970035
Well I think you should start by using the reasons for human evolution. One of the most acclaimed reasons was the transition to bipedalism (walking on 2 legs) which is thougth to be first started around 3.5 million years ago with "lucy" or australopithecus afarensis. Such a change was obviously gradual and you should try to explain the numerous theories as to why we started to be bipedal. Most known theories are the change of landscape from rainforest to more savanna thus species had to rely on plains for food and could not totally arboreal. Also the search for food and mates over the vast savanna caused a gradual change to the more effiecient bipedal walking. Then you can start to talk about the tool making. You can start by using the chimp's use of a tool then transition through from australopithecus to homo where you can spend more time on species like homo erectus and homo sapiens neanderthalensis and his tool making skills. This may have been one of the sole reasons for our evolution as it classifies the need for food. Thus more effiecient species evolved and were selected for based on his cleverness to survive and eventually led to brain enlargening and the advent us, homo sapiens sapiens. So use the tool eras....olodowan, mousterian etc and classify periods and species and you're on track!!!!
345826
Not everything has to be an adaptation, but assuming it is, there is likely an adaptive value to demonstrating emotion in a social animal such as humans. I don't know the specific answer to your two questions, but you might start with Darwin's "Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals", he discusses it there, I'm sure there's been work since.
762980
I think its a deep rooted instinct that makes us strive for things just out of reach. It probably helped our evolution.\n It also says something about our imagination, that we exaggerate the positive aspects of what something may bring, and ignore those aspects which are negative or not useful.
134758
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \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 is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (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. \nOur 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; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
475630
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.
447655
I believe that you have a good grasp of the concept of why we have hair based on the text you submitted and that your question actually is... why have we not lost hair? or\n"why havn't we evolved?"\nThis is a way too common misunderstanding of what evolution is.  In order for organisms to "evolve" there needs to be selective pressure on the ability of the organism to survive and allow it to pass its genetic material to the next generation (ie. be able to successfully breed)  For people to lose their hair there would need to be some sort of reason why we should.  For example if some sort of parasitic worm infested the earth  and and ate people who grow hair on their heads (hypothetically of course) then the people who are most likely to live and pass on their genes would be people that grow less hair.  Over time, the population would be limited to survivors of this parasitic hair loving worm, which would be people with little or no hair. That is how evolution works, just because we may not really need hair now in order to breed sucessfully, I know plenty of bald men with children, doesn't mean that nature will automatically detect this and spontaneously cause people to lose their hair over "thousands of years".  There needs to be some survival factor in play.  \nOk, that was fun....watch out for those hair worms.
920253
Science has shown us that all biological life - including the human species - is the product of unthinking, undirected natural processes.  As part of our evolutionary 'toolkit' of survival strategies, we have a highly developed awareness of other entities in our environment - We often notice human faces in carpet patterns, rabbit-shaped clouds and so on.  There is more survival value in seeing what really *is* there, and also seeing some things that *aren't* really there, than in missing things that really are there and going hungry, or worse, ending up as someone else's lunch.\n\nThe consequence of this undeniably true aspect of human nature is that we have a natural tendency to imagine entities behind natural phenomena and events in our own lives that aren't really there - i.e. gods and goddesses, demons, angels, spirits - a whole menagerie of supernatural characters.  Society and culture binds up these characters with our wishes and fears, our desires for dominance and submission and shared identity, and we end up with religious belief and ritual and dogma, in thousands of different flavours, with the vast majority of people broadly following the religion of their upbringing.\n\nReligion is a biological phenomenon, not a supernatural one.
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.
245829
Our evolution has allowed us to recognize our existence. Our need to survive has forced our evolution. We would be less aware of ourselves without the communal awareness.\n(The guy under the tree is unaware of the rain because of the tree, not because he is alone)
651481
ok here is the honest answer...the theory of survival of the fittest. It is in our genes. It is based on the idea of the drive for the oontinuation of the species. This idea in our society seems out of place and it is but imagine how things were when humans were still primitive and living in the trees. The human female is only capable of getting pregnant a few days each month and then can usually only deliver one offspring. We are not the most prolific of creatures. Therefore the male had to be ready to go at almost any time to attempt reproduction. He had no understanding of the cycle and ovulation. Also probably half the babies concieved didn't survive. The human male had to be a sex machine in order to keep the species from extinction. Probably having sex a lot and with multiple females to achieve that end. That same instinct is still present in modern day males although we attempt to curb it through societal mores and values. But the urge still exists
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to ca
1040926
Accident. Coincidence. Chance. These shaped the universe as we know it. Organisms have slowly evolved and become humans as we are today... And we've stopped evolving almost completely because we've learned that, rather than adapting to our environments, we can adapt our environments to US. We no longer need changing survival skills for heat or food, because these are grown and raised and manufactured for us... and this will probably be our eventual downfall. If ever we are failed by technology, our inability to adapt and grow and evolve will cause us all to perish.
603237
Its not evolution, that is for sure. The evolutionist idea of natural selection is flawed from the beginning. The idea that we evolved into this superior human who have to deal with feelings of emotion, need large amounts of food and water to survive, require a male and female to reproduce and the list goes on. If natural selection is true then humans would have stopped long before now when we didn't need so much food and water; when we could split ourselves because there was no gender and no one had to think about taking care of a child. A human child is one of the most dependent offspring. Without the care of parents the child would die. This does not seem to fit the the theory of natural selection. Genesis 1:27 explains it good.
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!