By a lot of evolution over a long period of time, the organism can change so much that it gets classified as a new species, compared to the organism when it started. Humans weren't always humans, we were at one point a species called Australopithecus, which evolved into Homo habilis, the first breed of human, about 2.2 million years ago. Homo sapiens weren't always homo sapiens.

I agree about the evolutions of those 'Homo' but that doesn't prove that humans are from monkeys, yes?

Were not from "monkeys" per say, but a prehistoric primate, which information on is mostly unknown as far as i know. Although the recent Ida fossil might be be worth looking into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_fossil

I know there are something called Ida or Darwinius masillae that been found in last last year.

But that might just some lizards.... any prove?
IF your proves are in that article, please point it, which line or which paragraph

I have my dad's temper, and I'm not the type of person that can address every single point. Kind of busy.

the prehistoric Primate your talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52eidHJyDec

Thank me later.

Yes, our currently unknown common ancestor.



Of course it is an assumption. Anything we claim to know about distant history is an assumption, since no one was around to witness and record what happened. So we have to guess based on the evidence left behind.



Well I don't "have" it myself, but I do know of it. There is a lot and I don't feel like posting all of the specifics, but basically evolutionary scientists and anyone who knows all the bare basics of evolution could conclude that we evolved and that we have a common ancestor like this:

-Humans are organisms
-Organisms evolve over time
-Therefore, humans have evolved over time

We have plenty of proof that we are organisms (obviously) and I have already explained that we have actually witnessed other organisms evolving (bacteria).

-Different species of organisms that are similar have a common ancestor
-Humans and other apes are similar
-Therefore, we have a common ancestor with other apes

You've already acknowledged that humans and other apes are similar, and we know that similar species have the same common ancestor based on watching bacteria evolve (one species of bacteria becomes two or three or a hundred different species if they are put in different environments) and by analyzing the fossil records of other organisms.

Note that evidence is not the same as proof. Even though there is evidence that it happened doesn't mean that we are 100% sure that it happened. But based on the evidence we have, we can logically conclude that it is very likely that it happened.



Do you know what a plankton is? Do you know how big it is compared to a fish? A plankton compared to a fish, even a small one, is like an ant compared to an elephant. Plankton are extremely small, and they are way different from fish in every single way. Humans and apes are much more similar than fish and plankton. The only real thing that fish and plankton have in common (besides the fact that they are organisms) is that they both live in water.



Yes you are right, our brains are "better" than monkeys. But plankton don't even have brains, or fins, or scales, or gills, or a mouth/nose/eyes, or complex organ systems like lungs/stomach/heart/etc, they don't have blood, they don't have a nervous system to even allow them to feel...but fish have all of those things, and many more things that plankton don't have. In fact, plankton aren't even animals, they are bacteria. The only real differences between humans and other apes are our brains and outward appearance, and a few abilities like climbing trees and walking upright.

So, again, why can a plankton be related to a fish when they have almost nothing in common, but we can't be related to other apes even though we have almost everything in common?




I already explained this several times also. Humans are best suited for flat areas like plains and savannahs, so our common ancestor that lived there became humans. Other apes are best suited for areas with lots of trees, which is why they live in those places. That is why you will never see a wild monkey in a wide open space with little or no trees around, and why very few humans live in forests. Even the ones who do live in forests tend to live in the flat areas without many hills, and they clear an open space and create a network of paths.





Yes they do know how to do those things, you underestimate their intelligence. They know how to make weapons and fire, clear areas of trees and other vegetation, build houses, etc. Early humans weren't able to do all of that.



Because, again, they are the only ones with the right genes that allow them to become intelligent. They have fairly big brain cases to allow their brain to grow large, and they have the genes that allow certain areas of the brain to develop well so that they can perform tasks that require those parts of the brain to be that developed. Apes aren't the only intelligent animals, there are plenty others, but since they are the most similar to us then they are the ones who are most likely our common ancestor.



Birds do have wings and lungs. Are you asking why aren't there any human-like creatures that can fly and live in the ocean? It is because our bodies are not well fit for those environments: we don't have the right limbs or body shape to swim very well, and we are much too heavy to fly.




I explained this earlier in the post, but based on my knowledge of evolution I can logically conclude that we evolved from another ape. That does not mean that I know for sure that we evolved from apes, but it is the best (and only) scientific explanation that I know of.



I have no idea what you mean by this.



The Big Bang has nothing to do with this, and it definitely didn't occur within the Earth's core. That is an entirely different subject in an entirely different field of science that I do not know enough about to have a discussion about it.



I never claimed it is the truth, I claimed that it is what we know. There's a big difference. I believe in these theories because they make room for change, facts don't have room for change, therefore they cannot grow and expand as new knowledge comes along

Take religion for example. Many old religions (and some that are still around) taught that many natural phenomena, like rain, happened because some rain god made it happen. They didn't feel the need to question or learn about rain because they thought they knew everything about it. To them it was a fact that a rain god made the rain, that was everything they needed to know about rain, and they thought they knew everything about rain. Now if people kept thinking like that, kept believing that this "fact" was the only possible truth, we never would have learned what rain really is because we would have thought that we already knew everything about rain. So if I or anyone only believe in absolute facts, then we will never learn anything because we will think we already know everything.



No facts at all? I guess you haven't been reading my posts at all. These theories are based on facts, like the fact that we are organisms, and the fact that organisms evolve over time. It's not vague at all if you understand how evolution works (which apparently you still don't, no offense). And like I've said time and time again, I'm not saying that this is 100% undeniable truth, but it is the best scientific explanation that we know of. The key words are "that we know of," meaning that the truth is out there somewhere, but we may or may not know it, we may have known it all along, or we may never know it. The only way to know if we know the truth is if we know everything, and that is impossible.

I don't even use my temper or any slight emotion in this discussion based on knowledge.
What we pursue is truth, so we share our knowledge and opinion based n this matter.

There's no need using emotions. Since that just inappropriate and could divert our discussion.
And I against 3 persons who are older than me, I quoted each of them with all my respect.
And sorry if my words kind of mean or rather rude. I don't really mind it, just wanted to emphasize my point there.

I've watched about those videos you gave me. It'll be very appreciate if you could you tell me at what time the evidence has spoken there?
It'll be very nice if you can write it here, instead of referring me to watch those videos.

Note : ~nyoron. I didn't know I argue with 28 years old...

The bones that person was showing off is the missing link that both modern apes and Humans are related to. That is both the humans and the Apes great great great grandfather, or grandmother.

'That is the missing link that links us to the apes. .

As you can see its not really a monkey but something like a monkey.

'Its 7;18 AM and I am still up.. so I am a little tired to be going into any detale at this time.

The proof that Ida(?) is the missing links? It looks like a lizard.
And I believe to Boa ancestor when they found it this year. That's what we called 'evidence'.

If you tired, you are unable to make clear discussion . I suggest you have rest a little bit, have breakfast and come back here with some evidence, sir. Thank you for your time.

Sorry for the late reply, I just had my dinner and my connection is not really good at the moment.



Then I would like to know, Where is our unknown common ancestor? Do you mean is IDA?




But there are many assumption of history are real. Like those 'homo sapiens', artefact, pyramids, Babylonia and many others.
And those scientist are able to prove the date and the facts are actual truth.

But could that proven in Monkeys evolved to Humans, therefore Missing Links?



What we talking about is Apes and Humans not bacteria. Of course I acknowledge that Humans or organism and I know organism evolve in every period, like in history of humans. Back then humans are walking humped but now we can walk straight.
The different is, Humans are not bacteria which doesn't have solid body. But since humans have solid body, how does it could be evolve?

umm.... was there any different between those words Proof = Evidence. Sorry I couldn't fully understand english term.
Well, if there any evidence that we could use as reference to make sure 100%, there wouldn't be a discussion or pro-cons in this matter.




I don't really know what plankton is, I'm not sure myself, if they actually can evolve to fish. But they are way to different if we compare it to Humans and Monkeys. They're small creatures, doesn't have solid body like Humans and Monkeys.




Actually, I could care less (don't really cares) about that physical evolution bacteria or humans had.
What I want to know is, How come only Apes who could develop their brains to be like Humans? With such a privilege to have thought, norm, values, morality and empathy towards each other?




umm...... is this related to brains?
Yes, they tend to make them easier to live. That's natural, right?



So do early humans were able to make weapons and fire too, even better clothes reference to Flintstones.
The different things is they live in cave but they can drawings and make a simple alphabet and numbers.

I know that people in deep forest also has difficulties to gather their foods too.
So, why they do not evolve to something more useful to gather their foods due to environmental adaptation?




Why only apes that has right genes and big brains to develop?
I think there are plenty of animals, like you said, that also has right to develop as well. Like Dolphins, Elephant and Dogs, why they still remains same as they are now, could they become more...... communicable to us? not like Elephant who have habits to attack unknown person.




Well, What I meant is not necessary humans who able to fly and body shape to swim.
What I meant is, Why Birds don't have their own evolution as well, maybe they will be smaller than humans, but at least they can talk and understand how we feel as well. Then that would be different creatures from human being but able to communicate to humans as well.
In Science Fiction, maybe it'd be like Aliens in E.T.



is that logically conclusion you meant? It seems not logic to me.
I respect your best and only explanation you said, but that only and best explanation doesn't make me believe anything in "Humans are from Monkeys"




I only point out your 'random chance'. If this universe occurred because of mere random chance. then it would be possible if tomorrow the Big Bang occurred right in front or in core of our planet. Since this is just random chance you mean.

Therefore, your "random chance" are not exists... Someone controlled them for our safety.
Oh, now I talk about God concept.... please ignored it then.




Yes I also have a bit like to science because they provide explanation and some them already has facts. And science already has fact just to let you know, like in Big Bang theory, Medical science, Astronomy and others. They have fact, thus the new development still improving even now.

um... by believing that God makes rain, doesn't meant they think they already know everything. I don't know which religions has that. But yeah, some ethnics in Japan, called Ainu believe that, but they don't know everything about rain, only believing that nature is their God.

Well, not all people think about that, right? Because we know what caused rains and why it can happened. It just they way of people think is different.





Fact? where? I know that we are organism and I believe that too since it's common knowledge.
If that the best scientific explanation you have and other evolution believers have, why many people still don't believe in your best scientific explanation which I don't know which part is the best....

Yes, I've been reading your post whole day. And from the pictures and videos Allhailodin and Darkphoenix provides me, but still there's no evidence in your post, Allhailodin's pictures and Darkphoenix's videos.

"That we know of" meaning that the truth is out there somewhere....
Isn't that what you called assumption and it sounds like religious people reasons when they cannot prove their God.

Is it impossible to understand Science? You do believe in science, right? Many people before thinks it was impossible to fly through the space or submerged under the deep ocean. But with Science, humans are able to do it now.

Note : This is probably my last post today. If you want to quote, please feel free to do. Since in here is already dark and I have class tomorrow, time difference is delicious after all lol

Note : Actually, what I want to know is BRAINS. not another parts of human's body. If you can prove or tell how the brains evolved so the individual or a species could be like Human's brain, then I will believe that evolution from Monkeys are true.
Thank you very much of your time for today, I will continue to talk again tomorrow. Regards~

It is unknown because we don't know where it is, as far as I'm aware. I don't know what IDA is.





This makes it pretty clear that you don't have a good understanding of many basic biological concepts like cells and genetics, and you can't really grasp this topic until you understand those. Perhaps you'll learn them sometime in the future, I'm definitely not qualified to teach you and I don't have the patience to do so.



Proof= something that shows it is true beyond all doubt. I can prove to you that I have black hair by showing you my hair and you will see that it is black, there's no denying that.

Evidence= something that suggests it is true with some doubt. If a knife is found a murder scene with the fingerprints of several different people, it doesn't prove that all of those people who held the knife committed the crime, but it suggests that one of them did.




Actually many people would still deny it even if we did find undeniable proof, because evolution conflicts with their beliefs. It will probably hundreds of years before evolution is widely accepted, if it ever is.




Still more evidence that you don't understand certain basics of biology.





I meant the very earliest humans, the ones who came before the humans that could make tools and paintings. It took thousands of years until humans developed enough to do those things.




Obviously they don't have too much difficulty if entire tribes of them are able to live there. But it is possible that they may eventually develop limbs similar to other apes that allow them to climb trees better, but they haven't been living in those areas long enough for that to occur yet.





The "why" is a matter of philosophical and religious debate. Depending on your beliefs, a creator gave only them the right genes to develop that way, or it simply happened that way on it's own through random chance again.

Those animals cannot speak human languages unless they have the right vocal chords, tongues, mouth and throat shape to produce human words. They have their own way of communicating and don't have the same genes as us to give them the correct body parts to speak human languages. And even then they would still need the right brain development to be able to understand and speak those languages.






Birds have evolved from other creatures (certain species of dinosaurs) to have feathers, wings, and hollow bones to allow them to fly. They can't talk because, again, they don't have the right body parts or brain structure, and they already have their own way of communitcating.




Mainly because you don't seem to understand several biological concepts that are needed to understand evolution.




And I don't expect you to believe it, I'm just telling you what the science teaches since you seem to be interested.






The Big Bang Theory is not a fact, which is why the word "Theory" is at the end of it. Astronomy is all full of theories which are based on facts, as all theories are. The theory of evolution is also based on biological facts that I've already explained.



But they think they know everything about rain, so they don't want to learn what rain really is. Just like many people think they know everything about how all life came to be (God made it) so they don't want to or are unable to learn about evolution. To them it is fact and no matter how much you try to reason with them they will never think otherwise, just like no matter how much I try to explain it you will never acknowledge that humans could have evolved from apes.



That is a fact. And it is also a fact that the genes of populations of organisms change over time. Evolution is largely based on those two facts.




By "best" I don't mean that it is perfect. If I had to choose between losing a finger or an arm, losing the finger would be the best option, but it's still not a great thing to happen. So when I say "best" I don't mean that it is better than every other explanation out there. It is the best scientific explanation because it has the most evidence, but it is still not complete.




In order to understand the evidence we are posting, you would have to understand other biological principles like cells and genetics, which apparently you don't (no offense).





Well it is, because I cannot prove to you that it happened, only show you evidence that it happened. The only way to absolutely prove it is if we went back in time and actually watched and recorded what happened, and that is impossible.





Obviously it's not impossible if many people have done it. Of course I believe in it. I don't get why you brought this up.





Our brains became the way they are because:
-We stand upright, which makes our spines move farther down our back and away from our skull, which makes more room inside for the brain to grow bigger
-We have the genes that allow our brains to have certain functions that other animals don't, such as speech and learning. While other animals do have bigger and similar sized brains, their genes make other parts of their brains stronger, like the part that controls their senses, so they can smell/hear/see better than us. But since our genes emphasize the parts of our brain that have to do with learning, reasoning, and speech, we became smarter than them

If another species of animal had a big enough brain in proportion to their bodies, and the genes that promote the learning and reasoning parts of their brains, then they would be like humans. Other apes probably have the genes to allow their brains to become like ours, but there are tons of possibilities as to why those genes aren't as active in them as they are in us.

I don't even use my temper or any slight emotion in this discussion based on knowledge.
What we pursue is truth, so we share our knowledge and opinion based n this matter.

There's no need using emotions. Since that just inappropriate and could divert our discussion.
And I against 3 persons who are older than me, I quoted each of them with all my respect.
And sorry if my words kind of mean or rather rude. I don't really mind it, just wanted to emphasize my point there.

I have my dad's temper, which means I'm prone to get very irritable with conversations I don't agree with/conversations that require a lot of feedback. It doesn't mean the conversations are wrong, or that you did anything wrong.

it's like asking wot is the meaning of life?