Indeed we're full of flaws, but that only to our skills, habits and etiquette.
What I wanted to know is.... How does the monkeys evolved into humans?

If monkeys really evolved to humans, then why there has been no discovery of Ape-like in amazons or somewhere from a hundreds or thousands years ago?

Apes have traits that are better for living in trees (long limbs and fingers/toes that are good for moving through trees), and humans have traits that are better for living in flat areas (standing upright and flat feet). So since those traits are best suited for those environments, that is why those creatures appear in the areas that they do. But aside from those few differences we have tons of similarities that suggests our close relation to them.


Yes, the traits that make them better for living in trees made them different from humans.


Yes, there are plenty of early humans who are very similar to other apes, Homo Habilis is the earliest one that I know of.



While those paintings are very old, and they were done by humans, they didn't appear until long after the supposed time when humans evolved.

A few hundred years would not be a long enough time for those monkeys in those zoos to evolve into humans, it takes hundreds of thousands of years. And, like I said, even if a zoo did exist for hundreds of thousands of years and had the same population of monkeys that entire time, they still wouldn't evolve into humans because animals in captivity aren't affected by natural selection. So if those monkeys got human-like traits somehow, their monkey-like traits wouldn't disappear because the zookeepers would keep all of them alive, instead of only choosing the ones with human-like traits. So if their "monkey genes" were still around then they could never become fully human. For them to become fully human, the zookeepers would have to keep the ones with mostly monkey traits from reproducing and only allow the human-like ones to reproduce.


Because they have traits that are best for living in the forest, we don't. So they wont become humans as long as they live in trees because we don't have traits that allow us to live in trees very well.



The three Abrahamic religions, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam, have the doctrine that God created all creatures exactly as they are today, so nothing has ever evolved. Most people in the world believe that and tend to get upset when something contradicts it, so most people in the world dismiss and don't understand phylogeny or evolution because it doesn't fit in their beliefs.



Because of the way we evolved. Since we stand upright, our spines don't curve into our skulls like with apes, so we have more room for our brains to become bigger. Many large mammals evolved this way which is why many of them tend to be smart compared to most other animals, but because of other factors like our diet (which increased our brain size and stimulated brain activity) and possibly the fact that intelligence was beneficial in the environment we were in, we have become (arguably) much smarter than all other animals. It is possible that some animals that are smart, like dolphins and other apes, may eventually evolve to become as smart as humans. But that wouldn't happen for thousands of years.



Well I don't know the specific evolutionary history for all those animals, but they evolved into what they are because their traits are best for their environments. Elephants became really large to avoid predators and to reach food in the higher levels of trees, birds probably developed wings for the same reasons, and fish evolve certain ways to fit into their environment, like they may be a certain color to hide from predators, or they may be really big so that they can eat all the smaller fish and have more food available. I don't know much about mammoths, but chances are they had a common ancestor and adapted to different environments, mammoths lived in colder places and elephants live in warmer places.

Do you mean, what caused the primates that existed millions of years ago to evolve into us and all the other apes ? Because no modern day monkeys evolved into people.

And there has been discoveries of human ancestors, we've found lots of fossils and bones, and even some tools.

Well, yeah humans are animals. If you say so, then this ONLY animals lead this world into the worlds of animals called humans.
I know, that many animals are really surpass us. or even match us, like dolphins and some insects has better sight than us.

But the fact is, Animals called Humans are leading this world because of their brains are way more..... developed than animals.
That's the truth Humans are different from animals.

Exactly. Do you agreed that HUmans are from Apes or no from the beginning?
Even in ancient ages, were monkeys really evolved to humans?

I do not know what kind of conversation you have with someone else. But a monkey was is and always will be a monkey.

Just wanted to state the obvious o3o

Because we evolved with bigger brains?

Some times I have to ask my self are Human smarter than the other animals or is it just a few select humans that are.
tell me have you ever envented anything? 'I bet you $10 that a Ape can learn and understand English as well is half the people in America.
'I also like to point out apes have been known to create weapons to use for hunting or fishing. On top of that... another video for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_opEeCllL1w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266FV--FmGo&NR=1

Evolution was always wrong to begin with. If it were right...well, I don't know. I just feel our very existence shouldn't have evolved.

~neh, we're here already. Might as well enjoy life and thank Evolution.

Sorry, that was typo. The correct one is "were monkeys really evolved to humans"
lol, ~ nyoron sorry

Yeah, of course some animals has more ability(?) than humans. And that's the way God given it to them
Why God gave them that? Because as you may aware as well, humans populated this world and manipulated the nature as much as they desire.

By giving animals more ability than humans have. Humans shouldn't be arrogant creatures and feel being superiors than any creatures in the world, that way humans should respect animals and nature as well. But sadly, the fact already given, but yet humans still destroying our world.

Well, till what extend actually animals can understands language, creates weapons or understand what others feel (empathy or sympathy)?

HUmans can learns as many language as he wants to, we can create nuclear(biological weapons) for their desire,
on top of that, we able to feel what other humans feel, thus we know about sympathy and humans should tends to understand each other not destroying each other..

What is Evolution?

Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

Humans are the most intelligent animals yeap, but some other animals can come fairly close. Dolphins, octopodes(octopusses is technically octopodes,its just not really used anymore), chimps, and lots of other animals are really intelligent, and some aren't, some are so stupid they caused themselves to extinct(the dodo bird). Natural selection sees to this.

So evolution is false because you don't know? I guess now we need to dismiss all of the observations and research of countless scientists who dedicated their lives to understanding this subject, because your logic is irrefutable and makes perfect sense.

Well technically humans aren't from apes, Humans are apes. But humans share a common ancestor with apes and monkeys. This is what all the evidence collected over the years points too.


Just look at this : Should explain it pretty well.

Well evolution doesn't change anything, we're still here, we're still intelligent, we still dominate the world, nothing changes, doesn't change who you or anyone else is, just means, we evolved over millions of years into what we are today, which is a good thing, if we hadn't we'd be about as intelligent as a rock. I dunno about you, but i happen to like my intelligence.