• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Humans Didn't evolve from Apes - How Do We Know?

So in theory the common ancestor could've evolved into something in it's own right (or stayed relatively the same ) and lived alongside us?

Also, if our DNA is 98/99% same as the chimpanzee's, then would that be the same in the living common ancestor if we did find one? Or does that depend on how much it has changed/evolved?

Actually, that 98-99% figure breaks down in a most interesting way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[21] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single-nucleotide polymorphisms[21] (SNPs - changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome). Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[21] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[22] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.

So the jury's still out on the exact degree of similarity between the chimpanzee and human genomes, unless my source is outdated.
 
Last edited:
then there is also Chromosome 2 another reason why we know.
 
We don't have fossils of the common ancestor. The fossil record, especially of land mammals, is generally quite patchy (fossilization is rare for land creatures).

The most certain way to map lineages is through mitochondria DNA. This DNA is inherited in the female lineage of mammals and since it does not influence genotype, it changes by mutation at a fairly steady rate. So by following the M DNA we can obtain very good evidence of the sequence of lineage splits and the time scale of them.

Hans

We do, however, have fossils of two creatures which lived very close to the time of the LCA (indeed it's possible one of them was the LCA, but we'd need more information before making that determination), which may give us some idea as to what sort of ape it may have been:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toumai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis
 
Yes, sorry, I meant something outside the pan genus.

Here's yet another link, KuriousOrange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor

Pan prior is the name suggested by British biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham for the last common ancestor of humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). This species is supposed, on the basis of DNA reconstruction (no fossil remains have been found), to have existed prior to six million years ago, when the human and chimpanzee lines are thought to have diverged. Pan prior lived an arboreal existence in the forests of Africa. It was initially thought that an Ice Age, around seven million years ago, caused forests to shrink thus prompting some members of the species to venture into the savannah, becoming the ancestors of humanity.[4] However, the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus shows that bipedal locomotion was used both on the ground and in the trees around 4.4 million years ago. Researchers infer from the form of her pelvis and limbs and the presence of her abductable hallux, that she was a Facultative biped: bipedal when moving on the ground, but quadrupedal when moving about in tree branches.

It's amazing how much information is out there for the general public, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
So in theory the common ancestor could've evolved into something in it's own right (or stayed relatively the same ) and lived alongside us?

Yes, in fact, it did in the form of Chimpanzees and Bonobos.

Also, if our DNA is 98/99% same as the chimpanzee's, then would that be the same in the living common ancestor if we did find one? Or does that depend on how much it has changed/evolved?

Yes, probably, since there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in amounts of change.

Anyway, the Chromosome 2 evidence has been presented, and it's good.
 
I'll steal Richard Dawkins' analogy. If you imagine that you have a deck of cards with pictures of your ancestors all the way back to the primordial soup, you would see that each card looks pretty much like the one before. If you flip back through the deck far enough, you would start to see a species that no longer looked quite like homo sapiens. Eventually, after a big argument among taxonomists, there would be agreement that starting there is a different species. Evolution is a long term incremental process. Viewed one generation at a time, chimpanzees give birth to chimpanzees and great danes give birth to great danes, with selection/mutation it is only over time that new species develop. So while I am pleased to share a most recent common ancestor with a chimp, no chimp ever gave birth to a homo sapien. The subtlety is what makes it so beautiful.
 
Before there was genetics, immunology was used to estimate the divergene of humans from apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Divergence_times

One of the first molecular studies, published in 1967 measured immunological distances (IDs) between different primates. Basically the study measured the strength of immunological response that an antigen from one species (human albumin) induces in the immune system of another species (human, chimpanzee, gorilla and Old World monkeys). Closely related species should have similar antigens and therefore weaker immunological response to each other's antigens. The immunological response of a species to its own antigens (e.g. human to human) was set to be 1. The ID between humans and gorillas was determined to be 1.09, that between humans and chimpanzees was determined as 1.14.

Interesting how multiple lines of investigation point to the same approximate answers regarding the evolution of life.
 
chimpanzees give birth to chimpanzees and great danes give birth to great danes...So while I am pleased to share a most recent common ancestor with a chimp, no chimp ever gave birth to a homo sapien...The subtlety is what makes it so beautiful.

I understand the subtlety of evolution and that we don't share direct lineage with chimps - which I took for granted, but didn't know much about. I was mainly wanting to know why/how we came to this conclusion and what evidence there was.

Interesting thread and thanks for the replies & links.
 
Last edited:
So he made it look like he doesn't exist?

The harder you seek, the farther away you get, the closer you look, the less you see, god's tricksy that way.


Oh, BTW, if you fail to 'get it' the Devil gets you.
 
or it is the way the designer works, he copy pastes from older designs and for some reson he fused the chromosomes :D

So that's why godbotherers just copy from each other, they're just following their Masters' example.
 
So in theory the common ancestor could've evolved into something in it's own right (or stayed relatively the same ) and lived alongside us?

Also, if our DNA is 98/99% same as the chimpanzee's, then would that be the same in the living common ancestor if we did find one? Or does that depend on how much it has changed/evolved?

Kurious, you ought to listen to a wider pool of thought. Our DNA is not 98% or more similar, not even close. People made a lot of claims based on small samples that were expected to be more similar. As more of the chimp's genome is studied, we see more differences.
 
This is a very compelling argument. How do the creationists argue against it?
The idea the Chromosome 2 argument is evidence for common ancestry is truly odd. How can you guys believe that?

Let's say the data part of the claim is true, that at one point there was a fusion of chromosomes by a human being and then for some reason an extreme bottleneck so that most of us have the same fused chromosome.

What does that prove?

Think about it. This would all have happened within human lineage because chimps don't have the same number of chromosomes. In other words, this could not have been passed down from a common, non-human being ancestor.

What gives then? Makes no sense to then think this is evidence for common ancestry, and that's even if the chromosomes were fused.
 

Back
Top Bottom