Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Ape to Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Habari na Hoja mchanganyiko' started by Spear, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. Spear

    Spear JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Mar 1, 2010
    Joined: Jun 21, 2008
    Messages: 512
    Likes Received: 3
    Trophy Points: 0
    wezekana kweli tukawa tumetokea huko kama wanavyosema watalamu ?

    Ape to Human Evolution – The history of an idea

    sub { line-height: 0; }a { text-decoration:none }


    The idea of ape to human evolution found its original spark in the 18th [​IMG]Bonobo - Pan paniscus
    (click to enlarge)
    [​IMG]Chimpanzees - Pan troglodytes
    (click to enlarge)
    [​IMG]Gorilla - Gorilla gorilla
    (click to enlarge)
    [​IMG]Orangutan - Pongo pygmaeus
    (click to enlarge)

    century. The voyages of discovery had revealed the existence of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons (the gorilla remained unknown to European science until the 1840s, and the bonobo, until the 1920s). Anatomical comparisons soon suggested these animals were somehow connected with human beings. As the Comte de Buffon put it, an ape "is only an animal, but a very singular animal, which a man cannot view without returning to himself" (Histoire naturelle, vol. 14, p. 4, 1766).
    The fact that humans and apes share many anatomical traits did not escape Linnaeus, who is often cited as the first classifier to assign the two to a single taxonomic order. In the first edition of Systema naturae (1735), he placed both in Order Anthropomorpha, which he later renamed as Order Primates (10th ed., 1758). He said nothing about ape to human evolution, but his categorization of humans with the apes certainly encouraged later naturalists to think of the two as related by descent. As early as 1794, the philosophe Delisle de Sales (Histoire philosophique du monde primitif) commented that the apes "seem to form an intermediate line between animals and human beings."
    But the assignment of ape and human to the same category was controversial and drew objections from conservatives. For the most part, taxonomic classifications prepared by Linnaeus' successors kept Homo separate from the apes. By 1800 this was the norm. But even those classifiers who failed to follow Linnaeus' cue and placed humans and non-human primates in separate orders (Order Bimanes and Order Quadrumanes, respectively) generally recognized an affinity between apes and human beings. For example, the French naturalist Constant Duméril in his Zoologie analytique (1806, p. 8) speaks of the genus Pithecus as containing "the species of apes that most closely approach man." Similarly, in his systematic arrangement of the animal kingdom Cuvier follows the separate arrangement, but describes Quadrumanes as "the order closest to man" (Règne Animale, 1817, p. 79).
    At the other end of the spectrum, some -- far from separating humans and apes -- suggested that apes were not intrinsically different from human beings. In particular, James Burnett, Lord Monboddo argued at length (Of the Origin and Progress of Language, 1774, vol. II, book 2) for the idea that apes were merely wild variants of human beings.
    Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), however -- a former soldier who had been decorated for bravery -- seems to have been the first naturalist with the nerve to propose publicly and explicitly that human beings had evolved from apes (Philosophie zoologique, 1809):
    "Certainly, if some race of apes [Larmarck uses the term quadrumanes for apes], especially the most perfect among them, lost, by necessity of circumstances, or some other cause, the habit of climbing trees and grasping branches with the feet, ... , and if the individuals of that race, over generations, were forced to use their feet only for walking and ceased to use their hands as feet, doubtless ... these apes would be transformed into two-handed beings [Larmarck uses the term bimanes] and ... their feet would no longer serve any purpose other than to walk."
    After Lamarck, naturalists took the idea of ape to human evolution more and more for granted. For example, in his Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844), Robert Chambers stated that the primates are distinguished
    "by greater relative magnitude of brain, by agility, and by the use of the hand. The signal superiority of the human species is thus prepared for and betokened in the immediately preceding portions of the line: it might have been seen, ere man existed, that a remarkable creature was coming upon the earth."
    Nevertheless, in the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin makes no mention of ape to human evolution. His only allusion to the topic was a comment, in regard to his theory, that "Light will be shed on the origin of man, and his history."
    [​IMG]Frontispiece to Huxley's Evidence as to Man's
    Place in Nature,
    (1863)(click to enlarge)










    Darwin's friend and advocate Thomas Henry Huxley was far bolder on this topic than was Darwin himself. In his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, Huxley summarized the many anatomical traits shared by humans and apes and asserted that such evidence supported the hypothesis that humans and apes had evolved from a recent common ancestor. It was the first book devoted expressly to the topic of human evolution.
    Darwin published nothing on the topic until 1871, when his own book The Descent of Man appeared, twelve years after publication of the Origin. The Descent of Man is often supposed, erroneously, to have appeared at a time when the evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor had not as yet been discussed. In fact, however, it was merely Darwin's attempt to weigh in on a topic that had long been broached.
    In the years since Darwin and Huxley, of course, a wide variety of fossil forms ("hominids") have come to light providing just the sort of series that one might expect to see if ape to human evolution had actually occurred.
     
  2. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #2
    Mar 2, 2010
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    Claims That Chimpanzees and Man are Brothers or Genetic Relatives are Untrue

    ....there is talk of chimpanzees' being a "brother species" to man and it was said that scientists realized the similarities between the two species before their genetic proximity was confirmed.

    National Geographic TV's view of monkeys as a "brother species" to man is nothing more than Darwinist prejudice and rests on no scientific findings. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In the face of the picture presented by the fossil record, evolutionist paleontologists admit that they have abandoned hope of finding a missing link between man and the chimpanzee.

    The claim that a "genetic proximity" between man and ape has been confirmed is a deception, pure and simple. Genetic proximity is a scenario produced as the result of a distortion of data regarding human and chimpanzee DNA with the aim of supporting Darwinism. However, this scenario is rotten to the core, because it claims that DNA emerged by means of so-called random evolutionary mutations. The fact is, however, that the effects of mutations on organisms are inevitably harmful, and may even have fatal results. DNA contains meaningful information recorded in a special encoding system. Random mutations in genes cannot possibly add new information to the DNA of the organism and turn it into a new species. All experiments and observations on mutations demonstrate this.

    Moreover, the invalidity of the figures put forward in this genetic proximity propaganda has also emerged in new scientific discoveries in recent months. The findings of a California Institute of Technology geneticist have revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzee was three times greater than had been claimed.1 It was revealed that there is absolutely no scientific proof of a point that is so frequently stressed in evolutionist propaganda. (For more details about the scientific discoveries which have undermined the scenario of human evolution, see Darwinism Refuted, by Harun Yahya at www.harunyahya.com under the subtopic "Refutation of Darwinism.")
    The National Geographic TV documentary, "My Favorite Monkey," states that man and apes possess a similar physiology, and this is portrayed as evidence of evolution. Space is devoted to the comments of a veterinarian regarding a monkey which was brought to him for treatment. The veterinarian states that some of the medicines he used for the monkey were actually human medicines, and cites this as evidence that the two species are related.

    The fact, however, that medicines can prove to be effective in both species provides no evidence for the theory of evolution whatsoever. The comparison is merely one made in line with Darwinist prejudices. It is quite natural that similar chemicals should benefit both man and apes. Both species share the same biosphere and the same carbon-based organic molecules. This common structure applies not just to man and apes, but to the whole of nature. For instance, human beings produce medicine from the blood of the horseshoe crab. Yet this does not mean that man and the horseshoe crab are related. On the other hand, kidney transplants carried out from chimpanzees to human beings represent a serious blow to the claims of similar physiology. Dr. Keith Reemtsma of Tulane University carried out more than a dozen such transplants from chimpanzees to human beings in 1963, but all the patients died.2 That is because the chimpanzee metabolism worked faster, for which reason the cells in the tissue of the chimpanzee kidney rapidly consumed the water in the bodies of the human recipients.


    From: Harun Yahya
     
Loading...