Evolution: "We came from chimpanzees"

SMASH THE UNIONS

Hi all

I'm trying to explain to a friend of mine why the above statement is simply wrong. He doesn't seem to undertand the basics of evolution at all. He believes that modern humans descended from chimpanzees.

I tried explaining to him that humans have a common ancestor with chimps (same way we have a common ancestor with a carrot albeit our common ancestor with chimps is more recent) but we didn't descend directly from them. The fact that chimpanzees are still around today proves that that species didn't evolve into humans. Evolution is more like different branches of a tree sprouting from the trunk rather than a linear progression. I hope I'm being clear. So am I correct or is my friend correct?

Bulktohulk

You are correct. I'd even argue that going 'pre-biology', every object (or network of mass/energy) in the universe has a common ancestry.

mooliki

Maybe try some visuals, something like this;



(that was from a quick google image search, apologies if it's not acurate!)

Visuals might help him get his head around it a little better.

Edit: That is, of course, only if you're worried about trying to correct him.

SuperInfinity

I've seen numerous times in my life someone explaining something else in a way that is sort of purposefully confusing, almost like they didn't really want the other person to get it. Especially something that has a reputation for being complicated or hard to understand.

I don't mean to be rude, but look at how you're explaining it. Tell him how simple it is. Don't just throw out words like "common ancestor" if he has no idea what a common ancestor is.

And the above diagram is about as clear as mud at first sight without explanation also... remember the people in primary school that couldn't read bar charts.

Chuck Stone

Everyone knows we came from chimpanzees. We branched off about 6000 years.

FACT.

Look how similar we are.

Jimoslimos

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

I tried explaining to him that humans have a common ancestor with chimps (same way we have a common ancestor with a carrot albeit our common ancestor with chimps is more recent) but we didn't descend directly from them. The fact that chimpanzees are still around today proves that that species didn't evolve into humans. Evolution is more like different branches of a tree sprouting from the trunk rather than a linear progression. I hope I'm being clear. So am I correct or is my friend correct?

You are sort of correct but chimpanzees being alive today doesn't prove whether we did or didn't evolve from them.

If chimpanzees today could interbreed successfully with the common ancestor then your friend may be technically correct - insofar as there hasn't been sufficient speciation to generate a totally new species.

doctoremma

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

I tried explaining to him that humans have a common ancestor with chimps

It's quite easy to define "common ancestry" to the lay person by going back a couple of generations through their family tree. Does your friend have a sibling? Well, he didn't descend from his sibling, they both came from a common ancestor pair (Mum and Dad). That's all you need.

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

The fact that chimpanzees are still around today proves that that species didn't evolve into humans.

As above, this is not true. It's possible that at a branch (e.g. chimp/human), one species splits and changes a lot, the second species changes little or not at all. That chimps exist does not mean that we didn't evolve from them as it could be that our common ancestor was a chimp!

Priori

SuperInfinity wrote:

I don't mean to be rude, but look at how you're explaining it. Tell him how simple it is. Don't just throw out words like "common ancestor" if he has no idea what a common ancestor is.

And the above diagram is about as clear as mud at first sight without explanation also...

"Common ancestor" is a fairly self-explanatory term, and if it required further elaboration or dumbing down then it's difficult to imagine how the OP's friend could maintain any sort of credible opinion on the matter.

The chart too seems easy to understand at first sight. Far clearer than mud.

Bajingo

Evolution is difficult at first. I had an idea in my head of how it worked, I think it's concept that a lot of people think they understand but don't really. I didn't fully get to grips with the concept until my second year in college, I remember sitting in a lecture and suddenly it clicked and I realised how wrong I was before.

I presume this friend doesn't have a science background? He's not going to get it that easily.

SuperInfinity

Common ancestor could be a term worked out logically, but it's just stupid to throw that expression in there and expect the other person to understand it automatically. It's like Mitochondrial Eve: How could we all have the same mother? Where did all the other mothers at that time go? These things just take time, imagination, and a bit of dirty thinking here and there to work out. Doesn't the tree get wider as we go back in time, not narrower.... I guess if we lived in an ideal world this really would be 1st class material. However they don't even teach evolution until secondary school so so many people are understandably completely illiterate in it. And even as you get more into it, there are still lots of more advanced paradoxes in evolution and genes.

Priori seems to have had problems with me in another thread and I can't help but feel he is dragging it into this.

Priori let's do a deal: I won't talk to you or about anything you've said again and you do the same for me.

I'm also blocking you from my pms.