Are people actually being taught that humans didn't evolve from apes in anthropology class?

Question

If we didn't evolve from Apes then how would you classify the common ancestors of all the humans and apes? They are clearly anatomically apes at the time of common ancestors, at least for most apes. Where does that notion come from? Are they just forgetting the word modern and mean that we didn't evolve from modern apes?

Answer 1

Yes lol, that was how I found out that I've been deceived about the whole idea of evolution. But yes, it makes sense that humans didn't evolve from apes. The features of apes don't randomly change and all of a sudden become humans in the physical world. Our features are inherited by our parent's and ancestor's genes. We came from the common ancestors. The only reason why humans came into existence is because of natural selection and gene mutations/variations.

Answer 2

thats in religion class http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Answer 3

Humans never evolved from a common ancestor with apes or other primates...it would have taken far too many beneficial mutations for it to have ever happened.

If we share 98-99 percent of our 3 billion base pairs of DNA, how do you get 30-60 million beneficial mutations in a few million years when even one is a rarity?

Answer 4

We didn't evolve FROM Apes. Common ancestry is DIFFERENT than evolving FROM them. Common ancestry would imply that at one time in history there was a different species (not ape, not human) than for what ever reason (maybe some sort of separation or something) evolved in two different ways.

Answer 5

We didn't evolve from apes. If that were the case, why have we evolved and apes haven't.?

Answer 6

all exclusively male genetic material originates from just seven beings.  these came from outside our planet and merged with the existing ape population to develop (or some may say degenerate) into the humans we now see

Answer 7

sorry but i did not come from an ape.

Answer 8

all i know is that we didnt evolve at all from any animal at all

Answer 9

If that's what they teach how do they explain me?

I'm 50% chimpanzee.

Answer 10

They are not being taught either way , Anthro classes def give you the outline of what could be evo but it not stated as a fact yes if you are afraid of your professor answer like the rest of the sheep. Anthropology is finally admitting after years of failures there is no solid evidence for evolution, adaptation yes. Why be caged  in a zoo when you can go to yahoo answers and share your thoughts. I am indifferent, just want to really know like everyone else. The problem with evolution is, genetically and at a molecular level, you are what you are. That has never changed and never will .

Answer 11

I'd call the common ancestor a "Hominid."

The hominids include humans and the apes. They are part of the family Hominidae, of the order Primate. We share a common ancestor with ape and can be considered "cousins." Chimpanzees, our closest relative, share a 95% match in DNA. In protein sequencing, the match is closer, no differences at all.  When man's protein sequencing is compared to gorillas there is only two differences in the match with hemoglobin, red blood cells and amino acids. Lastly the antgen-antibody reaction for humans is 97% from chimpanzees compared to 50% for baboons. In other words we're related.

The split from the apes is put at 8 million years ago. That's based both on the fossil remains and the known rate of change for DNA.

       As for the response "We didn't evolve from apes. If that were the case, why have we evolved and apes haven't.?" One response could be "You went to the store and bought new clothes. So why are there still old clothes in your closet? Life forms on this planet occupy specific environmental niches. No one asks "If dogs come from wolves, why are there still wolves?"

       Other posts argue "We couldn't come from..." and claim that body parts are too complex, or too many mutations are required, etc. for evolution to account for. That's common among creationists. Most creation (or intelligent design) research is focused on finding supposed "flaws" with evolutionary explaination.

        Many times you'll see posts here that are clearly in the "We started from Adam and Eve. It says so in the bible" vein. That shows the difference between dogma and science. With the latter, if your explanation doesn't work you must discard it. With dogma, you can't.

          There are hundreds of cultures with detailed creation narratives. Most are clearly inconsistent with each other. Is just one, that just happens to be a majority religion in our culture, correct?

Answer 12

First, we ARE apes (having descended from earlier apes).

I see people "correcting" people "we didn't descend from apes, but from a common ancestor" and I THINK what's going on is that people used to say "We descended from monkeys" and people would correct that; then over time, some people were making the distinction between monkey and ape, and others were getting confused about what's the wrong and what's the right notion.

I think it's rather recently that people realized that, the only way to classify us, and to classify apes in general, was to admit that we ARE apes.

Gorillas branched off, then we did, then chimps and bonobos.

Answer 13

any class teaching that people didnt evolve from apes is not an anthropology class.

Answer 14

"bravozulu,

Any class one can get people to attend can be entitles anything at all.

No reputable University will have an anthropology course which denies evolution; it would, first of all, be ridiculous and more importantly, smack of fundamentalistic thinking, which has no place in an institution of higher learning.

There are "schools" which might teach such drivel, schools such as Bob Jones "University" or Johnson Bible "College".

Schools such as this exist and somehow get students; since they actually "teach" something, they are correctly called..."schools"!

In a free society, like the one we used to have in the USA, before Bush, people can teach whatever drivel they can get someone to sit still for. Whether a sharp 6th grader would buy into the poppycock in another matter. It's been my experience that by the time a child reaches the 6th grade (I had better change "child" to...young person), they would receive such misinformation with suspicion.

I consider the indoctrination of young people a serious form of child abuse;

if we are too frightened to teach our young to question things, religious mantras, political assumptions, the shape of the earth, ot its age, we are too ignorant to be teaching them anything.

Answer 15

Sounds more like a religion class to me. Either that, or a very weird anthropology class. I took an anthropology course in college as an elective and we were taught the Darwinian based beliefs you expected to hear. What school are you attending and where? Just curious.