http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-Co...-primates-1.htm

The question is,

1. What makes primates so much stronger than humans?
2. Is it possible to train yourself to become as strong as a chimpanzee or gorilla?
3. Or is some sort of genetic splicing required (future tect advancement)

the difference i guess is due to the difference in daily activities.

Go live in the wilds. Perhaps you may aquire their strength.

Humans evolved to use their brains more. Wit over strength.

However there are many humans who seems to use your their less then most monkeys.

What does that means, Befitozi? If we try to use less brains we will go stronger?

No, what i meant was we are evolved and adapted to use wit over brawn.

These are all felines but, cheetahs are evolved to run fast and chase their prey, panthers to climb trees and stalk their prey etc.

Humans and monkeys are homonidae etc. etc.

Get my point?

so if i was a savanth and focus my brain on my strength by living on the wilds in the means of survival id have chimpan's strength?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of "jocks nothig but muscles", Befitozi.

You probably wont, but if you live and breed in the wild, 100 generations from now your offspring's might be.

Wooh, that means decendents of linebackers will evolved to be gladitors in due time.

I agree with you. The powerful factor that affect the body and mind of a person is environment factor.

What i describe is basically evolution. Simple as that

are they strong?

there was a study once one average body size for a particular name. it was found that those with the family name of smith were found to larger on average. that cos their ancestors were smiths (blacksmiths)[.

Are monkeys really so powerful? Need to think twice next time i drive by areas with lots of stray monkeys. They might topple the whole car or bus with x7 power ups.

Orang asli, many gennerations but they are still orang asli not apes. Evalotion, most amusing ...heheheheh!!

how many generation? humans and chimps splits several million years ago, even with a lifespan of 100 years, thats several tens of thousands of generations.

Seriously?

Please think before you post.

Wow, you are so sensitive. Is that how your defend your ideas/beliefs? If it makes you feel better Befitozi, you have my apology, but that does not mean I will believe in Darwin's stuff.

evolution is not a belief

unlike idea/belief,evolution doesn't require faith as it's a proven FACT...

Proven? You mean people actually saw monkey evolve into humans?

you dont have to see something for it to be proven. there are numerous other supporting evidence.

google: scientific theory

you haven't seen your grand grand grand parents existed and gave birth to your grand grand father but why do you think they have existed?similarly,we haven't seen big bang happened but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 02:42 PM

If weight/size proportion is to be calculated, then the mighty insects will win hands down.

Ants can carry weight 900 times their weight. winrar period.

monkey / apes / chipanzee / gorillas... give us to notice one thing in them.... is what they eat..

we human have everything ih the world in our stomach.. makes us having various kind of desease or sickness shall i say...

but, they (animal refering to the topic) only takes the nature as their food and way to survive..

things that we eat make who we are.. either healthy or else..

no such thing as evolution from monkey to human, n nobody would like to admit that they come from monkey... do you..? hehehe...

common ancestor, not monkey > human

you dont come from your cousin, but both of you come from your common grandparents.

Is he seriously that dumb?? I didn't saw tiger wood cheat on his wife, so is it proven or not??

I did not expect science to be based on circumstantial evidence.

you have not answered my previous question,we haven't seen big bang but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:16 PM

CleverDick,
Making deduction that we come from monkeys sound circumstantial to me.

then have you heard about about dating methods?geological dating?molecular clock?radiometric dating?Homology?Biogeography?falsifiability?peer review?etc...each of them contributes to the conclusion that 'humans and apes share a common ancestor',if you understand the meaning and applicability of each and everyone of the methods mentioned then you'll realize the evidence aren't circumstantial at all...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:31 PM

CleverDick,
They contribute to conclude (there is the circunstantial part).

---

Added on May 3, 2010, 4:39 pmBy the way CleverDick, the BBT has many underlying assumption. These assumptions given current level of science is accepted. Newton thinks the most basic is atom and cant be split. People then had theor assumptions. Some mordern scientist prove Newton wrong. Then we had a new level of knowledge and assumption

This post has been edited by faceless: May 3 2010, 04:39 PM

circumstantial is sometimes essential when you want to link an evidence to another,just like big bang theory,you can't expect to prove a single phenomenon by using a sole evidence...

it is much bigger than take evolution ultimately mean we and monkey have an common ancestor and all the life form on earth have one common ancestor. not human come from monkey.

then you should know the assumptions proposed have to be what?Falsifiable,able to prove the assumptions wrong is what makes them credible and reliable...
btw,when you said circumstantial i thought you meant depending on circumstance,my fault for not conveying my message clearly...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 6 2010, 11:30 PM

CleverDick, enough had been said. We can continue without end. Suffice to say, you still will not be able to convince me evolution is a fact. Nor will I be able to convince you evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.

Robert, nice one. I guess those who believe in evolution can accept that we all came from the one cell animal. Not me.

i just have to say that,wether you like it or not,believe it or not,Evolution is a fact is the consensus in the scientific community,you can choose to hide in the tortoise's shell but science has to move on regardless of the opinion of a bystander who is not specialized in the related field...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:57 PM

Thanks CleaverDick. I had enjoyed the discussion.

clay, dust, ash, water, ribs etc is a much more convincing argument, huh?

Perhaps, lim00b but I had enough. Put in CleaverDick's words, I will not try to stop the world from going round.

you dont need to believe it, you just need to accept it as scientific fact, all DNA test on mapping the genome have supported this theory of common ancestor.

I shall leave you with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The flying spaghetti monster has EQUAL claim to creationist theory. No evidence at all.

Circumstantial evidence > no evidence.

Being blunt, FSM has equal claim as christianity/islam/etc. when it comes to origins.

This post has been edited by befitozi: May 3 2010, 06:49 PM

they can dismiss an evidence by simply calling it circumstantial,but when the evidence come in bulk and that each and everyone of them equally points to a sole direction and no other better possible explanations are available,they would then make up a rigid supportive sets of evidence which corroborate the truth of the conjecture previously held,that said,the conjecture must be shown falsifiable in advance...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 4 2010, 12:56 AM

if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't we found a cross-species of human-monkey ?

here,read it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation

A monkey aint strong, it thinks it is strong only when cruising with their homies. Very evident in the streets in KL right up to the parliamentary cabinet of Malaysia.
But again, no matter how strong they are, still they're dumb as fark.

This post has been edited by babyrabies: May 3 2010, 08:00 PM

That's indeed very informative. Thanks

But somehow I still don't get it. 2 different species cannot cross-breed but what about evolution of ONE species?

Lets put it this way, my ancestors had tails. But over time it gets shorter and shorter until the way we all are now. Where did all the intermediate species go? e.g. 12cm tail, 6cm tail..etc?

the earliest known human direct ancestor homo habilis was tail-less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
the lost of tail happened way earlier before the common ancestor of apes and humans split off,this is why human fossils with tails will never be found...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 4 2010, 06:58 PM

you do realize none of the apes (baboon, chimpanzee, orang utan, gorilla, etc - the closest to humans evolution-wise) have tails right? the disappearance of tail doesnt happen during the evolution of homo sapiens, but long time before than when apes split from other monkeys

how can we know that human and monkey or orang utan can be inter-species mix?/

like a horse and donkey....

any 1 have try to mate with a monkey b4??

read previous post or we will more or less go round and round in circles, explaining things that has been explained

here,read it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation

Probably that stuff sound circumstantial to you because you're either misinformed or you do not understand it. There is no circumstantial evidence in evolution. Granted, Darwin's original body of work was quite straightforward, but the theory of evolution itself has evolved and refined with every new discovery. We now know that epigenetics is also a strong factor. For example, if you have not had a history of diabetes in your family tree, but in your lifetime you consume so much Pepsi that you became a diabetic, your offspring would then have a predisposition towards diabetes. Also, if your family tree were all weaklings, and you took up bodybuilding and you became a muscular hunk. Your offspring will have a predisposition towards becoming muscular as well. This is roughly what epigenetics have shown us.

Another new discovery is that lateral gene transfer is easier than we thought. Retroviruses, parasites and bacteria can insert their genes into ours easily. Some of these end up eventually as junk DNA. Some of these are successfully silenced by our own biological mechanisms. Scientists are still able to resurrect these extinct viruses based on our genetic code from the "junk DNA" segments, because the laterally inserted genes stand out from the rest of the genome and can be isolated. Sometimes, lateral gene transfer provides us with surprising benefits, like beneficial mutations. Sometimes, they give us genetic defects. Across the various genomes of the entire human race, we're now able to see which race endured what sort of pandemic or epidemic how many generations ago, and what sort of immune adaptation our immune systems came up with.

Heard of the CCR5-delta32 deletion mutation? It's theorized to be a remnant of the Black Death, and it allowed the descendants of the Black Death survivors to resist HIV infection.

That's how evolution takes place.. through small changes.. some which are accidental (such as exogenous LTG) and some which are due to adaptation to surroundings or new lifestyles, like what epigenetics have shown. At present, evolution is recognized as a fact, and it's not exactly the same as the gradual Darwinian model that we used to know. There's a bit of Lamarckian "sudden jumps" here and there.


Hahahaaa!!! Damn right!!!!

A Theory becomes a Law if its many times proved with facts.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/...250973&srvc=rss

Coming back to the topic of why monkeys are so strong.. Humans have only 3 types of muscle fibers, but cats have 7. Their fast-twitch fibers can fire with a much higher intensity and frequency than a human's, while being able to handle higher mechanical loads. Hence, cats are easily more explosive than humans. They can jump so high, and they can sprint much faster than humans despite their short legs.

Perhaps monkeys have such difference compared to humans. Their muscular make up may be different, either in the physiology/structure/type of their muscles or in the nerve network that innervates the fibers.

Holy cow o.o Those hairy thingy are quite strong huh? LOL

no, a scientific theory will not become scientific law. scientific method dont work that way.