Apes And Humans Essay Research Paper APES

Apes And Humans Essay, Research Paper

APES AND HUMANS

Introduction

Worlds have ever been fascinated by other apes. Possibly it is because we are the lone animate beings that are witting of our topographic point in development. The similarities other apes and us portion are obvious, and different civilizations have been cognizant of this bond since millenary. But there is besides the thought that God created the Earth and all about and in it. I m non a individual that is really spiritual, but I can t believe that we the theory that we come from apes.

Evolutionary design of adult male has lead anthropologists to go the universe in hunt of fossil grounds to larn who we have evolved from. Human development began approximately 5-10 million old ages ago when the human line split from the apes. Slowly scientists have tried to set the pieces together to give us an thought of our evolutionary line. ( Charlon ) .

In Mesopotamia, monkeys were cult animate beings sacred to some God ( Weitz 124 ) .

Furthermore, it is non hard to happen all around the universe myths such as the 1 that describes apes as being a human figure that a God was doing out of clay which slipped out of his custodies and hence got a tail. Therefore, the inquiry shouldn T truly be what makes other apes and worlds similar, but really, what are the differences between us. To acquire a sense of our beginnings we must be able to divide archpriest features from the traits that are alone to our line of descent ( Weitz 231 ) .

ANALISIS

Let s take a individual, strip him, put him in a coop following to a gorilla or an orang-utan, and inquire ourselves: What makes of us humans a eldritch, different type of ape? . The first obvious difference, get downing our analysis from caput to toes, is the cranial capacity. Our caput is much bigger compared to the organic structure and our encephalon weighs much more. This is due to the fact worlds have a extremely developed intelligence, ( being, in fact the most intelligent animate being on Earth ) . This has allowed us impressive communicating techniques ; the development of tools, ( from rock artefacts in the Paleolithic to a atomic bomb ) ; and the possibility to understand to a certain extent our status on Earth and the natural procedure that take topographic point in our environment ( Charlon 45 ) .

The following obvious difference is the deficiency of bodily hair in worlds. Compared to a gorilla or to a Gibbon we are practically barefaced and bare. We have learned to alter the features of our environment, ( such as temperature and humidness ) , by utilizing tools, but other apes still live under conditions that include rain, cold, irritants. Hair is hence a utile protection that humans no longer demand ( Charlon 60 ) .

If we continue traveling down the caput, we will happen that worlds jaws are non as robust ; they are lighter and straighter, ( giving us the curious feature of holding a mentum ) . Our dentitions have shrunk backwards and lost particular features used by apes to masticate foliages or eat fruits. Lips in adult male are hapless in fat, and the upper lip shows a cardinal furrow, ( the philtrum ) running down from the nasal septum to the border of the membranous lip, the boundary which is elevated at the borders of this furrow ( Hooton 56 ) .

Shared ERRORS IN THE DNA OF HUMANS AND APES

Science has ever been a large job for the faith, there ever has been controversy about the creative activity of the universe and how we were created. Have we evolved from the monkeys or did God created us? ? ?

It ever has been claimed that there are shared mistakes in the Deoxyribonucleic acid between worlds and apes, and that this shows that worlds and apes must hold a common ascendant, because the Lord would non hold inserted common mistakes in their Deoxyribonucleic acid ( Plaisted ) .

These mistakes are by and large in the signifier of pseudogenes, which are cistrons that have lost their map for some ground, frequently because control sequences around them are non present. Here are some ideas about these shared mistakes in DNA. The undermentioned stuff has extensively been modified since Edward Max & # 8217 ; s first response to it:

1. At first glimpse, this appears to be a strong statement for development. Indeed, I found it disturbing for a piece.

2. However, we are still larning, and it is difficult to cognize when a portion of the DNA is good or harmful. How do we cognize for certain what is an mistake?

3. Mutants are non wholly random.

4. Possibly the Lord inserted those similarities for a ground we do non understand.

5. Another possibility is that the Lord, when he cursed Adam and Eve after the autumn, besides cursed all life by presenting mistakes into the Deoxyribonucleic acid

6. Edward Max & # 8217 ; s statement is based on the fact that these shared sequences are truly mistakes, that is, errors.

7. Something has to look in the nonfunctional portion of the DNA. Why should it be one thing instead than another.

8. Let us see worlds and apes. Since they are so similar, one would anticipate that they had many similar cistrons at the creative activity in similar locations in the familial stuff.

9. It is even possible that the deficiency of ability to synthesise vitamin C could be an advantage in certain state of affairss, although this appears improbable.

10. Before being created, life was an thought in the head of God ( Plaisted ) .

HUMAN SKELETAL AND DENTAL ANATOMY

Worlds are contrasted with Pan troglodytess to exemplify the alone characteristics of our anatomy.

Seven major differences between worlds and Pan troglodytes skulls include:

( 1 ) encephalon volume & # 8212 ; The human skull has a three -fold greater endocranial volume & # 8211 ; reflecting a larger encephalon size, about 1200 milliliter in human and about 400 milliliters in Pan troglodytess.

( 2 ) nuchal crests & # 8212 ; Muscles that attach to the cranial base service to place, move, and stabilise the caput and cervical vertebrae.

( 3 ) mastoid procedure & # 8212 ; The human mastoid procedure, the attachment surface of the sternocleido mastoideus musculuss, is distinguishable and separated from the lineation of the occiput by a digastric pit.

( 4 ) premaxilla & # 8212 ; The smaller human incisivum, a homologue of the Pan troglodytes premaxilla, unites with the upper jaw near the clip of birth. The Pan troglodytes premaxilla is expanded to back up the big and forward projecting incisors. It unites with the upper jaw postnatally and the sutura between it and the upper jaw becomes obliterated.

( 5 ) facial prognathism & # 8212 ; The projection of the face beyond the skullcap is greater in Pan troglodytess than worlds.

( 6 ) mentum & # 8212 ; The human lower jaw is reinforced by a saloon of bone, the mental bulge, that strengthens the symphysis, the brotherhood of right and left halves of the bone.

7 ) hyoid & # 8212 ; The human hyoid is a U-shaped bone merely above the voice box ( Formenti 21 ) .

HUMAN EVOLUTION

When did worlds germinate? Who are our ascendants? Why did we germinate? At the bend of the century, scientists could merely woolgather about happening the replies to these inquiries. The fossilised remains of a species known as Neanderthal had been found, and at that place was a crude, human-like skull that had been discovered in Indonesia. Beyond that, there was small difficult grounds to work with.

With the 1912 & # 8220 ; find & # 8221 ; of the Piltdown Man, the survey of human development was sent down a incorrect path. When the bogus Piltdown Man, with its human skull and orangutan & # 8217 ; s jaw, was eventually exposed in 1953, the pieces of the great mystifier began to fall into topographic point. With the experts & # 8217 ; opinions no longer skewed, the relationship between the existent dodos started to do sense.

There have been many finds, and much has been learned about the human odyssey over the past few decennaries. Many inquiries, nevertheless, still remain ( WGBH ) .

EVOLUTION THEORY

& # 8220 ; THE AFFINITIES of all the existences of the same category have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile mostly speaks the truth. The green and budding branchlets may stand for bing species ; and those produced during each former twelvemonth may stand for the long sequence of nonextant species. The limbs divided into great subdivisions, and these into lesser and lesser subdivisions, were themselves one time, when the T

ree was little, budding branchlets ; and this connection of the former and present buds by complexifying subdivisions may good stand for the categorization of all nonextant and living species in groups subordinate to groups. From the first growing of the tree, many a limb and subdivision has decayed and dropped off, and these lost subdivisions of assorted sizes may stand for those whole orders, households, and genera which have now no life representatives, and which are known to us merely from holding been found in a fossil province. As buds give rise by growing to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, subdivision out and dominate on all a feebler subdivision, so by coevals I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken subdivisions the crust of the Earth, and covers the surface with its of all time ramification and beautiful branchings ( Darwin ) .

RELIGION AND EVOLUTION

Religion is an account of who created all signifiers of life. There are two basic sole accounts:

God ( creationism ) or an accident ( development theory ) .

Believers are people that believe there is some grounds to turn out that a faith is true. There are two types of trusters:

True ( without uncertainties ) and partial ( with uncertainties ) . Believers without uncertainties are those who believe there & # 8217 ; s no grounds to turn out that his or her faith is impossible. From my definitions we conclude that partial trusters might believe in more than one faith. Evidence turn outing that a peculiar faith is impossible leads ( logically ) to abandoning that faith ( Terravista ) .

Timeline

Paleocene

65-54 Mya proto-prosimians North America & A ; Europe.

EOCENE, 54-37 Mya prosimians North American & A ; Europe

OLIGOCENE, 37-24 Mya Aegyptopithecus Fayum, Egypt

MIOCENE, 24-5 Mya Proconsul Dryopiths

Ramapiths Africa

Africa, some Europe

Europe, some Africa

Hominid Evolution ( Callahan ) .

PLIO-PLEISENE

5-1.8 Mya Australopithecines develop in Africa, in assorted topographic points primitive:

A. ramidus, 4.4 Mya E. Africa Ethiopia, Kenya

Australopithecines: A. afarensis, 4-3 Mya

Lucy, Laetoli footmarks

A. africanus, 3-2 Mya

Taung kid E. Africa Ethiopia, Kenya

South Africa

Paranthropines: P. aethiopicus, 2.8-2.2 Mya

P. robustus, 2.5-1 Mya

P. boisei, 2.5-1 Mya E. Africa Kenya, Ethiopia

South Africa

South Africa & A ; E. Africa

Development of the Genus Homo ; early Homosexual: H. habilis, H.habilis & A ; A. africanus

H. rudolfensis, 2.4-1.5 Mya

East Africa ( Callahan ) .

PLEISENE

1.8 Mya & # 8211 ; 10 kya H. erectus, 1.8 mya-400 kya

Africa, Europe, and Asia ( Callahan ) .

HOMINID EVOLUTION

The Australopithecine are the oldest of all the Hominids ( Yahoo ) .

In 1974, the celebrated Lucy, named that because it & # 8217 ; s female, a skeleton that was 3 to 3.5 million old ages old was found in eastern Africa. It is the oldest skeleton of all time discovered and it belonged to the group A. ( for Australopithecus ) afarensis ( Yahoo ) .

Shorter than today & # 8217 ; s worlds they stood 5 pess tall A. ( for Australopithecus once more ) africanus, a younger group than A. afarensis, lived between 2.2 million and 4 million old ages ago. They were larger than afarensis and weighed a more excessively ( Yahoo ) .

A. robustus and A. boisei. Both found in Africa, these two lived between 1 million and 2 million old ages ago. They had heavier skulls and larger back teeth than A. africanus.

The Homo habilis, or the ready to hand homo, were around approximately 1.6 to 2 million old ages ago. They besides used tool to last ( Yahoo ) .

H. ( that & # 8217 ; s for Homo ) erectus, means unsloped homo, looked more like worlds than any of the old groups. They lived.5 to 1.6 million old ages ago. They built fires to cook their nutrient and used rock tools to assist them ( Yahoo ) .

H. sapiens are modern twenty-four hours worlds, opportunities are that you belong to this group. They stand at an mean tallness of 5 pess 8 inches tall. Taller than any old groups ( Yahoo ) .

CHIMPANZEES AND HIV

Make Chimpanzees acquire HIV and AIDS?

Chimpanzees resist the AIDS symptoms, and some of them even reject the virus. This means that they have been exposed to the virus for a long clip ( Hahn & # 8217 ; s recent findings ) and have developed a familial unsusceptibility to it. They do non transport HIV, and when infected they do non decease, they have adapted to it over clip ( CHCI ) .

Do Chimpanzees do good topics for HIV/AIDS research?

Given the natural protection their species has developed, they would do awful topics to prove vaccinums on. If you inject a Pan troglodytes with a vaccinum you will non cognize whether the vaccinum protected them or it was their ain natural unsusceptibility. You will acquire & # 8220 ; false positives & # 8221 ; and run the hazard of proving useless vaccinums on worlds ( CHCI ) .

Given that Chimpanzees are our familial & # 8220 ; Next of Kin & # 8221 ; shouldn & # 8217 ; t more research be done?

This new information should be used to halt all xeno-transplant research. We do non cognize what virus a archpriest might be transporting that is benign to them but deadly to us ( CHCI ) .

How could people acquire HIV/AIDS from Chimpanzees?

You can non acquire HIV from merely anyone, Pan troglodytes or homo. You can merely acquire HIV from a human or Chimpanzee who has been infected with HIV. Having an unsusceptibility to a virus is non the same as being infected with it. The alleged bushmeat trade could be a possible transmittal vector to distribute a virus, which is benign to its host species, but lethal for us. The bushmeat trade must be discouraged as a wellness hazard ( CHCI ) .

Bibliography

Web sites

– Plaisted, David A. Shared Mistakes in the Deoxyribonucleic acid of Humans and Apes.

24, March, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cs.unc.edu/ plaisted/ce/junk.html

– Human Skeletal and Dental Anatomy.

25, March, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/anthro/people/faculty/cbramblett/ant301/seven.html # anchor1838498

– Myshelle Charlon

25, March, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.humboldt.edu/ mrc1/main.shtml

– WGBH. Human Development.

1998. 1, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //cgi.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/ #

– Callahan, Kevin L. Anthropology Human Origin Website.

21, February, 1997. 1, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/TA.html

– Darwin, Charles. The Beginning of Speciess.

1859. 2, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

– Terravista. Religion, Evolution Theory and God.

24, March, 1999. 3, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.angelfire.com/ab2/s3w/evolution_is_a_religion.html

– Callahan, Kevin L. Timeline.

1997. 3, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/timeline.html

– Yokel. Hominid Evolution.

4, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/7-8/hominid/index.html

– CHCI. Chimpanzees and HIV.

2000. 4, April, 2001.

Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cwu.edu/ cwuchci/quanda.html

Book

– Elredge, Niles. The Myths of Human Evolution

New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.

– Hoaton, Earnest Albert. Up from the Ape.

New York: Macmillan Company, 1947.

– Jurmain, R & A ; Nelson, H. Introduction to Physical Anthropology.

New York: West, 1994.

– Weitz, Charles A. Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1979.

– Charlon, Myshelle. Hominid Species.

New York: Macmillan Company, 1998.

– Formenti, Douglas. Human Skeletal and Dental Anatomy.

Roma: Pavia, 1, 1, 2000

326