Ape Evolution

[Sparky]

I know this might sound stupid, but if humans decended from apes and monkeys, then why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they evolve to. If evolution is true and we did come from apes, how long will it be before the apes of today become something along the lines of the movie "Planet of the Apes"? If you think about it then it is only a matter of time before the apes of today evolve and take over the world.

[insane_alien]

both us and apes and monkeys are decended from a common ancestor species. this species was not an ape/human/monkey but something else (Austrolopithicus sp?).

 

species can also form from geological separation while the ancestoral species remains. there is nothing preventing this from happening.

 

and there is no set path for evolution. unless the apes are subjected to the evolutionary pressures that caused us then they will not become human.

[D H]

This is a red herring argument tossed out by creationists. Suppose some species live across some expanse of land. Something happens to the land that splits it into two parts. Examples are peninsulas separating from the mainland or the formation of an inhospitable desert or insurmountable mountain range that splits the population in two. Evolution does not have some action-at-a-distance principle. Evolution is local. There is no reason to expect now separated populations to follow the same evolutionary pathway. Just because one population within a species follows a certain pathway does not mean the entire species must follow that path.

 

So, to answer the question, "if humans descended from apes and monkeys, the why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they evolve too?" Yes, they would and they did. They just didn't follow the same evolutionary path our ancestors took.

[CDarwin]

both us and apes and monkeys are decended from a common ancestor species. this species was not an ape/human/monkey but something else (Austrolopithicus sp?).

 

It wouldn't be Australopithecus unless both our DNA clocks and our understanding of chimpanzee evolution were seriously off. That genus was a particular human ancestor. But your response is quite right. Humans didn't descend from modern apes and monkeys; humans apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor, and apes and humans a more recent unique one still.

[insane_alien]

well whatever was before the austrolopithicus then. i blame the angle of the moon, my left nostril and my lack of knowledge of pre human species.

[Phi for All]

I know this might sound stupid, but if humans decended from apes and monkeys, then why are there still apes and monkeys?

What's stupid is that this question has been asked and answered for the last hundred years and yet it still gets asked on a daily basis. It's as if the answer is somehow unsatisfying to those who ask it.

[SkepticLance]

One of the very likely common ancestors of apes and humans is represented by the fossil of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. Definitely an ape, with no special human features. 13 million years ago.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1118_041118_ape_human_ancestor.html

 

Modern apes (chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orang Utan) separated from the human line more than 5 million years ago. Australopithecus was much more recent (say 2.5 million) and was definitely on, or close to, the line leading to humans.

[CDarwin]

One of the very likely common ancestors of apes and humans is represented by the fossil of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. Definitely an ape, with no special human features. 13 million years ago.

 

A common ancestor, quite possibly, but not the last common ancestor.

[Klaynos]

Chimpanzee's (bonobo and common), the pan genus, split from humans significantly later than gorillas or orangutans. Gorillas being the next previous split and then orangutans...

[SkepticLance]

The problem with studies of human and ape evolution is the sheer lack of fossils. Most of the fossils discovered are mere fragments, and very few more complete skeletons exist. There are big gaps in the fossil record. I regard it as amazing that we know as much as we do.

[CDarwin]

The problem with studies of human and ape evolution is the sheer lack of fossils. Most of the fossils discovered are mere fragments, and very few more complete skeletons exist. There are big gaps in the fossil record. I regard it as amazing that we know as much as we do.

 

Human evolution is actually pretty well covered, but as for ape evolution you're absolutely right. There is only one fossil (a chimpanzee) to represent any African ape after it split from humans, for example. There is a pretty good record in the early Miocene, however, so at least we have a good picture there of the flowering of homonoids that the modern apes and human originated from.

[Daecon]

I know this might sound stupid, but if humans decended from apes and monkeys, then why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they evolve to. If evolution is true and we did come from apes, how long will it be before the apes of today become something along the lines of the movie "Planet of the Apes"? If you think about it then it is only a matter of time before the apes of today evolve and take over the world.

 

If Americans descended from British colonists, why are there still British people around?

[Sparky]

All right, everyone has stated that humans come from apes. Now the 2nd question. Will modern apes evovle into Humans? If evolution is true then at some point this should happen.

 

This might explain Bigfoot. Bigfoot could be the apes version of a Neaderthal and the reason we havn't found one yet is because they are smart enough to know what a camera is and avoid them on purpose and the reason we have not found a body is because they bury their dead.

[Klaynos]

All right, everyone has stated that humans come from apes. Now the 2nd question. Will modern apes evovle into Humans? If evolution is true then at some point this should happen.

 

No, everyone has stated that apes and humans have a very recent common ancestor.

[Phi for All]

All right, everyone has stated that humans come from apes.

See what I mean? Even when ten people tell you that humans do NOT come from apes, but rather that apes and humans both come from a common ancestor, you insist on parroting that same old crap "humans come from apes" garbage. What is it about the scientific answer that fails to penetrate some people's brains? Do you not see the distinction between "apes then humans" and "common primate ancestor then apes *and* humans"?

[Paralith]

Just hold on there, guys. No, humans didn't evolve from modern apes. Humans are modern apes. We are a member of the extant great ape family.

 

Sparky:

 

The ancestral species that humans "came from" is not the same as a modern non-human ape.

 

The environment in which the ancestral species that humans "came from" evolved in is not the same as the environment in which modern non-human apes live and are evolving in.

 

For these two reasons alone, modern non-human apes are highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely to evolve into a species that is almost exactly like humans.

 

This is to not even mention the random nature of the generation of the variability on which natural selection acts, which by itself would likely ensure that modern non-human apes would not evolve into a highly human-like species even if the above two statements were not true.

[Phi for All]

Will modern apes evovle into Humans? If evolution is true then at some point this should happen.

This is a False Dilemma, an example of bad logic. Never make if/then statements about areas you're not well-versed in. You are wrong about humans evolving from apes and you are wrong about natural selection being forced to make humans out of apes. The circumstances that caused humans to develop our current intelligence might never be recreated again on this planet.

 

This might explain Bigfoot. Bigfoot could be the apes version of a Neaderthal and the reason we havn't found one yet is because they are smart enough to know what a camera is and avoid them on purpose and the reason we have not found a body is because they bury their dead.

Bigfoot would have to have been observing us for quite some time to figure out what a camera is. They'd also have to have observed film being developed and make the link between photos and what the camera was doing. They'd also have to develop reasoning to make a connection between photographs and a danger to themselves. I think that'd be tough for a *human* who'd never seen a camera, much less a lesser primate. Then they'd have to communicate such an advanced concept to others of their kind, which would give us more opportunities to gather evidence. Bigfoot knows what a camera does? Big stretch.

 

As for burying their dead, there would be traces left of either tool use or distinctive hand marks like those left by chimps who dig near a river to create a temporary "well" to drink from. If you're going to suggest that Bigfoot buries its own then you have to go further and suggest that they rub out their own markings and bury the tools with the body. Bigfoot has a burial compulsion? Another big stretch.

[SkepticLance]

Actually, humans DID evolve from apes. In fact, we are still apes. That is our taxonomic grouping. The apes we evolved from are not modern apes, and none are still extant. I gave an example earlier - Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. - of a species of ape that may have been a direct ancestor of humans 13 million years ago.

 

On Bigfoot. This is a situation where applying Occam's Razor is appropriate. Which is the simpler of two explanations?

1. There is a giant, largely unknown species of near human, living in North America, that avoids cameras.

2. Someone is playing a practical joke.

[Phi for All]

Actually, humans DID evolve from apes.

... and now I know why creationists keep using this argument. You keep giving them permission to use it with statements like this. Sometimes clarification is really just equivocation in an ape suit.

[HappyCoder]

This argument does not show a problem with evolution. It only shows how little you know about evolution.

If the drive behind this is for religious just keep in mind that intelligent design and evolution can both be true. I personally believe in God and was in the mindset that if evolution was false then intelligent design had to be true. First of all that isn't necessarily true. Secondly while trying to poke holes in the theory I learned a lot about it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about it but that doesn't make it false.

 

Just keep in mind that evolution and God can both be true. I believe that God created simple life billions of years ago and let the earth bring forth life as life evolved, and saw that it was good.

 

I don't want this to become a Bible debate. If you disagree with what I just said lets just agree to disagree now rather than debate through many pages of posts and end up agreeing to disagree later.

[Phi for All]

If the drive behind this is for religious just keep in mind that intelligent design and evolution can both be true.

Let's be careful here. I know what you're trying to say; God could have designed things the way they are. However, that is NOT what ID is all about. ID is bad science, misinformed science, the kind of science that would say, "Randomness couldn't produce the human eye!" IOW, no science at all. And ID proponents want it taught alongside regular science in public schools. THAT is Intelligent Design.

I personally believe in God and was in the mindset that if evolution was false then intelligent design had to be true. First of all that isn't necessarily true. Secondly while trying to poke holes in the theory I learned a lot about it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about it but that doesn't make it false.

I'm really glad you reasoned it through. And I love stories about people who had enough questions about evolution to study it rather than ridicule it from ignorance.

 

Just keep in mind that evolution and God can both be true. I believe that God created simple life billions of years ago and let the earth bring forth life as it evolved, and saw that it was good.

And that's perfectly fine. Evolution says nothing about "creation" so a God who works within the framework of his own physics is not incompatible. But since this God also chooses to remain unobservable and thus supernatural, science has nothing to say about Him.

 

I don't want this to become a Bible debate. If you disagree with what I just said lets just agree to disagree now rather than debate through many pages of posts and end up agreeing to disagree later.

Been there, done that, don't do it anymore.

[CDarwin]

... and now I know why creationists keep using this argument. You keep giving them permission to use it with statements like this. Sometimes clarification is really just equivocation in an ape suit.

 

Maybe we should just switch to "homonoids."

[HappyCoder]

Let's be careful here. I know what you're trying to say; God could have designed things the way they are. However, that is NOT what ID is all about. ID is bad science, misinformed science, the kind of science that would say, "Randomness couldn't produce the human eye!" IOW, no science at all. And ID proponents want it taught alongside regular science in public schools. THAT is Intelligent Design.

 

Well I guess I may be getting my terms mixed up. But I think that you get what I am trying to say. And going along with the ID being taught in school. I am discussing the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in another forum. What I think is unless religious beliefs can be backed up with scientific fact it should not be included with science. This hasn't happened so it should still be left out. Also, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because there could be many different beliefs about intelligent design but there is no way to determine what religious view to teach. Unless one of the religious beliefs can be backed up with science through the scientific method it cannot be considered science and should not be taught in a science class.

 

As a side note, a trap that I think people fall into is the mindset that science is always absolute truth and anything not science is absolute nonsense. This is not true. Something not scientific can be true and something scientific can be false.

[Klaynos]

something scientific can be false.

 

Just a quick note of clarification...

 

As soon as there is evidence against something in science it is adapted to fit the new evidence... things tend not to be wrong, just incomplete...

 

My take on what is science....

[ecoli]

Modern apes (chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orang Utan) separated from the human line more than 5 million years ago. Australopithecus was much more recent (say 2.5 million) and was definitely on, or close to, the line leading to humans.

Australopiths from 2-6 million years ago, Homo after that.