Why did apes stop evolving into humans- if they ever have?

Question

According to Darwin's theory, if an animal has a more beneficial charcteristic, this will survive while other's without this will die and eventually the only charcteristics past on will be the beneficial ones. Obviously, human charcteristics are more beneficial than those of apes so why are there still apes around as well as humans, why did they not all evolve?

Answer 1

The first thing to remember is that the raw material of natural selection is random mutation - i.e. things evolve because changes in the genetic code are inherited, but those changes are random and evolution cannot 'choose' to go in a particular direction. So, if mutations which resulted in increased intelligence did not occur in other apes then they were simply not there to be selected by evolution.

Second, as someone else has pointed out, intelligence is not necessarily an advantage - Increased intelligence requires increased brain power, and that means energy. The brain in humans takes some substantial proportion of all the food energy in the body - 20%, or something like that. If you've got a bigger brain then you need to find more food to support it. It's a burden for the body, and therefore will only be an evolutionary advantage if it offsets the extra energy needed to run it (by helping you to find more food than you otherwise would, for example). If you live in an environment where food is plentiful and easy to pick up (like gorillas in the jungle) then extra intelligence is probably a disadvantage rather than a benefit.

Third, everything is evolving, all the time - It's inevitable. Three things are necessary for evolution to occur:

1: That mutations occur in living organisms;
2: That at least some of these mutations are inherited;
3: That at least some of these mutations affect reproductive success.

If all three things are true (which they are), then evolution is inevitable. It may not always be obvious, because the changes may be slow or may be internal or may be changes to the body chemistry or the nervous system rather than obvious external physical changes, but they *will* occur. It's impossible for evolution *not* to occur.

So, some apes have evolved to have larger bodies (e.g. gorillas), some have evolved to be more agile (e.g. orang-utangs) and some have evolved very significant behavioural changes (e.g. chimpanzees kill each other whereas bonobos have never been known to, and bonobos have much more frequent sexual encounters).

It's all about what works better in particular circumstances.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Darwin's theory of natural selection does not say that an organism with beneficial adaptations will survive while others without this will die. All it says is that populations with a beneficial adaptation will survive. Actually it doesn't even say that. Really what it says is that organisms that survive and breed will pass their adaptations (beneficial or otherwise) onto their offspring.

Just because one population of apes in East Africa with a bipedal stance is able to survive and thrive and pass on their genes for bipedal stance to their offspring does not mean that the other apes that don't have that adaptation have to die out.

Consider the analogy of a human family. One brother (Steve) is smart, tall and athletic. The other brother (Owen) is short, lazy, and not too bright. The smart brother marries a tall, smart, attractive woman and they have tall, smart, attractive kids. This doesn't mean the other brother will never be able to have kids. In fact, he finds himself a lumpy trollish wife with bountiful body hair and they go on to have numerous stupid, lazy, hairy kids. Both Steve's and Owen's families continue to exist, even if they don't particularily enjoy each other's company. One doesn't go extinct just because the other one is successful.

And human characteristics are not 'more beneficial' than ape characters. Human characteristics were beneficial enough to the ape population that moved onto the savannah that they were able to reproduce successfully (which is the only real measure of biological 'fitness'). However, the ape characteristics were still beneficial for those apes that remained in the forest.

Both populations are still evolving. Most often, evolutionary selection is for stability in the population. It is only when there is selective pressure (i.e. a change in environments, or new mutations creating new characters) that a change in the physical morphology of the organisms that make up the population.

Even if similar selective pressures were to work on the populations again, they wouldn't produce the exact same characteristics. If somewhere down the line one of Owen's grandchildren happens to be tall and attractive, it still won't actually be Steve. Steve's family is still separate. There might be another offshoot of Owen's family tree that happens to be tall and attractive and smart, but they're not Steve's familiy. In the same way, there is no way for modern ape species to ever give rise to humans again. Selective pressures might (but probably won't) result in the selection of an intelligent, bipedal ape species again, but it won't be Homo sapiens. It would be an entirely new species. If there were in fact half-humans and humans being born by apes today it would pretty much completely disprove the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Answer 3

Human characteristics might seem more beneficial to a human, but in the environments apes live in, ape characteristics are more beneficial. How many people could survive just being dropped into the middle of a jungle with none of the benefits of human technology, just their naked wit against the world? Not very many.

Humans evolved from proto-apes that were trapped in an area where the ape friendly environment dwindled and disappeared.

For most of the 200,000 years humans have existed there were more apes than there were humans. All of the ancestral hominids have disappeared in spite of their more human characteristics, demonstrating that human characteristics aren't superior.

That ratio turned around because the few people who are insightful questioners figured out how to can turn nearly any environment into a human friendly environment, thus serving to perpetuate the witless majority.

Answer 4

"Obviously, human characteristics are more beneficial than those of apes ?"

Where did you get that one from? Apes are quite successful species in their own right, as long as we do not drive them to extinction.

Here we go again.
1)We DID NOT evolve from apes. We have a common ancestry. In biological terms we form a CLADE (look it up yourself)

2) A species does not evolve in to another. A certain population within a species, may show sufficient genetic drift that eventually they come to be regarded as separate species. There is no requirement for the original species to disappear. If that were the case, there would only be one species on the Earth at any one time.

Answer 5

There is no evidence whatsoever that any kind of 'ape' evolved into man.

Every hominid fossil is clearly ape or clearly man.

Unfortunately there is a lot of deceipt practiced by scientists that should know better. The Natural History Museum in London has a model of 'Lucy' an australopithecene. Lucy was founf without hands and feet, but other australopithecene fossils have been found with ape like hands and feet. The NH Museum model has human hands and feet - deliberate deception!

There have been numerous other deceptions like Piltdown man - complete fraud. Java man - declared to be a human fossil on the basis of a thigh bone, a skull cap and 3 teeth - not even found in the same place.
Nebraska man - based on a pigs tooth!

Check out the evidence for yourself, but don't believe what evolutionists (or creationists) tell you without looking for yourself at the evidence.

Answer 6

The early evolution of hominids in Africa coincided with dramatic changes in the climate that saw the forests shrink and Savannah and deserts increase. These early hominids evolved to live in these dryer regions.

Apes clung to the surviving forests, where their adaptions, particularly in being able to climb and swing in the trees, does not need any further enhancement to make them completely successful in that environment.

In considering what happened to hominids, it is easily forgotten when we look at our fat, ungainly modern people, that hunter gatherers and wild dogs are the only hunters that can run down their prey by continuing the chase all day, if required. That is why we can still be marathon runners if we get off our backsides, but it also shows an adaption to the conditions of the time.

Then because we have not got the speed of dogs, or the meat tearing capacity, we needed something else - greater intelligence to be more cunning in the chase, and to be able to make and use weapons. The hand dexterity we inherited from our primate ancestors also helped here.

Answer 7

That is a good question. My answer would be that the characteristics that the apes that are still around evolved are much more beneficial for the niche they fill in their environment and therefore didn't evolve into men. I know that I can't live most of my life in a tree and my prehensile tail is not what it used to be, that's for sure. Only specific apes evolved into modern day humans.

Answer 8

Apes did not evolve into humans!

We share a common ancestor and it must be beneficial for apes to be apes or they would've changed into something else by now.

The reason apes are not doing so well these days has nothing to do with their nature or nature in general but more to do with their persecution by man.

Answer 9

Because of our thumb and the dexterity it allows.

Plus, they did not have the need to walk upright due to their forest habitat it was beneficial for them to be good climbers instead.
We became thinkers, planners and tool users and that includes the use of weapons by necessity to survive in the open.
Walking or running on two feet is beneficial for hunters, gatherers and nomadic lifestyles......taking advantage of whatever food is available.
Intelligence would also benefit those in the open for the same reasons.
Darwin had it right I think.

Answer 10

don't know, but i think humans are just one type of ape. Humans aren't all good, standing on two feet has enormous physical limitations and causes back problems etc. but means we can use our hands. Humans are also very intelligent which can lead to stress, so in other words although we are sucessful, our sucess also is our weakness in some cases. And more primitive animals do not suffer such problems.