Regarding evolution,doesn't something have to die for it to be successful?

Question

For instance,shouldn't all apes & monkeys be dead since humans supposedly descended from them according to any evolutionary theory?I do believe that evolution is just that-theory,not fact!

Answer 1

Just sticking to the theory itself, and not arguing for the accuracy of it, no-things do not have to die out.
First, the theory states that both humans and apes evolved from the same root animal-thus, both humans and apes have evolved equally, just in different ways.
Second, when one population of animals is isolated from the main proportion of animals, they can evolve in a different direction- such as birds that are isolated on different islands (the original subect of Darwin)
third, it an offspring evolves to live better in a slightly different climate or area or food, then it may move to that area, away from the original poplulation.

Answer 2

The Theory of Evolution only contends that the characteristics that give an organism a survival advantage are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. It also contends that the accumulation of these small changes alters the organism over numerous generations into a new organism. While these changes offer the organism a better chance of surviving, it does not mean that it will ultimately result in the demise of all other members of the progenitor species. Nor does it guarantee that the organism with the change will even survive... only that it's chances are slightly better than it's 2nd or 3rd cousin.

The reason that the Theory of Evolution is a theory is that it is a postulate (i.e. a possible explanation) that over the years has accumulated evidence to support it as a viable explanation for the facts that have been accumulated from the fossil record. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Evolution is not a fact nor will it ever be a fact by definition. A fact is a packet of information that has been proven to be true in every situation and circumstance.

For example:
fact: 2+1=3
postulate: 2 molecules + 1 molecule = 3 molecules (not true in every circumstance, e.g. 2 H2 + 1 O2 => 2 H2O)
theory: our solar system has 8 planets (so far, true, as far as we know... sorry Pluto... but who knows, astronomers may change their collective minds again ;-) )

Unfortunately for Evolution, like practically every other theory in science, it can never stand up to that test. The only way to prove that Evolution is a fact is to literally go back in time, and physically trace out every physical descendant of every organism that currently exists on the planet... how far can you trace back your own ancestry? Yes, we have clues that suggest that certain changes have occurred from the fossil record but there is no way to prove that one organism is a direct physical descendant of another. In fact, it was not that long ago that paleontologists considered the Neanderthal to be one of the ancestors of humans, which has of course been disproven by mitochondrial DNA analysis.

What we have in Evolution is a long chain of loops in which each of the links are hidden from view. Because it appears to be in a straight line, it is easy for the observer to jump to the conclusion that all the loops are connected into a strong chain. But there is no way to prove that the loops are truly linked or just sitting side by side. And once in a while, a "link" is uncovered only to show that adjacent loops are not connected at all. If Evolution were a chain, I wouldn't depend on it to carry any weight.

Answer 3

No. Something doesn't have to die for it to be successful.

You have mistaken the basis of evolution. Evolution does not mean that humans are decendants from apes. Evolution states that humans and the modern apes and monkeys have a common ancestor. That ancestor developed into different species that would eventually lead to humans and apes. There was once a common primate that would lead to all of the primates in existance today. That ancestor is not alive today.

In regards to evolution as a theory, that is what it is. Like all explanations in science, it is a theory... one that is widely accepted. Until there is an experiment that can accurately prove it wrong, it is a plausible explanation to how species are related to one another. However, the evidence that supports evolution is fact.

So, if you get a chance, please take a second look at evolution because once you understand what it really explains, you may find that it makes more sense than monkeys being our ancestors.

Answer 4

This is a misunderstanding of the theory.

Any "evolution" which causes the individual to have an advantage is merely more likely to have more offspring, thereby propogating that evolution. It does not, however, kill off the existing species.

Let's take a really simple example. Imagine it's 5,000 years ago, and the world's first blonde is born. (imagine that no blondes had existed before then). There are two possibilities -
- Being blonde is evolutionarilly "bad" - maybe a blonde is easier to spot by predators, and the blonde is more likely to be killed. If this happens, the blonde won't have children - or maybe the first blonde will survive, but few or none of his/her children will. Eventually the "blonde" trait dies.
- Being blonde is evolutionarilly "good" - maybe because it's different, it makes the first blonde more attractive to potential mates, increasing the chance of having children, and of having more children who have the blonde trait. The result over several generations will be that there are lots of blondes.

But notice that just because blondes exist doesn't mean brunettes or redheads died off. They're unaffected - or at least, not directly affected. There will be a smaller percentage of them, but they'll still exist. (and if the blondes died off, the other hair color groups would be 100% the same as before.)


Same with apes and monkeys. Just because man learned to use tools and walk upright didn't mean that monkeys and apes didn't continue having children. It's only now that man is destroying their habitat that the apes and monkeys are being hurt by the evolution of man.

Answer 5

Firstly, the theory of evolution does not claim that Man descended from monkeys, contrary to popular belief. Rather, Man and other primates shared a common ancestor, just like homo sapiens and Neanderthals shared a common ancestor. It does not mean that we are descended from Neanderthals. Think of it as two separate twigs branching out from the same trunk.

Secondly, yes death is a necessity for evolution to take place, because the effects are seen across generations. Evolution is based on the idea that the "fittest" individulas in a population survive and pass on their genes, while the "weaker" ones dont survive to reproduce, and hence their genes are not passed on. Over time, the genetic make-up of a population can change, sometimes drastically, depending on the environmental pressures favouring certain attributes.So, while the weaker members of a population will die for evolution to occur, that does not mean that a whole species or particular taxon of animals has to die OUT, i.e. be extinct.

Answer 6

To be sucessful, you have to leave offspring. Say apes lived in trees, for instance. There is a big drought and many trees die. Some of the apes learn to live in the ground. They have offspring so are concidered sucessful. Since there are now less apes in the trees, the remaining ones can have offspring are are therefore also considered successful.
Or take people who wear glasses. It's not a good survival trait to be nearsighted. But The best hunters go out and the nearsighted ones stay home and make arrowheads. Guess who's home making the babies?
Nature doesn't find the best solution, it finds ANY solution.

Answer 7

Death is not a pre-requisite for evolution, but remember that everything that lives will die. You must merely outdo the competition. Apes (including humans) and monkeys descended from a small creature that lived 55 million years ago. Successful monkeys and apes live on, although many lines became extinct. Some successful forms (e.g. crocodiles and sharks) have survived relatively unchanged for much longer, but even their external form is relatively unchanged, the hundreds of millions of years of competion has made them more effective.

Answer 8

I have stopped correcting people when they bring up humans descending from apes, and why apes are still around. This question is asked almost daily. You should have learned the answer to this questions within about 1 hour of being taught evolution.

Answer 9

The theory is not quite that linear. Do some research and come back with an informed question.

Answer 10

Did a poodle evolve from a wolf?
as gravity is also a theory, maybe you should do some research.
and no, humans did not evolve from monkeys.
that is like saying crows evolved from eagles everything is CONSTANTLY EVOLVING DO SOME RESEARCH.