What if apes are mutation offshoots of humans?

Question

Ive never heard of such a study being done or even attempted.

has anyone questioned the origins of apes? what if they developed off humans instead of the other way around?

So we didnt develop from apes? Good

All the religious fanatics can calm down now. lol

Answer 1

You may be right depending on your definition of humans a hundred thousand years ago.

If your definition of human is a human a hundred thousand years ago, a progenitor or a "common ancestor" of apes and humans, then you are right, apes are mutation offshoots of humans.

Vice versa is also true, i.e. humans are mutation offshots of apes, if we call the "common ancestor" a hundred thousand years ago an ape.

Answer 2

Actually they have studied this extensively, using fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and molecular evidence (DNA patterns, independent of genes). And the answer seems to be that neither one developed from the other, but rather that all modern species of apes (including humans) developed from a common ancestor.

This is a *really* important point! First, it reminds us that what we now see as the other apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, etc.) are themselves as much a product of millions of years of evolution as we are. Second, YA is hounded by people who have the misunderstanding of evolution as some sort of "chain" from monkey→ape→man ... which is why they ask ridiculous questions like "why did monkeys or apes stop evolving?" or "why are there still monkeys/apes?" or "where is the missing 'link' between monkeys and man?" or "why don't we see monkeys still evolving into men?" This total misconception of evolution as a "chain" .... with monkeys and apes as intermediate "stages" in human evolution that somehow got frozen in time ... is the root of those questions. (Stephen Jay Gould would blame that *terrible* picture of the "marching man", with four stages of human evolution marching proudly off to the right, as a major culprit in this terribly simplistic CARTOON image of evolution.)

Creationists LOVE to perpetuate that misunderstanding of evolution as a chain ... either because they know it's an effective way into confusing people and making evolution sound ridiculous, or because they are genuinely incapable of understanding the basic point of evolution as a constant process of BRANCHING.

Life is an endlessly branching TREE ... not just a single chain. That single KEY point, can clear up a lot of misconceptions for a lot of people.

Answer 3

Well we can't be offshoots of apes as we ARE apes. We have a common ancestor with all other apes about 15 million years ago.

You might be interested to know that anthropologists studying extinct hominids theorised that some types returned to the trees after a period of walking on their hind legs.

Answer 4

Apes have been around longer than humans. Humans are the odd mutant offshoots of apes, not the other way around.

You've been reading too much science fiction by Larry Niven. If you haven't then you should start with this novel:
Protector

Answer 5

imagine this....that there are beings who dont exist anymore....they are something in between apes and humans...the ones that climb well take to the trees, and the ones who can stand tall enough to see above the tall grass take to the plains.....these are the proto-human-apes....the ones who climb evolve to a life of searching for fruit and nuts and tender foliage, and never have a need for intelligence, because the physical skills they have are sufficient to survive.....but the ones who live on the plains... they have trouble finding food, and have to survive by peeking above the grass, seeing where the predators are...and driving the better predators away from the prey using sticks and stones, so they can eat a meal of raw meat....eventually... the intelligence of the plains apes would evolve to favor the ones who were good at stealing meat from lions to survive, but the intelligence of the tree apes would never need to develop, because they rely on the ability to climb and forage the trees to survive....the best survivalists of the plains apes are the most intelligent....and the survivors of the tree apes are the most agile....now over time... generation to generation...the plains apes lose the hair, because they have animal skins for protection from the cold... the tree apes grow more hair, because they dont have that luxury....the plains apes get ever more intelligent, because stupid plains apes get killed quick... ate by sabre tooth cats....the tree apes lose the individuals who fall out of trees... the ones who climb good survive and reproduce... the ones who climb bad fall and die.....this is a simplified explanation of evolution, albiet a good one... and hopefully answers your question the best

Answer 6

It is good to think outside the box. Humans, however, are essentially apes (from a physiological and morphological perspective). Moreover, human fossils do not predate other ape fossils

Answer 7

As smart as we are. We constantly bring ourselves down to the level of apes. I guess we are too modest. My thought is that we did not evolve from any apes nor from any bacterial form. Is science based on facts? Science is merely a translation of human beings of a graet work of a supreme being.
And we are also supreme beings. And it is sad that we rather have a monkey as our ancestors or be any ancestors of them.

Answer 8

sadly, your experiment has a bad premise, because scientists don't think that humans developed from apes.

they think that they share a common ancestor. the lineage can be mapped using the mutations in conserved genes that are "rapidly evolving" (for mapping small time scale) and "slowly evolving" (for larger time scale mapping).

Answer 9

i think your question is great. the only problem is that human fossils do not predate ape/primate fossils, therefore one could conclude that humans evolved after apes.

Answer 10

That is a good question. Keep thinking outside of the box. Do not accept EVERYTHING that you hear.
But my answer to your question is that I do not know if anyone else has tested this theory.