Why say we evolved from an "ape-like creature"?

Question

On the religion and spirituality section many defenders of evolutionary theory say that humans evolved from an "apelike creature".

Given that we are, in fact, apes, and our closest relatives are also apes, isn't it reasonable to assume that the common ancestors of all ape species would also have been in the hominoidae superfamily?

Why are so many so keen to call our ancestors "ape like creatures" rather than just calling an ape an ape?

Or do humans belong to some other family of primates I've never heard of?

Surely if, say, the common ancestor of chimps, bonoboes and humans were found today living in the jungles of Kenya it would be described as a newly discovered species of ape, (not a new ape-like creature), wouldn't it? What else could it be, if not a hominid?

Most of the answers so far seem to be assuming that humans are not apes. I thought we were, in the same way we are primates, and mammals, and vertebrates. If we're not, then what are we?

Answer 1

The phrase "ape-like creature" is a response to a really really BAD question asked by creationists that it so steeped in misunderstanding of biology and evolution, that defenders of evolution don't know where to start answering.

I've been thinking about this for a while, so please allow me to explain:

The word "ape" is ambiguous. While it has a definite meaning among biologists (members of the superfamily Hominoidea, which includes extinct species), it does not have a definite meaning among laypeople. (Just as the word "theory" has a definite meaning to scientists and a fuzzier meaning to laypeople ... which is another ambiguity exploited by creationists.)

Many people use the word "ape" thinking it's a species (which it's not), or a type of monkey (which it is not). Even some people who recognize it as a classification of many species (chimps, gorillas, etc.), still exclude humans from that category (which is incorrect ... as you point out, humans ARE apes).

When some creationists ask "if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" that tells us something. First, it reveals that they don't believe that man is an ape (which is untrue). Second, it implies that they think that "ape" is a species that can be "evolved from" (which is untrue). Third, by saying that "there are still apes" they reveal that they're talking about apes that exist today ... i.e. that humans purportedly evolved from some ape that exists today (which is untrue). And fourth, the creationist is trying to imply that the evolutionary ancestor to man still exists (which is untrue), but logically should be gone (which is also untrue). And it reveals a fundamental 2nd-grade-level CARTOON-like misunderstanding of evolution and speciation, and a failure to understand that evolution is a BRANCHING TREE, not a chain.

Or another way to look at it, when they ask "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?", they are either accidentally or deliberately (to manufacture a "paradox") using *two* different meanings of the word "apes" in the same sentence, NEITHER OF WHICH IS CORRECT: "apes" as a category of ancestral (extinct) species; "apes" as a category of modern species; and neither is the correct meaning of "apes" as a category that includes all Hominoidea extinct or existing, *including* humans.

So with so much misunderstanding packed into one question, how can we respond?

They seem to think our jaws drop at the sheer *cleverness* of the question ... when it is precisely the opposite. Our jaws drop at the amount of sheer ignorance that can be packed into a 10-word question!

I have tried many different ways to answer this question ... some long, some short, some snarky, some patient, some mean, most polite. I've tried going into tremendous detail (as I am here) to explain terms, clear up misconceptions. And yes, I have tried to draw the distinction betwen modern apes, and the ancestor to human which didn't look anything like a modern ape or human ... and so "ape-like" is a word I've used (but try to avoid now).

But it doesn't matter. Creationists who ask this question aren't actually looking for an answer! They honestly seem to believe that asking the question alone serves some purpose. They never comment on the many answers offered by those "evolutionists". If they return at all to pick a Best Answer, they will pick "u r rite! i ask myself the same." as the Best Answer. And fifteen minutes later somebody posts "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?!"

So the phrase "ape-like ancestor" is just yet another attempt to come up with some way to explain things to these people. However, it is futile to try to teach somebody something who has honed the act of avoiding learning, into a way of life.

Answer 2

Humans are apes ("ape" being a category, a subset of "primate.") Humans did not evolve from modern gorillas or chimpanzees, but rather both evolved from an ancestral species, much the way both chihuahuas and great danes both come from some ancestral dog (but of course there's even more differentiation between humans and apes.) The idea of modern apes "becoming human" is ridiculous. To produce the exact same set of genetic parameters from different source material under hugely different conditions would be ridiculously unlikely. As to why they are not becoming intelligence, intelligence isn't an inherently favourable trait that evolution is working towards...it just happened to be advantageous in one case. Perhaps the potential to develop intelligence was lost in those groups that later became modern chimps/gorillas/whatever. Or perhaps the evolutionary pressures that created intelligence are gone, or are acting differently on those animals than they did on us. It's silly to assume that just because we worked out so well all other animals are somehow *trying* to turn themselves into little human clones.

Answer 3

Given the fact that the genetics between humans and apes differ by a very few alleles I think it is safe to say that the distinction between the words "ape" and "ape-like" creatures is a an attempt to mince words in the name of personification of an ape.

We humans are partial to our differentiation from the apes as a result of our obvious superiority and dominion over them.

It is also possible that the early hominids were the precursors to both the apes and humans -- which diverged at some point in prehistory -- despite the conventional wisdom of anthropology.

I view the matter as a bit of a moot point when I consider the vast similarities between the species.

Answer 4

Modern apes and humans have all evolved from a common ancestor that lived some ten million years or so ago. The ancestor was not an ape as we would recognise one today but an animal that had some of the characteristics of apes so it would be said to be ape-like.

From this animal evolved the various lines of apes and after the split between protochimpanzees and hominids, the various hominid lines one of which led to us.

Answer 5

Wrong Wrong Wrong!
You may have heard that humans are 99.9% the same as each other. Well, not anymore.
New research is showing that we are LESS alike than this. There isn’t an exact number yet but the new number is probably somewhere between 99.0 and 99.9%.

What happened? What have scientists been finding that makes us all less alike?
They’ve been discovering that we don’t just have differences within our genes. We also have differences in the number of copies of our genes as well.

This forces us to rethink how genetics works, how we do genetic testing, what makes us different from a chimpanzee, why some of us are more prone to illness and some of us more resistant, etc. This new research is changing how we think about how our DNA works and why we are who we are.

Answer 6

We say this because the creature *wasn't* an ape, but it was a lot like what we know as apes today. Thus the term "ape-like" - because that's very likely what it was. Remember too - all apes are primates, but not all primates are apes.

Answer 7

Because apes and us are decendants of another creature. And we are like apes but are alot different. It is also like apes and us but different. And if you tend to say that to a creationist. They go around saying ''them there evolutionist's think my dad was a monkey. And no haha i swear i hear that from most of them. That was not just changed or altered to make them sound inferior.

Answer 8

Because Apes are our latest ancestors also scientists think we evolved from apes because they also have apostle thumbs.

Answer 9

Who says that? Forget the ape business and creationism.

Answer 10

it was more ape-like than fish-like, bird-like, mammal-like, amphibian-like or reptile-like, with a primate body and fur all over its face