If evolution is true than why is it that there are still apes around???

Question

not that i believe in it but if you do dont you ever wonder so how do you believe something that hasnt been proven

Answer 1

Cheers! I hope you realise that when this question appears in yahoo! answers, you get to take a drink. I'm already getting a bit sloshed.

Anyway, this isn't a difficult question. The classic analogy is this: if Americans are descendants of Eurasians and Africans, why are there still Europeans, Asians and Africans around?

It's a good analogy, but not perfect, since any modern Old-worlder could go and become American (provided the Us government agreed). But a chimp couldn't just become human.

Think of it another way: expecting other apes to evolve into human beings is like expecting different children from different parts of the world to grow into identical adults. There are many many possible evolutionary paths open to any species. For other apes, who've already evolved in different directions from our common ancestor, to make the precise evolutionary steps necessary to evolve into human beings is about as likely as a coin turning up heads a million times in a row.

Answer 2

It is a common misconception that humans evolved from the same species of ape that are around today. Humans and apes are considered divergent species, which means that we both have a common ancestor. So, properly put, apes are not "still around," they are just "also around."

Nevertheless, evolution doesn't necessarily result in the extinction of the more 'primitive' species. There are a lot of factors that can influence this outcome. Generally though, if the two species are in the same environment competing for the same resources, this is what we expect would happen.

On a personal note, I think it is good to see evolution getting a good browbeating. After HS Biology (about a decade ago for me) evolution seemed perfectly plausible. When I took Bio in college it was like a whole different science. And keep in mind that textbooks are generally at least *15 years* behind the research of their publication date. There's a biologist named Bruce Lipton who has some popular literature on some modern biological theories and perspectives. Doesn't deal with evolution at all, but if you are interested in Biology I recommend you check him out.

This is what I'm talking about: one hour after the question was posted, someone who contributed absolutely nothing and actually insulted the questioner has 38% of the vote. I guess that's what you have to expect when you blaspheme the faith.

One final note. Evolution, in the sense that organisms change over time, is indeed a fact. This is generally called micro-evolution. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, etc. are macro-evolutionary theories. In this sense, evolution is nothing more than a theory, and no scientist with a shred of honor will tell you otherwise. Macro-evolution or speciation have never been observed directly. If you accept that life must have a 'natural' origin, then of course macro-evolution must be fact in some sense or another. But it is not fact in the same sense as micro-evolution: it has been neither observed, tested, nor proven.

Answer 3

Simple, apes have reached the end of apes evolutionary line. As long as nothing happens that requires a change in ape gene pool, ape will remain as they are. As a matter of fact evolution of all higher animals on Earth may have come to an end point. Why? Because of human interference. Human evolution certainly has. Humans are now in control of human evolution.

Assuming that you can witness evolution in higher lifeforms is an indication that you don't really know much about evolution. Also stating that you "believe or don't believe" in evolution shows you don't understand science. Evolution is a fact. Just like the sun rising in the east every morning. Facts are accepted not believed. If you don't accept facts you are in denial.

I would suggest getting a better understanding of evolution and biology. Here is a good place to start:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.
See also: http://evonet.sdsc.edu/. http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Answer 4

Why not? there are different kinds of felids, different kinds of reptiles, diffent kinds of sea mammals, so there are different kinds of primates, not all individuals come from the same ancestor, but one ancestor can be the origin of many different species, just because one primitive primate evolved into the human species doesn´t mean that there can't be any other apes. If you are asking this question either, you have never studied evolution or you didn't understand it.

And you should believe in it since we share 99% of our DNA with chimpazees and 94% whith Macaques, evolution has been proven beyond doubt.

Answer 5

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Modern apes are not currrently evolutionally inferior to humans.

Most scientists feel there is enough proof of evolution to classify it as a strong theory.

If you delve into most things in science you will find many unanswered questions. For example, we know very little about gravity yet it seems to exist anyway.

Answer 6

Okay, it's kind of complicated, but I'll simplify it, because I doubt I know enough to go into detail :D
There are certain genes that get passed on. Some of our earlier ancestors(like pre-human ape stuff) Must have developed these genes and passed it on until we eventually evolved. Kinda not the best explantion, but Hopefully it will do

Answer 7

Simple

Because there is many different branches of the species and on the ones that evolved into humans all come from the genus---> Homo

because humans genus/species name is homo sapiens we technically belong to the homo genus of apes. and those that are part of the same genus are evolved to because they actually came from another from of ape like species.

I hope that is simple and not complicated, so that you can understand. if you want to know more i suggest you look at an evolution chart of apes and other monkey and look at their genus/species names and see where it came from...

Answer 8

The answer is that we didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes, as all members of the primate family do, share a common ancestor. This ancestor, depending on different environmental factors, evolved differently over time in different places, until it became more than one species. Over millions of years this resulted in the very diverse primate family. We are just one member who happen to also be the most advanced (or so we believe).

Answer 9

If a species has to entirely "turn into" another species, then there would only ever be one species - that is obviously not the mechanism for natural selection.

Think of it on a family level - You and your brothers and sisters are born in your parent's house. At some point that house becomes too small for all of you and you all opt to move to different houses, where your brothers and sisters have children, who are all cousins to one another, and all have blue eyes. If your child is then born with green eyes, his or her cousins don't all die just because he exists - meaning it wasn't the entire family working towards one end goal. Nor was every member of the family attracted to the same type of partner to co-create their child indicating a family-wide trend of children like yours. Even in households where children are encouraged to appreciate a certain body image for their partner by peer pressure or society prejudice, there are still the "deviant" members of that family who go against the grain. Either way, eye colour is not a significant feature to use in natural selection, because the colour of one's eyes will not determine that child's survival.

Now scale that up to the species level - group of apes become too numerous for their territory and branch out to new pastures. In one, the grass is very tall and has no trees. In the other, the trees are so densely packed together, you could break an ankle clambering over roots on the ground. This ape is capable of walking all fours or climbing, but now it has a choice: Get better at climbing or stand up to see what's going on. If you were living in the grassy home and knew that your children would survive better if they could stand up and look out for predators then that would influence the choices they made about their partners in the same way that people choose people who look wealthy if it will mean they and their children will have a better standard of life. Meanwhile, your brothers and sisters are deciding that climbing is a more attractive trait in a partner for the exact same reason - a good climber in a climbing environment will stand a better chance against predators than a good walker. Sexual Selection strikes again. Over time, those differences increase to the point where the two families upon meeting again, find each other so different that they do not trust, much less fancy one another. More time passes, those two branches of the family are so different, they can no longer produce healthy offspring even if forced to. Here is where we distinguish that these two are now different species.

"not that i believe in it".
Why would you choose not to believe in something you haven't taken the time to understand? Seriously, Darwin's original books are not that inaccessible. There's a chapter in the first edition that covers most of the objections I see posted here frequently (gaps in the fossil record, for e.g.)

Darwin's theory as many people seem to understand it here souds more like the Lamarckian theory that a species emerges fully formed from another species womb or that it knows exactly where it's going through some predetermined route toward perfection - a theory which Darwin himself balked at.

There are many ways to theoretically disprove evolution by natural selection - "rabbits in the precambrian" for instance, or it could have been disproved when Mendelian genetics was uncovered by revealing that there was no minute component that could affect variation based on sexual selection, but it wasn't - Darwin's idea was borne out by the existence of gene-level interactions which confirmed everything he had concluded based on selection among pets & livestock. However, everyone picks on the already explained ways and tries to discredit them, which means they are disproving a different theory. There are no ways to disprove Intelligent design, because it keeps changing the goal posts: "Ok, you can have hand to hoof variation, but you're not having that microorganism that has a cluster of rotating wheel-like cells - that's too complex for natural selection, therefore it must be design... Oh, you figured out how that wheel could be done? In that case, yes that's yours, but I'm keeping the octopus eye as proof of a designer... Oh, you explained that one too? OK, then give me phosphorescent parasitic bugs that take over the central nervous system of snails - that surely has to be design...

Want to make an alternative theory to evolution? Make one that stands up on its own, not one that gains ground by attacking the opposition - this is the quest for a greater understanding of our world, not a political struggle to find out who is most supported.

Answer 10

Apes are still around because a) "descended from" does not mean "extinct," and b) humans and apes share a common ancestor with monkeys, and, in turn, apes, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor with lemurs, tarsiers, and slow loris. Primates, in turn, share a common ancestor with elephant shrews and flying lemurs, who all, in turn, share a common ancestor with rabbits and rodents.

Please be aware that scientists universally regard any question that goes "why are apes still around?" to be as silly as asking "If I'm descended from my parents, why are they still alive?" or "If I'm related to my cousin, why is he alive?"