Do people know this?

Question

I've heard several people say that evolution claims we evolved from apes. This is not true, and I think it's important to clear this up.

Evolution claims that apes and humans have a common ancestor. In other words, apes and humans both evolved from an animal that was different from them both.

Do people understand this point?

To the anthropologist: Okay, interesting. Of course I meant that humans did not evolve from the same apes we see today. But thanks for the extra information.

Answer 1

The ones that don't do not want to.

Answer 2

This is a misunderstanding based on what exactly is meant by 'ape'. Scientists looking at evolution talk about hominids, which contain the few homo species and a great many ape species (and all the rest). When lay-people talk about the science behind evolution, that often gets shortened to 'ape.' And that's where the confusion arises.

When Creationists ridicule evolution for saying that humans evolved from apes, they're thinking about gorillas, orangutans and monkeys, what they see at the zoo. They don't know enough good science to understand that 'ape' also refers to a vast collection of species, including our common ancestor.

Answer 3

Strictly speaking you're wrong - we *are* apes.

The reason we're classed as apes is that there is no valid way to group all the other apes together that doesn't also apply to humans. In other words, whatever criteria you use to define what is an ape, in order to include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs and gibbons, humans will also fit those criteria. Indeed, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas, and gorillas are more closely related to humans and chimpanzees than they are to orangs, so any classification that separated humans out from those other apes would not make any sense.

Look it up on Wikipedia, you'll see it explained in more detail.

(I do understand the point you're trying to make though - we're certainly not descended from any *existing* apes, we're descended from an ancestral ape that lived something like 6 million years ago and from which all modern apes are descended).

Obviously the 'Genesis' thing is just mythology, not reality.

OK here's what Wikipedia says:

"A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

The primatological term is easily confused with a number of very similar words:

A hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the lesser apes (gibbons) and great apes.
A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae: all of the great apes.
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans.
A hominan is a member of the sub-tribe Hominina: humans and their extinct relatives.

Certain morphological characteristics are still used conventionally (though incorrectly) to support the idea that hominid should only denote humans and human ancestors, namely bipedalism and large brains. These points of departure between human beings and the other great apes are important, but taxonomically do not divide us into separate families. Genetics, rather than morphology, is the critical test of relatedness and in this respect humans and the other great apes ought to be of the same family."

Answer 4

It is a *very* important point, and you are right to bring it up.

The confusion stems from the ambiguity of the word "apes" in the sentence "humans evolved from apes".

As one person has said, technically, we *are* classified as apes ... so it is somewhat like asking whether we evolved from mammals, or vertebrates ... a bit silly.

But if you analyze what people mean they say we evolved "from" apes or "from" monkeys, they are expressing the mistaken understanding that some existing species of ape or monkey is our ancestor. In other words, that modern apes (chimps, gorillas, gibbons, etc.) are some sort of stages of "unevolved humans" frozen in some intermediate stage of evolution. This is of course, also absurd. No living species evolved "from" another existing species. All modern species are, *by definition* the result of exactly the same amount of evolutionary time as humans are. So a chimp is not an "unevolved human" but a fully evolved chimp ... just as advanced, just as evolved, just as well adapted to its environment as we are to ours.

So whatever is the common ancestor between modern humans and the other modern apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc.), that creature may or may not be classified as an ape if it were alive today.

So in either case it is correct that to say we evolved "from" apes, is a silly misunderstanding of evolution.

And it is always amazing to me, that the very same people who hold this silly, 2nd-grade, CARTOON version of evolution, are the same people who feel qualified enough to criticize evolution on scientific grounds! ... That they understand the science *so* much better than all those tens of thousands of scientists with their PhD.s and high-falutin' words, who spend their *careers* studying this stuff!

Answer 5

Hi. I'm an anthropologist. I think it's great that you are doing your homework on this one, but I want to clear something up real quick. Human beings did not evolve from monkeys, but we did evolve from apes. The ape that we evolved from no longer exists, but chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans (and many others) all share a common ancestor with human beings. So to makes sure, human beings DID evolve from apes.
-------------------------------------
Actually, scientists will disagree on whether or not human beings should be classified as apes, but icarus62 makes a really good point.

Answer 6

icarus62 –

Good answer, but the term ‘ape’ does, in fact, get used both ways. It is sometimes employed to include all species in the superfamily Hominoidea (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and humans) and sometimes to only include the nonhuman species, although traditionally, usage of the word has often not included humans.

And, there is genetic evidence putting the split at 2 million years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_humanorigins.html

Answer 7

Robert you well know that the first explanation put forward for evolution was the theory that we were in fact distant cousins of Apes and this was allowed to degenerate into full comments by nature programs and articles in magazines that played up the shared descent from apes in a way that suggested one directly from the other.
This weakness of evolution theory is now an embarrassment that is forever fixed in the mindset of believers and I really cannot see how you can expect it to be simply forgotten.
Then we had the fiasco of transitional forms that Neo-Darwinists wet themselves with excitement over and once again they have been shown to have been entirely wrong.
Then we had the Punctuated Equilbrium theory that stated living beings suddenly evolved into another species without any transitional forms at all, I mean how many times will evolutionists move the goalposts in the vain hope of finally finding a comfortable solution which for creationists will never happen.

Answer 8

I still like to think we have more in common than just a common ancestor... it'd help explain my behavior when I am drinking.

Answer 9

95% Public Institutions around whole world understands this point.

Not sure what's your point though.

Oh, is this all new to you? Are you reading from somewhere like a christian website and typing it all here? Poor kid, go to school, you'll learn it all easily.

Answer 10

I understand it completely, and if you check my answer to the evolution question earlier you will see that.

Answer 11

Richard Leakey disagrees...