Evolution of man: It is reasonable to suppose that we share an ancestor with the apes?

Question

The underlying principle is that genetic mutations do occur and can be passed on to offspring. But, is it reasonable to suppose that humans will continue to evolve over any length of time?

The problem I see is this: in order for humans to evolve as an entire race, the necessary genetic changes would have to occur in all humans that have children within a given generation, so that those changes can be passed on to the entire population of future generations. However, such a widespread genetic change affecting everyone the same way is very unlikely. There may be some who inherit certain mutations, but these individuals are just as likely to mate with other humans that didn't receive the genetic change. The end result is that isolated genetic mutations are not going to have much of an effect on the world's population as a whole.

If the same concept is applied to our ancestors, how likely is it that some descendants would become humans while others became apes?

Sam, that's the point I'm making. How could an isolated mutation that affects one, or maybe a few individuals, have much of an effect on the population as a whole?

Answer 1

That's not how it works: A mutation occurs in an individual, and if it provides a differential advantage to members of the species with the mutation (that is, the progeny of the individual with the original mutation, if they also have it), it slowly takes over.

Answer 2

It is occurring as we speak. There is a genetic variant carried by about half the population right now. The gene is thought to be related to intelligence, and higher learning. How exactly this gene will express itself in the future is not known.

With large populations wide spread change will take longer than is isolated small groups.

Also consider that we are significantly taller than people of even a few hundred years ago.

Consider the genetic similarity between us and chimpanzees. 96% the same. As we move away from the greater apes, there is more genetic differences.

Answer 3

You're wrong, genetic changes affect only single individuals first and are then promoted to parts or a whole population by interbreeding. Otherwise, we would all be genetically identical, which we obviously are not.

In the long run, genetic changes will distribute among a population particularly if they provide an advantage for survival and/or procreation, and they will die out when they are disadvantageous. That's evolution.

Separation between species will (in the very long run) occur primarily if populations are separated from each other. For example, one group of primates staying on the trees collecting fruit, the other group stepping into the open grass range collecting roots and carrion. (a simplified example)

Answer 4

Well, yes, up until only recently, species have somewhat small populations compared to modern humans. For the first time in history, humans have a population in which environmental effects have little influence on natural selection. But genetic drift and gene flow should still allow humans to evolve. As far as our ancestor, the population was small enough for gene flow, genetic drift, AND natural selection to cause a split into two separate species.

Answer 5

A clever insight. I am just a lay person, but I would think that would be an example of how species take different paths. Those parts of any species that become so different that they no longer can inner bread evolve differently.

Strong Superior survival traits would slowly disseminate across the species. Some, such as the now lost dwarf elephants would become so isolated as to develop greatly different characteristics, and eventually become separate species.

Answer 6

a mutation doesn't occur in a whole species simultaneously.

EDIT: the thing is it does occur in the whole species. what i meant 2 say was it doesn't happen in everyone at once. gradually the change comes in all the members of the species.

however, i m not an evolutionary biologist or whatever. so whatever i say is 4m my own deductions.

Jay, grow up. so what if we might have descended from apes? big deal! suck it up. u might not know but there is a gene in humans that determines whether ur blood type is positive or negative. that gene comes from monkeys. that gene is called the rhesus factor. i m sure u must have had a heart attack by now.

Answer 7

You are assuming that evolution takes place over a short period of time. It does not. The mutations take many, many generations to spread to the entire population. If it is an improvement it will win out, eventually.

Answer 8

If there were a drastic change in climate or atmosphere that we were unable to control life would be forced to evolve. those that did not would die out. They might evolve differently in different areas. I don't know, I was not there and won't be around if it happens again. Not all evolutions took place at the exact same time.

Earth is not perfect for all life forms, just the forms on it. Who knows what kind of conditions could foster life.

Answer 9

if was easier for humans to evolve way back when than it is now. now you have less isolation between races. to make it easer for a species to evolve isolation must occur because then you will have that same gene turn up more often in a group of people. now you have more people moving from country to country that genes are more diluted than they were 100,000 years ago.

Answer 10

yes completelyl possible ever seen a 3 legged frog?
with menerails and chemicails that most humans never knew about until studied. there is nothing proving that it can't happen
I watched a special and there are like very few ape bones that have been found that are more human like then apes we see today!

if a lion can have a pouch humans can be from apes!