Evolution...I know this to be true; however...?

Question

I don't have a 100% accurate answer for the argument stating species that are still remaining from which others evolved. For example, why are there still gorillas?

I am assuming that when the contenents formed after dividing, each animal evolved to adapt to its surroundings...meaning in some areas gorillas remained to stay pretty consistent and others had to change to survive in other environments. Is my answer on the right path?

I guess I should have said: Why are there still chimps, tigers, lions, wolves, and other certain species that others evolved from. Not just primates. I do see how some of the answers could apply to all.

And to the person who said Why are humans and gorillas living together... well I am guessing you are one of the morons that visits zoos and circuses aren't you? You think animals choose to live in society with us? We really give them no other choice.

Answer 1

This is an easy question to answer if you understand *branching*.

Absolutely, yes, your answer is on the right path.

The dividing of the continents explains a *lot* of differences between what we now call the Old World (OW) primates (the monkeys of Africa and Asia, and all the apes, including humans) ... and the New World (NW) primates (the monkeys of Central and South America ... there are no apes from there).

For example, although there are some exceptions:
* OW primates have color vision, NW primates do not.
* OW primates have opposable thumbs, NW primates do not.
* OW primates have 8 premolar teeth, NW primates have 12.
* NW primates have prehensile tails (tails that can move and grasp branches), OW primates do not. (NW monkeys' tails are not prehensile, and apes, including humans do not have tails).
* A lot of other differences in genetics, in facial and skeletal structure, in behavior, in proteins, in junk DNA, etc. etc.

But continental drift (the separation of the African and S. American continents) is not the only way that a species will split into two species (thus starting two completely, and permanently separated *branches* of evolution).

For example, imagine there is a species of primate living in a large jungle area, and over the course of several centuries the climate changes so that the jungles continue to thrive only on the mountainsides above a certain elevation ... so the intervening land becomes dry and unlivable for that primate. The various populations living on different mountain-sides will then lose contact with each other. They do not meet to interbreed ... so their geographical isolation becomes a *genetic* isolation.

If this genetic isolation lasts long enough (as would happen with climate change), it becomes *permanent*. Even if the climate were to change again to where they were able to come in contact, their DNA has gathered so many differences that they no longer interbreed, or any offspring are infertile (which as far as evolution is concerned, is the same thing). So they are *permanently* different species ... forever separate *branches* in evolution.

The same for those primates caught in the drier valleys (the savannahs) ... they would either have to survive ... or go extinct. As a result they would have to go from being tree-dwellers, to learn how to travel large distances between trees on foot ... and the ability to carry things (like infants or food) would be an advantage. This appears to be what happened to a branch of those primates that went on to become the Hominids, of which there have been many species, all of which have gone extinct ... except one ... Homo sapiens.

So (to answer penhead's objection) humans evolved in the same *continent* as the other apes ... but in a very different environment. So that is why there are humans, and other apes, like chimps, gorillas, orang utans, gibbons, etc. (NONE of which, including gorillas, are our ancestors).

Answer 2

First, nothing has yet evolved from gorillas, because they haven't been around any longer than humans have. Both species evolved from a common ancestor along with the other higher order primates. Second, the continents began to break apart over 200 million years ago (long before apes evolved) and were six distinct continents by aobut 65 million years ago(when the dinosaurs died out, still long before apes evolved). A good study of the effects of evolution that occured due to the break up of the continents is to compare the egg laying mammals(monotremes) with other mammals.

Answer 3

You're absolutely right.

Any one species migrates over thousands of miles, and different groups will wind up in very different environments, and will therefore adapt accordingly. This is why one group evolved into gorillas, one branched off and gave rise to modern-day chimps, which (if I remember correctly) eventually evolved into modern day humans.

But why would you even attempt to argue with someone who doesn't believe in change over time or survival of the fittest? Isn't this a person beyond the reach of logic?

Answer 4

Humans did not evolve from gorillas. Both evolved from a common ancestor.

Gorillas and humans separated before anything that was quite either emerged.

Answer 5

your assuming too much. first try to answer how a gorilla came from a non gorilla that came from a rock (life can't come from non living material), or how all the contenents moved even though they are all connected under the water by dirt.

Answer 6

Partially. Do not forget mutation in populations. Mutation, variation and natural selection. Also, the diversity of species is not linear, but extremely bush like.

Answer 7

well no one will know that question i guess... i think that very early in teh development of humans our path may have change (like you said) because of enviroment our dna only differes by 1 percent.. but look how much 1 percent does

Answer 8

If that's the case, how did we end up with humans in the same areas as gorillas?

Evolution is a theory. It is not a scientific law.

Why did you have to resort to name calling? Is that somehow make you feel superior or something?