Man and all other modern apes evolved from a common ancester, but wasn't that common ancestor also an ape?

Question

If not, what was it?

Answer 1

Yes, it was by definition an ape.

All together now:

The nearest common ancestor of humans and apes was an ape.

The nearest common ancestor of humans, apes, and monkeys was a monkey.

The nearest common ancestor of humans, apes, monkeys, and fish was a fish.

This has been a public service announcement. Thank you.

Answer 2

only if you believe in evolution as a theory for origins.

I can accept some mutations and some change in humans, but there's a tremendous lack of evidence to suggest that things are evolving, other than sensational 'finds' that are made the latest 'missing link.' There should be millions of examples and stages of evolution and failures evident all around us with every species. Yet there is not. I've yet to see my first ape-man (living now), when there should be 1000s of examples of this in the making. Another problem evolutionists have is this: if we evolved, then why did a number of apes never evolve and remain the same? There's a far greater number that never evolved at all from one to the next.

A monkey, is well, still a monkey folks.

Answer 3

Well, this answer only applies if you're someone who believes in evolution rather than intelligent design. The theory of evolution states that we share a common ancestor, but in the same way that an ape's ancestor was not a human, our ancestor was not an ape. It would have been a primitive mammalian primate species that split and eventually developed along different paths into modern day humans and apes.

Answer 4

It would have been a primate. The super set that humans, the great apes and the monkeys all fit into.

This appears to be a strong contender for the position:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/ape_ancestor_041118.html

Ape like, but missing a few of the key points that we use to define what an ape is.

Species evolve from a different species. So Homo Sapiens evolved form a different species, that does not mean that that species was also Homo Sapiens. If it did then that would not be evolution.

In reality if you managed to dig up every generation in a line from Homo Heidelbergensis (our last known ancestor species) and put them in a line you would not be able to say where the old species stopped and the new one began. Evolution is a gradual change, but we like to put things in neat little boxes and define them. Also because of the very rare nature of fossils it is much harder to find the remains of something that was in transition from one species to another.

Answer 5

Ape like doesn't mean Curious George.

Our common ancestor shared similar attributes to both Apes and Humans, just like Apes and Humans also share similar attributes.

People that don't believe we came from the same ancestor should spend time reading about why we have 23 Chromosomes and apes have 24. It is very interesting and Human Chromosome #2 shows that evolution took place.

Answer 6

Yes, the common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans would also have been an ape.

Those four species are more closely related to each other than any of them are to orangutans - genetically and morphologically, so the common ancestor of all four species would definitely itself have been categorized as an ape.

However, it would not have been categorized as a member of any of the modern ape species itself.

We do not (at this time anyhow) have any fossil specimens of this common ancestor, but we do have fossils of species that would have been very similar to it morphologically (i.e. Australopithecus afarensis).

Answer 7

No scientific concept is a hundred%. None of them are. And confident, purely like human beings, theories are harmless till shown to blame, except it is going against the scientific technique. If there replaced right into a a hundred% adventure in our genes to chimps, we'd be chimpanzees, no longer human beings. A fetus comes alive while its cells can chop up, in spite of the undeniable fact that it does not have personhood. you're perfect that technology can or can not practice God, however the burden of evidence is on the believers and that they have got yet to offer scientists reliable information. Thermodynamics? Ohhhh.... you ought to've been watching Hovind and those different adult adult males. those human beings do no longer understand approximately thermodynamics while it incorporates Earth, by way of fact this is AN OPEN gadget. technology is on no account a hundred% ultimate by way of fact there is that danger that this is incorrect.

Answer 8

Well, if we go all the way back our common ancestor was a very simple single celled organism.
Was there an ape-like ancestor back there somewhere? Yep, there sure was.

Answer 9

No, if it's what primates (man and apes) evolved from then it was before primates and not itself a primate.
As I understand it, four million years ago Chimps and Man had a common ancestor, a primate, but neither genus Homo nor a chimp.

Answer 10

We don't know. At least, we've never found an example. Fossil records of much of anything are pretty spare.

By definition, though, the next immediate ancestor of the higher primates (including us) would have had to be a primate or proto-primate.