If humans and apes have common ancestors, why do apes still exist?
If the evolution into humans had a selective advantage, why weren't the apes selected out?
(3 votes)
Loading...
(3 votes)Loading...
(3 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
What are the most important nature experiences for children?
ByLina20A
What arguments would you use to convince a person that nature is important for children?
Replication Duplication of DNA?
ByTim52525
I have a few questions that I'm stuck on. Could you help me a bit? That would be very kind of you. So the first question is: polymerases require a free 3'OH group to resynthesize DNA strands. What consequences does this have for the simultaneous replication of the forward and reverse strands? Second question: The…
Consume strangers' saliva?
Hello, I bought some saliva from a young lady to snack on. Now my question: Are there any concerns? She's healthy. I know her from the tuning scene. When you kiss with your tongue, for example, you also exchange saliva. The plan would be to drip her saliva onto her boots, which I also get,…
Why more and more people?
If the environment is suffering so much, why do we allow the population to grow and not shrink?
Because evolution is non-directional and often not just one way brings a selection advantage, but several different.
Evolution is a process based solely on random processes, namely mutations. It is therefore fundamentally open to results and without a goal. That also means that there is no such thing as higher development. In fact, the result of evolution is also not a straight line, which leads from the “primitive” individual to man via fish and mammals. The true image of evolution is a tree that has far branched. Every single branch, which is approximately eight million, has taken a different course of development. If evolution was truly linear, we would not only have to ask ourselves why there are monkeys, but also why there are individuals and any other being that is not human.
However, how complex or progressive or intelligent is a living entity is without significance for evolutionary success. It is crucial whether or not a species is well adapted to their environment and to their way of life. Individuals still exist because they are optimally adapted to their way of life. To date, this is the most successful life form ever that has managed to colonize habitats that are fatal for our kind, boiling hot springs and corrosive sodaees, for example. And the individual will still exist if our species will have died long ago.
Even the zig different types of monkeys, there are not “the” monkeys, but well 300 different ones, there are because every single species is well adapted to their environment. Unfortunately, many species are today threatened by extinction, because evolution now needs time and cannot withstand the destruction of man.
Man comes not from today’s monkeys, but from earlier common ancestors. The human being is also a monkey biologically. Look at Wiki. Order: primates, family: human apes (including gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees), type: human.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/human apes
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/human
Supplement: Why should all other monkeys be selected and just the human (as the only monkey) be optimally adapted to the environment?
Hello,
I always find it strange to speak in the number of “the monkeys” as if there were and there was only one way. At the moment, the zoologists distinguish about 500 monkey species living today, and the human being, Homo sapiens, is one of them.
https://www.geo.de/natur/tierwelt/die-welt-der-affen-30168774.html#:~:text=Von%20den%20fast%20500%20Affs,below%20der%20Zerst%C3%B6rung%20her%20Lifespace.
Each species has developed their own way of life that differs from other species. Why should a species die if another develops a completely different way of life? Besides, of course, the other way is so successful that it remodels the entire ecosystem of the Earth and also destroys the livelihood of species with a completely different way of life. This danger seems to be given by one of the monkey species…
👍
Who says the monkeys had a disadvantage? Different species develop and adapt to different niches. Both (and much more) species found a niche in which they could live well.
With your argument, there may be only one way; Why did the fish not die, where some have managed to further develop in Lang?
Because the selective advantage has discovered a new cute for itself. We never really lived in treetops. The monkeys, though. Ergo do not stand directly in selective competition.
If you have a species that decides to live in the forest. And the other part in the steppe. Because whatever. Then both spezies will develop apart with time unless they regularly mix with each other.
e.g., this can develop regionally. Let’s say we have our ancestors. Some live in the forest and 1000km away others live in the forest. In those who are far away there are events that change the environment (forest death e.g. Or ne climatic changes etc.) and these individuals are now forced to adapt. The other 1000km away but not.
Schwupps splits a new species. (If you wait long enough)
the evolutionary theory is as already the word says only a theory – when in the 80s the quastenflosser has been rediscovered from the millions of years that live up to the mens of the water was said first of all, after one does not want to constantly rewrite the whole history books and the science is too proud to be found a GOD delfin comes from the urwolf from !!! look at youtube . . . before I believe this weak mind I stay at the exhaustion from the bibel where already before 3000 tsd. it is said that the life began in the water and the earth sphere hangs in the weightlessness and is a sphere – at that time no one dared to translate as a sphere to not land at the shattered pile, which translated the Hebrew word with “earth-round” – see genesis
and what about all the scholars with the dolphins?
Only part of the monkeys then decided to leave the trees and become soil dwellers. The other part moved back to the interior of the country and followed the rainforests of the then Africa. The withdrawn part therefore developed even more towards monkeys, while the ground-inhabiting part developed into today’s people. This separation, of course, still exists today. At that time (before the incarnation) there were probably much more human apes in Africa than today and they were probably more similar to the human being at that time than today’s remaining human apes.
The monkeys, the common ancestors are no longer present! They have developed in humans – and the other related monkey species such as bonobo, chimpanzee, etc. In different areas of the Earth with different environments and other random mutations about time, keep in different directions.
My God!
The “conservative ones have remained on the trees and the others have left the anesthesia and are, more or less upright, stripped through the savannah.
So why should the primates stop their development just because a few dissatisfies have left the jungle?
Because they were not food or habitat competitors.
Because there are still singles and fish.
Sometimes you might think that Neanderthals are still among us.
White Europeans have up to a maximum of 14% of Neanderthals I see in a docu.
Because they stay in their jungle and are more fit than people
That’s what Affen asks. Then why are there people? We were there before!!! Why are open people not selected?