What common ancestor do we share with other apes?
April 15, 2010 at 10:41 pm #13113TwentyFourParticipant
Hi, i’m just wondering, what is the common ancestor that humans and the other apes share.
Do we know/have any guesses?
Have googled this but haven’t really found anything.
Thanks for any help 😀
April 16, 2010 at 8:49 am #99055JackBeanParticipant
That little depends on what apes you mean (with chimpanzee is the situation little different, than with some lemurs). I would recommend Dawkins’ Ancestor Tale, where he describes these relationships
April 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm #99066terranrushParticipant
I don’t have the common ancestors listed that we share with the other apes, but examples of those we have after we diverged. I’ll take a look into your question though and get back to you.
Here’s a short note I took in lab. Remember that evolution is like a tree, not like a ladder (aka Great chain of being.)
So, hominin‘s are the organisms that divereged from the chimpanzees, about 6 MYA – million years ago.
These include Australiopithecus afarensis (Lucy is a famous example), A. bosei, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelberg, H. sapiens.
July 21, 2010 at 4:25 pm #100629surendranParticipant
hi friend,we can share one common with human.that species is lamore.
the lamore ancient ancester of apes and human.do you know.after reading this message,do you reply me?
thank you for asking. 😆 😆 😆
July 22, 2010 at 6:59 am #100640JackBeanParticipant
yeah, I’m pretty sure, you share a common ancestor with human 😆
August 2, 2011 at 6:36 am #105788lilokieParticipant
Monkeys – and every other living thing – are all equally evolved.
All life on Earth as far was know shares an original common ancestor – therefore all living things have been evolving for the same length of time and are "equally evolved". Each is perfectly adapted to its environment (otherwise it would be extinct).
You’re making a very common error by assuming that evolution somehow has the goal of producing human characteristics – intelligence, tool use, bipedalism, etc etc. Judging evolution by human standards is understandable but fundamentally wrong. In sheer numbers, many other species are more successful. In terms of strength, weight for weight we’re incredibly weak. It’s only humans who, quite naturally choose to judge success based on intelligence – because that’s what we’re good at. If you asked an ant you’d get a very different answer.
The only "goal" of evolution is successful reproduction – and in this respect all organisms alive today have been equally successful simply because they are alive. In fact if you want to judge success in evolutionary terms, bacteria are the most successful – they are the most adaptable and as far as we can tell have a lifestyle and "body plan" that hasn’t needed to change for 3.5 billion years.
So, perhaps I can re-phrase your question for you – what you’re actually asking is if monkeys and humans have been evolving for the same length of time, why aren’t they (and by extension, every other living thing) equally intelligent?
The simple answer is that during the past 3.5 billion years the common ancestor of all living things diverged over and over into more and more new species and each new species adapted in different ways to the particular circumstances it found itself in. In the case of humans, we share a most recent common ancestor with apes (not monkeys). When this common ancestral species diverged into two, one half survived by using, perhaps brute strength and became the apes while the other used intelligence.
In reality, it’s unlikely that intelligence came first. Many believe that walking on just our hind legs came first (perhaps this enabled us to carry food in our hands back to somewhere safe to eat it). Freeing up the hands enabled tool use – which in turn drove the expansion of the brain and the associated increase in intelligence. In this way, perhaps, ancestral humans although weaker than their rival ancestral apes managed to survive in their particular environment.
October 3, 2011 at 4:40 am #106599mervParticipant
Let me simplify it for you – all of life needs a niche. Humans were driven out of the trees due to their ineptitude there. They were unable to compete.
Humans thus prefer trees to be chopped down due to the D-EEEP psychological scars. The rest of the animals appreciated that they were a great food source and should be farmed or forced to put that unusually large head to good use, and soon agriculture was born. EITHER fair skin was forced to move to parts of the world OR black skin was lost in parts of the world where its protective powers were not needed nor deemed essential; this may have co-incided with the chance genetic co-inheritance of another trait which on the day won the fight or flight; or it may have been linked to other factors of this particular gene. On another planet, more evolved creatures than us may have black skin even in climates with equivalent sunshine levels due to the opposite chance event. The point there is that fair skin is currently not ideal in stronger sun conditions without improvements in the production of suitable pigments that currently are best known to be black or brown. But equally, should an environment be inhospitable, in the absence of a better option, some will accept that option over the alternatives ("Elementary: no-one said this was going to be easy, Dr Watson….").
October 3, 2011 at 6:41 pm #106619CrucibleParticipant
Old threadquote TwentyFour:
and ask then "what common ancestor do we share with other monkeys" ?
I believe your question is being misinterpreted. You are not asking how far back ancestors go, you are asking about our relationship with our ancestors, the ancestors which were primates. That is, which extinct primate is the "closest" ancestor kind or species, the one which gave rise to all animals known as "Ape", "Great Ape", "Human". Can we say that the animal that gave rise to all Apes would be called a kind of "Monkey" ?
Should you still be watching the thread, I’ll ask if I correctly understand your question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.