Evolution: If Humans are on average Taller then they were 200 years ago, how come monkey aren't any closer...?

Question

Evolution: If Humans are on average Taller then they were 200 years ago, how come monkey aren't any closer to becoming humans?

For example; 200 years ago, on average humans were a lot shorter. Another form of obvious evolution.. humans' pinkies were longer (in comparison to their other fingers) then they are now. Men were shorter and therefore, beds were created much smaller then they are now.

So, how come you don't find a monkey that is a little more human-like? Evolution is an ongoing process, so why has it stopped it monkeys and other animals? Sure, animals (like humans) evolve, but there is NO proof that animals evolve into OTHER animals. This is why Bigfoot is called The Missing Link.

Answer 1

There is nothing to indicate in evolutionary theory that primates should become more human like. Evolution doesn't have a particular end goal in mind. It operates by random genetic mutations, some of those create changes that favor the species a bit in comparison with those that don't possess it, this over time means they survive better and leave more offspring.

There is quite a bit of proof, such as Human chromosome number two, of our common ancestory.

read more about this below:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome...

There is further evidence beyond fossil record from these areas:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Common_desc...

Primates do continue to undergo evolutionary/genetic changes but they aren't necessarily expected to change in ways that make them anymore human like.

You can read about some ways primates have evolved and how researchers are gaining insights from this for HIV research below.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://cacajao.tripod.com/evolution_link...

I think your question represents a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolution involves and what we would expect to see. If you have an interest in learning I would recommend some basic reading. You can buy undergraduate level texts and popular science books on the subject on Amazon or a bookstore.

Evolution (Hardcover) by Douglas J. Futuyma

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-...

The Complete World of Human Evolution by Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-World-Hum...

Answer 2

We have better nutrition now and we eat more. It could be due to sexual selection. You can even see this with first generation Americans. For example, I am 5 inches taller than my mom and an inch taller than my dad. My brother is 5 inches taller than my dad. This is just one generation.

Evolutionists do not believe in linear evolution. We believe in radial evolution. We are not evolved monkeys rather we diverged from a common ancestor. You can't refute that we have similar genes, number of chromosomes, physiological traits, etc.... We had a common ancestor at one point and both monkeys and humans have been evolving the same amount of time.  

Check out this really helpful website:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...

I hope that this gives you some insight on what an evolutionary biologist believes.

  

Answer 3

Your view of evolution is completely wrong. So when you apply logic to your level of understanding, you come up with something completely false.

The reason some human populations are taller today is not because of evolution. We’re taller (at least Europeans and Euro-Americans are, other populations remain the same) because we’re eating better and have better health care. The genes that regulate our height have changed very little over the last 10,000 years, but just possessing genes that may lead to tallness (genotype) is not enough to make you tall. Genes display a variable effect depending on how they interact with the environment (phenotype), thus an organism needs optimum interaction with the environment to reach its full genetic potential. Many people with the genes that could allow them to be very tall, very smart and very long-lived will die short, dumb and young just because their environment was below average and detrimental to their development.

Evolution is not some grand plan that can roll out in the same way no matter where it starts. Evolution is not completely random (because of natural selection) but there ARE random elements that interact with genome - genetic mutation and the environment. Monkeys DO NOT evolve into humans but a few tens of millions of years ago, the evolutionary line that produced monkeys and humans branched into two broad paths one leading to modern day apes (and humans), the other branch led to modern day monkeys. If humans go extinct, monkeys and apes will not evolve into humans, they may or may not evolve to some other intelligent bipedal organism but they will NOT evolve into humans. This is because the same random genetic mutations and environmental variations will never be repeated.

Answer 4

We're taller today than 200 years ago because we eat more protein in childhood than they did 200 years ago.  It's cheeseburgers, not evolution.

> NO proof that animals evolve into OTHER animals

Wow, you need to read Darwin's Origin of Species.  He demonstrated that the finches of Galapagos had evolved from another animal.

Closer to home, you may have noticed that a mini-dachshund is not a gray wolf.

> Bigfoot is called The Missing Link.

No one calls Bigfoot the missing link.  Bigfoot is a hoax, and that's what it's called.

> When the Dinosaurs were destroyed, evolution had to start back over from one particular link

If you're logical, you're also ignorant.  Pick up a biology text and gain some knowledge, before you open your mouth and argue from a position of ignorance.

Answer 5

Because animals(and humans) evolve to fill an ecological niche. There is a niche for humans and monkeys but there isn't a niche for a monkey to be more man like. So until evolving to be more man like will help monkeys fill their ecological niche they will stay as they are.

EDIT Many animals niches can overlap and so if one species dies the other animals can still fill that niche although it can cause havoc especially if it is a keystone species that was destroyed.

Also it didn't make dinosaurs again because the environment had changed so that the particular characteristics of the dinosaurs did not fill the remaining ecological niches as well as mammals so they died out. Also not very many if any survived the meteor impact to die later due to lack of a niche.

Answer 6

The inreased height trend in humans is more a function of Improved nutrition and reduction of serious childhood diseases than evolution.

These two factors mean that people are reaching their full potential height as allowed by their genes.  200 years ago, with poor nutrition and illness people were not reaching their full height. Studies have shown that even a relatively minor ailment when a child is due a growth spurt will impede growth and effect the chances of that child reaching their full potential height.

Monkeys are still living the way they were 200 years ago, no improvemnets in their diet or health care.

Answer 7

First off, most scientists that believe bigfoot is likely suggest it is a descendent of Gigantopithecus which is a giant ape probably closely related to Orangutans.  Bigfoot is not the missing link.  In fact there is no "missing link".  There have been numerous "missing links" found.  Since every generation is a link, I suppose you could call them missing but to suggest there isn't fossil evidence of intermediate species is simply false.

Your contention that once dinosaurs died off they should have been recreated somehow might be logical except that there were a few factors that prevented it.  Mammals had much shorter lives and evovled much more quickly.  They were evolving with flowering plants that had just begun to evolve in the late Cretaceous.  When nearly all the large dinosaurs were killed, the animals most readily available to take the new niches were mammals and they quickly evovled into giants but not on the scale of dinosaurs.  

A chimp has everything we have.  All its bones are the same.  It has a brain that is like ours, just not as good at language but it is quite good.  Its DNA differs only marginally.  Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate we have a common ancestor that is about 5 to 6 million years old.  You can conduct Mitochondrial DNA studies with humans and it indicates what you would expect from most groups.  If you take it back further it can be used to find when last common ancestors existed for humans and other animals such as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys, etc.

Actually logic suggests that the evolution with its mountains of evidence is almost certainly true.  It is not logical to ignore the evidence.

Answer 8

there are many reasons species evolve i'm not entirely sure but i think  maybe the monkies were in an environment in which they didnt and dont need to evolve where we were, maybe humans that were derived form monkies migrated to a different environemtn where we needed to adapt to changes hence evloved. if that makes sense this is an interesting question

Answer 9

Well, the theory of evolution doesn't say that monkey involved into man, it says that at some point monkeys and man had a common ancestor. Plus the timeline you are talking about (200 years) is absolutely nothing in the scale of time it take for a species to evolve. The change in height you are talking about has to do with diet.

- Generally, you should talk about chimpanzees if you are discussing comparisons to humans. they are our closest relative in the evolutionary chain.