Human beings evolved from apes;how come no more evolutions coming up?

Question

scientists/geologists believe that man was not created by God, but the apes with time evolved to become an early man.Did this process of evolution stop?we could have had more apes become man.

Answer 1

First of all we did not come from apes.  That is a misconception.  Our closest primate relative is actually the Orangutan.  Plus, if you go back to the time when humans were ape-like and take modern day apes back to the same time period the two species though similar are not the same but we do have a common ancestor.  To answer the question evolution did not stop.  Think about it.  What is the appendix?  Doctors can't seem to agree what it was used for.  Also wisdom teeth are evolving out.  Dentists are noting that more and more people never have their wisdom teeth grow-in.  Natural blondes and red-heads are also disappearing.  One would say it's because one they are having children with people that have dark hair color but that is how evolution works.

Answer 2

humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.  also, evolution doesn't just stop.  it's an ongoing, but gradual, process.

Answer 3

To answer your question we must first address what evolution is. Evolution is conditional on variability within a population, and how this variation is selected for within the environment via reproductive success. Fortunately for humans we are the most generalized mammal on the planet and as of such have found a nearly universal success throughout most of the environments that we encounter. That said it is difficult to imagine a figurative future environment that would be different enough to allow natural selection to act upon the effected population for long enough to create any kind of significant morphological change in our species. This is why we "appear to not be evolving", but this is far from the truth. We as a species are truly defeating the few acts of natural selection that are acting upon us with advances in medicine. With this in mind the changes that might occur could be much like your thanksgiving Turkey, a creature who has been put under so much unnatural selection that it no longer is capable of mating due to humans artificially breeding them for nothing else but size. If humans were no longer present to do this service for Turkeys, they would go extinct. Through "unnatural selection" humans are doing very similar things to themselves. Undoubtedly a woman who goes in for infertility medicines has a greater chance of having children who will require the same treatments to reproduce. Children that have severe enough allergies/asthma that may have killed them in the past will now grow to a reproductive age with the assistance of asthma/allergy medicines will produce offspring who have higher occurrences of asthma/allergies. This is a bit of a concern, seeing as at the same time we are making ourselves more susceptible to asthma and allergies we are also taking actions that are converting the environment that we will have to adapt to, to contain more contaminants. If it gets serious enough those who are persevering with the assistance of medicine may be the first to become too sick to be reproductively successful such that the power of natural selection might overbear unnatural medical selection once again in this area? Some areas where medicine is making slow progress, like cancer and Aids, there will be a continued true evolutionary process. Already there have been a few case studies that have discussed a truck stop in Africa where the prostitutes, despite an alarming exposure rate, are not catching or dying from Aids suggesting that natural selection has already discovered a variant within one ethnic group that appears to have selected for white blood cells which are not as susceptible to the AIDS virus, much like sickle cell trait does the same red blood cells resistance for Malaria. As this gene now becomes more prominent due to the pressure of AIDS we may also see the advance of a new genetic disorder if a person is born with two recessives, much like two recessive copies of sickle cell results in anemia instead of trait. If people do begin to die from a worse environment that causes increases in Asthma/Cancer/AIDS, undoubtedly natural selection will find many variants within our population, which now far exceeds 6 billion people, and will come up with the needed solutions to combat these problems so that enough people make it to a reproductive age. If there is also enough disruption in the sociopolitical structure such that medicine is no longer readily available, at least to the poor, then natural selection will also reclaim the realm of fertility and those who can't reproduce naturally, won't. So depending on what our actual environment and our sociopolitical and medical environment has in store for us, our aesthetic changes will be minimal, although there will be significant microbiological changes, seeing as that seems to be the only realm of our existence where Darwin's natural selection still has a footing (antibiotic resistant bacteria, AIDS, possibly cancer if the uv becomes harsh enough that it begins to affect our reproductive success on a larger scale?) So as you can see from my analysis, we are evolving and we will continue to evolve, just more on a micro scale rather then a macro scale.

As for our closest relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos), they too have continued to evolve during their 6-7 million years of separate evolution to their distinct environments.  Of course seeing as their generational spacing is large, like it is with humans, this evolution is more difficult to see within a small time frame as well. Evolution, however, is based primarily on reproductive success whereby the most fit individuals within given environments will produce the most offspring and the characteristics which provided that success will spread amongst the group. Let me give you some examples of evolution occurring within primates. Within the Great Apes our closest relatives are said to be the Chimpanzees or the Bonobos. This is because these two primate species diverged from our common ancestor around 6-7 mya and then consequently split from their shared common ancestor 2-2.5 mya. In this time an array of distinct differences have evolved that make these two species very distinguishable from one another and these differences are clearly from environmental pressures. The bonobos, for instance practice bipedalism much more frequently then Chimpanzees and also have a drastically different means of conflict resolution, where as chimpanzees are much more quadrepedal, aggressive and competitive. So why have these characteristics sprung up in the mere 2my since these two groups were isolated from each other because of the changing flow of a river which geographically split their common ancestor into two groups? Well, the bonobos were restricted into a more swamp like/arboreal environment which was confined in space, where as the chimpanzees were left in a savanna/arboreal mixed environment which was expansive. The swampy aspect of the bonobo habitat forced them to practice bipedalism frequently because their terrain was not fully traversable without adapting to this strategy periodically. Those individuals who were better adapted became better foragers in providing access to resources and removing these same food resources from swampy areas and this characteristic has been selected for over generations. Chimpanzees meanwhile have found great success in being primarily quadrapedal because the mixed arboreal savanna environment has no selective advantage towards being bipedal much to the chagrin of contemporary anthropology. I wish that they could look at the primates that have adapted more bipedalism (proboscis for traversing mangrove forests, crab eating macaques when carrying their shellfish to shore, Japanese macaques when bathing in the hot springs) before jumping to their foolish "mixed" hypothesis conclusion. Anyways, that is a completely separate topic; let me continue with your question. The other differential traits between bonobos and chimpanzees that are very apparent are in how they deal with conflict resolution. Bonobos, who live in a confined environment, rarely result in full out conflict. They have a culture of threat displays and sexual resolution techniques that are fully employed before conflict arises. This includes running bipedaly while dragging sticks, to p***s fencing, to female genital genital rubbing. They appear to be bi-sexual at first, but upon further observation it becomes obvious that these rituals are all about relieving stress and combativeness in a controlled manner and they are not actually s*x crazy primates as some have portrayed them. Quite honestly, because of their confined space this group of primates can not afford to fight aggressively because conflicts would be too frequent and too costly to the group, so other means of conflict resolution have formed to adapt to this confined environment. Chimpanzees, alternatively, do not have this confined environment and are an ultra competitive group of primates who tend to use physical dominance to acquire a higher ranking thus hopefully attaining more reproductive opportunities. Chimpanzees have also been observed to conduct warfare and will murder males from neighbouring groups and they have clearly defined territories. If bonobos were to live like this they would no longer be existing today because their troops show much more overlap between one another and conflicts and murders would have become far to commonplace if they lived like chimpanzees. Research at Yerkes primate research center has utilized interactive and educational tools to determine the cognitive abilities of both of these primate species and as would be expected and corroborates what field observations would predict, bonobos are much better communicators, where as chimpanzees are much better tool makers. If evolution was not occurring in monkeys then we would not be able to tell these two species apart, yet the distinctions are too numerous to ignore.

More recently primates of all types became afflicted with SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus). Originally SIV would have acted much like HIV acts within the humans that it afflicts, but in the modern primate species SIV is hardly even noticeable. Evolution has adapted to the severity of such a virus and in modern primates their are many carriers of this virus who carry it completely through their reproductive lifespan. This is a great example of primate microevolution, and much like the human biology is constantly warring with bacteria and viruses on the micro level, the same is occurring in all primates.

As you can see all primates, including humans, are in a constant state of evolution. If an environment on a macro scale is no longer very influential like is seen with humans and olive baboons especially, then there is little reason for any noticeable phenotypic expression that might cause noticeable morphological changes. Undoubtedly, however, the environment on a micro scale is much more active due to the extremely short generational cycle of micro organisms and, as-of-such, this rapidly changing micro-environment is constantly being adapted to and evolution at this level is very apparent within all primates.

Clearly evolution has not stopped in any primate species, human or other.  Your other question is as to weather the other apes could evolve into hominids like man?  To address this we must ask what environmental conditions allowed for this adaptation?  

The earliest hypothesis put forth to explain this was the savanna hypothesis, which became discredited when the archaeological record of hominids showed sites previous to the time of savannas being the primary landscape feature in Africa, namely sites that preceded 3 mya. Archaeology at this point has even unearthed a few hominid sites that are proposing that early hominids were present even as far back as 6 mya, and if this is the case then the savanna is truly an impossible environment to have allowed our evolution. It was Raymond Dart who first proposed the savanna hypothesis and he did so because he had discovered a significan number of hominids that had lived in South Africa. The archaeological evidence for his site proposed a savanna environment. Being one of the first hominid sites to be found, he was free to conjecture whatever ideas he saw fit from his evidence and hence the birth of the savanna hypothesis. Over the last 25 years, as the savanna hypothesis has been increasingly discredited because of the discovery of sites that date back to earlier times that did not have a savanna environment.

With this fact, contemporary anthropology has more and more began to describing our evolutionionary environment as being that of a mixed hypothesis, which is a primarily arboreal environment with savanna patches between forests. As some Chimpanzee groups live in this "mixed" environment, whereas Bonobos live in a swampy/arboreal environment and display much more incidences of bipedalism, it is my humble opinion that the mixed hypothesis is also flawed in its reasoning, yet that is where anthropology stands on the subject. Other contending hypothesis for the origins of man are:

The ice age hypothesis, which states that Northern Hemisphere ice ages made the African environment drier suddenly, thus forcing the rapic evolution of our species.

The arboreal hypothesis, which states that our constant tree climbing allowed for the adoption of a more upright posture. There are a lot of arboreal monkeys/apes however which are by no means showing the same tendancy so I don't buy this one.

The hypothesis of neotony, which simply states that some undefined rapid environmental change pushed our ancestor towards more generalized neonatal characteristics (baby characteristics) in order to expand our biological toolkit for adaptation.

And my personal favourite, the aquatic hypothesis, which does NOT propose that our hominid ancestors swam in the open ocean as many of it's opponents will have you beleive. In fact their is a lot of geological evidence that shows that the great rift valley flooded around 10-8 million years ago and that this would have resulted in an island remaining in Eretria. The aquatic ape hypothesis postulates that the monkeys that were in this area were forced together onto this Island as the water rose during this period of flooding and as the population became too dense for the remaining terrestrial resources to support this population of monkeys, they began to experiment with new food sources. Over the years one food source that became more and more abundant were the shellfish in the adjacent tidal areas and it was these resources which these monkeys began to exploit (like the crab eating macaques do in South East Asia). As this environment was exploited more and more as a food source, the most successful monkeys were the ones that had advantages (ever so slightly) towards holding their bodies erect as they searched for crabs or oysters (excellent protein source for brain development) in the tidal regions and over many generations (about 1 million years of isolation) bipedalism, a reduced size of our hair, the ability to control our breath, increased fatty tissue, a diving reflex and a whole host of other characteristics came about in these now early hominids. Similiar adaptations took place in a whole bunch of other fully aquatic mammal species like seals, dolphins and whales. The difference with hominids, however, was that the waters receeded after we had only made a partial adaptation towards aquaticism, and as of such they were suddenly left with a new set of characteristics that could be applied within the terrestrial environment where these hominids now found themselves. If these characteristics were not beneficcial then hominids would have gone extinct then and there, but as history has proven, this little, naked hominid stood the test of time and was able to apply his new biological toolkit to adapting to new environments throughout the globe.

The Aquatic hypothesis is the only opposing hypothesis that has gone to great lengths at giving details concerning our biological adaptations and I find that it successfully competes and is even superior to the ideas currently being put fourth by the mixed hypothesis. I do not deny that both the ice-age and neotony hypothesis, respectively, could have contributed within the scope of either the mixed or aquatic hypothesis as mechanisms that may have assisted, or hastened our evolution. It is the aquatic hypothesis hypothesis, however, that I believe will eventually be given "theory" status once enough empiracle proof is discovered.

If a different ape species was to follow our evolutionary adaptation then it to would have to be isolated into the same environment that forced our change be it mixed (which chimpanzees already occupy) or aquatic.  I won't say neonatal or ice-age because neonatal is a reaction to environmental change and ice-age is an instigator of environmental change.  Given this isolation an adequate pressure could then be put upon their morphological expression to force such a change in the evolution of the isolated ape/primate species.  Until such an occurance, these primate species are excellently adapted to the environments that they occupy and no leap to a permanent state of bipedalism should be expected.

Answer 4

Yes soon apes will become men and men will become hairless coneheads.

Answer 5

First off, humans didn't evolve from apes.  The other great apes have a common ancestor with us.  We're cousins, basically.  Secondly, there was a whole long string of events and random mutations that made us what we are today.  Even if we could replicate the environmental conditions in which humans arose, and even if we had the 1 and a half million or so years to do it, and we had a breeding population of that exact same common ancestor, you still wouldn't get humans.  You'd probably get a similar creature, but again, it relied on random mutations.  While the paths would be similar, the end result just wouldn't be the same.

Evolution doesn't stop, either.  Human DNA still randomly mutates, and people still die before they breed.  Nowadays, there are people who wouldn't have survived long once upon a time who are living long lives and having children.  This is not a bad thing, as this is how we got Stephen Hawking, among others.  It does mean, though, that several evolutionary pressures have been eased on us.  An already slow and subtle process is now even slower and more subtle.

Answer 6

can you be sure the theory doesn't have it backwards and apes didn't evolve from humans.

Answer 7

who said it stopped? aren't we changing daily?

aren't our children seemingly born knowing how to use computers,[classify that under genetic memory?] or is that just me thinking that..not to mention that any evolutionary process takes quite a bit of time.

Answer 8

That is because we were created by God, or else we would still be evolving, and who knows, people might have turned into g*y people as the next stage in evolution, if that were true.

Answer 9

Yes, evolution is still going on. However, it is not "goal oriented". Humans are not the ultimate evolutionary stage of apes and apes will therefore not evolve into humans, but something else. And we are not descended from the ape species that are around today, but a common ape ancestor. Therefore, the apes of today are results of an evolutionary process similar to our own.

The process generally takes tens of thousands of years if not more, so don't be surprised that you can't see it in action. Although, certain species are capable of evolving quite quickly, especially those with very fast reproductive cycles like viruses.

Answer 10

I think in humans, evolution is slowing down.  Thanks to modern medicine and the easier living conditions we have created for ourselves, we are no longer subject to the harsh environmental conditions that would have selected against many individuals.  These individuals are now able to pass on their genes.

Answer 11

They were others, but we become so successful that we wipeout all of them!! Those branchings were not as lucky and has well adapted as ours I guess, so they just vanished. There cannot be 2 species at the top of the predator pyramid, we can`t just share it. It was them or us, and we evidently prevailed!

Edit: I forgot to answer the first part of your answer... If you want to see evolution in the work, I can help you to see it...

Myopia and teeth deformation (aka Jaws teeth), are showing that our cranial volume is increasing, and actually in a transitional state. Of course it doesn`t happen in everybody, but evolution jumps generations, and each family are at different levels, so its quite not uniform. Schizophrenia is often refer to a disease, but its in fact in our genes, but many never express it in their life time! This is part of our brain evolution, which is not yet ready to work... So see Schizophrenia as a work in progress instead of an accomplished fact. You may surely not agree with those statements, but if you look carefully, you will see it in different individuals. The fact that humans are so different from each other physically compare to all animal species on earth, also proved that our genes are evolving in every individual like no other species on this planet! So if this is not a proof you can see, then I give up!

Answer 12

While I agree with the above answer that true evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years and is too gradual to actually "see" in action, you can see things that could be considered the younger brothers and sisters of evolution.

Two important concepts are gene flow and gene drift.  Gene flow is the movement of specific physical traits across populations due to interbreeding.  Since it is no longer a cultural taboo (not everwhere unfortunately) to breed with someone of another ancestry (i.e. a white European and darker skinned Indian), you end up with offspring that are somewhere in between in terms of skin tone.  I have seen estimates that in some number of years (thousands most likely), the majority of people on earth will look similar because everyone will breed with basically anyone else.  This is not the formation of a new species, and it is not natural selection in a pure sense (i.e. a change in physical appearance doesn't always imply a change in genetic makeup to a large degree).  But it is the changing (and therefore evolving) of a species.  If you were to cut off gene drift entirely (build a fence around a group of people) and let them live and breed for a long time (thousands of generations) you could theoretically end up with a group of people who have changed so much that they could no longer breed with outsiders.  They would then be a new species, and evolution would have occurred.

Gene drift is the random selection of genes during reproduction that over time ends up changing the species as a whole simple due to pure randomness.  It could be the reason we are predominantly right handed as a species.  Again, not really true evolution of one species into another, but it is the changing of a species within itself that can be directly observed.  And over a long span of time, two populations of the same species could evolve into two different species due to gene drift if they have no contact (gene flow) with each other.

Answer 13

Have you look around, I think many of us do look like apes

Answer 14

Evolution in more complex organisms does take a long time, and is not observable over the course of our "modern" existance.  However, evolution in small organisms is definitely observable.

Every year or so, scientists must come up with a vaccine to protect us against the most "recent" strain of flu.  I don't know exactly when Bird Flu, West Nile Virus, and HIV all mutated into the deadly viruses they are today, but it has definitely been within our lifetime.

Back around 1918, millions of people around the world died from a strain of flu for which humans has no natural immunity.

Just last month, American tourist Andrew Speaker was thought to have an extremely drug resistant strain of TB (he doesn't).

All these viruses did not just materialize out of thin air.  They evovled through mutation.