If humans evolved from apes why didn't we retain the strength of apes?

Question

well did early man evolve from? and surel having strength is advantageous evenwith problem solving skills?

Answer 1

this is a myth. the apes have nothing to do with the quality's of a human be, human be is all at his on,

development start millions of years ago.in different Continent -we all are different and we have a different time of beginnings in fact 500 mil.year different from one spicy to anther.look the deference,Bone stretcher, logs are deference skin is deference- Bran is different Jo's are deference ayes and knows -are deference bran capacity, is deference, vogues is deference plus many Arther things..

Answer 2

we evolved from "early man"

different than apes.

Answer 3

Because as we changed our bodies still changed and it all happened for a reason so we could well we could show that humanity is changing.

Answer 4

Because we're not swinging on trees all day. Those of us who have decided to leave our ape bretheren have found better ways of getting from point A to B.

And while we're at it, if humans evolved from fish why am i unable to breathe in my bath water? It's very upsetting.

Answer 5

it did, it went into our head which allows us to think of new killing machines, bombs, etc-massive destruction.

Answer 6

NO THAT NOT TRUE GOD MADE US READ A BIBLE

WE DID,NT EVOLVED FROM APES THING ABOUT IF WE DID(which we did,nt) WHOULD  ALL THE OTHER APE TURN TO PEOPLE

Answer 7

Humans are actually pretty strong, especially for our weight. But it has to be developed and used. If apes sat around all day without ever getting much (if any) excercize, they would lose a lot of their strength as well.

Answer 8

We didn't evolve from apes.  There is no evidence linking us to apes.  I don't know why they insist on teaching theory (weak theory) as fact.  Most of the time, if you look up info on evolution you'll read things like, "scientists believe that..."  That is not proof.  Scientists believe that we came from apes and they set about looking for a way to connect us and every few years they find a new "missing link" that will explain it all and it always turns out to be bunk. Misinformation or made up facts.  

I'm not some Bible-thumping religious fanatic, but I do believe in asking questions and not accepting as fact things that cannot be proven as fact.

Answer 9

Because as our brains developed, we gained advantage by using our problem solving abilities and tool making abilities thus losing our dependence on strength, speed, sight, smell, hearing, hair, teeth/nail strength, etc.

Update:  Also, we didn't evolve from apes, we co-evolved from a common ancestor

Answer 10

~It's called an opposable thumb and a brain.  The brute strength of early man was phased out as unnecessary and detrimental (except in football linemen and action cartoons like Arnold Scharzenegger and Sylvester Stalone).

Answer 11

berickf pretty well said it all & I have to take my hat off to him for his patience & diplomacy.  I for one have tired of casting pearls before swine.  

Evolution is not a theory, it is a genetically proven FACT.

Answer 12

some of us did

Answer 13

As pointed out by others, we did not evolve from apes, but from a common ancestor where both of our species now represent 6-7 million years of disparate evolutionary paths to fill completely different niche.

To answer your question, however, 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. While this process has been acting upon humans since our separation with our common ancestors with apes, it has also been acting on this same common ancestor to result in the differences in the apes as well. Look at 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. Chimpanzees and Bonobos 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. Because these two species have evolved in a more similar environment then humans they have both retained a similar strength, yet at the same time the cultural differences have resulted in Chimpanzees being slightly larger and stronger then their Bonobo cousins.  

Humans are even further seperated from Chimpanzees and Bonobos and our evolution has heavily invested into the development of a larger brain and our cultures do not demand the brute strength of the level seen in Chimpanzees or Bonobos.  Furthermore, we have not always lived in times such as now where food resources were plentiful, and much of the planet still doesn't live in conditions of surplus.  To compound this problem of food restrictions, humans have also radiated out into far more desolate environments then those that chimpanzees and Bonobos live in.  During times of scarcity our species used it's large brain to solve these dilemas and in this cultural environment craftiness becomes the key and large body sizes and brute strength would actually have been selected against because in times of limited calorific resources it is not a benifit to waste energy by producing and maintaining muscle mass, especially if by using it you become unpopular with the group as a whole.  If you are an Ape and live in a small troop with a distinct hierarchy then this strength will offer more alliances, prefferential food resources and reproductive opportunities, but in a culture as large and complex as humans such a hierarchy is not as easily to establish, and when it is, it is rarely done so through brute strength.  Charisma goes a lot farther in this regard within humans and in these regimes potential for providing reproductive success to its leaders because of it's resource benifits is by no means guaranteed anyways as to maintain such a hierarchy in our culture can be very demanding in terms of time and, more importantly, in terms of stress which can be detrimental to ones reproductive success!

Answer 14

The simplest answer is that for whatever reason, we found it less advantageous than other adaptions.  There is no way to really pick out one difference between modern apes and humans and answer "why" one evolved one way or another.

How do we know that our ancestors had the strength of modern apes?  Maybe all primates were like us?

Answer 15

god these questions get worse by the day...