If we were apes/monkeys and we developed into humans , why some monkeys didn't..and we have monkeys now?

Question

How is it that any of our 99% DNA related brothers( monkeys, gorillas, whatever)have not found a way to become humans, while we supposedly were kind of like them and now we are humans? Were some monkey famlies more stupid? And can we somehow get present day monkeys to develp into humans

Answer 1

If all dogs evolved from wolves (and they did) then why do we still have wolves?

We're just another branch on the tree.

Answer 2

Evolution believers have never said that we developed from monkeys.  What they say is that monkeys and we have a common ancestor.

Both humans and monkeys have adapted to their environments.  The environments are different.  We moved farther than they have, but humans and monkeys are both equally 'evolved' because they've had the same amount of time to evolve.

Crocodiles and alligators haven't changed since dinosaurs ruled the earth.  Because their environment hasn't changed.

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.

Our closest relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos), 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 Chimpanzees and 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. Considering the appropriate environment that cause our bipedalism, however, is key to understanding what selective pressures could cause the evolutionary results that you are asking about. 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. So, evolution hasw continued in our closest relatives since our divergence with them yet they have not become much more like us over that period.

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 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. This leads us to your question as to why we don't see apes changing into hominids? 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 describe 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 towards becoming a hominid then it to would have to be isolated into the same environment that forced our change be it mixed (which some chimpanzees troops already occupy and are not apparently "evolving" hominid characteristics) 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

everything develops differently depending on circumstances.  at some point for some unknown reason we developed into who we are now.  its not that there were more stupid per say, but that things were different for a bunch of us.

could they become human? their dna could change ... very long odds against, but then they wouldn't be monkeys they would be human.

remember al known life has stuff in common, but it is the differences that we notice for some reason...

Answer 5

If we evolved from monkeys, it makes sense that there are still monkeys today. We would have had to have evolved by means of a random genetic mutation. When a monkey with the mutation bred with other monkeys, it would pass along the gene, and over time, the genotype of the gene would change. Not all monkeys were given the gene and not all had the mutation. Therefore, some would remain the monkeys we know today. If humans did evolve from monkeys, then it is possible that today's monkeys could evolve into humans, but evolution takes thousands of years, and it's not something that any of us would see in our lifetimes.

Answer 6

We still are apes you silly monkey boy.

Answer 7

Some monkeys didn't because no monkey ever did. I don't believe we were apes before.

Answer 8

We didn't develop from apes, we share common ancestors but we did develop from ape like creature (homomini)

Answer 9

Something to do with migration and mating