Questions about the human/ape common ancestor...plz answer?

Question

ok...it's me again...i asked about darwin's theory of evolution which says that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which are species that no longer exist now because they seperated into humans and apes...well...umm...does that mean the 'common ancestor' were half human half apes and they got seperated into humans and apes?? is it like that? and did the common ancestor had the ability to talk and think like humans since humans came from them?? if humans and apes both came from same ancestor then....why do humans have the ability to talk, think and invent while apes can't talk, think or invent? why are we more evolved than apes? if humans and apes came from same ancestor then apes should also have the ability to talk, think and invent and that common ancestor must be a species who used to talk at least since humans came from them too, plz somebody explain those questions to me

Answer 1

If we are all humans and came from a common ancestor, how come there were no half native american half african?

Or for that matter half Caucasian half Chinese?

The mixed breeds are all a product of the alst century when people started intermixing.

If we quarantined the Caucasians and Chinese for millions of years they would eventually not be able to interbreed

Answer 2

I personally do not agree with this theory. I don't think there was any common ancestor, and humans and apes are exactly what they always were and always will be: completely separate and different.

Answer 3

Evolutionist believe, but will not on record admit that the black ***** race is ancestor between the modern man and the ape.

Answer 4

Half humans, half apes?!?!?!

I thought I had already told you that populations evolve, not individuals. No "crockaducks. "

Organisms respond to random mutation and selection in their populations, mediated by the environment. When the two branches split from the common ancestor they were subjected to a change in allele frequency that carried them apart in a changing environment.

Think of a bush with all the representative species on the tips. Do not think in a linear fashion.

Answer 5

Your main problem is you are starting by imaging a linear order to modern life with humans at the top. Thats a philosophical judgement, and isn't relevant particularly to evolution.

Populations divide and go in different directions (like say, if todays North Americans became cut off from the rest of the world for tens of thousands to millions of years). The common ancestors of humans and other apes weren't half-modern-ape, half-modern-human. They were pre-modern-ape and pre-modern-human. Other apes have evolved since then too, not just humans.

As far as why are we "better" in our own eyes than other apes, probably a combination of fortunate mutations, chance occurrences and the environment we lived in (natural selection). But it is wrong to say we are more 'evolved'. Apes have evolved just as much - have adapted to their environments. A shark might as well ask why are we such weak swimmers compared to it, a bat ask why we are so clumsy and bump in to things in the dark, and etc etc.

Answer 6

An article in National Geographic reported on Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a 13 million year old ape. It was suggested that this could be the last common ancestor of apes and humans.

"The last probable common ancestor to humans and great apes had a body like an ape, fingers like a chimp and the upright posture of humans,"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/

Answer 7

apes can learn sign language which is talking, and they know how to use tools to find ants(sticking a twig in a hole in a tree )  these are things early man did !!

Answer 8

I think you've already decided against evolution and your "questions" are a kind of slithery way of trying to show the weaknesses of the evolution theories. Course, that's just my opinion. Anyway, others here have answered your questions better than I could. Read! Study! Dig! Maybe you'll one day be the one who finally irons out the last wrinkles in evolution.

Answer 9

I can't believe some of the garbage in here. Why don't we just talk about how the White House was created by millions of years of accumulation of particles! with no designer or architect. We don't need any proof right? All we have to do is put some really big words together and spin a good yarn. My God the world is not flat people! and the universe does not revolve around us! Their are no intermediary fossils to prove any of this. This is hogwash!!!   The non-existence of these fossils, or any other real evidence only improves the theory of intelligent design, and creation itself. Their author is a sham. In the origin of species Darwin had not in fact discussed the human species, other than to remark that,"light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".Thomas Huxley was the first to construct on the basis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection a clear and logical image of biological man. And as such is clearly the founder of evolutionary anthropology.  There is proof that a species improves to survive and eventually will become best of breed. There is no proof that a species can evolve through natural selection into another species! The colleges are brainwashing our children and turning them into time worshipers.

Answer 10

I hope this will clarify things for you.  Humans did not evolve from apes, apes and humans share ancestors. Therefore there is not a species between the two.  Also, the common ancestor was not "half human/half ape", it was a whole and successful organism in its own right.

Each went their own way. Or, to put it more explicitly, there have been a number of splits in lineage containing apes and humans in the last 5-odd million years (the lineage containing apes and humans split from the lineages leading to monkeys much earlier):

One split separated the lineage leading to today's "lesser apes" (gibbons, etc.) from the lineage leading to today's "Great apes".

One split separated the lineage leading to today's orangutans from the lineage leading to today's African "Great Apes"

Another split separated the lineage leading to today's Gorillas from the lineage leading to today's Chimpanzees and Humans.

Finally, a further split separated the lineage leading to today's Chimpanzees from the lineage leading to today's humans.  

The best research about ancient environments indicate that the ancestral species lived in an area that was forested.  part of that area is in the part of Africa that comprises the Rift Valley.  As the Rift Valley formed, the environment change from forest to scrubland/savanna.  The ape populations in the Rift Valley area adapted to the change by becoming bipedal, the population in the areas that remained forested did not and their descendants became chimpanzees/bonobos.

The scrubland/savanna population iswhat we call hominids.  Hominids evolved into a number of species that exploited the possibilities of the this environment.

One population of one of these species added scavenging meat to their diet (or rather increased meat as a portion of their diet) and also increased their use of tools and began more intensive modification of objects around them to produce more effective tools. It is from this population that humans eventually evolved.

It is not that apes can't think, or make tools, or communicate amongst each other, it is that hominids have evolved to use these traits and to rely on them to a much higher degree than did the populations that led to other ape.

This is not a question of being more "highly evolved" than the modern great ape, they are well adapted to their environment and way of life--it is just a different environment and life strategy than ours.

As far as true language is concerned, that did not come along until H. erectus, as far as we know.

A final observation: Our problem here is our lack of objectivity when we look at ourselves. An Extra-Terrestrial Zoologist would say that all the above are apes

Answer 11

I'm glad that you are seeking answers, since it seems that you have a few misconceptions. Firstly, humans are apes. Our common ancestor with other apes did not diverge into humans and non-human apes. We actually diverged from the common ancestor more along the lines on chimpanzees than other apes.

Secondly, while the common ancestor of all apes is unknown, it possessed primitive traits to both humans and apes as well as its own derived traits that are no longer present in any ape.

Additionally, we are not more evolved than any other organism, since all organisms have been evolving for the same length of time. Increased brain size, as well as cultural innovations occurred rather late in human evolution.

Answer 12

I think that you have noticed that dogs if taught can understand commands.  Doesn't that give you a clue that there are other animals that have potential abilities. We had the advantage of standing on two legs and having hands that grasp. We also lived in groups and that in itself causes communication to be important. With nature providing us the means we have been able to fullfill some of nature's potential abilities. We can't even begin to figure what else nature might provide but by studing nature we can list that which exist. Study of fossils can uncover other abilities lost. It really is amazing how nature works and that is the reason why so many people are drawn to the subject. I think you are drawn into it also. To me amazing = God.

Answer 13

Might I suggest you read "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin. Then perhaps you'll have more answers than questions.

Answer 14

We are apes and separating us as if there is some magical boundary is where most, including many who should know better, get confused.  We became more like humans and to us that makes us look less apelike.  The common ancestor only applies if you are comparing it to modern apes.  There were several much closer hominids that would fit most peoples opinions of half ape that lived until quite recently.  The common ancestor of humans and chimps was an ape that lived probably about 5 to 6 million years ago.  It may have been upright and bipedal but it was still an ape.