Were there many races of monkeys that now transform to many races of human?

Question

As in the today world, we all come from different races, e.g. Asian, African, European, and etc. I wonder if in ancient times, there were many different races of monkeys as well. If so, which species of monkey go to which human race.

Answer 1

You should already know this unless you are a clever 5th grader.

There is only   one   race on the planet and it has only one extant species, us!

Our nearest cousin, old Neanderthal was extincted by our ancestors around 30,000 years ago. I really don't think it was on purpose. We (modern humans) had an evolved cerebral hemisphere with an evolved neocortex. We processed information differently that Neander and performed so much more efficiently.

Of course, we didn't realize this at the time and many of our fellow modern humans do not realize it now.

Nevertheless. it happened.

The sooner you get over the 'race' business the less uninformed you will appear.

Answer 2

The difference in people's physical appearances (their skin color, bone structure, etc.) are not as a result of being different 'races.'  Race is a cultural construction, not a fact.  Humans are just humans, and when humans that carry certain features reproduce amongst themselves, certain features will become more prominent and characteristic of that community.  There are different breeds of moneys and apes, as there are different types of dogs.  

To answer your question, different species of moneys do not correspond to different human races.  There are varieties of   Australopithecines  that arose between the apes and humans, but they did not survive to modern day.  Humans arose from other humans, the differences in their skin color and appearances arose from genetic drift (like polydactylism is more common among certain amish populations since one of the founders carried the gene for it, and the gene spread around).

Answer 3

Substituting the word ape for monkey, what you are saying sounds like the very unpopular multiregional hypothesis that states that modern humans evolved from different populations of homo erectus around the world. Instead a single origin hypothesis is preferred stating the modern humans arose from a single small population in Africa and spread throughout the world later giving rise to different races.

Here is an interesting fact: humans exhibit much less mitochondrial genetic variation than chimpanzees. That's crazy, right?

Answer 4

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys are believed to have both evolved from a common ancestor. So no race of humans go to a particular race of monkeys lol

Answer 5

Why do people use 'race' and 'species' interchangeably on this website - it's NOT the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(this is not directed at the asker)

Answer 6

There is only one "race" of humans.

Race:In biology is  the same as a sub species.

In culture it is the categories that classify human diversity.

All humans are the same race technically. We look different based on the areas we live and who our ancestors were.  This is based off of the culture.

Our genetic make up is the same.

Our relation to other primates is all the same.

We are more closely related to  certain primates rather than others, but this is based off of biological traits.

Hope this helped

Answer 7

No. All humans are one species.

Answer 8

curiousmay, I'm sorry to answer this question in such a negative way, please do not take any of the following as a put down

The problem with your question is it is completely mistaken from front to back.

To begin with, "race" is a social concept, without any biological reality for humans.  In every single physical trait of which I am aware, expression (like skin color, nose form, hair form blood group, alternate hemoglobin, and so forth) varies independently according to the selective forces that act upon each trait.  

The collection of physical traits that supposedly "define" races, turn out to be derived from the European age of exploration.  Those "definitions" turn out to be descriptions of the prevailing physical types in each of the areas of Africa, the Americas and Asia first contacted by Europeans.  These descriptions stuck, even though it became obvious that they really did not fit "all" Africans, or "all" Native Americans, etc.

They were, though convenient means to sort people into "them vs us" groups and convenient to base policies of repression.  These "racial classifications" do not even stay the same from one country to the next.  In Brazil, "race" is based almost solely according to skin color and one's "race" can change by a day or two more in the sun or out of the sun.  (this is based on the experience of Dr. Conrad Kottack at the University of Michigan who has done fieldwork in Brazil).

As to the second part of your question, this is a common misconception.  Humans did not evolve from monkeys.  This is a common rallying cry for anti-evolutionists, who either do not understand what evolution is, are who understand evolution, but are reduced to these sorts of misstatements for lack of sound argument to make.

Here is a Homo-centric account of the evolution of Primates:

Primates are known from the latest Cretaceous/earliest Paleocene, mainly by their teeth, which show the same types and numbers of types as more modern primates.  The evidence during this period is that primates moved around in trees more like modern squirrels and primarily ate insects, but were getting an increasing amount of food from plant products (leaves, sap, fruit, etc.).

In the late Paleocene and Eocene, primates became more like modern prosimians--they became adapted to gripping tree trunks with their fingers, not digging in with claws and flat nails on fingers evolved from claws.  In general, they became better at moving in smaller branches and finding their way and finding food by sight in preference to smell.

By the end of the Eocene, some primates were developing features that further emphasized sight over smell and paleontologists see this as the beginnings of "higher primates", that is to say New and Old World Monkeys and Apes (including humans).

In the Oligocene, anthropoids continued to evolve toward greater reliance on their hands and eyes.  During this time, New World monkeys diverged from Old World primates.   This can be determined by a number of differences in the teeth and in the features of the skull.

The Miocene and the Pliocene found a huge diversity in primates (from now on, we are speaking of the Old World solely).  A population diverged from the populations that evolved into Old World monkeys.  

This population concentrated on fruit-eating and by reaching fruit by hanging onto tree branches, rather than by walking on top of branches.

This change in lifeway, placed different adaptive pressure on these evolving apes:  among other changes, arms got longer, stronger, the shoulder joint became more mobile, with a greater range of movement.  The brain expanded in order to allow for greater hand-eye coordination and spacial perception.  The chest became flattened and larger from side by side.  The tail became  liability and shrunk and vanished.  The legs became shorter.

Later ape populations began to grow larger splitting into Great (large) apes and Lesser (small) apes.  Populations that  became larger split into apes that went about on all fours by supporting their weight on their fists (orangutans and their relatives), and those which supported their weight on their knuckles (the African great apes).

By the end of the Miocene, one population of ape, related to the populations the gave rise to the modern African Great Apes, was located in East Africa, in an area undergoing huge tectonic change--the formation of the Rift Valley.  One of the changes this caused was the reduction of forests and expansion of savanna grasslands.  These apes were the first hominids, the group in which humans belong.

This population of apes adapted to the changes by dental changes to cope with harder foods and bipedalism to better see their surroundings.  This population did adapt and diversified into several species, exploiting various different adaptational possibilities.

One of these began to exploit scavenging meat and the use of tools to do things that their anatomies couldn't do as well.  This was the development of culture, and the hominid lineages that evolved from that population evolved to be effective culture-using animals.  

The only surviving species of hominids is Homo sapiens, us.  By using culture to do things we were not physically adapted to do, we out-competed all other species of hominids.  And then as we moved around the world we made minor physical adaptations to our surroundings, leading to the diversity seen today.

I hope this was not overkill, but I saw little alternative if I were to give you a fair answer.  Take care.

wl

Answer 9

if ever there was one, you'd be the one

Answer 10

Here is a brief overview of the "great ape" species that rose from earlier primates:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...

Answer 11

There are different types of humans, and different types of apes, but every anthropoligist thinks that all humans evolved from the same group of savanah dwelling apes, and that all humans branched off about 200,000 years ago (not really that long ago in evolutionary time).

No humans evolved from types of apes living today.