Who is the most evolved?

Question

Since humans are not descendants of monkeys, is it fair to say that monkeys are "less" evolved than us? My guess is since we both have a common ancient ancestor that we have equally evolved, although in different ways. Nonetheless the amount of "evolution" from our common ancestor maybe the same. If not then that means that monkeys are closer to our common ancestor than we are. I wonder what could account for monkeys being less evolved since the amount of time and presumably the environmental changes has effected humans and monkeys similarly. Thoughts???

Answer 1

You need to read some of the books on the translations of the Sumerian writings, they tell how the Anunnaki "space travellers" put their mark on the creature they found here on earth, how?  by gene splicing and then inter marrying.  Two good books are The 12TH planet by Z. Sitchin and slave species of god by M. Tellinger  they will make you think in different terms, and if you like you can read my web site it might give you some knowledge and truth.

http://members.aol.com/theasender

Answer 2

Your guess is correct.  Monkeys and humans are equally evolved.  Your mistake is a common one, in assuming that evolution has a direction.  It doesn't.  It really doesn't care how complicated or intelligent a life-form is.  If you can survive long enough to have kids that survive, you're doing just fine, evolutionarily.  Sometimes populations do stagnate; crocodiles have remained much the same over the millennia.  They're well-suited enough for their environment that there's no pressure to change.  Other times, things change quite rapidly.  For instance, after the dinosaurs died off, mammals really came into their heyday.  That doesn't make wolves any better than crocodiles.  They are both suited to their respective environments.

If anything, evolution tends to prefer less complicated things.  There's a reason there are so many types of bacteria and only one sentient species (although a few others are damned close).  Our big brains take up a lot of energy, and while it's worked out for us, a bacteria gets the same job of procreating done with a lot less fuss.

Answer 3

evolution doesn't have any set paths, so there isn't any specific "more evolved" or "less evolved" property, the only real way for that kind of property to be remotely used is weather or not a creature is evolved to fit the current area. so in the city, we are more evolved, in the jungle they are more evolved.

Answer 4

Since our common ancestor with monkeys is more recent than old world monkeys common ancestor with new world monkeys, logically we are evolved from monkeys though not modern modern monkeys.  It is likely true that we experienced more evolution since our selection pressure would have changed us much more than monkeys.  Our common ancestor was a monkey and modern monkeys evolved from it but their basic form and probably habits apparently didn't need to change much.

Answer 5

Even though the time between the last common ancestor is equal, one of those creatures may have evolved more.  Chimps seem to have moved farther from the least common ancestor than bonobos which might be why bonobos seem to be (or are) more closely related to us.  Ellen made a good point.  It is somewhat subjective, but lets say our last common ancestor with chimps was a biped and looked very much like us.  If this were true, then chimps had to evolve knucklewalking and arguably would have to incorporate many more new adaptations.  It could be argued that chimps are more evolved than humans but you could pick other characterists that suggest humans are.

Answer 6

About 25 million years ago, monkeys split off from the line that lead to humans. Our common ancestor with the apes live about 13 million years ago and the split from our nearest cousins the chimpanzees took place about 8 million years ago.

Using DNA we share about 99% of out DNA with chimps but only about 90% with monkeys.

Answer 7

sponges

Answer 8

I have to agree with the concept  the one species is not more or less evolved. They are more or less successfully adapted to their envioronment.

Of course, I am starting to believe coming down out ot the trees and stopping from eating just fruit may have been a bad idea.

Answer 9

No, we are as evolved as monkeys.  This is a question that is really a matter of definitions.

Use the terms "basal" and "derived" instead of "primitive" and "evolved" and things are less confusing.

The genetic distance between the humans and the common ancestor vs. monkeys and the common ancestor may be different, but I wouldn't call it more evolved.  More different maybe, but not more evolved.

Answer 10

I agree with the other posters that, since evolution doesn't have a direction and there's no such thing as the Great Chain of Being or of the Ascent of Man, you can't really say that any species is more or less evolved.

However, in the case of chimpanzees and humans, you can say that chimpanzees have changed more than humans have from the common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago.  

I have only a rudimentary understanding of molecular biology and evolution, so I may have some of the details wrong.  Basically, a study was done at Ann Arbor of about 14,000 genes which are shared by humans, chimpanzees, and macaques.  Whenever one of these genes was the same in humans and chimpanzees but different from the macaques, this gene was studied further to see whether it produced an altered protein (genes resulting from natural selection are more likely to do so).  154 genes in humans produced an altered protein, while 233 genes in chimpanzees did.  The study concluded that chimpanzees are much more different (much more changed) from our common ancestor than humans are.