Why Australopithecus is wiped out and Chimpanzees not?

Question

Seriously. If the evolution theory is right. The Australopithecous was a little bit closer in skills to humans than Chimpanzees. So how the latter managed to survive while the former were extinct?

Answer 1

There were no chimpanzees in competition with australopithecines.  The common ancestor for both had come and gone by the time australo's appeared.  They were already on divergent paths.  Chimpanzees probably appeared at about the same time as modern man, and we're about to wipe them out.

Answer 2

That's a good question.

A. afarensis likely did not die out - it probably evolved into H. habilis.

The robust australopithecines (boisei, robustus, etc.) probably died out because they had a very specialized vegetable diet.  Specialization usually leads to extinction (think Panda bears).

But you're right; at one time, there were multiple species of hominids wandering around, and now there is only one.  I don't think we know for sure why this happened.

Answer 3

"Why Australopithecus is wiped out and Chimpanzees not?

Seriously. If the evolution theory is right."

This simply provides more evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory.  I am not sure if you really want to learn or if you are making brownie points with god or your church.  If you want to learn, then a previous answer got it right.  Australopithecus may have not be wiped out.  It may have evolved into H. habilis which may have eventually evolved into us.  It is isn't widely accepted, but Astralopithecus Afarensis is theorized to ancestral to Chimps.  

"The Australopithecous was a little bit closer in skills to humans than Chimpanzees. So how the latter managed to survive while the former were extinct? "



Believe it or not, chimps are far superior to humans in their niche.  You or I could not keep up with one.  If you were adopted into a troup of chimps, I suspect you wouldn't survive long.  Chimps moved into a niche of arboreal to semi-arboreal meaning they are good in the trees.  They can move through the underbrush much better than you or I.

"many sub-types of archaic-apes and australopithecus lived at the same

time. How is it that some of these archaic-apes evolved in Gorillas, Chimpanzees and so on.

And only one sub-types of Australopithecus did it to Homo Sapiens"

There are many kinds of apes today.  We are but one type a naked bipedal ape (any objective review would conclude this).  We are the third Chimpanzee or the fourth if you count Bili Ape.  Some apes survived because they were able to find a suitable niche.  Gorillas are large mostly terrestrial apes.  Chimps are much smaller but more arboreal.  Humans are medium sized but are short on fang and claw but big on brains.  We are all very well adapted apes.

Answer 4

Survival of the fittest entails a lot of territory. It means one must procreate at a fast enough rate while maintaining an ability to adapt to specific econiches, survive - adapt - reproduce. These abilities are all very specific to the environment. If two species are competing for a specific environment then Darwin says evolution will give the upper hand to the fittest of these species. If the environment is changed then the upper hand goes to the species which is able to adapt to those changes and still maintain a reproduction rate for the species to survive. I see no conflict as to why Australopithecus is extinct while Chimanzees, or any other species are extant. Natural selection is directional, opportunistic and can't predict how environment will change, nor how a species will adapt to that change thus, can't predict future course of evolution.

Answer 5

The evolution theory discusses evolution and natural selection. Just because Australopithecus was more human like does not mean that it was better suited for its environment. I would like to bring up an example from the tip of Africa. One form of homo sapian coexisted within a group of homo habilus. The two species lives in the same social groups, yet only the homo sapian survived, while the Homo Habilus became extinct, even though the homo habilus could use tools and was more human like (Humans are a type of Homo Habilus. Homo Habilus means "handy man" or tool user.) Just because an  animal is more human like, or has a larger social group, which leads to a larger brain, does not mean that they are more suited for their environment.

Answer 6

get a life

Answer 7

What you propose is founded on the idea of linear evolution-that one being is directly relatable to another by a missing link or previous single species. It is my opinion that Ausrtalopithecus did not make it because other competing species used the same resources, possibly to a greater extent. Plus you have to add in other factors such as changing climate and so forth. Chimpanzees made it because their ancestors, being more than one evolutionary link combined attributes favorable to environmental conditions, resource dependence and availability, as well as survivability according to anatomy.

Answer 8

There are already some good answers on this. As stated, it is possible that the australopithecine radiation was ancestral to humans, gorillas, and chimps.

If you look at where the great ape species live (tropical jungles), these are extremely marginal habitats that no human would ever want to live in. Probably the ancestors of the chimps and gorillas were forced into these marginal habitats to escape competition from the homo lineage and have since adapted to them.