If humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?
It's important to realize that evolution is not a linear process where one species evolves from the previous, effectively "replacing" the previous. Instead, it is a much more complicated process where species will branch off an existing line of ancestors. Seperate branches evolve along different trajectories and can include major changes, minor changes, no change, or extinction. The survival of an evolutionary line is dependent upon the ability of its members to live and reproduce in their environment.
The figure below illustrates the primate "family tree":
Sometimes, separate species will evolve such that they will be in direct competition with each other, and the one with the evolutionary advantage will tend to survive. Other times, seperate species will evolve so that each is well suited to their own particular niche. In this case, the species' will coexist, and will evolve independently. Such is the case with humans, apes, and other existing primates.
One of the reasons early human-like ancestors were able to survive was because they were better adapted to the emerging grassland environments than the ancestors of modern apes, which were predominantly tree dwellers. Therefore, the grassland-adapted species would not conflict with the tree-dwellers and they could coexist.
Basically, the question "if humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?" is analogous to "if North Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?". Seems obvious, right?
For further reading, please check out Steven Novella's article on the Skeptic Blog.
References:
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/primate_family_tree.gif
Posts
Shit, this is all we need, yet another pseudo-scientific Darwinist, atheist, steven Novella style bull shit and propaganda site.
Get off the web for pete's sake you Darweenie twits.
Let's look deep into your comment:
"Shit" - Well placed expletive, unnecessary on this forum, but let's continue.
"pseudo-scientific" - Actually, quite the opposite. The articles are referenced, as any scientific research should be. Please see my previous article from December where pseudo-science is defined, or use Wikipedia.
"atheist" - I don't think it is fair to assume one's belief by reading an article that focuses on one tiny portion of evolution.
"steven Novella" - He runs a great podcast called The Skeptic's Guide to the Univers. I highly recommend it.
"bull shit" - Second expletive, which certainly adds value to your point...
"propaganda" - How so? The article is not calling people to do anything. It's just passing along scientifically verified information.
"Get off the web..." - The Ad Homonym attack, once again, well placed for emphasis.
That's a fantastic summary of it. Did they prove in the end, whether the 'Ida' discovery was related to us or not? Just curious. Thanks for the blog.
I don't believe there is direct proof that Ida is specifically related to humans (homos sapiens). Perhaps a distant cousin, or cousin of the aforementioned ancestor. The discovery - while incredible - has been met with some scepticism. Dr. Jens Franzen said "She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line.". So, we'll have to wait and see. You can listen to a great podcast which goes into much more detail here: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=200
Thank you so much for having this information online and easily accessed. I am so tired of religious people asking that question, it really is getting a bit old. If only they would just do some learning of their own.
And in reply to Hitch? Thanks for showing how tolerant and clever some people on the net people can be :-)
The amount of times I have heard this from people almost make me not want to bother with an answer anymore.
I'm going to start carrying around that diagram with me.
Love the site, just found it, and I am enjoying it very much!
This article brings up good points however the answer cannot be that simple. The arguement that is used, "If north Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?" does not at all apply to this situation. Humans are not apes that were moved from one area of land to another. If you're going to say something like this, use ACTUAL evidence, not just something you pulled out of your ass.
Actually, the answer is quite simple, and I didn't "pull it out of my ass", as you have implied so delicately.
Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.” We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape NOR human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us humans to share the planet with a handful of other primates.
The use of the European analogy was not presented as "evidence" for the argument, but as a cheeky way of presenting the the argument.