At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
When a new species evolves from another it doesn't necessarily mean that the originating species will go extinct. Apes exist today even though best evidence shows that humans branched off from them. Ape species are probably continuing their own evolution, and will continue to do so until they can no longer adapt to changing conditions. That's the key to the existence of any species...the ability to adapt to changing conditions, or to find new ecological domains where they can exist.
the apes that exist today are not the same ones that humanity branched off from. we went in one direction and they went in another, however we share a common ancestor with apes. a common misconception is that we evolved from apes similar to modern apes, we did not.
This question seems to imply that animals have some sort of control of their evolutionary path, which of course they don't. "Why didn't the other apes evolve too" implies that they could just look around and say "gee I'd like to evolve the way those humans are." Too many accounts of the evolutionary process are sloppy in this way, and I think this leads to confusion among much of the public. For example, we have probably all seen accounts of evolution describing how a species developed a special defense mechanism to protect tself against predators (think of moths with camouflage that make them look like a leaf or tree bark). That's not quite right, because it implies that the species acted on purpose for self-preservation. Instead, it is a purely accidental process when one animal just happens to be born with a slight genetic anomoly that causes it to be less likely to be eaten by predators , and who is likely to have more babies than his colleagues, and those babies in turn will carry on the anomoly. The original population may carry on just fine, and so over time you get two species in place of one. So just because one line of moths may evolve over time to look like a leaf doesn't mean that they all do.
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."
It IS a theory, which means that it's well founded.
because the best ones evolved ,and the rest did not..............
acording to the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, those wich were well adapted and struggled to survive evolved and which rest did not and so didnt evolve.
Although you're kind of right, you're missing most of the point, sovaira. When a species evolves, some aren't left behind. Any that are left behind without the beneficial mutation will die out.
Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor, we never were common day apes, we were some less evolved ape and so were the common day apes. A natural split may have happened in the species, such as a migration of some of the species, the 2 sets would then evolve into different directions according to their environment.
When a population of animals (or plants) changes over time, the whole population might gradually change over many generations from one thing to another thing to another thing. If there's a dry spell, adaptations for conserving water might be prevail (e.g., an efficient kidney). In another time, when there's lots of water and food, adaptations that allow the organism to compete with other individuals might prevail (big horns). The population's traits might even seem to go backward sometimes, as traits that were more useful 10,000 years earlier, suddenly become useful again.
More often, a single population splits into two (or three or four) subpopulations that then do all this separately. So several subpopulations of apes might go on being apes for 500,000 years, becoming slightly different apes--chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. One subpopulation of apes evolved into humans. But all these subpopulations are all descended from a common population of apes. It's just that our cousin apes look different from us. (And act different too!) But they are different from each other, too.
It's exactly the same as in families. If you have a lot of sisters and brothers, you'll notice that you usually look a lot like them and like your parents. You might even look a lot like your grandparents. But if you go back a few generations to your great, great, great grandparents, you'll be less likely to look like them. And if you look at cousins or second cousins, you look less like them on average than like your sisters and brothers or parents. For the same reason, humans look like our cousins the apes, because we ARE apes. But we look more like other humans because we are most closely related to other humans. And we don't look much like rodents or horses because we aren't as related to them as we are to other apes. Of course, we share certain traits with other mammals--fur, mammary glands, baby teeth, for example--that we don't share with reptiles and birds--because we are more closely related to other mammals than to birds and other reptiles. For any group of organisms, we have some traits in common and some differences. These can tell us how closely related we are to them. So we are more closely related to insects, which are animals, like us, than to redwood trees, which are plants.
I THINK THIS FORUM APPRECIATES LIVE DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS.................RATHER THAN COPY PASTING AND PROMOTING PALLEGRIZED MATERIAL...................so i would like to read short comprehensive answers and explanations ,rather than whole documents,as above
Linear Mode
