|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why dint other animals or species evolve like humans did? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helio2 Junior Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Why dint other animals or species evolve like humans did over the last 4 billion years?
Also what caused humans to evolve into what they are now? And what is the proper name of what humans evolved from? Primates?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Why dint other animals or species evolve like humans did over the last 4 billion years?
Other animals have evolved.
Also what caused humans to evolve into what they are now?
Various selection pressures.
And what is the proper name of what humans evolved from? Primates?
Homo ergaster is generally considered to be the most recent direct ancestor to Homo sapiens with some arguement over whether Homo neanderthalensis is a direct ancestor or a cousin. Humans are primates, so while it is true to say that we descended from them we also continue to be them. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Hi Helio2,
Welcome to the boards. I don't know your level of understand of the material, so I'll try to keep things simple in this post. Answering your questions in reverse.
what is the proper name of what humans evolved from? Primates? Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens (humans) are a member of the primate group. You could say "we evolved from primates", though that sentence sounds like we are no longer primates. That's not the case. We are still primates.
what caused humans to evolve into what they are now? One mistake people often make about evolution is that something "caused humans to evolve into what we are now" implying that there was a sort of road map and we were pushed along a course already set out for us. There are "causes" but they are directed toward different goals than you would expect. In the simplest of terms - mutation and natural selection are the causes of evolution. They almost universally direct us toward two goals - "Living long enough to have offspring (usually this include the ability to find food and to not be eaten ourselves)" and "having as many offspring as we can". If any species, humans included, don't have successful offspring they don't last long. The more individuals around, the less likely some unforseen forest fire or disease will wipe out the entire population. Now, the real question behind your question is this:"Of all the possible mutations which have led to all the different types of life out there, how did we end up like we are?" And that's a great question. I mean, look at humans, compared to a lot of animals we aren't very fast or strong or well armored, or well camoflauged, etc. But, if you look at chimps, our closest relatives, you see the shadow of those things which make us human - culture, communication, tools, etc. It's certainly not our physical prowess which has made us successful, it's the combination of bigger brains, language/culture and these handy-dandy thumbs for manipulating objects. But keep in mind, the EXACT SAME forces which lead to us being us are what lead to giraffes being giraffes and dolphins being dolphins. At any step along the way, the basic questions are still the same "can this individual find food to live?", "can this individual live long enough to reproduce?", "will the young of this individual thrive?" In the case of giraffes, they evolved to exploit a food source others couldn't reach. In the case of humans, we evolved to exploit many food sources through learning, cooperation and tool use.
Why dint other animals or species evolve like humans did over the last 4 billion years? Many species did "evolve" like humans, it's just that they didn't evolve "like humans". Do you see the difference? They've all evolved, just not along the same path we took. The reasons that they didn't end up in the exact same place we are vary. For example, dolphins are quite smart, but lack hands and thumbs. They can (and have) developed language and culture, but they have no shot at tool use. And frankly, they don't need tools. They are very successful at getting their food without them. Additionally, there are species out there who are MUCH more successful that humans. Cockroaches for example. They've been around A LOT longer than we have, and they will be around LONG after we are gone. All without big brains, language, culture or thumbs. Remember that evolution is not impressed with skyscrapers, computers and cell phones - the entire name of the game is survival. Cockroaches have evolved to be able to survive and reproduce almost anywhere and at a very quick pace. It's hard to imagine them ever going extinct. That's evolution at it's strongest. Also, keep in mind, the animals you see around you (even the cockroaches) have evolved from earlier forms. People often say "humans evolved from chimps". This isn't the case. Rather, humans and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor in the past. Hope some of this was helpful. It's 1 am here, so I may not be making any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helio2 Junior Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Thanks for the replies, another question.
Is there a real possibility that another species of primate could evolve the way we did while we still inhabit this planet? Also, what race of human is believed to be among the first to walk this planet? And why would the human species need to mutate to become a different color, like black ,white, brown, ect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Is there a real possibility that another species of primate could evolve the way we did while we still inhabit this planet? Well depends on if you mean previously or in the future. Previously there have been several species of primate which have been around, some were ancestors to us, others contemperaries. Neanderthal represents an example. (though there is still a debate going on as to exactly how far seperated they were). Also, the Flores (Java Hobbits) assuming we get some more details on them, were very much another species. As for the future, this is unlikely - largely because we as a species are very good at eradicating competition. There's only so many other members of the primate tree left, and most of them are endangered. If humans were to go extinct, then maybe something else from the primate tree could take our place. Or something from the insect world, or the cats, who knows?
what race of human is believed to be among the first to walk this planet? What do you mean by "race" and what do you mean by "walk"? If you mean, which species of ancestor was bipedal - Homo Habilis is a good candidate. If you mean, White/Black etc, the evidence supports an "out of Africa" migration of our early ancestors. However the racial definitions as we have them today, caucasian, negroid, etc represent a later development after the migration. So we can't really say "this race or that race" since none of those "races" existed at the time. Side note: I don't like the term "race". We are all one "race": Human. You could argue that Neanderthals (different bone structure, different muscle build, different skulls, etc) were a different race. But people from China, Etheopia, Brazil, Alaska, France - all one race. (Okay, maybe not the French ) It's probably better to think of people as "breeds". All dogs are dogs. Beagles and dalmations are different looking dogs, but they are still dogs. However, I seriously doubt "breeds" is going to come into common usage when talking about people.
why would the human species need to mutate to become a different color, like black ,white, brown, ect? Well, the darkness/lightness of the skin is caused by the presence/lack of melanin. More melanin means more protection from the sun (think skin cancer). But sunlight is not always bad, our bodies use sunlight to produce vitamin D. So, people with dark skin who migrated north to places with less direct sunlight had trouble producing vitamin D. Those among them with slightly lighter skin had an easier time. Over time, the trend towards lighter skin continued. Now some of those groups living in the north then migrated south again - into India for example. Closer to the equator - more melanin is needed for protection from the stronger sunlight. So there darker skin was selected for. So while people in Africa and people in India both have dark skin, there was a whole phase of lighter skin that took place in between.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
helio2 writes:
It already happened before. The Neanderthals were very intelligent and they essentially had a culture of their own. They used tools, buried their dead, drew pictures, etc. However, biologically speaking they were more adapted for the colder climate of the last ice age. We believe they were outcompeted by the cromagnon (our direct ancestors) and were slowly driven to extinction. Is there a real possibility that another species of primate could evolve the way we did while we still inhabit this planet? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
why didn't humans evolve like other animals over the last (actually 3.5+) billion years?
why are cyanobacteria still around if that is the first recorded form of life (the oldest fossils - 3.5 billion years old - look like cyanobacteria anyway)? because they still fill a niche for cyanobacteria (and one humans are not suited for eh?)? Welcome to the fray helio2. There are lots of intersting things you can learn when you ask questions. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helio2 Junior Member (Idle past 6172 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Cool. Are humanoid creatures the only ones that have a good chance of evolving into a species that has control of their planet, similar to what we have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hard to say, we only have a sample of one planet, so extrapolating is doomed to extravagant biases.
But we could also say that the history of this planet is that humanoid creatures are not necessary to evolve eh? If we stop at 6 million years ago what do you have? 65 million years ago? How cognizant were dinosaurs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Certain parrots and cetaceans exhibit complex communication faculties; as much as anything is responsible for the ability of humans to form civilizations and share knowledge, the ability to communicate complex ideas probably is.
The thing is, though, it's highly likely that "species in control of the planet", as an environmental niche, is probably only big enough for one species. Our very presence may make it impossible for other species to achieve the same level of civilization. (Much as the evolution of successful unicellular life from abiogenesis products makes it essentially impossible for abiogenesis to ever happen again.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I agree with the above two posts.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that "ruling the planet" requires some features which may not be available to some species. For example, let's say that snakes because super crazy smart. They still don't have hands. They aren't going to be building any boats or skyscrapers. Another example, octopus are extremely intelligent, they have a very complex system of intelligence, can learn through observation, and manipulate their environment to a degree. They absolutely kick ass! However, they tend to live about 3 years. So much for taking over the planet The question of "ruling" the planet is a matter of determining what it means to rule. If ruling is dominating in population, ants have us beat hands down.If ruling is the ability to conquer habitats previously unavailble to us, we're doing great. It's really a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024