Future Evolution/Design....?

Chimpanzees and Bonobos are similar to human beings; similar in DNA and in nature, even somewhat similar in appearance. Now to an evolutionist, the answer is easy; we have a common ancestor with them and we are still closely related. But to a Creationsit or IDist etc an advocate for God's hand in the universe; the explaination is much more complicated. now what seems evidance of 'common ancestor' to an evolutionist, is evidence of 'common design' to the creationist. The fact that Chimpanzees and Human beings (for example) having structural similarities to the creationist suggests that humans and chimps' bone/muscle/brain etc stucture are designed for similar purposes. So evolutionists would say that genetic/structural similarities could eventually lead to chimpanzees/bonobos inheriting the planet if we leave it vacant. So could the fact that Creationists seeing these similarities as 'common design' mean that chimpanzees/bonobos are designed for a future of succession....?Now future evolution (for those who choose to except the theory that is) is always a concept for the imagination. Books like "After Man: Zoology of the Future" etc spark curiosity in the human mind on to what the future of the natural process will be like. An article in Focus magazine interested me when it suggested that when/if humans become extinct; what will take our place at the top of the food chain...? It suggested the most likely contidates would be firstly either Bonobos or Chimpanzees. One as we know (chimps) are vicious and warlike, the other is empathetic and peacful. If the latter inherited the earth then it would be a world of peace. Similar to the view of how humanity was in the Creationist view. Perfect Godlike harmony. But the prior would be a world of war and imperial conquest. Now the article said that these two, whilst likely cantidates due to intelligence, they may not be our sucessors. Rats. Rats are the most likely most scientists say; because of their insane ability to breed and their high intelligence in comparison to their cousins; mice, voles and shrews. (the other two cantidates were Crows and Squids).So my questions to people here are firstly what will suceed (in your scientific opinions)? And to a Creationist; what would the view be on, a creature other than man inheriting the planet? Edited by noachian, : No reason given.Edited by noachian, : No reason given.Edited by noachian, : Editing paragraph 1

Welcome aboard, noachian. Thanks for working on a post to kick off a new thread. (and OP -- opening post).It is important to keep the thread focus tight -- if you don't it will wander all over the place.You have two parts here, both of which would make a good OP.The first is giving your opinion of the relationship between Chimps and Humans. That belongs in "Human Origins and Evolution". If that is what you want go back and edit out your second paragraph.The second is discussing the effect of either Chimps or Bonobos becoming a replacement dominant species and that looks like it could go in "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution".Since I think it is pretty obvious that none of the close relatives of humans have any chance at all of being dominant if we disappeared you should make it clear that that happening is a given assumption behind the discussion you want to have.If you actually want to discuss what might replace us then that is yet another possible topic that could go in "Biological Evolution".Please edit your OP to pick one of these three.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Much would depend on how "man" became extinct.I can see 3 possibilities.1) Self extinction (improbable) only man would become extinct then there would be no massive change simply whatever is dominant would continue.2) catastophic extinction (asteroid impact for instance) This would not only eliminate humans but numerous other species and those species that survive would become the dominant.3) natural selection, whatever the resulting species that replaces homo sapiens would be the dominant.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

i think prehaps a disease would be the likely extinction to only effect humanity. Thus leaving oppertunity for natural selection to fill the gap. (Although some may argue that a disease deadly enough to whip-out humanity would probably do like wise to chimps/bonobos.)Edited by noachian, : No reason given.

i'll take the plungeraccoons will be the next dominant tool-using species. non-human primates are too specialized for their environments. an adaptable generalist -- one that already has both prehensile hands and an uncanny ability to live anywhere humans live(d) -- fits the bill

I don't know where you got this idea: most primates are, in fact, quite flexible generalists. New member dynadin brought this to EvC about monkeys that can fish. Here is another good article, this one about chimpanzees using sharp sticks to stab prey items inside hollow logs. This one talks about gorillas (obviously not "adaptable generalists," but still...) using sticks to gauge the depth of water while wading.Although, I think you may also be on to something with your raccoon thing. You can hear all the time of invasive species from Europe causing problems for indigenous species in North America: red brohm, cheatgrass, starlings, house sparrows, house cats, etc. But, the raccoon is one of few North American animals that actually successfully invaded Europe. Still, I don't think raccoons rival primates in tool use.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, noachian. Welcome to EvC! I find these questions to be a bit misleading. There is no evidence in earth's history of any other species having risen to the level of civilization before us, so there is no reason to conclude that such a species must come after us. Judging by your grasp of the subject matter, I'm betting you already knew this, so I don't suspect I'm breaking new ground here. However, I did want to get this point across to anybody participating in or even just lurking in this thread:Earth's history shows half a billion years of "complex" life without "intelligent" life---so, intelligence is not a guaranteed consequence of life.Now, restating the original question: It depends on what you mean by "succeed." If the question is directed towards finding the next great intelligence on the planet, primates, raccoons, cetaceans and carnivorans are all likely cadidates (though the last two would need fingers or equivalents for tool use). Outside of mammalian circles, I think cephalopods would also be contenders, if they could ever figure out how to leave a marine environment.However, if you mean something along the lines of "who will dominate the earth?" the answer is very simple. Insects rule the world now, have ruled it since the Carboniferous, and will continue to rule it long after humans are gone. Particularly the orders Diptera (true flies), Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants), Coleoptera (beetles), Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) and Hemiptera (true bugs).Insects will not likely develop anything we would call "intelligence" or "civilization," but they already dominate the world in terms of diversity, distribution, biomass and ecological influence.Whatever comes in the future, it will still be full of bugs.Yes, I'm an entomologist.

---

Darwin loves you.

Whenever I give talks to non-entomologists I like to point out that humans with our technology and intelligence still spend a huge amount of our resourses combating insects that are trying to eat all our food and fiber. We are still in a losing battle with insect born diseases. Every entomologist knows it is really the dragonflies that rule!

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Humans have driven many species of insects to extinction, but not one of these has been a species that we were actually trying to kill. Meanwhile, things we've been specifically targeting are thriving in spite of us.Isn't that odd?Underlines my earlier point that human-style intelligence isn't really the point of evolution at all. I wanted to do my doctorate on dragonflies, but I didn't get into the school that would let me, so now I'm studying spiders and other epigaeic predators (which aren't as fun as aerial predators, but are easier to catch ).

---

Darwin loves you.

Very interesting creatures, very little change since the Carboniferous period. But hard to catch? Try this:Place - Tong Du Chon, South Korea
Time - Early summer 1978
Action - thousands of adult dragonflies, (evidently all matured at the same time) so dense that catching them required nothing but sticking your hand out.They will definitely be here long after humans have become extinct

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

It would all depend on what causes us to become extinct. Small animals survived after the dinos so if I was going to quess I would say small mammals. However, in all honest opinion, I don't see anything, even a desease, that could kill us off and not effect most other species to a massive degree. At that point I'd place my money on the bugs!

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

Some time ago I read this account:
A wasp like insect looks for peas while they are still soft and injects an egg. The pupae starts eating the contents and fully grown creates a circle of incision just under the surface of the peas shell. Without this "escape hatch" it would be trapped by the hard shell of the ripened pea and this knowledge could not be passed on to future wasps. Darwin would declare that through evolution this adaptation was gradually learned. IS there a way to reconcile Darwin's theory with this behavior?

Hello Bav, welcome to EvC.Your question really isn't on-topic for this thread. I'll go ahead and answer it, but lets not discuss it too much further in this thread. Think of it this way. The pupae have insticts that come from their genetics. Lets say the genetics provide different pupae with different instincts on how to behave inside the pea. Some just chill out, some make an "escape hatch", some incise the whol pea, etc. The instincts started out as random genetic mutations. Now comes in the natural selection. For various reasons, all of the instincts except for the one that makes them create the "excape hatch" are killed off. This leaves us with only the genes that form the instinct to create the "excape hatch". Then, the next generation will only have the genes for the instincts to create the "escape hatches" (except for the ones that are mutated). The behavior isn't "taught" to future generations, it is inherited.

I think you're thinking of the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum). Here are some "escape hatches": If that's what you're thinking of, then:* The pea weevil is not "wasp-like", except insofar as it's an insect. (Irritatingly, neither is it a weevil, and should properly be called the pea bruchid.)* It does not inject its eggs into peas with an ovipositor (that's why you thought it was wasp-like, perhaps?) but lays them on the young pods; the larvae bury their way in immediately after hatching.* It eats its escape hatch in the "hard shell of the ripened pea" which you say would trap it: * Learning and instinct are two different things.* Please explain what needs reconciling with the theory of evolution and why.