Why are there no human apes alive today?

> If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no
> human apes alive today (or well at least no known) ?I don't understand this question. Homo sapiens (i.e., us) *ARE* a kind of ape. We are essentially a clever, hairless, bipedal variant of a chimpanzee (plus a few more differences here and there).If you want to know what happened to our more ancient chimpanzee-like direct ancestors: they died of natural causes, and all the standard things that animals die from. Their genetic signature did not survive because of genetic drift and natural selection as the evolutionary theory explains.Our genetic cousins, however, that's a far more complicated story ...> How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas
> survived until this day practically staying the same shape
> (I haven't got any information about the monkeys evolution in the
> past)There is absolutely no evidence that other apes have not evolved. Actually, the mere fact that there are 4 types of gorillas and 2 types of Chimpanzees, by itself, indicates that there has been, and continues to be genetic drift among all of our ape cousins. For example, Chimps and Bonobos had a genetic split only about 1 million years ago (as compared to our split with that line 6 millions years ago.)> While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?The way evolution works is that similar species have to be competing for the exact same sources of food and the food has to be limited and one of the species has to have a measurable advantage over the other for one to have a likelihood of taking over and replacing the other.Apes live and compete with each other in forest and jungle environments that our bipedal ancestors did not hang around in for very long. At some point (between ardipithecus and australopithecus, about 3.5 million years ago) our nearest ancestors with the chimpanzees left the forest and carved out a living on the Savanah. We did this, in part, because we *COULD* -- we evolved the ability to walk in an erect manner, which meant we could pursue food opportunities (probably as a scavenger) in the tall African grasses instead of the forest. We also switched diets from berries and insects to a diet that was largely pure meat.So what happened is that as we started evolving radically giving us very unbalanced food gathering strategies versus our ancestors, we found that we were no longer competing with them, because we sought food sources elsewhere. (We became an "isolated group" -- Darwin explains this in "Origin of the Species".) On the other hand we *WERE* competing with saber-toothed cats for food and only one of us two has survived to this day.> I mean. There is only 1 species of humans today.Correct.> I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is
> really only one known. I think it doesn't make sense at all.The other candidates for survival along the hominid line were Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. All three of those left Africa but one way or another could not survive in the long run. Probably some combination of climate change or other environment factors and inability to adapt to changing food sources did them in. In the case of neanderthalensis they came in direct contact with the slightly, but measurably, superior Homo sapiens that out-competed them directly for food where it was most available throughout Europe -- this forced them to try to eek out livings in areas where the food supply was not tempting enough for Homo sapiens to pursue, and it turned out to be not worth it for Neanderthalis either.Oh and any hominid that remained in Africa would also have gotten its butt kicked by us emerging Homo sapiens.While we humans have not yet demonstrated an ability to survive as long as some of our ancestors (Homo erectus lasted about a million and a half years) we are more immune to natural climate shifts by expanding our food gathering strategies to include farming and domestication. Our technological advantages also ensure that we will not be out-competed by some other animal and our food won't suddenly disappear from us for some reason beyond our control.> How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most
> advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?As I explained, the other apes hung around in the forest, while we did not. As modern humans, we now have a need for the forest -- we may yet finish the job of eradicating all our ape cousins through the process of industrialization.

Hi websnarf, and welcome to the fray, nice post. An easier way to do quotes is to use quote boxes:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.For other formatting tips see Posting TipsIf you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.Enjoy.

---

Asking why there is no human apes alive today is like asking why your great grampa from the 1800's is not alive..They only get to live one life time just like any other living thing.. its there off springs that may change,. and after many generations things dont look the same..Its simple,. most of us look like our parents , our kids look more like us and they look less like our parents,..and there kids look less like us..rinse an repeat.now repeat this for 200000 years and think of the question once more. yep,. your ape father died 1000's of years ago.

All humans are apes, so there are human apes existing today.You might as well have asked why there are no human mammals existing today.

Because there was never any human apes. Apes are apes and humans are humans.

Humans are also apes.It is the same as:
Dogs are dogs and dobermans are dobermans.
Dobermans are also dogs.

Are we really apes?

quote:

---

We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.

​

Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every prehuman ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.

​

Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting better made us much, much weaker.

​

Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

​

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.

​

Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called contracture. In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.

​

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid tools.

​

Fingernails and Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone tools were not for butchering animals.

​

Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

​

Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say improved or superior is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

​

Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

​

Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

​

Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)

​

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.

​

Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?

​

Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.

​

Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these.

​

Source: The Literal Creation of Mankind At the Hands of You-Know-What By Lloyd Pye

---

Well based on that little summary one would have to conclude that humans are very poorly designed as compared to apes in many respects (If design is ones proposed theory)Why would a designer give his chosen species so many disadvantages - From inappropriate skin to weak muscles via a propensity for genetic disorders.

Theoretically it would be possible to create a human/ape hybrid because we are so closely related.Whether it would be Ethical to produce a hybrid to prove once and for all to religious fanatics such as you that humans and apes are related is a noter story and no doubt the experiment would meet resistance from every major church.

That is because you have a naive concept of what 'better' means in evolutionary terms. Well you certainly could characterise sunburn or melanoma as radiation poisoning I guess, but it isn't how the term is usually used. This also totally ignores the fact that the strength of sunlight is not consistent over the whole Earth, I could probably walk around Scotland naked 10 months of the year without ever having to worry about sunburn, hypothermia is another matter entirely. Again a naive and simplistic understanding of evolution. Chromosome number is not the first thing that springs to mind as to an area in which humans are superior to other primates, the obvious one would be mental ability and indeed genes associated with neural development are very frequently more divergent than we would expect by chance and show strong signs of having undergone positive selection.As to the difference in chromosome this is pretty well established, chromosome 2 in Humans is homologous to 2 distinct chromosomes in the great apes which appear to have undergone fusion in the human lineage. They get into the gene pool by mutation, without knowing what specific mutations you are thinking of the rest is hard to answer to. Some genetic diseases are recessive and are maintained in carriers, some principally occur as spontaneous de novo mutations, some like sickle cell anemia are maintained by environmental pressures. One other possibility, as you yourself suggest, is that modern medicine means that some syndromes that would otherwise be weeded out may be being maintained in the population. Another possibility is that we may simply not recognise many genetic disorders in apes because there isn't the same investment of time and effort in studying their health as there is in humans.I'm not really sure what your overall point is, that humans are different from other primates/great apes? Well of course they are. But then so are all the other primates, every species has its own unique distinguishing features. But in terms of both morphological and genetic phylogenies the overwhelming evidence is that chimpanzees are our closest relatives and we theirs.TTFN,WK

Yes, we are.The document you quoted seems to think that humans are brothers to gorillas.
This is not true: we share a distant common ancestor.How do you think the author would react to the statement that "Bonobos are apes"?
Would he list the differences compared to other apes?
Lighter bones
Much smaller size
Greater sex drive
Much weaker
Less hairHumans are NOT gorillas. Humans are NOT orang-utans. Humans ARE apes.p.s.
Any document that uses phrases like:
"...which only the black race has achieved."
immediately sets off alarm bells.

Splendid. Please tell us which is which. Thank you.

Yes.Since chimpanzees are more genetically similar to us than they are to gorillas, any classification that includes chimpanzees and gorillas but not us would be willfully artificial.I'll comment on your quote later; it contains numerous amusing absurdities, and if, by the time I get round to it, there are any left that haven't been mocked by other posters, I'll mock those.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

I would prefer you not to give him any clues at this stage. Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.