Whatever primitive man we want to call. Man evolved or adjusted to the environment Ape is an ape and did not evolve nor adjusted to the environment after millions of years and it continue be an ape. A new study puts the burden of humanity's evolution on our shoulders. Like, literally on our shoulders. By examining the shoulder blades of two early human Australopithecus species, researchers believe they've found further evidence that humans and apes shared an ape-like ancestor. So we were different and we are different https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ulders-show-signs-of-humanitys-ape-like-past/
Man adjusted himself top colder climate , ape continue live in tropical climate to survive . Neanderthal man survived in freezing climate ape did not. Therefore R them , no us
My question is: What's the difference between evolving and adjusting to the environment? What do you think evolution is?
We evolve mentally, while ape did not. Chimp uses a stick to get ants from a hole , he might use a stone to break a nut or a bone , we grow our food , \preserve our food , and so on.
You're still not answering the question: What's the difference between evolving and adjusting to the environment? What do you think evolution is? Humans and (other) apes evolved differently and THEREFORE there were able to survive in different environments.
Essentially correct. Nonsense! Of course the great apes continued to evolve. That makes sense. Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and the other apes evolved from a common ancestor. That seems a bit redundant.
[QUOTE="sideshowbob, post: 3327081, Humans and (other) apes evolved differently and THEREFORE there were able to survive in different environments.[/QUOTE] Now you are throwing a monkey wrench , You and them will adjust or perish, and they perished in cold environment, because lack of mental capacity , So we were different from the beginning
Well, in the case of the gorilla, look for further than Wikipedia: "Until recently, gorillas were considered to be a single species, with three subspecies: the western lowland gorilla, the eastern lowland gorilla and the mountain gorilla. There is now agreement that there are two species with two subspecies each. More recently, a third subspecies has been claimed to exist in one of the species. The separate species and subspecies developed from a single type of gorilla during the Ice Age, when their forest habitats shrank and became isolated from each other." Or look at Wikipedia's original sources. And BTW, remember that we are apes too. River Apes would be a good description.
I can say the same about man , Heidelberg , Neanderthal and so on. Do you want me to say Black man white man , Asian man ? modern ma, and so on The fact is were we are now. A chimp os a chimp, gorilla is a gorilla orangutan is an orangutan an so on Man is using tools for very long time , I believe a Crow can use tools efficiently, even uses traffic light as a tool
That doesn't follow. Seals, walruses, bears, etc. have adapted to cold climates despite having less intellectual capacity than man.
Huh??? I don't know where to begin. For starters, Homo sapiens is a species of ape. Specifically, a "Great Ape." The Great Apes are humans, orangutans, the two species of gorilla and the two species of chimpanzee. The "Lesser Apes" are the various species of gibbons. Our closest relatives are the chimpanzees. We share something like 95% of our DNA. All of the apes have evolved; we are the pinnacle of evolution in the Order of Primates. The first primates were the most primitive: the lemurs and lorises. The slightly less primitive tarsiers evolved from them. The New World monkeys evolved from the tarsiers. The Old World monkeys evolved from the New World monkeys. Then came the gibbons (the first apes), then the orangutans (the first Great Apes), the gorillas and the chimpanzees. Humans are so close to chimpanzees that the three species are often grouped together. Ardipithecus was the first ape to spin off from the chimpanzees (about 7 million years ago) and begin becoming less agile in the trees but much more agile on the ground. Ardi retained one prehensile toe on each foot to facilitate climbing trees in an emergency, but otherwise his feet, legs, knees, etc. were very much like ours, well-suited to bipedal walking--much better suited than any other ape. That final evolution, from Ardipithecus's intermediate descendants to the various species of Homo began not quite 3 million years ago. Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old, but there were several intermediate species within our genus, notably H. erectus and H. ergaster. Best known is H. neanderthalensis, who is so closely related to us that when the two species encountered each other they were able to interbreed. This happened primarily in Europe, and most of the Europeans who are descendants of the earliest sapiens population (the Cro-Magnon), who arrived when the Neanderthals were still there, do indeed have measurable bits of Neanderthal DNA. Again, I just don't know where to begin. Humans are apes, so of course we share a common ancestor with all the other species of ape. But it's just as easy (and just as correct) to state that we share a common ancestor with all mammals. Also: with all vertebrates. Also: with all animals. In fact, all organisms on this planet are related. If you'd like to feel really humble for a moment, ponder the fact that humans share about 40% of our DNA with trees.
You are preaching to the church corus . My point is whatever the early man was . Intellectually man evolver , the other subspecies of the called Ape group, I don't believe mentally they made any progress. Since we come from so called common ancestor , We are younger then Gorilla and chimpanzee , Where is the common ancestor, Did the " common ancestor " kept producing man and Gorilla and chimp or would you say Lamur is the parent of man and chimp, but Lamur is continue producing little Lamur . There should be a better theory then you are attached to.
There is no rule that when a species branches off some common ancestor, that that ancestor should then die out. After all, there are still bacteria. Perhaps most apes didn't need to get any smarter in the context of their environment. There is also no rule that smarter is better. Bigger brains need more energy to run, and they make birth more difficult.
yet again format that cannot be edited to make it work!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your point is lost on me and I assume everyone else. If you are saying that the great apes did not evolve larger brains that is correct. But that is only showing that you do not understand evolution. When the split between the great apes and man occurred it did so because the environmental pressures. Man evolved in a way that suited the environment that he was in. Apes evolved in a way that suited the environment they were in. Bigger brains does not mean more evolved - that is a classic misunderstanding of evolution due to an anthropocentric attitude. If bigger brains did mean more evolved then you would have to believe that Neanderthals were more evolved than you because on average they had larger brains than homo sapiens. That makes no sense what so ever. The common ancestor is extinct. The common ancestor lived about 5 to 10 million years ago. The common ancestor never produced a man or a chimp. Your lack of knowledge of evolution is profound. I assume you mean lemurs. Lemurs are not the parent of chimps or man. They are not in a direct line to man or chimps. Lemurs branched off from the other primates about 60 million years ago. You should at least have some understanding of a theory before you decide to dismiss it out of hand
