If humans evolved from apes...?

You have hit the nail on the head for why the phrase "humans evolved from apes" is a muddled, almost cartoonlike way to understand evolution. It's not necessarily wrong (depending on what you mean by 'evolved from' and 'ape') ... but it's ambiguous to the point of confusion. If you sincerely want to understand evolution, then it keeps things much clearer to say "humans and apes share a common ancestor."

Allow me to explain.

Four HUGE problems with this phrase "humans evolved from apes":

First, it subconsciously assumes that humans are "more evolved" than apes like chimps, gorillas, etc.. I.e. the degree to which something is considered "evolved" is how close it is to resembling humans in intelligence, morals, ability to use iPhones, whatever. So the image 'monkey->ape->human' leads to thinking that a chimp is 'more evolved' than a macaque monkey, but 'less evolved' than a human. Just wrong!

To think this way is to completely misunderstand evolution! A chimp is no more an "unevolved human" than a human is an "unevolved chimp."

Second, the word 'ape' is ambiguous. (This applies to the word 'monkey' as well.) 'Ape' includes both modern species and extinct species. So when you say "humans evolved from apes", this is referring to *extinct* species of apes, but when you ask "why are they still around?" you are switching to *modern* species of apes without realizing it.

(Aside: This is why Creationists love to post "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" as a 'contradiction' that refutes evolution. It's a contradiction only if you fail to notice the switcheroo in the two uses of the word 'ape' in the sentence. The contradiction is built into the *wording* of the question. This is childish wordplay, not a scientific argument. Ditto with using the word 'monkey' instead of ape.)

Third, humans *are* apes. That is how we are classified. I am always baffled by people who find this idea appalling. Are they appalled at being called "vertebrates"? Or "mammals"? Or "primates"?

So it is like asking "If humans evolved from mammals, then why are there still mammals?"

Fourth, it is a misconception that when saying A "evolved from" B, that this means that B disappears. If this was what "evolve" meant, then LOGICALLY there would only be one species on the planet!

So it is correct to say that humans and (the other) apes *SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR*. That is unambiguous.

Now that common ancestor was itself another ape species ... so technically it is correct to say "humans evolved from apes" as long as you are clear that you are referring to an *extinct* species of ape.

But it is NOT correct to think of modern existing apes as "unevolved humans."

That question has been answered so many times on Y!A I am surprised you are asking it.

What you are saying is similar to saying "if I am descended from my grandfather, why do I have cousins?"

We did not evolve from any present-day apes. In the far distant past, we had a common ancestor with the present-day apes. That common ancestor was not the same as the present-day apes. Our most recent common ancestor was an early type of ape that was also the common ancestor of the living apes.

Evolution is frequently a branching process. One species splits into two separate species that each go their own way.

Here is why. Species evolve to fit into an environmental niche. If the species has evolved to fit into an environment and it is well adapted to that environment, it will change little and remain relatively stable as long as the environment is stable. If the environment changes, the species will evolve to follow the change. If the species population grows and part of it expands into a new environment, that part will evolve to fit into the new environment. If it fails to evolve to fit into the new environment, it will likely become extinct.

Humans evolved from a common ancestor with the present-day chimp, and that common ancestor was more recent than the common ancestor with the rest of the present-day apes. Because of either an environmental change in a part of the area in which the common ancestor lived, or because population pressure forced a part of the common ancestor population to move, the line that led to humans found itself in a new environment, specifically either an open woodland or other more open area as compared to the tropical forest of its predecessor. That is why the chimps who live in the stable tropical forest have not changed much, but the line leading to humans did change.

Being at least partially bipedal, some changes in the line leading to humans enhanced the bipedal aspect because it helped in various ways, such as being able to see danger in the distance and carrying food and eventually primitive tools. These changes fed back to the selection process enhancing the attributes for making better use of tools, such as increased intelligence. We are the result.

To go along with that, here is something interesting.

About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.

That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.

Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215...

These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.genome.gov/13514624

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

first of all we did not evolve from apes. We and the apes progressed from a straightforward ancestor. Which became into probable very very like an ape. Secondly, apes are nonetheless evolving! Given time, hundreds of thousands of years, they could evolve into extra smart beings! some human beings used to think of black human beings in Africa have been evolving apes, yet not as a techniques progressed as us. (No kidding! they actually did! This became right into a justification for slavery.) some species have been around for hundreds of thousands of years without changing in any respect. Alligators and crocodiles, case in point, have been basically the comparable because of the fact the time of the dinosaurs. So why did not they evolve? there's a factor of evolutionary theory noted as 'punctuated equilibrium' that explains why component to a inhabitants evolves and section would not. the way it works (in accordance to the theory) is that a inhabitants of animals evolves to compare their environment. while they do, they supply up changing because of the fact they're 'completely' progressed for their environment. Then some group of those animals pass away that environment--case in point, the valley the place they stay is crowded so as that they migrate over the hills into the subsequent valley. our surroundings there is distinctive, so those few of those animals who're extra efficient proper to the recent environment have an earnings, so as that they they start evolving back till they as quickly as extra attain 'equilibrium' with their new environment. So now you have 2 species, or subspecies, the place earlier you had basically one. in actuality this became into what led Darwin to this theory in the 1st place. He visited the Galapagos Islands the place each and each island had a somewhat distinctive form of turtles, birds, etc., because of the fact the environments of those islands have been all a splash distinctive. meanwhile those crocodiles, who've been in equilibrium with their environment for all this time, have not replaced plenty in 40 million years, because of the fact their environment hasn't replaced!

"A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats. "

" Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago.

Given this relatively short time since the split, it's likely that a few important mutations are responsible for the differences between the two species, according to Wen-Hsiung Li, a molecular evolutionist at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "

Here is an excellent source with an informative article of a study of DNA.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/08...

the thing is that in the beginning we were all apes. then a group of apes moved to other place and as they adapted to the new environment they evolved. and on the other hand the other group of apes did not evolve, they remained the same. HOPE I HELPED :)

from what i've heard, the theory goes that humans and apes (chimps ima guess you're speaking of) branched off from one another years ago, they're on a different evolutionary path than us

This may be help full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature...