Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

Wyman wrote:I thought it could have been better. I think there's more of a chance for computers to take over than apes.

Here is a dumb question: If at some point in time humans (or their ancestors) took an evolutionary fork in the road towards larger brains, standing on two feet, etc. - why did apes stay the same?

I am asking anyone with some expertise in biology - I have an understanding of the basics. Many forms of homo______ branched off and then died away, but presumably, apes just kept on trucking along close to how they are today.

1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

Wyman wrote: But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

Try again, I never said that humans moved out of Africa, I said they moved to a different environment, could have been right in Africa. There are many environments in Africa, Mountains, not mountains, wet, dry, somewhere in between, forests, few trees like a Savanna. The point was (which Wyman seemed to have missed) is that humans occupied an environment that favored higher intelligence. Humans didn't eradicate other humans, monkeys or apes, for the reasons Veg. stated, but they probably evolved far enough that there was no desire to interbred with apes or monkeys, even if that was still possible.

I think you intended this for Wyman.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Wyman wrote: But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

Try again, I never said that humans moved out of Africa, I said they moved to a different environment, could have been right in Africa. There are many environments in Africa, Mountains, not mountains, wet, dry, somewhere in between, forests, few trees like a Savanna. The point was (which Wyman seemed to have missed) is that humans occupied an environment that favored higher intelligence. Humans didn't eradicate other humans, monkeys or apes, for the reasons Veg. stated, but they probably evolved far enough that there was no desire to interbred with apes or monkeys, even if that was still possible.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: 1st a note of clarification according to the latest classification that I have seen, humans are apes, humans and apes are monkeys, the whole group evolved from a monkey ancestor and none of the groups have stopped being monkeys, they just became a different group of monkeys. Something to do with the tail, having one, or not.

That being said, the apes and monkeys of today inhabit environments where their characteristics are doing just fine for survival of the species, no need to evolve higher intelligence. What became humans moved into environments where intelligence seemed to be an advantage for survival, so intelligence has developed. The real question, for me, is that current human intelligence is much higher than needed just for survival of the species, so why do humans seem to be so much more intelligent than other species?

When making a point of clarification it is well to check your facts. Primates are usually sundered into human, monkey and ape.
Apes and humans are not monkeys. All are primates, but monkeys are characterised by a tail, apes as large and tailless (gorillas, chimps, bonobo, orangutan, gibbons). Humans enjoy their own category being bipedal.

Wyman wrote: But they didn't all move. Some stayed in Africa alongside the gorillas.(I actually thought they spread from Africa fully evolved - or else they would have had to evolve, then move back to Africa) Humans eradicated the Neanderthals in Europe somehow - so why didn't they eradicate chimps and gorillas? A lot of other more 'evolved' hominids from the same ancestors went extinct - if they were smarter than apes, then why did they die out?

Wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: They were probably no threat. They had no reason to want to eradicate them. They were not a food source. They may not have even been aware of the others' existence. Who knows? Do you think there were billions of humans around back then? Which time-frame are you referring to? We also know that Neanderthals and what we refer to as 'modern humans' bred with each other, so most of us are hybrids.

Try again, I never said that humans moved out of Africa, I said they moved to a different environment, could have been right in Africa. There are many environments in Africa, Mountains, not mountains, wet, dry, somewhere in between, forests, few trees like a Savanna. The point was (which Wyman seemed to have missed) is that humans occupied an environment that favored higher intelligence. Humans didn't eradicate other humans, monkeys or apes, for the reasons Veg. stated, but they probably evolved far enough that there was no desire to interbred with apes or monkeys, even if that was still possible.

But other waves of hominids left Africa before homo sapiens and made it all the way to China and Indonesia. Surely, they experienced many varieties of environment along the way, yet could not survive nor evolve for some reason. And Neanderthals spanned Europe, Africa, mid-east and Asia - with all the various environments. I have heard a theory that a pocket of hominids survived in South Africa during a particularly rough patch of weather (mini ice age) and subsequently spread out from there. Doesn't it seem strange that no other 'pockets' of hominids evolved into something more intelligent somewhere around the world? Such as Indonesian or Australian homo erectus (or other early homonid) evolving into an intelligent hominid like us, or nearly so? But apparently all humans around the world evolved from a common ancestor.

thedoc wrote:

Yes different groups left Africa at different times and some were not successful. It seems that modern humans were more successful than other hominids for some reason that might not be fully understood, yet. What scientists have is an incomplete fossil record that tells us who and where, but not why.