Did apes descend from us?

[Canuckistan]

In a series of studies released today by the journal Science, researchers have revealed a creature that took the first upright steps toward human beings and fundamentally changes the way we look at our earliest evolutionary ancestors.

The research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes.

http://thestar.ca/sciencetech/article/703747

[geminilee]

Humans still evolved from apes. Whatever creature was the first hominid, their forebears were definitely apes (whether modern apes or not.)
I think that a lot of people have this idea that evolution stopped for the offshoots; that gorillas and orangs were exactly like they are now at the break, or shortly thereafter. Of course we did not evolve from modern apes; they have evolved since the split (whenever that was) just as much as we have, simply because they have had the same amount of time in which to evolve.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Humans still evolved from apes. Whatever creature was the first hominid, their forebears were definitely apes (whether modern apes or not.)

I would definitely have agreed with you before these analyses but if all modern apes evolved from a hominid then it's possible that a hominid-like animal descended directly from the old-world monkeys. Such an animal might not be considered an ape. I don't think there are ape fossils older than these so it's anyone's guess whether the ancestors of the hominid-like animals of 10 million years ago were ape-like or not. It seems a bit silly to suggest that hominids both came from apes and evolved into modern apes (except humans). More likely to be one or the other.

[snoozn]

So, it's still as true as it's ever been that humans and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor. But you just know that some wacky creationist group is going to run with this: "Top scientists admit that humans did not evolve from apes!"

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by geminilee

(modern apes) have evolved since the split (whenever that was) just as much as we have, simply because they have had the same amount of time in which to evolve.

Evolution is not a function of time.

[Beejtronic]

I'd be really interested in reading this article firsthand. I'll check online when I get time.

From what I can gather from the article, basically they're saying they found a common ancestor of chimps and humans, but that the ancestor is more human-like than they expected?

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

Evolution is not a function of time.

No, it is a function of generations, really. Or do you argue that sharks and crocodilians are "less evolved" or "haven't evolved for millions of years"?
Everything alive is evolving, and evolves a little more with each succeeding generation.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Beejtronic

From what I can gather from the article, basically they're saying they found a common ancestor of chimps and humans, but that the ancestor is more human-like than they expected?

I think that they are saying that the first apes were hominids, and that apes evolved away from upright posture after each successive branch split.

[llewtrah]

This is not new. There's already a book called "The Third Chimpanzee" about the evolutionary relationship between humans and the great apes.

[Sister Ray]

A monkey sprang down from a tree,
And angrily cursed Charles D.
"I hold with the Bible,"
He cried: "It's a libel
That man is descended from me!"

Sister "yes that is the first thing I thought seeing the thread title" Ray

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

Evolution is not a function of time.

Originally Posted by geminilee

No, it is a function of generations, really. Or do you argue that sharks and crocodilians are "less evolved" or "haven't evolved for millions of years"?
Everything alive is evolving, and evolves a little more with each succeeding generation.

I don't even understand the declaration, "Evolution is not a function of time." As far as I can tell, it definitely is. In some cases, it's so regular that dates can be estimated by calculating gene shifts. I'm completely with geminilee here: some animals offer the appearance of not having evolved: sharks today look very similar to sharks a long, long time ago. But if you were to look at the differences in their genetic chemistry -- their immune systems, for instance -- you'd see that they aren't "the same" any longer.

As for the OP, well, why not? If it turns out that the latest common ancestor of humans and apes was bipedal, had a large cranium, had hands capable of fine manipulation, etc., all things the modern apes do not have, then, yeah, in a way, the apes evolved from us. Cool beans.

Immediately, someone, somewhere, is going to raise the topic of "devolution" or "reverse evolution." I've seen that concept introduced in informal discussions many a time! The truth, of course, is that, while traits can come and go over time -- snakes don't have legs ("Clams got legs!") -- but this is still evolution, not de-evolution.

Silas

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Immediately, someone, somewhere, is going to raise the topic of "devolution" or "reverse evolution." I've seen that concept introduced in informal discussions many a time!

I have heard of the concept, but personally I find it impossible to imagine. How would that even work? If it has changed from the generation before it is evolution (and unless you clone, it has changed from the generation before.)

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Immediately, someone, somewhere, is going to raise the topic of "devolution" or "reverse evolution." I've seen that concept introduced in informal discussions many a time! The truth, of course, is that, while traits can come and go over time -- snakes don't have legs ("Clams got legs!") -- but this is still evolution, not de-evolution.

Puts me in mind of this...

They tell us that we lost our tails
Evolving up from little snails
I say its all just wind in sails
Are we not men? We are devo!

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by geminilee

I have heard of the concept, but personally I find it impossible to imagine. How would that even work? If it has changed from the generation before it is evolution (and unless you clone, it has changed from the generation before.)

The "notion" of de-evolution involves each organism retaining a pathway-memory -- said notion thus getting a boost from the recapitulation theory of Haeckel et al. A little like laying down unrolled twine behind you as you traverse the labyrinth, the idea is that it is easier to reverse your most recent steps. It seems to make "common sense," and thus is attractive.

But the primary engine of evolution, random variation, doesn't seem to favor reversing even the most recent changes: it appears to be truly random. Thus, some changes may very well be reversed, but only as statistically expected. The classic mathematical "drunkard's walk" often involves taking a step directly backward, but only because it involves taking steps in any possible direction.

All this said, there may be evidence for "evolved evolution," for clusters of genes that have an influence on the way that other genes change. (There's a word for it, but I'm doggoned if I can recall it.) i.e., it might make sense for there to be an eruption of more mutations in a time of very high survival stress -- hey, guys, the water's drying up! Somebody better learn to breathe air! -- and to turn mutations down again when times are good -- there's plenty of food! Let's all have a hundred kids who are just like us!

Silas (times have never been *that* good!)

[U.T Raptor Red]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Humans still evolved from apes. Whatever creature was the first hominid, their forebears were definitely apes (whether modern apes or not.)

Hell, we're STILL apes. We're closer relatives to chimpanzees than gorillas are, iirc.

[Johnny Slick]

Yeah, it's about as accurate to say that man descended from apes as it is to say that apes descended from man. Both have a common, non-ape, non-human ancestor. Since then, both sides have gone through all kinds of adaptations. That's why the whole "if man is descended from monkeys, why are there monkeys" thing doesn't just cause scientists to pause and point out an explanation as if speaking to a two year old, it makes them stop and understand that the person making the comment is too far gone to reach: it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by U.T Raptor Red

Hell, we're STILL apes. We're closer relatives to chimpanzees than gorillas are, iirc.

In one of Richard Dawkins' documentaries, Richard Leakey told him something like, "Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related, genetically, than horses and mules are to each other...and horses and mules can successfully breed."

Eww.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by geminilee

No, it is a function of generations, really. Or do you argue that sharks and crocodilians are "less evolved" or "haven't evolved for millions of years"?
Everything alive is evolving, and evolves a little more with each succeeding generation.

"Function" implies precision, which there isn't any evidence of such. EVen the same species might evolve rapidly in one case and slowly in another, even if all environmental factors are the same.

[Beejtronic]

Originally Posted by I'mNotDedalus

In one of Richard Dawkins' documentaries, Richard Leakey told him something like, "Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related, genetically, than horses and mules are to each other...and horses and mules can successfully breed."

Eww.

Isn't that one of those cases where it largely depends on how you measure closeness, though? This was discussed in the "50% banana" thread.

Anyway, mules are a hybrid of horses and donkeys, and most mules are infertile, so won't be successfully breeding with anything. If you meant horses and donkeys, it may be correct (I've no idea about horse/donkey genetics, but I believe humans and chimps are said have 98% common DNA [ETA: This article says 96%]), but there are barriers other then genetics that make two species unable to breed.

ETA: Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the accepted definition of "successful" interbreeding is the ability to produce fertile offspring, so in most cases, donkeys and horses can't successfully interbreed.

[ganzfeld]

I disagree with those who have said, "Scientists should be more careful about what they say so they don't unwittingly give ammunition to Creationists." Science is much more interesting when we don't have to tiptoe around worrying about what is a "theory" or a "missing link" or whether some dork who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old will say "Aha! More evidence they were killed in a flood!" The last thing science speakers need to do is to start reacting to every little possible thing that could be used against them by someone who has no idea what they are talking about to begin with.