Apes habitat
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
Humans are apes. There is evidence of them on every continent and even on the moon and in deep space.
By that argument Human is a Volvox
No, humans ARE classified as apes. See Wikipedia.
[
I believe in evolution , but I don't agree in classifying man in the group of ape , because this leads into a common ancestor which you can not produce or find.
Sure I can produce that - Protungulatum donnae
How exactly do you believe in evolution and at the same time refuse to believe that gorillas and man have a common ancestor? That makes no sense!
Evolution tells us that man and daisies have a common ancestor.
Edit: Oops fixed an error.
Because... Man is different. We're human... You know, special... What do you think we are anyway, animals or something?
Oh that's right were deveined, I mean divine...
Now you really come with a drastic change from an oviparous to a semi mammal . So anyway , what about apes habitat , in Australia or South America.
Oh that's right were deveined, I mean divine...
Now you are going overboard .
I understand you have over 90 % same type of chromosome as your relative chimp. But your and origins brain functions differently the gorillas
There are no naturally occurring nonhuman apes in Australia or South America. There are no nonhuman naturally occurring primates in Australia. There are no monkeys with prehensile tails outside of South America.
It does?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're several years behind the information curve. The common ancestor is Ardipithecus ramidus, which was discovered in Ethiopia 20 years ago. "Ardi" split off from the chimpanzee evolutionary line about seven million years ago and launched our own evolutionary line.
Ardi's notable traits include:
- The hips and legs are adapted to full-time bipedal walking.
- Still this ape managed to retain one prehensile toe on each foot (the hallux or "big toe"), just enough to facilitate scampering quickly up into the trees for safety if predators approached.
- Full-time bipedal walking freed the arms to use for carrying. A reasonable guess at the species's social organization would have the females caring for the young in a relatively safe place with quick access to trees, while the males could walk into the forest and return with armloads of food for everybody. This would probably be the first division of labor between males and females.
- Ardi lived in the forest. This should put an end to speculation about humans evolving on the savannah, using our bipedal stature to peek over the tops of the plants in order to search for both predators and prey. It will probably also put the "aquatic ape" hypothesis to rest.
- Other details of their anatomy strongly suggest behavioral traits which, until now, we assumed could only have arisen after our ancestors evolved much larger brains.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Indeed. We share about 40% of our DNA with the banana tree.
In all fairness, the term "ape", loosely used, usually does not include humans. But in stricter terms, we usually mean "anthropoid apes plus humans" when we say "apes", esp. "great apes". One of the sources of confusion here is that "ape" is not a taxon (Homo is a genus and sapiens is a species). I suppose you could rephrase the question: "Where are the habitats of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans?" I also think you could get away with asking "where do anthropoid apes range?"
I think you are right. I think they are limited to a few regions of subtropical Africa and Sumatra/Borneo. And the latter covers the orangutans only. But if you include the lesser apes, the gibbons, then that extends the range into the Malay Peninsula (and Java).
Here's a fairly large ape from around modern Turkey and nearby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griphopithecus
Except quick access to trees would be in the forest, and the armloads of food would not be - forests don't produce armloads of hand-foraging food at ground level, or within walking distance of a given spot (even for competent bipeds), as a rule.fraggle said:
fraggle said:
- The savannah ape was not mere "speculation", but the firmly defended and conventional wisdom that dominated the discussion. Until Ardi, anyone questioning the savannah ape story - by pointing out that it made no freaking sense for a small quadrupedal tree ape to go stumbling around on its hind legs in a grassland full of predators, for example - was outright mocked, their career damaged, their reputation besmirched.
Last edited:
If you want to disagree with science, that's a different topic.
If this topic is about WHY the (other) apes have a more limited range than humans, I would suggest that they never needed to spread out from the forests. Those that evolved into humans were better adapted to life on the ground, which not only gave them a wider variety of habitats but also gave them the means to get to them. Chimps don't like to travel hundreds of miles on the ground; humans don't mind.
Baboons are technically large monkeys, not apes, but they do demonstrate that primates can spread out into the savannah from the forest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon . They also indicate the kinds of modifications typical of such a spread - including for example improved quadrupedal locomotion on the ground, an obvious advantage for a terrestrial primate.