Why is evolution not continuous? For example, humans have superior intelligence and there is no other animal living that has a little bit lower intelligence. Why is there a huge gap between humans and say chimpanzees? Are there any transitory organisms? Why did the transitory organisms die if they were better than chimpanzees?
Evolution: why is it not continuous?
- Thread starter srimukh
- Start date
This shows a lack of understanding of basic evolutionary processes.
The chimpanzees adapted better to their environment than their immediate ancestors
While a tree and a human have a common ancestor we do not expect a tree and a human to be exactly alike.
Close likeness comes only between those in the immediate line of descent.
The chimpanzees adapted better to their environment than their immediate ancestors
While a tree and a human have a common ancestor we do not expect a tree and a human to be exactly alike.
Close likeness comes only between those in the immediate line of descent.
By definition evolution is continuous.
Every thread of continuous lineage does not coexist, since those threads play out sequentially.
It depends on what you mean by huge. In comparing our DNA, there is a relatively small difference between humans and apes.
Presumably they would be dead.
Because they got old?
Depends on what you mean by better.
By this reasoning all species that preceded humans should be extinct, therefore, humans should be living on a barren earth.
Evolution does not require that one species become extinct.
The transitional species between modern humans and our ape ancestors did exist for millions of years. There are many hominid species and we have probably not even discovered all of them yet. Some of them likely shared the planet with us at one time. But intelligence is no guarantee of success, it is very costly in terms of energy.
When you talk about successful humans - the most successful by far is homo erectus. I can only hope that homo sapiens can met that success. I often wonder why they died out considering there obvious ability to adapt.
Depends on how you define success though. Just as the term "better" in evolution is misleading. We've had a lot less time, but done a lot more. Maybe in the end you'll be right, and they'll have the longer track record of surviving, but did they progress any? And yes, progress is another of those words. But maybe you get what I'm saying.
Yes I was just now looking at how long their timeline is and wondering what made them so successful. And I was wondering the same thing, what caused them to die out.
The OP seems to be asking for the missing link. I was about to offer Ardipithecus, but really H. Erectus would seem to be the better answer.
And really there'll always be links between the links, as the process is continuous and each individual is different from their parent. We're just able to draw some lines between some organisms in those millions of years and call them species, but that line blurs as we get closer together.
I interpreted Origin to mean evolutionary success, so just the fact that they "filled the niches" - they scattered at least as far as Indonesia, plus they diverged into 9 subspecies. As for cultural accomplishments, it looks like they had earliest tools.
That's exactly why the question sounds so outdated. All you have to do is to look at the dozens of candidates and ask yourself: which one these looks half monkey/half man, and right away it just doesn't matter. Immediately the question becomes: where did all those hominins come from, if not evolution? Do we expect to find the missing link for each? Of course not.
How old is the term "missing link" any way? Seems like it ought to be 100 years old by now. I guess there's a certain logic to assuming a single missing link--for anyone who still believes that evolution teaches that humans descended directly from monkeys.
But you're absolutely right - one glance at the diversity of finds, and it's pretty clear that all together, they all form the link (to some common ancestor). I guess that may be hard for someone to pick up on if they are accustomed to thinking there was supposed to be one single "transitory organism".