I'm just curious; if species evolve from other species why don't the (I don't know the term so I'll call it gateway species) gateway species die out? Surely there'd be no need for the lesser evolved species to still remain in the chain at all if they'd been out-competed in the vie for evolutionary supremacy. I'm not entirely convinced with this evolution thing. Sorry if this is a totally stupid question by the way.
Why aren't our evolutionary ancestors extinct?
- Thread starter EmmZ
- Start date
Often they do. In a general sense, species may evolve to fit a new ecological niche, but if the old niche still exists, there is no reason to change. Often, the new species is created by geographical separation.
So if there's no need for the old species to die out due to suitable ecological niches then why would it evolve in the first place? I'm not sure I'm being clear here. What I mean is, if a species evolves due to an ecological/geographical change why does the older species not become extinct due to the ecological change? Clearly there are species which have evolved over billions of years and yet they co-exist besides species that are relatively evolutionarily new and have evolved from that species.
In the realm of nature humans are far from ideal and are not physically superior to their supposed predecessors.
Last edited:
Do you see any Neanderthals walking about?? Don't answer that.
Well they would be phsically superior wouldnt they?
Throws that right out the window.
Well they would be phsically superior wouldnt they?
Not really for their brains weren't as developed as what superseded them which led to their downfall and are no longer with us.
And exactly what do their brains have to do with physical appearance? Seems to me these supposed predecessors would be physically superior to modern humans. Anyone can see that. Stronger, hairier...sure seems better equipped for demnds of ordinary existence. Maybe not the hairier part in all circumstances but for what purpose was the physical change? I say there was none.
Last edited:
In the realm of nature humans are far from ideal and are not physically superior to their supposed predecessors.
There is more to evolution than physical fitness. How about the fact that our brains got larger, more developed, over time. Tools can more than compensate for physical inferiority. Ask anyone who has shot an elephant, a tiger and so on. !
OK fair enough, but if we're descendant from apes why haven't apes become extinct? If all life came from the primordial soup, some of which I believe are living beside their evolutionary offspring, why would they need to evolve at all. Am I thinking evolution is a linear process and it's not here?
Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence and i would say that the evidence bears that out.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/Size-elephant-brain-1.htm
It sounds like you are saying that we evolved so we can use tools but what you are doing is deviating from the natural world to the man made. Nature makes no concessions for or has no link to man made devices. The point is that there was absolutely no reason for a physical change and the change was not even an advancement. If it was then show me where.
Last edited:
The apes we descended from are extinct. There used to be many more ape species than now. They evolved to fit different ecological niches. Evolution is not linear, it can move in any direction, even seemingly backwards.
Man is a creature, a part of nature
Man develops tools ( weapons)
Therefore there is a connection between nature and tools via man.
Q.E.D.
If you measure brain size as a ratio to the animal's mass, larger numbers are significant.
Right.
I can accept changes within genera but relatively slight changes or adjustments made over time. And as you mentioned the 'primordial soup' going from that to developing an eye and not just one time but thousands of variations along with complex organs working together entirely dependant on each other for no rhyme or reason??? None.:shrug:
But it happens anyway.