The first fossil remains that have been found were dated around 4.4 million years ago. These were the fossils of Ardipithecus Ramidus, which lived 1 million years before the last fossils that were found.
There are a few genus/specie names, but i couldn't think of many:
Obviously there are famous, but fictional Monkey names starting with D:
Davey (and Joey)
The most well-known expert on apes is Jane Goodall.
She is considered to be the world's foremost expert on apes. She is now 76.
A - answer p- provide evidence e- explain S- strengthen answer
A human being u doofus
Yes, monkeys and primates have backbones, but not all apes (which lack tails) are able to easily walk upright on their legs. All mammals are vertebrates, and have a backbone.
that's because we humans come from them and developed it from them
Apes are descended from monkeys. Monkeys are primarily arboreal, meaning they live their lives in the trees. Apes are part-terrestrial-part-arboreal, meaning they spend the day on the ground and the nights in the trees. Terrestrial animals require large territories in which they can roam to find food. The availability of food sources therefore affects where they can live. Only a few areas are able to support apes, while all monkeys need are plenty of trees. A good comparison would be between the myriad species of birds and the small handful of large flightless birds, such as Ostriches.
The cryptid animal referred to as the ape of Sumatra is called an Orang Pendek.
A group of jellyfish is called a smack
Considering the large size of the orangutan, movement from one tree or branch to another is graceful and agile, yet slow. An orangutan seldom covers more than mile in a day (1 km). However they have a vast range in which they hunt for their food. Males may use several thousand hectares and females use several hundred. When moving on the ground they are slow and awkward appearing. Because of its arboreal lifestyle with little need to come down from the trees, the orangutan has never learned to knuckle-walk like the gorilla and chimpanzee, instead it fist walks. Staying high in the trees keeps them away from predators such as tigers and leopards.
Orangutans build two nests a day; a sparse one for a short nap and a stronger sleeping nest every night which is constructed from branches with leaves on them, 40 to 60 feet above the ground. The sleeping nest looks like a giant birds nest and on average, only takes about 5 minutes to construct. Babies and juveniles, up to about the age of 8, unless having become more independent earlier, will sleep with their mothers in her nest. Occasionally orangutans will sleep in an old nest. If it is rainy enough, they will fashion a cover to help keep them dry. It is not uncommon to see them holding a large palm frond over their head if it is raining hard.
Adult orangutans on the island of Borneo tend to be more solitary animals than those on Sumatra. They will forage and travel independent of one another and males tend to break ties with their mothers earlier than females. Social relationships are formed by individual orangutans that have regularly overlapping ranges. However that does not mean that there will be any actual social interaction between them when they meet. For example, if several orangutans (not adult males) are seeking out fruit at the same tree they will usually sit apart with little or no social interaction and will leave alone after eating.
Sumatran orangutans, on the other hand, behave more socially toward one another. Except for low-ranking adult males, they will travel together and occasionally bonds will form between low-ranking adult males, but usually male relationships are competitive. The higher degree of social interaction between Sumatran orangutans is a function of the fact that their habitat on Sumatra is more productive than that on Borneo. This productivity keeps the cost of traveling and eating together much lower and therefore the animals can benefit from the social benefits resulting from group life. Researchers point to tool using by Sumatran orangutans as a result of this group life-style.
Adult male orangutans will make a booming long call several times a day, that along with a number of possible functions, keeps subordinate males away. This call will carry over a mile through the dense forest. If by chance a subordinate male encounters an adult male, the subordinate male will be tolerated as long he keeps his distance. However if two adult males meet it will usually result in a violent and aggressive display or actual fight. Orangutans make a number of different vocalizations besides the long call. One of the most well known is the kiss squeak and grumph sound they will make when disturbed. Youngsters will whine when they need help from their mother is doing something. They also make a number of softer sounds to each other that are difficult for researchers to hear. Orangutan also break off weak branches and will throw them down to the ground when disturbed, an action that all field researchers are very familiar with.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
Homo Sapiens (Humans) genetically are still about 98% chimpanzee. Different species branched off and evolved differently according to the conditions around them. We either adapt or become extinct. In a way, one could say that humans are just one of the monkey-type species that still exist today.
Same reason bacteria, fish and other ancient lineages are still here, there is still a niche they fill adequately. Evolution doesn't necessarily replace the previous forms, just as you didn't replace all of your cousins, they just went their own way.
The DNA overlap between humans and pumpkins is 75%. We share 93% with fruit flies. We are not pumpkins. We are not fruit flies. We are not monkeys.
The human genome has around 3 billion base pairs, each of which stores two bits (to indicate one of four bases).
That's 6 billion bits. 6,000,000,000 (6 Billion) x.02 (2%) = 120,000,000 (120 Million)
That's a lot to work with. The majority of DNA just tells cells how to build, replicate, and function. So while every living thing has similar building blocks, that does not make them the same creature (or evolved from the same creature.)
Evolution theory is the best theory we've got to explain the fossils and similarities between species. However, this doesn't go along with the Bible and creationism so people (like the one who wrote the answer above) who are theists don't like to believe in evolution. They usually like to affiliate evolution to 'man evolved from monkeys' and define it like that. Actually man just has a common ancestor with other primates. All creatures originally evolved from the same species, according to the theory of evolution.
Funny, the Bible and Creationism was never mentioned in that post. Nowhere in your anti-religion rant did you bring any actually argument, backed by scientific, historical, or theistic evidence. You've effectively bastardized the Spark Notes of Darwin's theory of evolution, minus correct punctuation.
There isn't a specific end result in evolution. Humans branched off from some sort of ape, but that doesn't mean that all of the apes must evolve into humans. Some evolved into gorillas, some into chimpanzees, others became orangutans, and so on.
We evolved from apes, not chimpanzees as such. Chimpanzees belong to the same subfamily as us (Homininae). They are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans and we have 94% identical DNA to them.
Apes are mammals because they feed their offspring with milk produced by specialized sweat glands called "mammary glands."
An additional distinguishing feature is that apes, like other mammals, use 2 bones in the middle ear for hearing that non-mammal animals use for eating.
apelike or anthropoid primitive primeval primate
The idea of links, was derived from medieval theology's 'Great Chain of Being". The concept sported a parochial hierarchy of grater and lesser beings with mankind in dominion at the highest rank above animals, as the jewel of creation. Naturalistic ideas at this time were not spared from interjection with 'higher' metaphysical concepts, so mankind, was relegated to subservience below angels and archangels and so on, all the way up to God.
In some ways this 'chain of being' reflected upon (or from) the dominant social hierarchies, so prevalent in that time. The common classes, the aristocracy and royalty all had their place, and it was just so, because it was 'the done thing'. Anathema to this mindset, was the idea that one kind of being could ever become another, as if a servant, could move into the ruling classes. 'Good Lord... What ever will they think of next?'
By the 1860's the science of comparative anatomy, had begun to make inroads into the phenotypical relationships between modern primates (including humans - homo sapiens) the inferred kinship on the grounds of prima facie evidence was becoming hard to ignore. At that time there was no fossil evidence to support a tree of kinship in the modern hominid group.
By the early 1870's and with Darwin's "Decent of Man" the kinship of all living creatures had been preempted by more than a decade now by Darwin's "Origin of Species", so thinking people were pressed to consider the possibility that humans were a biological species (an animal) no different in principal than any other living creature. Darwin and Huxley found a receptive niche for the burgeoning idea of human/ape kinship. Darwin's idea of natural selection and kinship via common ancestors, had struck a chord. A chord that couldn't help resonating in the obvious biological structure of a particular hominid - homo sapiens. who after all, was made of flesh, bones, blood and similar organs and tissues as so many other commonly observable animals.
Nevertheless, the fertile idea seem to have spawned a few (equally fertile) misconceptions at about this time. One of those was the misconception that man sprung directly from apes. That is - modern humans evolved from modern apes. Even in educated circles, there were naturalists given to imagining something half way between modern humans and modern apes. The German evolutionist, Ernst Haeckel, went so far as naming the predicted 'half man half ape' using the conventional Linnaean system, 'pithecanthropus alalus' meaning, 'little bastard of the gap' (only kidding); it really means, 'ape man without speech'.
In latter years it was decided that it would be more prudent, to refrain from naming species before any artifacts were discovered, otherwise homo mermaidius might slip into the taxonomic charts. Good call on that one I say. Nevertheless, the hope of a mythical being can inspire and motivate people (look at god for instance), and by that token a Duch medical officer, Eugene Dubois took up the challenge to find our dearly beloved pithecanthropus. It was the dawning days of paleoanthropology and Dubois spent several years in the dedicated hunt. His reward finally came in the form of a hominid called 'Java Man' Pithecanthropus erectus. Although this hominid was actually an early species that resembles homo sapiens much more than the old world apes, the question of direct human ancestry was a moot point.
Since the time of Dubois, there has been a veritable avalanche of hominid fossils found, including nearly complete skeletons. In the case of australopthicus afarenses from the Afar region in Ethiopia we have a wealth of fossils including 'Lucy', and the 'first family' Many of these Australopithecien finds are thanks to the hard work of the Leaky family (lucky they weren't chosen to build the ark - it would have been the Leaky Ark - tee hee) and of course the ledgendary Donald Johanson and Tom Grey who discovered Lucy on the 24th of November, 1974.
The discovery of Lucy was the definitive cap on the 'missing link' controversy, as there were no doubts to Lucy's claim as a bi-pedal ancestor, and no question that she belonged to a different species either. Before this time several hominids had been considered as potential ancestors, many of which may have been close or distant cousins, but Lucy filed all the necessary criteria. If there was ever something that never went extinct but which instead learned to build campfires and work with tools, Lucy was the prime candidate. This has been reinforced time and again since the 1970's.
Meanwhile, the misconception of a missing link has been a die hard fallacy. In the fossil record, there are countless missing links. It should come as no surprise that there are huge gaps all over the fossil record. That is just the nature of the beast. Fossils do not appear everywhere and in the few places on earth that they do, they only appear under ideal conditions. Furthermore, many paleontologists agree that evoluton proceeds in fits and bursts. The opportunity in nature to catch a glimpse of any missing links, may be as unlikely a photographer happening to snap a lightning strike. Even worse because the photographer can prepare for the electrical storm and wait for the moment. A fossil hunter is a wandering nomad with few clues but a keen eye for fossils, When a new species does arise, we have to realize that it does so in an isolated population (not to the whole of the ancestral species). The opportunities to capture that frozen moment in time and location of a speciation event are so rare, that it is surprising that we have as many transitional specimens as we do.
In the hominid branch of evolution, we are especially fortunate and it has been hard to choose which phylogenetic tree is most parsimonious. The problem is not because we are lacking in specimens to fill the so called 'missing links', but rather that we are spoiled with choice. The phylogenetic tree, is abundant with hominid species so that disputes about where to place them revolve more around similarities than differences.
It is so very very important to remember, that Darwinian evolution is a branching phenomenon. A new species does not simply evolve from it's ancestor, one whole species transforming in totality to another, rather, it branches off into a new lineage. A small sub-population begins to exploit a newly discovered and ecologically fertile niche, and that gives rise to a new species. The transition may be short lived and the population that makes the split may be small and isolated from the ancestral group.
The chances that any transitional forms may be caught in the lens of the fossil record are small, yet still we find them. Hominids must have been a diverse group positively bristling with variation. So many must be counted as extinct cousins, (close or distant) that it is hard to know how they all fit. But the idea of a missing link is most definitely an archaic relic of our parochial homo-centric past. There are numerous evidences of the "missing link." However, this discovery leads to more problem. Imagine two cups placed at a distance. It will create one gap. Now place a cup (missing link) at the center of this two cups. Now there are now two gaps created between the now three cups. Once that two gaps again is bridged by more cups, the gaps now are 4, 8, 16 etc. etc. But that gap is now getting smaller and smaller. Sooner or later there will be a continuous train of cups with no gaps.
Eugenie Scott rephrases this question, "if you were born from your cousin, why is your cousin still alive?" The answer is that your cousin did NOT give birth to you, but that you and your cousin both share a common ancestor. Likewise, humans share a common ancestor to Chimps and Bonobos. This ancestor is one that we would likely label an ape. Therefore for most people's purposes, yes, we evolved from apes, but not from modern apes.
We would most likely classify the miocene ape that is the common ancestor of humans and modern apes as an ape. It was a primate, as we are. The catarrhini include the old world monkeys, gibbons, great apes, and humans. These and the platyrrhini (new world monkeys) are included in the same clade. Our next closest relatives would be the tarsiers. We are yet more distantly related to lemurs, galagos, lorises, and other primates, all of which are, of course, eutherians (placental mammals).
Two key pieces of genetic evidence for our common ancestry with the old world primates are the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene which expresses a protein responsible for ascorbic acid synthesis, and the number of chromosomes. First, the GULO gene is broken in us the same way it is broken in almost all other old world primates. That is pretty decent evidence for common ancestry. On the other hand, the old world primates have 24 pairs of genes, while we have only 23. If evolution is correct, somehow a pair of monkey chromosomes must have fused. Chromosome ends contain recognizeable DNA sequences known as telomeres. It turns out we have identified the two ape chromosomes which fused to form a single human chromosome, and we even find the telomere markers within that chromosome.
There are plenty of other strong pieces of evidence. The Rh blood factor. The letters "Rh" came from the rhesus monkey, where the factor was first studied. Human females menstruate, procreate, give live birth, and nurse their young in much the same manner as apes. The differences between us and other primates are quite small.
In response to one previous religious answer (which was removed), why is the fact of evolution depressing? I cannot think why I should be any more appalled at the realization I am a product of gradual evolution (divinely guided or not) than I am the product of riverbank mud. Just look at what our species has achieved.
Human kind originated from apes, and there are some factors that differentiate us from other primates.
- Our brain is more developed.
- We have is less muscle.
- The pelvis and knees are more evolved for vertical posture.
- We have more complex thoughts, and extensive tool use.
- We branched in a different evolutionary direction.
The claim that humans started as apes as we know them today is a religious construct intended to undermine the credibility of science. In fact, the considerable evidence of the fossil record shows that early hominids evolved from a species ancestral to chimpanzees and humans, some seven million years ago. An evolutionary chain led to our immediate ancestors, Homo erectus and then to our own species, Homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
There is as much proof of evolution as it is possible to have, including the DNA evidence that confirms that our unique ancestors evolved away from the ancestors of chimpanzees seven million years ago.
Yes. Several species of primates, when housed together in captivity have bred and created hybrids. However, in the wild this occurrence is very rare and generally happens between the smaller species of primates. Large primates have crossed though, but risk sterility, and may not survive because of the difference in physical appearance and behavior within a group of purebred primates.
Chimpanzees have 48 (24 pairs) chromosomes while man has 46 (23 pairs). This is due to the fact that one pair of chromosomes fused during the course of human evolution. Chromosomes have end cap markers called "Telomeres" to protect them from damage. They also have a marker called "Centromeres" that shows where splitting (mitosis) happened in the center of the chromosome. Scientists found in 2004 that the center of human chromosome #2 had two connected Telomeres, meaning that the ends of two chromosomes had fused. For more, see:
Hillier et al (2004) "Generation and Annotation of the DNA Sequences of Human Chromosome 2 and 4," Nature 434: 724-731
A group of apes is called a shrewdness.
Often called a troop of apes
its a herd
a group of apes has been called an irritation
Communities and parties, depending on what you are referring to.
Chimpanzee groups that remain the same for long periods of time and in which all members know each other is a community. It's a bit complicated because within the community, individuals will break apart from others---some will "hang out" and travel/feed/sleep together for days at a time and then one or more will leave and travel alone or with a different group. So the community is made up of ever-changing parties, which is what a group of chimps traveling/eating/sleeping/etc together are called.
One of the nicest! A shrewdness of apes.
i believe troop..
The collective nouns for a group of apes are a "shrewdness of apes" and a "troop of apes".
you would call a group of apes
Why is TikTok getting banned in the US?
Asked By Amie Smitham
What is pokediger1s password on roblox?
Asked By Wiki User
How many countries end with a vowel?
Asked By Wiki User
Why Ghirth is called jat in Himachal?
Asked By Wiki User
What is the variety of apes?
Asked By Wiki User
Is an orangutan a monkey or an ape?
Asked By Wiki User
What is the apes?
Asked By Wiki User
What type of animal eats an ape?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.