4 ms·

If those were monkey tools, why monkeys didn't evolve since then?

• zach_miller 4y ago
  They did.
  • BobbyJo 4y ago
    A common misunderstanding of evolution is that it means a population of X becomes a population of Y. In actuality, it means a population of X becomes a population of X AND Y. If X and Y aren't competing for the same resources (speciation commonly happens to take advantage of a different set of resources), then there is no reason they can't coexist indefinitely.
    • Beltalowda 4y ago
      I blame Pokémon for this erroneous view of evolution. Your Charmander has evolved in to a Charizard!
  • dieselgate 4y ago
    This made me laugh but also made me think about what does and does not evolve. Sharks and the coelacanth fish are often mentioned as modern animals that “have never needed to evolve”. Guess it’s just based by comparing current physiology/structure to what fossil records can be found. Of course “everything evolves” but that depends on a frame or reference in time
    • TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
      > everything evolves Not necessarily, some things go extinct. Or, evolves in to what? Perhaps we can be certain that every changes. Maybe that's cyclical too.
    • moloch-hai 4y ago
      Sharks and coelacanths have evolved exactly as much as humans. The difference is that they have kept a more-or-less constant body plan, and evolved details less easy to see. The monkeys have also evolved exactly as much as we have. Again, it is less easy to see the evolved differences from their ancestors, because their bodies are so superbly adapted to their way of life and so have not changed much.
      • BlueTemplar 4y ago
        Surely this is wrong if we're talking about genetic drift which has no reason to be linear with time ?
        • wizzwizz4 4y ago
          It's also wrong if you're considering the number of generations available for evolutionary selection pressure. But it's less wrong than what it's rebutting, so I'm happy to say it's rhetorically correct. (It'd need to be a bit more precise to be pedagogically correct, à la lies to children, in my book, because it is still misleading.)
          • moloch-hai 4y ago
            Acknowledging, generation time is a legitimate counter.
      • svnt 4y ago
        This is not true. They have not evolved/derived as much for a number of reasons including differing mutation rates, minimal environment change, selection against adaptation, etc. It is not visible vs invisible changes that progress at some fixed proportion to reproductive rate; that is a gross oversimplification and conceptually inaccurate. See e.g. Sewell Wright’s fitness landscapes.
    • benj111 4y ago
      Isn't 'need' the wrong word. They just haven't happen to produce an advantageous mutation ..... That changes their form enough to cross some arbitrary line where we would define 'evolving'
• alar44 4y ago
  [flagged]
• tejtm 4y ago
  In case you are seeking an answer, consider that birds instinctively build nests but (most) don't put roofs on them although the process would be a logical continuation of what they can already do. Because what they have is good enough. Without selective pressure, evolution just dithers around what already works. There will be reasons they got to where they are, that they remain just indicates those reasons have not gone away.
  • BlueTemplar 4y ago
    I'm not so certain that it's logical, considering how birds would tend to be away from the nest during the warm days in search for food, and back incubating the eggs during the cold of night, while a roof over a freestanding nest would require much more investment of materials and effort (especially for a species without hands !) ? And of course a lot of species of bird achieves this by nesting in (vertical) holes.
    • hutzlibu 4y ago
      Also the nest needs to be hidden and a roof would be much harder to spot. So building a roof, that does not draw attention and can resist strong winds would indeed be much harder. Also usually there is some sort of roof and protection by overlapping branches and their leaves.
• gus_massa 4y ago
  Imagine a penguin looking at a albatross and saying: "If they are eating fish like us since many million of years, why didn't albatross evolve since then?" I choose albatross because the birds more related to penguins are albatross or something similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procellariiformes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procellariiformes I'm not sure what happened when the ancestors of penguins split from the ancestors of albatross, but let me guess: <guess> They lived in different areas. In one areas there were less fishes per area and they had to continue flying to catch enough fishes. In the other are there were more fishes, but they lived in deeper water, so they have to enhance the diving abilities. <)guess> Perhaps my guess is bad, or very bad, but I hope you can imagine that the same birds living in different areas may have different food source and different fishing strategies, so in each are the birds that were better for that strategy outnumbered the other birds, and after 60-80 millions year they look very different. Both evolved. albatross look quite birdy like the ancient ancestor, penguins look weird.
  • hzay 4y ago
    Great explanation, one thing missing is extinction events. Small extinction events in a matter of decades (for birds) drastically influence characteristics that are favored or disfavored - like a drought, or too much rain, or invasion by another species or whatever. Apparently[1] the characteristics that help animals eat in threatening times are the ones that drive evolution. [1] The Beak of Finch book
  • jmclnx 4y ago
    > I'm not sure what happened when the ancestors of penguins split from the ancestors of albatross My guess, similar to yours will added a reason :) Flying consumes a lot of energy. My guess is some albatrosses found a place where there was a lot of food, very safe and then hardly ever needed to fly. Thus the move to penguins.
• deafpolygon 4y ago
  Without an extinction event, they can stick around for as long as possible. Both evolved. It's like how we had neanderthals, denisovans and homo sapiens and homo heidelbergensis all on this planet at one point.
• syspec 4y ago
  Becoming more intelligent isn't necessarily the final outcome of evolution.
• Juliate 4y ago
  Upvoting because the question, while looking dumb, is very legitimate, if only for some of the answers it calls for. And that’s what makes good questions.
  • tgv 4y ago
    Two easy options: lack of a sufficiently complex language to transfer ideas and social organization. If a species doesn't get over those hurdles, evolution happily takes another path. And about intelligence: we may not be (or have been) that much more intelligent than certain other apes, but we can learn from other humans from thousands of years ago thousands of miles away. That makes a difference.