A question for my fellow Atheists......Why do humans look so different? (born, America)

[Chango]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

Hello,
Something occurred to me while watching richard Dawkins explain the family tree of our species....
My question for you is this:

if Chimps and us are cousins (both from a common ancestor A) and both of us are cousins with Gorillas (all 3 from a common ancestor B) and all 3 of us (ie. chimps, humans, and gorillas) are cousins with the Orangutan (all from a common ancestor C), why do chimps, gorillas, and orangutans look so close to one another while humans look very much different?

any thoughts?

Um...we do look similar. Even if you ignore our 95% identical genome, our physiology, our behaviors, ect, you just have to look at a chimp to see the family resemblance:


Time, yet again to look at pictures of hairless chimps:





can you see it yet? Take all the hair off a chimp, stretch it out to walk on 2 legs, triple the size of the braincase, shrink the jaw size, add a chin and you would have a human.

[catman]

We don't look all that different. Environmental factors over the millennia account for many of what differences there are.

[sharpie1234]

Originally Posted by catman

We don't look all that different. Environmental factors over the millennia account for many of what differences there are.

why is it that the other 3 developed so much 'more closely' than us humans?

[AFH]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

why is it that the other 3 developed so much 'more closely' than us humans?

Populations radiate into adjacent ecosystems. Sometimes those populations are successful, and are then subject to the differing evolutionary pressures of that new ecosystem. Such pressures 'shape', so to speak, the radiating population in different ways than the population which remain in the ancestral ecosystem continues to be shaped by the selective pressures of that realm.

[sharpie1234]

Originally Posted by AFH

Populations radiate into adjacent ecosystems. Sometimes those populations are successful, and are then subject to the differing evolutionary pressures of that new ecosystem. Such pressures 'shape', so to speak, the radiating population in different ways than the population which remain in the ancestral ecosystem continues to be shaped by the selective pressures of that realm.

i understand, and i agree with the idea.
is there evidence for this "adjacent ecosystem" that caused our species to developed differently (much differently) than our 3 mentioned cousins?

[AFH]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

i understand, and i agree with the idea.
is there evidence for this "adjacent ecosystem" that caused our species to developed differently (much differently) than our 3 mentioned cousins?

Sure - any non-forest ecosystem. It is (understandably) rather hard for large creatures to remain arboreal in an absence of significant tree cover. Bipedalism and an upright posture would follow in an open environment, necessarily leadingto significant morphological changes.

Why did they move? Why do any groups move? Attempts to survive. Nature is not static and groups are constantly pioneering new ecosystems. Mostly, they fail. Natural selection in action. Sometimes, they successfully adapt, thereby subjecting themselves to a new array of selective pressures.

[sharpie1234]

Originally Posted by AFH

Sure - any non-forest ecosystem. It is (understandably) rather hard for large creatures to remain arboreal in an absence of significant tree cover. Bipedalism and an upright posture would follow in an open environment, necessarily leadingto significant morphological changes.

Why did they move? Why do any groups move? Attempts to survive. Nature is not static and groups are constantly pioneering new ecosystems. Mostly, they fail. Natural selection in action. Sometimes, they successfully adapt, thereby subjecting themselves to a new array of selective pressures.

Very interesting. thanks!

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

why is it that the other 3 developed so much 'more closely' than us humans?

I think a salamander and I both evolved from the same common ancestor.

I bet a salamander in my back yard resembles that common ancestor more than I do.

By the same token, I think a chimpanze and I had a common ancestor, but I think the human line, for some reason, evolved faster.

Of course, that does not make my in any way superior to any of the other creatures on this earth. They are all my cousins, and I did not mind having one of them for dinner this evening.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by sharpie1234

why is it that the other 3 developed so much 'more closely' than us humans?

I don't think that they have developed more closely at all.

For example, gorillas can grow to be 5'9" or so, and about 450 lbs. They walk around on their knuckles, and do not climb trees, although they live in forests. They tend to be black, with males have silver hair on their backs (silverbacks)

Chimpanzees are shorter, and only weigh 150 lbs. I believe that they climb trees, but spend lots of time on the plains. Black hair, but less hair than gorillas.

Orangutans are only about 4'6", weighing up to 250 lbs. They spend almost all of their time in trees. Reddish orange hair, and quite long.

These are pretty significant differences. Gorillas are 3 times the size of chimps, and look entirely different form orangutans. Their arms seem to be constructed differently.

[Georgiafrog]

OP-

It's a matter of perspective. I could line up a thousand Australian Shepherds, and notice differences between every single one, and also recognize that not one was as pretty as my Charlie. Or as smart. She's one of a kind.