Did chimp and human ancestors interbreed?

**BadlandsVikings** · 05-18-2006, 04:48 AM

I seriously hope not, and if we came from monkies hoe come we still have monkies?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/?GT1=8199

**WBLVikeBabe** · 05-18-2006, 05:41 AM

"westvirginiavikings" wrote:

I seriously hope not, and if we came from monkey hoes, how come we still have monkies?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/?GT1=8199

What?? :lol:

**so-cal vike** · 05-18-2006, 05:43 AM

It's absolutely 100% true.

How else do you explain Packer fans?

**singersp** · 05-18-2006, 06:01 AM

"so-cal vike" wrote:

It's absolutely 100% true.

How else do you explain Packer fans?

I might believe that, but there were never any monkeys in Wisconsin. :grin:

**DiehardVikesFan** · 05-18-2006, 06:02 AM

Just because they were interbreeding doesn't mean all species interbreeded. Kind of like when you get different dogs; just because a bull dog and a collie breed doesn't mean all bulldogs breed with collies and we don't have bulldogs or collies anymore.

**YogidAbEAR** · 05-18-2006, 06:22 AM

yeah, wisconson's not cool enough for monkeys. monkeys are so cool

**douginc** · 05-18-2006, 06:28 AM

I am actually a seven year student of anthropology, more specifically, evolutionary psychology.
The reason there are still monkeys is because their habitat was in the tropical regions of Africa and they remained there. There were no selection pressures for them to change so they did not. This is not at all uncommon in the history of species - sharks have gone through very few changes in the last 10 million or more years, according to fossil records. The reason humans changed is because some apes began migrating into the open, tall grass savannahs of Africa because of (best guesstimate) overpopulation and high competition. New territory usually forces a change in behavior for survival due to the difference in environment.
Humans are a decendant from the ape lineage, which chimpanzees are a member of, not a monkey lineage (like colobus and rhesus macaques), which there is a difference. Human and chimpanzee DNA is closer to one another in total percentage of similarity than a chimpanzee is with any other type of ape or monkey.
As for a 'missing link' hypothesis, this has always been puzzling. Not because there isn't a missing link, but because the fossil record for 'ape-man' skeletons is very vast, so why a 'missing link' is still even discussed I have no idea. There are fossilized remains of ape-male hybrids that we are not even descended from (such as robustus or ergaster) - they're just a different lineage of evolved man-ape that eventually died out. Our lineage happened to continue.
I absolutely love the topic of anthropology - it honestly answers more than 90% of all the questions about human behavior that have ever been asked. Everyone says you can't figure out why women/men behave the ways they do - but you really can - evolutionary pyschology shows why humans behave in the ways they do - what women look for sexually, why men like large breasts, what is attractive and what isn't, etc. The reason I love the topic is because I became so very tired of not understanding why we do the things we do - and now the majority of all my questions have been answered.

**DiehardVikesFan** · 05-18-2006, 06:34 AM

"douginc" wrote:

I am actually a seven year student of anthropology, more specifically, evolutionary psychology.
The reason there are still monkeys is because their habitat was in the tropical regions of Africa and they remained there. There were no selection pressures for them to change so they did not. This is not at all uncommon in the history of species - sharks have gone through very few changes in the last 10 million or more years, according to fossil records. The reason humans changed is because some apes began migrating into the open, tall grass savannahs of Africa because of (best guesstimate) overpopulation and high competition. New territory usually forces a change in behavior for survival due to the difference in environment.
Humans are a decendant from the ape lineage, which chimpanzees are a member of, not a monkey lineage (like colobus and rhesus macaques), which there is a difference. Human and chimpanzee DNA is closer to one another in total percentage of similarity than a chimpanzee is with any other type of ape or monkey.
As for a 'missing link' hypothesis, this has always been puzzling. Not because there isn't a missing link, but because the fossil record for 'ape-man' skeletons is very vast, so why a 'missing link' is still even discussed I have no idea. There are fossilized remains of ape-male hybrids that we are not even descended from (such as robustus or ergaster) - they're just a different lineage of evolved man-ape that eventually died out. Our lineage happened to continue.
I absolutely love the topic of anthropology - it honestly answers more than 90% of all the questions about human behavior that have ever been asked. Everyone says you can't figure out why women/men behave the ways they do - but you really can - evolutionary pyschology shows why humans behave in the ways they do - what women look for sexually, why men like large breasts, what is attractive and what isn't, etc. The reason I love the topic is because I became so very tired of not understanding why we do the things we do - and now the majority of all my questions have been answered.

Wow that's sweet. I agree, anthropology is interesting.

**SKOL** · 05-18-2006, 06:38 AM

Funny how scientists can't seem to learn from nature. When something gets too far out of line it can no longer breed. Cross a horse and a donkey and you CAN make an a-s-s..., but the a-s-s is infertile. Also maybe there's a reason why the fossil records do not support evolution (ie. man appears suddenly, not gradually). If they were to dig up an ancestor of "the elephant man", that maybe lived 4,000 years ago, they'd probably call it a missing link. But why isn't there more than one?

Just a few facts that shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. JMO