# Are we Slowly Turning Back Into Damn, Dirty Apes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691 "2009-06-23T05:39:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/61 "2009-06-23T22:29:01Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Well, okay then. I suppose this is where I’d ask where I suggested it’s a sister clade? Particularly since cousin would be a better analogy than sister. Of course, I made no such assertion. That would be when you said this: > [@](#): > > But we didn’t evolve from the apes. If we didn’t evolve from apes, then we are not apes; and if they yet remain our closest relatives, then we must be sister taxa (or they are our daughter taxon…). And regardless what you might consider a better analogy, the correct terminology is “sister”. > [@](#): > > And by apes, I guess I meant The Great Apes. Of course, our most recent common ancestor was an ape, as are we, but it isn’t the same as saying the same as extant apes. And I suppose that here is where I could ask where anyone ever said anything about extant apes… ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/62 "2009-06-24T00:03:21Z")
This is a fairly common trope in fiction. There’s a twilight zone or outer limits episode with an evolving machine, and the guy gets more and more futuristic with big balding brain etc but then goes too far and ends up back at ape. Then there’s the Voyager episode where Tom Paris keeps evolving and turns into a lizard. It’s based not on any science but instead on dramatic irony. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/63 "2009-06-24T00:25:08Z")
> [@ALBIM](#): > > In my biology class, a girl proclaimed that humans were slowly “devolving” back into the pre-humanoid form. She was widely ridiculed, but is there any evidence or credibility to her theory? > [@Blake](#): > > No. > [@ALBIM](#): > > Uhm, thanks for the in-depth answer? It seems to have addressed the in-depth description of the theory put forward. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/64 "2009-06-24T04:56:24Z")
How hot is this girl that you, are looking to us, to help you, back her up? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_of_Lucan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/65 "2009-06-24T14:55:42Z")
> [@EdwardLost](#): > > You could argue that dogs still ARE wolves, since they can still breed with wolves. > > But semantics aside, it’s entirely possible that wild dogs over time could come to resemble wolves more than they resemble the typical dog of today. Most of the wolf-type alleles are probably still present in dogs in low frequencies, maybe segregated into different breeds. With humans and human-altered environments gone, those alleles could reenter the common pool and may increase in frequency while dog-type alleles are selected against. Then dogs would become to look and behave more like wolves. It’s also possible that dogs would drift towards some other niche and become less wolf-like. I agree with your view. However, there is a simpler view. Natural selection is likely to have a high impact on the survival of dog types, in the very short term. A Pekingese might survive in the wild, but its chances are much smaller than those of a German shepherd dog. The group is likely to select over a very short period for large animals which can run down prey. In good times, the Pekingese may survive on carrion, or by sharing kills, but in bad times it will lose out to the hunter. Indeed it may become prey itself. I also suspect that attempts at breeding may result in small females dying trying to carry large pups. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/66 "2009-06-24T16:27:38Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Heh. The wiki article on neoteny contains this little bit of hypothesizing: > [URL=“[Neoteny - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotenous)”] > So, we won out over the Neanderthals because they thought we were just too darn cuddly? 😛 Until we stabbed them in the back. We’re still the relatives of the comp after all. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/67 "2009-06-24T16:49:32Z")
Er, “relatives of the _chimp_”. There needs to be a quick on/off toggle for the auto spell check on the iPhone… ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/68 "2009-06-24T17:07:52Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > That would be when you said this: > > If we didn’t evolve from apes, then we are not apes; and if they yet remain our closest relatives, then we must be sister taxa (or they are our daughter taxon…). > > And regardless what you might consider a better analogy, the correct terminology is “sister”. > > And I suppose that here is where I could ask where anyone ever said anything about extant apes… No. You simply have misunderstood what I wrote. I didn’t evolve from my parents either. But my point was already addressed by one other poster and then myself. I guess you missed it. Essentially, it’s that we didn’t evolve from the apes into the apes. We evolved from something that was very much ape-like into the apes we are today. It’s a minor thing of grammar, but true nevertheless. It’s also false to assert that we must be a member of a class to evolve into that class. That’s circular reasoning. When did we become this species? After we evolved from it. There’s some moment in history in which one generation we were interfertile with our ancestors, and one generation when we weren’t. That’s when we’re the new species. While we share many traits with our immediate predecessor, we aren’t their species anymore; we’re a new one. ---
**Author:** ![Shark\_Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Shark\_Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shark_Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/69 "2009-06-24T17:27:57Z")
> [@ALBIM](#): > > In my biology class, a girl proclaimed that humans were slowly “devolving” back into the pre-humanoid form. She was widely ridiculed, but is there any evidence or credibility to her theory? Let me guess: she was hot, wasn’t she? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/70 "2009-06-24T17:29:46Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > No. You simply have misunderstood what I wrote. I didn’t evolve from my parents either. But my point was already addressed by one other poster and then myself. I guess you missed it. > > Essentially, it’s that we didn’t evolve from the apes into the apes. We evolved from something that was very much ape-like into the apes we are today. It’s a minor thing of grammar, but true nevertheless. To be honest, I have no idea what you’re arguing, or what you think you’re arguing. And I’m not sure if you do, either. We evolved from apes. We are, therefore, apes ourselves. That’s how it works. We aren’t going to “devolve back into apes” because we never stopped being apes. _All_ hominid species have been apes since the first Hominidae species came into being. We did not evolve from an “ape-like” group, we evolved _from an ape group_. > [@](#): > > It’s also false to assert that we must be a member of a class to evolve into that class. That’s circular reasoning. When did we become this species? After we evolved from it. Err…what? That doesn’t make any sort of sense. I said that we are apes because we evolved _from_ apes. I said nothing about anything evolving “into” anything. > [@](#): > > There’s some moment in history in which one generation we were interfertile with our ancestors, and one generation when we weren’t. That’s when we’re the new species. No, that’s not how it works. New species do not spontaneously arise in a single generation. There is no “moment in history” to which one could point that would delineate the beginning of any new species, much less our own. Species are often nebulous entities, and it is rarely so clear cut when two very closely-related populations actually become separate species. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/71 "2009-06-24T19:49:27Z")
> [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > To be honest, I have no idea what you’re arguing, or what you think you’re arguing. And I’m not sure if you do, either. So, your argument is “I don’t understand, thus he doesn’t either.” That’s an argument from incredulity, and I’m wholly not responsible for your inability to understand anything. > [@](#): > > We evolved from apes. We are, therefore, apes ourselves. That’s how it works. We aren’t going to “devolve back into apes” because we never stopped being apes. _All_ hominid species have been apes since the first Hominidae species came into being. We did not evolve from an “ape-like” group, we evolved _from an ape group_. Is your argument that something that’s an ape isn’t ape-like? You can stop trying this pedantry by actually reading what you’ve typed. Ape-like, would seem to be a word that incorporates the traits of being an ape. I think it’s fair to say something that is an ape, is necessarily like an ape. You seem to disagree. Assuming for a moment that I made the profoundly stupid statement that things can devolve (which I most assuredly didn’t, thus, you’ve created a straw man argument and then attacked it instead of my point - nice work), if we can evolve from apes into being apes, then sure we can further evolve (devolve I guess?) from apes into yet apes again. My point was essentially, and you seem to still misunderstand this, that we didn’t evolve from apes anymore than a person who moves across a state moves from that state. They move within that state. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/72 "2009-06-24T20:51:57Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Essentially, it’s that we didn’t evolve from the apes into the apes. We evolved from something that was very much ape-like into the apes we are today. It’s a minor thing of grammar, but true nevertheless. You keep using “ape” in strange ways. In the context of this thread, most people would use “ape” to mean any (living or not) member of the [clade Hominoidea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Classification_and_evolution). All human ancestors up to and including the most recent common ancestor of all apes are apes. > [@ashman165](#): > > My point was essentially, and you seem to still misunderstand this, that we didn’t evolve from apes anymore than a person who moves across a state moves from that state. They move within that state. If this is the case, then “evolve from” is never a meaningful phrase, because it’s impossible for descendants to leave their ancestors’ clades. That is, all human descendants will always be hominids, all hominids descendants will always be apes, all ape descendants will always be primates, all primate descendants we always be mammals, etc, on up the nested clades. I’m not sure why you dislike the phrase “evolve from”, but it is commonly used by scientists and they know precisely what they mean by it. “Humans evolved from apes” means the human clade is nested within the ape clade. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/73 "2009-06-24T20:58:52Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > My point was essentially, and you seem to still misunderstand this, that we didn’t evolve from apes anymore than a person who moves across a state moves from that state. They move within that state. Since the rest of your post is little more than your usual condescension, coupled with an utter failure to grasp both the concept at hand and the flow of the thread in general, and there is little I can say in response that wouldn’t get me a warning from a mod, I will respond to this point alone: You are wrong. The “moving” analogy is not a valid one, no matter how you try to parse it, and it is utterly inapplicable to phylogenetic systematics. We evolved from apes. Not an “ape-like” ancestor, but an actual ape. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/74 "2009-06-24T23:28:12Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > …if we can evolve from apes into being apes, then sure we can further evolve (devolve I guess?) from apes into yet apes again. No, we can not. You’re posting nonsense. In your “guess” we started out as apes, we are _another type_ of apes and we will evolve into \* yet another\* type of ape. We aren’t going from ape to something else to “yet apes again”. We are going from ape to ape to ape. Perhaps if you can elucidate somewhat why you are struggling with entirely uncontroversial and apparently simple concept we can enlighten you. But repeating the same erroneous assertion multiple times isn’t getting us anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/75 "2009-06-25T01:59:20Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > You keep using “ape” in strange ways. In the context of this thread, most people would use “ape” to mean any (living or not) member of the [clade Hominoidea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Classification_and_evolution). All human ancestors up to and including the most recent common ancestor of all apes are apes.If this is the case, then “evolve from” is never a meaningful phrase, because it’s impossible for descendants to leave their ancestors’ clades. That is, all human descendants will always be hominids, all hominids descendants will always be apes, all ape descendants will always be primates, all primate descendants we always be mammals, etc, on up the nested clades. > > I’m not sure why you dislike the phrase “evolve from”, but it is commonly used by scientists and they know precisely what they mean by it. “Humans evolved from apes” means the human clade is nested within the ape clade. Because it’s grammatically poor. Also, your logic fails because it has attendant in it that evolution doesn’t evolve. At some point in time we weren’t apes. Our ancestors, somewhere along the way, did evolve into apes. Since it’s factual wrong, the argument is unsound. > [@Blake](#): > > No, we can not. You’re posting nonsense. In your “guess” we started out as apes, we are _another type_ of apes and we will evolve into \* yet another\* type of ape. We aren’t going from ape to something else to “yet apes again”. We are going from ape to ape to ape. > > Perhaps if you can elucidate somewhat why you are struggling with entirely uncontroversial and apparently simple concept we can enlighten you. But repeating the same erroneous assertion multiple times isn’t getting us anywhere. That’s not my guess. That’s something entirely of your imaginings. Good luck with it. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/76 "2009-06-25T02:06:20Z")
Wow, this GQ conversation has evolved from one of stupid questions to one of stupid answers. Surprise! Seriously though, the game you guys are playing where you try to use fancy pants words and make yourselves sound smarter than one another is friggin’ lame. In my opinion I provided the best answer to the OP. I win! ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/77 "2009-06-25T02:08:43Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > Wow, this GQ conversation has evolved from one of stupid questions to one of stupid answers. Surprise! > > Seriously though, the game you guys are playing where you try to use fancy pants words and make yourselves sound smarter than one another is friggin’ lame. In my opinion I provided the best answer to the OP. I win! This casual writing style is us trying to impress someone? Wow. _boggled_ ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/78 "2009-06-25T02:12:22Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > That’s not my guess. That’s something entirely of your imaginings. Good luck with it. WTF? That was a fricken’ quote from you. I give up. Willful ignorance can’t be cured. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/79 "2009-06-25T02:17:29Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > WTF? That was a fricken’ quote from you. > > I give up. Willful ignorance can’t be cured. Aww. Instead of a point, you just lob insults. /clap ---
**Author:** ![weiming](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9bcb4/32.png) [@weiming](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/weiming)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691/80 "2009-06-25T02:33:39Z")
To address the very first post in this thread: Before anything is debated, doesn’t it make sense to first qualify the subject of debate? Imagine a courtroom complete with judge, jury, lawyers for the accused, gallery etc. and no one sitting in the defendant’s chair. Imagine everyone going back and forth presenting more and more convincing or sensational or controversial arguments while the person being accused of the crime does not even exist. The “question” or suggestion or idea or whatever, as presented, is a non-argument, and yet here are a number of people debating it back and forth. If this had been a thread about anything other than such a controversial issue, it would be ridiculed or ignored, as in: My little sister said trees are really turtles in disguise, any comments? or A friend of mine said that the moon is a significant source of protein, what do you guys think? Yes, it does behoove the responsible and conscientious poster to give at least a cursory investigation to the -potential- scientific nature or credibility of the initial statement, but it was determined quite early on that there is (or seems to be) none. A useful wiki link was even presented showing how erroneous arguments like this arise. And yet the debate continues. Are we really at the mercy of anyone with a mouth? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-slowly-turning-back-into-damn-dirty-apes/500691.md?page=5)