apes evolving from canids, rather than monkeys.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.evolutionem.co.uk/lma89.html

This guy believes that apes didn't really evolve from monkeys, but canids, and that similarities between apes and monkeys is only do to convergent evolution. I don't really believe this one bit, but it is an interesting idea.

This guys is wrong. Primate DNA is very different from canid DNA.

well, since monkeys are a subset of apes, he has his lineage backwards for a start.

Other than that; he is flat out wrong, canids and apes are on completely different branches of the tree of life; the similarities stop at "mammal"

Huh?. Monkeys are not a "subset of apes". Monkeys and apes are classed as separate subgroups of primates. And since apes are thought to have evolved from old world monkeys its the apes who would be nested inside the clade of "monkeys" rather then the other way around if you had to lump them together.

The primates are subdivided into: prosimians (pre monkeys, like lemurs), New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and then "apes" .

The further subdividing of 'apes' is now in flux, but basically its: lesser apes (gibbons), Orangutans (the one Asian "greater ape"), and the "African greater apes". The latter being the gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and also (strictly speaking) us humans. We are ourselves an "African ape" like our siblings the chimps and gorillas.

But you are right that apes have little to connect them with canids besides the fact that some (but not all ) canids have a "pack mentality" that apes also ( presumably independently) evolved.

Dog dentition is more specialized for carnivory than that of apes. And dog paws are nothing like primate hands.

If you are going by the paws on the ends of the fore limbs apes and humans are much more like raccoons than they are like any member of the dog family. Raccoon paws are much more humanlike than the forefeet of fido. So even raccoons are more plausible as our ancestors than are wolves or foxes.

The only primates that even superficially resemble dogs in the face are baboons (non ape monkeys) and some prosimians (there is a species of Madagascar lemur that looks like a clipped French poodle that climbs trees) which are also not apes.

This reminds me of another dubious theory. The Aquatic Ape Theory!

Have had a long time aquaintence with that theory.

The Aquatic Ape Theory seems crazy, but its not nearly as implausible as the Canid theory. Any kind of apes (even aquatic ones) are more plausible as human ancestors than are land based dogs IMHO.

But the AA theory is indeed counter intuitive to the laymen, as well as being a heresy to the scientific establishment. But despite that it is rather persuasive when you examine it. Its more plausible than it sounds.

And the only competition:the mainstream standard paradigm (that our ape ancestors left the trees for the African savannah to become upright hunters in the grasslands) has proven to be deeply flawed.

I first encountered the idea when I read Elaine Morgan's book in the Seventies when I was in high school (even did a book report on it). Then I studied anthropology in college. Never encountered evidence that proved it, but never learned anything that disproved it to my satisfaction either. So its been on the back burner of my mind for a long time as my "pet far out heresy".

Here is a good balanced overview, and history, of the theory narrated by David Attenborough:


https://youtu.be/5rUGBZmBrv8

Not saying I quite buy the theory. Just that its hard to dismiss it entirely. Even if its wrong its wrong in an interesting thought provoking way.