If Homo-sapiens hadn't evolved, what would be the dominant species?
374387
Dolphins would rule the sea.\nCockroaches the earth.\npigeons the sky.
279435
To my knowledge it would be the bonobo or chimp. But they are apes(no tails and opposing thump?)
27810
Of course not, LOL.  One of the things that sets Homo sapiens apart from any other species is their ability to kill members of the same species even when their immediate survival is not threatened.  Thus are ability to forecast the future (and by extension percieve threats from 'enemies') is was makes up the bulk of our intelligence. Why would we give up such a distinction? ;)
5138
Exactly. Humans did not evolve from primates. The theory of evolution is full of holes.
77393
You guys are brilliant!!\n\nFirst of all, more than one species can evolve from one- due to enviormental factors.  So no apes do not have to be extinct for us to evolve from similar creatures.\n\nSecond, it is only a matter of oppinion that humans are superior.  If humans are so smart, why do they continue to damage the enviornment and overpopulate the earth?  Isn't that like biting the hand that feeds you?  Where are we going to live when we destroy the earth?\n\nAnimals would be able to thrive without our intervention through natural selection and adaptation.  \n\nEvery other animal has evolved- Even humans evolved in the time since we have started keeping records.  We as a species have gotten taller and less hairy.  Noticably.  You can not convince me that humans didn't evolve.  All evolution is, is change.  Everything in this world changes.
64866
The offspring of two humans is human. Until scientists declare that there is a homo superior intead of a homo sapien based on chromosome differences, there can be no other result.
772826
Homo sapiens is the species name for humans.\nHomo sapiens sapiens refers to the subspecies of humans known as modern man.
134758
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
875716
probably none, but its depends on which parents genes are more dominant
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
227835
The first species of the genus Homo appeared about 2.5 million years ago.  The first Homo sapiens appeared about 160,000 years ago.\n\nDuring the last 1500 years and before the advent of birth control, the average length of a generation has been 30 years.  This is known from accurate genealogical records.  It is calculated by dividing the number of generations into the years elapsed.  I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this.  It is born out by my own genealogical work with numerous lines over 10 generations and the lineage of an acquaintance who was descended from Mohammed (his was 29.5).  Also, I have seen many other genealogical results close to 30 years per generation.\n\nUsing 30 years per generation, Homo appeared 83,000 generations ago and Homo sapiens appeared 5,300 generations ago.
1106753
they evolved to become homo
652503
There were different species of the Genus Homo, but they are all now extinct.\n\nMost scientists recognize the species of Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being the members of this group.  There is some debate as to whether or not there are other species that belong in this group, such as Homo floriensis (aka the Hobbit man that was in the news last year).\n\nThere are a number of physiological and morphological differences between these species, and there also appears that there might have been mental and technological differences as well.\n\nAll of the living humans are in the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.  We are all very closely related, with only extremely superficial phenotypic differences between the 'races' of mankind, mostly related to geographic isolation and population dynamics.\n\nTracing genetic lineages, these 'races' become even more superficial.  East Asians, Chinese, Native Americans and Western European whites are all more closely related to East Africans than East Africans are to West Africans.\n\nDiffering primarily in degree of skin melanism, hair structure and a few proportions of different facial features, there is no basis for assigning these different geographic populations to separate species.
391394
Evolution usually means adaptation to new circumstances, such as changes in habitat.\n\nIf mankind manages to colonize moon or mars, it is possible that the lower gravity environment will lead to speciation. \n\nWhenever Pandemias strike, they act as selection criteria.\n\n\nHowever, mankind has left pure natural selection quite a while ago and now also applies conscious selection of traits (aka breeding). Not just to domestic animals, but also to themselves. It is not predictable where anthropogenic changes to the human species will end.
807648
The better question is, "if evolution is true... what cause some of the monkeys to evolve and the others to stay the same?
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!
939189
humans followed a different evolutionary path from monkeys and apes. We didn't evolve from monkeys - monkeys, apes and humans evolved from the same ape like animal. We have since taken different paths, and both co-exist