This is my theory. Once humans go extinct, crows and parrots will become the dominant species of the planet. They will eventually learn how to use/produce fire, and they will evolve to have small hands at the end of their wings (like the ones pterodactyls had) so they could be more proficient at making and using tools. They might also lose their ability to fly, and they will likely evolve much faster technologically if they'll have access to the research left by humans. Lastly, the two species will either evolve together, or one of them will end up like the Neanderthals and go extinct, while the other one takes over the world.
>>4906380you realize crows and parrots were here like 50 million years before humans came along and never evolved any of that right?
>>4906380>aislop
>>4906380Technological civilization is not inevitable.We are likely to not be replaced if we die
Birds are literally a dead end path. They gave up their hands for wings and thus, just like dolphins will never manage to amount to anything. You're literally out of your god damn mind if you think anything other than another ape, will actually achieve anything.
>>4906380The correct answer is otters. They can use tools, can learn new behaviors by observation, can navigate both land and water, and are large enough to defend themselves in groups but small enough to hide in burrows when necessary.>humans, having made land uninhabitable, choose sea otters as their successors and, to help them evolve, erect beach monoliths bearing all knowledge condensed to equations. The narrator watches an otter come ashore and scratch at one. Examining it afterward, he finds some equations corrected and new ones added.https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/171003/older-sf-story-about-sea-otters-monoliths-and-equations
>>4906422holy based
>>4906489Holy shit Matt and Trey were right
>>4906617Their tiny ears are so cute
>>4906617Matt and Trey were correct about many things
>>4906380There won't be another "human-like" animal with our level of intelligence after us, just like there won't be another "dinosaur-like" land animal the size of Argentinosaurus after the asteroid.
>>4906489>burrowsDo sea otters ever burrow? There were people who were skeptical about calling them mustelids because they never saw a sea otter burrow
>>4908741Sea otters can spend their entire lives in water and rarely if ever need to go on land, so it's hard to say. Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters still have paws with semi-retractable nails on their forelimbs, like foxes do, so they should be capable of digging soil if necessary.
>>4906380scorpions will rule the earth, they did it once, they'll do it again now that their enemies are dead.the countdown already started
>>4906422How come apes have stalled?
>>4910152>be the ape that's evolving technology>ask why apes aren't evolving technology>ask why evolution stalled>pretending it has a schedule and purpose>ask why other apes aren't becoming human>as if becoming human is a normal outcome>this whole thread expecting something to replace humans>when humans are the first of their kind and nothing like them will likely ever exist again on earth>this thread>not realizing all the animals they suggest have existed for millions of years longer than humans and never evolved human intelligence or culture with the (only) exception of chimpsyeah so human technology isn't a normal or expected outcome of evolution. Nothing will replace us if we go extinct unless we build something to replace us. And in that case what replaces us will still be us. chimps are capable of becoming human, since we are the chimps that became humans. But there's no reason for them to do that. The conditions that caused them to do that before are gone, and very likely won't ever come back.also anything that causes our extinction would presumably wipe out chimps as well. In fact apes will probably go extinct long before humans do. Because we kill them.also most humans aren't capable of creating technology, there are very few inventors that were personally responsible for the evolution of our technology. The average human is little better than a chimp when it comes to advancing society. If we took away all technology and memory of technology, it would still take us hundreds of thousands of years to get back to where we are right now.
>>4910173>If we took away all technology and memory of technology, it would still take us hundreds of thousands of years to get back to where we are right now.that's assuming we would get back to where we are right now.it's entirely possible we'd lose the ability to speak or use tools because of disuse long before we invented languages and simple stone tools. It's quite possible if we lost our technology we would never regain it.maybe even likely since the pressures that produced that technology wouldn't be repeated exactly as they were before.we are a roll of the dice. 500 nat 20's in a row. The likelihood of us doing that again is very slim.
>>4910173>chimps are capable of becoming human, since we are the chimps that became humansHumans didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps share a common primate ancestor.
>>4911473that took me back to the 80'sthank you for your 50 year old creationist-tier outdated misunderstanding of crown groups and human speciation.Good times. Back when that line was popular I was a literal creationist, and your grandma hadn't even been born yet.the MRCA of Pan and Homo was and still is classified as Pan. A chimp. Human ancestors bred with chimps for almost a million years.we also bred with neanderthals, making the MRCA of humans and neanderthals a neanderthal. We are descendants of neanderthals and chimps.I love how far behind you are on evolution science. Your views are older than I am and I'm pretty old. Thank you for that. Makes me feel young to hear the same bullshit I grew up with spouted on here every day like it's true facts or something. Do you drive an Edsel and post on /an/ from a rotary phone? When's the last time you made a jello salad?
>>4911473not gonna lie, I come here specifically for the mid-1900's evolutionary taxonomyyou're right, we didn't evolve from modern chimpsbut that doesn't mean the chimps we evolved from weren't also chimps. They're just not modern chimps. Ancient chimps if you like. The ancestors of chimps. The last non-human ape we evolved from was the ancestor of modern chimps. Basically humans and chimps are both types of chimps. They are our sister genus, and the closest one to us. We both evolved from chimps.
>>4911473but then you didn't feel the need to specify "modern chimps" so I don't know why I should have to specify "ancient chimps."if you're going to be autistic about crown groups you should be more specific. The ancient chimps we evolved from are still chimps.
>>4911487>>4911505Um, I think you're the one whose understanding is outdated:>A. ramidus would have most likely had sub-adult periods of socialisation unlike that of any extant ape. We also argue that A. ramidus and chimpanzee craniofacial morphology are apomorphic, each representing a derived condition relative to that of the common ancestor, with A. ramidus developing its orthognatic condition via paedomoporhosis, and chimpanzees evolving increased prognathism via peramorphosis. In contrast we suggest cranial volume and life history trajectories may be synapomorphic traits that both species inherited and retained form a putative common ancestral condition. Our analysis also provides support for the hypothesis that an intensification of maternal care was central to the process of hominization.https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/ar/article/view/11086IOW, humans may not represent evolution from a chimpanzee-like ancestor as has traditionally been supposed. This suggests many modern human adaptations represent phylogenetically deep traits and that the behavior and morphology of chimpanzees may have evolved subsequent to the split with the common ancestor they share with humans.
>>4911508Possible, but not the current viewthe current view remains that the MRCA of humans and chimps is much closer to a chimp than a human and would be classified in Panmeaning humans belong to any clade Panmeaning humans evolved from chimps.
>>4911508> Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.
>>4911508>Um, I think you're the one whose understanding is outdated:also this is possible, I am very oldbut the line >humans didn't evolve from chimpsis creationist apologetics from the 70's and 80'sit's very old. I first heard it as a kid in high school and it was bullshit even back then. In the time of rotary phones and jello salads
>>4911512>>humans didn't evolve from chimps>is creationist apologetics from the 70's and 80'sNo, creationists claim that "humans didn't involve from monkeys/apes/primates" which is indisputably wrong. Humans did evolve from primates and they do share a common primate ancestor with chimpanzees. But the human-chimpanzee split occurred millions of years before Ardipithecus or Australopithecus arrived on the scene, not to mention any of the early Homo variants such as H habillis or H erectus.
>>4911517>humans didn't evolve* not involve, obviously
>>4911517It was an evolution of language>humans didn't evolve>ok humans evolved but they didn't evolve from chimps>ok humans evolved from chimps but they didn't evolve from MODERN chimpsideas evolve. Dawkins called it meme theoryyou post memes from the 70's and 80's. Creationist memes.
>>4911517this>>4911519is how the catholic church went from creationists to evolutionists
>>4911520>>>4911517>this>>>4911519 (You)>is how the catholic church went from creationists to evolutioniststhe most recent evolution is>humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was a chimp. >humans evolved from chimps.and for the modern man,>humans are a type of chimp
>>4911523>humans are a type of chimpthis is the modern, cladistic view. Because before we were human we were chimps. Chimps are older than humansmeaning humans are a type of chimp.
>>4911524this is also misleading, and circularbecause "chimp"is just a word for the primitive condition in humans and chimps.of course chimps descended from chimps.and so then did humans.
>>4911526There's the question>at what point did humans stop being chimps?and to the cladist,we are still chimps.just a very weird, derived sort of chimp
>>4911530>just a very weird, derived sort of chimpjust like we're a very weird, derived sort of fishwe never stopped being fish, and we'll never stop being chimps.
>>4911531this is the newest meme, we are chimpsand like all memes it too will evolve.
>>4911533>like all memes it too will evolve.and if I live another 50 years and /an/ lasts that longI will take joy in /an/ spouting 50 or 100 year old memes like they're modern truth
>>4911535>I will take joy in /an/ spouting 50 or 100 year old memes like they're modern truthbecause nothing is more comforting than having the "facts" of your childhood repeated to you every day as if they were truthand /an/ is pathologically a century or so behind on science.
>>4911519Your argument only make sense if you think "chimp" is synonymous with "primate" or "ape" which it's clearly not. "Chimp" refers to a specific species of ape. You even claimed above that "chimps became human" when that's not what happened.I think what's breaking your brain is that the fossil record for the ancestral species leading to chimpanzees is incomplete and not very good for geological reasons. They were not simply "ancient chimps" but an entirely different species, just like Ardipithecus and Australopithecus were not "ancient humans" but an entirely different species, not even belonging to the same genus.
>>4911539>Your argumentnot mine and not an argumentthat's paleoschizo's mistakethinking when I cite someone else's science it's>my>argumentyou're disagreeing with all of current science. Not me, not my problem.
>>4911539>but an entirely different speciesok splitter
>>4911543>an entirely different speciesspecies level distinctions don't matter, I never said we belong to any modern species of Panlearn to think past species. That's also childish evolutionary understanding. Chimps are a genus, not a species.
>>4911539the question isn't if humans belong to the same genusbut if chimps dobecause if chimps belong to their ancestral genus so do humansbecause humans bred with them
>>4911552>if chimps belong to their ancestral genus so do humans>because humans bred with thembecause genus and species are the only Linnaean classifications retainedand they're the only Linnaean classifications we pretend don't follow cladistic rulesbut the fact is Linnaean classifications don't matterIf humans EVER belonged to genus PanThey ALWAYS will belong to genus Panunder cladistic rulesany clade Pan includes us.
>>4911553>any clade Pan includes us.any clade "chimps"includes humansbecause we bred with chimpswe are a type of chimp
>>4911554I can say it a thousand different ways and that still doesn't make it trueor falsethat's just how we currently do taxonomy. And taxonomy is arbitrary. But no matter what taxonomists decide, chimps are our closest relativesand closest to our ancestors.
>>4911555Gorillas are more intelligent than chimps tho
>>4906380>and they will evolve to have small hands at the end of their wings (like the ones pterodactyls had)
>>4913026Did pterodactyls use their hands for anything?
>>4906380Wrong. Birds have a brain too perfect and efficient to evolve true intelligence, that's a mammalian trait. I bet on rats, they just need to have longer lives
