14 Answers

  1. Probably, yes, if the disappearance of humanity will not be associated with such a large-scale catastrophe that all living beings in general will die out, and there will simply be no one to evolve.

    Animals as such appeared not so long ago, and even more so primates, and even more so people, and the hypothetical death of life on the planet due to the aging of the Sun is still very far away, so, firstly, it does not take much time to evolve to our level from the level of modern species on the scale of the entire history of life, and secondly, many species have chances to evolve into the king of animals. But evolution is unpredictable, and can put you either on the throne or on the chopping block. Everyone.

  2. Only if the person himself is gone or the person himself moves to a higher level. The ecological pressure on nature is now so great that the process of evolution is aimed only at adapting to constantly changing conditions, and in order to spend so much biological energy on complicating the brain, calm conditions are needed for a long time.

  3. Maybe yes, maybe no.Evolution is a very unpredictable thing.It behaves situationally, adapting living things to a specific environment.And this does not always lead to the complication of the structure of those very creatures.

  4. I think the great apes can do it. The world for them will actually be a warehouse of all sorts of interesting things, tools, etc., very close to them anatomically (convenient for grabbing with the hand, suitable for the size of the body. Accordingly, this will speed up evolution.

  5. Evolution is the result of mutations that lead to increased survival.they can be either positive or negative in nature.(for example, snakes.reclining your legs for better survival is an example of positive degradation).so the answer cannot be unambiguous.more precisely, everything will change completely in nature(in many, many years), but whether this will be similar to human progress is unclear, since mutations are random in nature

  6. If you do not take into account the cataclysm that caused people and all their traces to disappear, then I think that monkeys, and if they can not become a civilization, then octopuses have the most chances(after many millions of years, of course,and in general I did not invent this myself, but I saw it in the film).Although the presence of human civilization is unlikely to prevent the emergence of another.

  7. I'm certainly not an expert, but I'll try to speculate. Most likely, they will be able to either monkeys, as we wrote above, or ants, or other social living creatures. But in order to reach the” level ” of a person, you need to have abstract thinking and the ability to transmit information, and animals do not have this. All this, of course, can change in the course of evolution.

  8. There were plenty of such candidates. The two most famous candidates are Neanderthals and Denisovans. However, all of them were displaced by the ancestors of modern man and, according to genetics, eventually mixed with him. So the answer is simple – if the most favorable conditions were not for the modern human species, but for other species. Then some other human species would have become the most numerous and displaced the Cro-Magnons just as the Cro-Magnons displaced the Neanderthals.

    No chance at all. They just don't need to, on the one hand, and the person is too strong a competitor. But if there is no human, and the ecology of the Earth also changes, then there will be options.

  9. The phrase “evolve to the level” suggests in advance that nature has a clear plan, evolution is built on the principle of a pyramid, and at the top of the pyramid is of course a person. In reality, this is not the case. In reality, bacteria and viruses are the most flexible evolutionary material, the most widespread, and it is safe to say that the Earth belongs to them. People are a small temporary misunderstanding on the planet of bacteria and viruses, which on the one hand are billions of years old (i.e. they have adapted perfectly), and on the other – new ones appear daily, try themselves in this struggle, and go into oblivion. Humanity has such a temporary respite (after the invention of antibiotics and vaccines), a frail defense, through which especially skilled creatures who have already adapted to our new weapons break through every now and then.

    Human civilization is very short-lived. If you count from farming, livestock is 10,000 years old. This is literally an accident (some theorists believe the opposite – that the natural development of life is the mind, and the natural development of the mind is artificial intelligence). We can't even tell if humanity will survive for at least a million years yet 🙂

  10. Given the speed with which humanity is destroying everything that the hands growing out of its arse can reach, the poor animals have little chance.

  11. Everyone is evolving. By natural selection ( the strongest survives-the most cunning of the strongest reproduces – more adapted descendants are born, among which the strongest survives again). By artificial selection ( a specimen with the necessary qualities for humans survives(beauty, fleshiness, milkiness, aggressiveness, or docility). Or through revolutions – sharp leaps in development due to sharp changes in the OS – a surge of radiation, an ice age, the fall of a giant meteorite, the release of a new spider-man movie. This is if well, very generalized and simple language.

  12. Of course they can. They are still evolving.

    Human intervention in the process of evolution? I believe that a person will not be able to do anything, evolution will go further.

  13. Stanislav Drobyshevsky has a short story like this

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/1FeUcN_WPfE?wmode=opaque

    and here is such a long lecture

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/4lu6Sg_HYp4?wmode=opaque

    in which this issue is discussed in great detail. As for the chances in the future, the story is complicated, since it is impossible to take into account all the factors. As for the future, which is just a matter of probability theory, the descendants of low – specialized species, usually insectivores or omnivores, are more likely to die out simply because specialized species are still more likely to die out when external conditions change. But it's probably completely impossible to predict.

    UPD: For fans of smart design, there is another video:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/mcAq9bmCeR0?wmode=opaque

  14. In the course of evolution, a number of important processes independently occurred in several different species at once (as a response to adaptation to a changed environment).

    These include: the acquisition of a calcium skeleton, the appearance of eyes, the appearance of legs, optics (i.e., the acquisition of the ability to fly by different types of dinosaurs), and the acquisition of a large brain in monkeys.

    There is a reasonable suspicion that the acquisition of intelligence in monkeys is also a process that developed independently in several different species.

    In his later books Unraveling the Rainbow and The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins writes that according to modern game theory, evolution has several positive feedback mechanisms that cause “explosive” changes in a short time.

    The predator-prey / host-parasite arms race is only one of these mechanisms, and it is the most obvious one, so it has been known for a long time. Later, several other mechanisms, less obvious and more complex, were discovered. One of them is coevolution. Mutual adjustment of two or more adaptations that work only in combination with each other. As a result, in a short period of time, several different organs/organisms can adapt to each other as if they were originally designed for each other. There are many examples. For example, the mutual adaptation of flowers and insects, and the mutual adaptation of ears and sonar. Etc.

    Dawkins calls another mechanism “the evolution of software and hardware”: more complex behavioral programs require a more complex brain, and a more complex brain opens up new, previously inaccessible behavioral programs. Thus, Dawkins hypothesizes that the process of gaining intelligence inevitably starts when the volume of the brain in comparison with the volume of the body reaches certain threshold sizes. In different monkeys, the brain slowly grew-grew-grew, and then one of them (the ancestor of all homo) suddenly explosively grew a huge brain several times larger than the rest. Such a frenzied growth rate in the course of evolution is possible only in one case – if there is a positive feedback (“the more there is , the more you need”). And it seems that among other primates, the homo family was simply the first to overcome the threshold beyond which this positive feedback occurs. Another few million years, and the chimpanzees and orangutans would have reached it, too. Just a matter of time. Primates already surpass all animals in this indicator, while humans and Neanderthals have simply gone further than others.

    Today, there are several different assumptions about which skill was so complex and so useful that it triggered an explosive “evolution of software and hardware” in our ancestors. The two most likely candidates for this role are the ability to speak and the ability to read footprints.

Leave a Reply