> but why was our ape-line more fitted to evolve into humans than the apes living under the same conditions?
What an odd question. It's like asking when when your ancestors moved from Scotland (or wherever) to the US, why didn't the other Scots become Americans as well?
Just as people drift apart and do/become differnt things, so do species.
I thought species were broader classifications than that. I'm not a biology guru, but for example, you have different breeds of horses, but aren't they the same species?
I don't see how the comparison works about humans, moving from one area to the world to another, become different species.
My original question was about whether in Darwin's theory parallel species shouldn't evolve/adapt to survive in much the same manner when they face the same environment/events?
And since we know that the genes are actually different through DNA, how could the difference be explained by the two species simply making different physical adaptations to external circumstances?
Isn't it more likely that the genes were inherently different from the beginning? I mean no one thinks we evolved from the line that produced elephants.
Or that a mutation of some sort occurred that became widespread enough to make the two species viable and distinguisable?
How about this? If evolution is not to the "fittest" --meaning a natural progression toward a "better" product-- but to the 'fitted'--meaning adapted to the external conditions--then couldn't apes be evolved from humans?