Alternate evolution of "man"

Well yes, I understand that. I know we did not come directly from apes that are around today, and that we just went one way, some another.

However, it seems there are traits apes have that have made it through the passage of time, and remain with us. I'm talking about the basic structure of their family, living in groups, a level of cooperation aided by manual dexterity, and unfortunately, violence.
Yes, other species have these attributes, but not exactly the way the ancestors of man, who once shared ancestry with apes, have.

I don't think we would have some of the same values, and that the values we did have, would be the same if we had decended, and broken off from, another species.

I mentioned dogs. In the wild, wolves are part of a pack, with one alpha male and his alpha female. They are the ones that mate.

http://alphawolfsabrina.webs.com/reproduction.htm

The alpha female in a wolf pack is usually the mother of the pups. In almost all cases, the alpha male is the father of the pups, but in some instances the wolf who ranks just under the alpha wolf in the pack's hierarchy (the Beta wolf) will take over the alpha's role as father if the alpha wolf shows no interest in mating with the alpha female or any other pack member. Just before the breeding season, the male wolves (particularly the alpha male) in the pack will sniff, harass and pursue the alpha female. If needed, the alpha wolves may use physical force to prevent the other pack members from mating.

While most wolf packs produce only one litter of pups each year, biologists have observed packs that have had more than one litter, one of which was from a subservient female. Multiple litters often occur when the food supply is very adequate after a severe winter. Subservient females may also breed when the pack hierarchy is disturbed.

Getting away from the subject of mating, I think we're all pretty much aware that dog's are happy when they know where their place is in a pack. It's not so much they are on top, middle or bottom, but that they have their place (their function?).

How would this trait play out if the ancestors of wolves, which split off from wolves in some distant time, evolved into the people of today?

Environment would have altered this trait to some extent, but, since it's a successful trait, I'm thinking it would still be very observable in the present.

Yes, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

Perhaps it's more like genetic clay, than it is like a structure that simply gets added to. What makes humanity the dominant reasoning creature it is today are all the stages of evolution since our common ancestor with the horse. So it's possible something the same as us could yet evolve from the modern horse, and all the selection necessary to get there would have to mould us in pretty much the same way to reach the same result.
Another angle, the pack system of the wolf would only work for us until it stopped working for us, such as when another pack started using a more co-operative system.
I could be totally wrong, (farmerman will set us straight eventually I expect), it's fun to speculate about, but I'm not sure the question is "right" if you know what I mean.

No, I get the point you are making Eorl.

My purpose was for the fun of speculation. I suppose I'm not phrasing the question "right", as you say.

Ok, for simplicities sake, when I say evolved from a horse, let's assume we all understand it's not the horse of today.

However, who we are today may only have one large digit, and a small thumb, enough to us to grasp with. Because I picture a horse as being a nomadic creature, they may not ever had been a need to get beyond that form of hand/foot.

Ah! Just thought of something. For anyone who has read The Golden Compas series of books, you'll recognize these people...The Muelfa.

To my eye, they evolved from some sort of elephant type creature, mainly because of their head. Their hand is at the tip of their nose/trunk.

In the book The Amber Spyglass, it shows they are dependant on these particular seed pods, which they hook onto their front and back feet for wheels, and use their side legs for locomotion. They designed their world efficiently by creating a huge infrastructure of smooth roads. That could be the equivilant of our learning how to harness the power of fire, discovering the use of an arch in building, etc. Now I know this is fiction, but I found it to be quite fun to think about.

What if our common ancestor was not an ape, but instead was a squirrel, or a lobster?
Would be be more solitary? What would the state of the world look like right now?

Make up your mind chai2,

You complained that you wanted a serious answer, now you just wanted to have fun??

Sure, Pullman and a million others have speculated along alternate evolution themes, Larry Niven, Frank Herbert and Arthur C. Clarke some of my faves among them.

I don't think I complained, and since when are a serious conversation and fun mutually exclusive?

Eorl I'm just thinking "what if's" and pondering. I guess I'm in good company with "a million others"

If this bothers you, oh well.

no matter

complexity , is complexity

what I'm meaning is that no matter the animal , the root of the complexity of the consequences of evolution remain the same