If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

When a new species evolves from another it doesn't necessarily mean that the originating species will go extinct. Apes exist today even though best evidence shows that humans branched off from them. Ape species are probably continuing their own evolution, and will continue to do so until they can no longer adapt to changing conditions. That's the key to the existence of any species... the ability to adapt to changing conditions, or to find new ecological domains where they can exist.

The apes that exist today are not the same ones that humanity branched off from. We went in one direction and they went in another, however we share a common ancestor with apes. A common misconception is that we evolved from apes similar to modern apes, we did not.

This question seems to imply that animals have some sort of control of their evolutionary path, which of course they don't. "Why didn't the other apes evolve too" implies that they could just look around and say "gee I'd like to evolve the way those humans are." Too many accounts of the evolutionary process are sloppy in this way, and I think this leads to confusion among much of the public. For example, we have probably all seen accounts of evolution describing how a species developed a special defense mechanism to protect tself against predators (think of moths with camouflage that make them look like a leaf or tree bark). That's not quite right, because it implies that the species acted on purpose for self-preservation. Instead, it is a purely accidental process when one animal just happens to be born with a slight genetic anomaly that causes it to be less likely to be eaten by predators , and who is likely to have more babies than his colleagues, and those babies in turn will carry on the anomaly. The original population may carry on just fine, and so over time you get two species in place of one. So just because one line of moths may evolve over time to look like a leaf doesn't mean that they all do.

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

I see you said "If" which means you realize its just a theory.

"Just a theory"...

I quote:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

It IS a theory, which means that it's well founded.

Because the best ones evolved ,and the rest did not...

According to the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, those wich were well adapted and struggled to survive evolved and which rest did not and so didn't evolve.

Although you're kind of right, you're missing most of the point, sovaira. When a species evolves, some aren't left behind. Any that are left behind without the beneficial mutation will die out.

Apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor, we never were common day apes, we were some less evolved ape and so were the common day apes. A natural split may have happened in the species, such as a migration of some of the species, the 2 sets would then evolve into different directions according to their environment.

When a population of animals (or plants) changes over time, the whole population might gradually change over many generations from one thing to another thing to another thing. If there's a dry spell, adaptations for conserving water might be prevail (e.g. an efficient kidney). In another time, when there's lots of water and food, adaptations that allow the organism to compete with other individuals might prevail (big horns). The population's traits might even seem to go backward sometimes, as traits that were more useful 10,000 years earlier, suddenly become useful again.

More often, a single population splits into two (or three or four) subpopulations that then do all this separately. So several subpopulations of apes might go on being apes for 500,000 years, becoming slightly different apes--chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. One subpopulation of apes evolved into humans. But all these subpopulations are all descended from a common population of apes. It's just that our cousin apes look different from us. (And act different too!) But they are different from each other, too.

It's exactly the same as in families. If you have a lot of sisters and brothers, you'll notice that you usually look a lot like them and like your parents. You might even look a lot like your grandparents. But if you go back a few generations to your great, great, great grandparents, you'll be less likely to look like them. And if you look at cousins or second cousins, you look less like them on average than like your sisters and brothers or parents. For the same reason, humans look like our cousins the apes, because we ARE apes. But we look more like other humans because we are most closely related to other humans. And we don't look much like rodents or horses because we aren't as related to them as we are to other apes. Of course, we share certain traits with other mammals--fur, mammary glands, baby teeth, for example--that we don't share with reptiles and birds--because we are more closely related to other mammals than to birds and other reptiles. For any group of organisms, we have some traits in common and some differences. These can tell us how closely related we are to them. So we are more closely related to insects, which are animals, like us, than to redwood trees, which are plants.

I THINK THIS FORUM APPRECIATES LIVE DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS... RATHER THAN COPY PASTING AND PROMOTING PALLEGRIZED MATERIAL... so I would like to read short comprehensive answers and explanations ,rather than whole documents,as above

Capuchin

Well yes you have explained it very right and I got my corection over here.
But I would like to add that, since we the humans, ape, orangatans , gorrillas and monkeys share a common ansestory... and now coming to today's molecular aspect, now we better know that we not only share our some selient features with them ,but about morethan 40% of our genome matches with those of other primates family..
For information we are only different from them as we are only other subspecies but not different entirely species .

The genus is same and the species too ,only what differs is the sub species. e.g we are HOMO SEPIANS and our ape bro is HOMO SEPIAN APIAN(just as example).

So we both exist here on earth at the same time... oh yes coeval.

It is always not necessary for the unevolved species to die out... atleast it is not the case in primates. :)

This brilliant question that matty asked ,used to be my question in my paleantology and evolution class ,but honestly I never got a satisfactory answer to it.well I hope I will begin researching on it and will give you a better explanation.

This is a very interesting topic

Sovaira, we do not share genus with any other animal alive today. We are different species.

I don't think we will ever find that missing link that proves man evolved from apes, and I think man is his own species, even though we share common DNA or whatever just as sea creatures, and birds we stand alone as man, not primate. Just a opinion from an uneducated, and some times warped mind, with no evidence, or data or scriptures, to quote.

Even if we did evolve from apes, we are different species. "Species" is a human construct.

Hay sorry asking ,but it seemed to be very authroized and literal language.
Keep up the good work.
No hard feelings. :)

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

The following was taken from
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/overcome_problems/040317Email.php

----------------------------------------
Email dated 17/03/04

Hi Richard.

Thanks for the feedback. We believe feedback is always good, whether positive or negative. I have entered my responses below, indented directly below each of your points. Thanks.

Most people today have heard of the "theory of evolution" at some point during their grade school years, and assume this theory is fact.

If this is the case, they've been badly taught. The facts are out there in the real world. The theory explains them. This is the nature of theories in science.

Actually text books ONLY give the theory of evolution as reason why we are here today. Long ago the courts banned the creationist view from textbooks since this was considered "religious", and religion was not allowed to be taught in public schools. Since only evolution was taught, most assume it is fact (why would our books lie?)

His own quotes state that his theory contains "few facts", is purely "hypothetical", is "beyond the bounds of true science", and is "impossible to prove".

These quotes alone make the theory of evolution look foolish. These quotes make the author of this web site look dishonest. They are taken out of context to pretend that Darwin was saying something he did not.

In discussing evolution with others, we find that is every evolutionist's argument, that quotes we provide are "out of context". That is the one "free pass" that all evolutionists use when faced with a blaten quote that can only mean one thing. To further explain my point, I give the names of the actual books where these quotes were taken from, along with the page number. Take a look at the actual books and THEN tell me if I am quoting out of context. Once you do, I'm sure I won't hear back from you on the subject of "out of context" again. The ace card of "out of context" just doesn't work anymore and makes evolutionists look silly.

Throughout the centuries scientists have always argued where life on earth came from. "Creationists" are people who believe we were created by God. People who do not believe there is a God find the idea of life being created by a superior being unthinkable.

Many early (and for that matter, many contemporary) geologists and palaeontologists had a strong belief in God, and were inspired by their faith to explore the natural world as the work of God.

I'm aware that many people who believe in evolution also believe in God. This goes back to the subject I mention above about being taught only evolution, not creation in the schools. So most people just assume evolution is correct without giving it much thought because they figure, why would our textbooks lie? It's those that actually stop and start looking into the theory of evolution in depth, that start to argue against it.

It is a fact that the Darwin and many other scientists who had a hand in the theory of evolution did NOT believe in a God, and therefore the theory of evolution made that much more sense to them, and gave them some piece of mind. Many other scientists who DO believe in God followed suit initially because there were other ways to look at it while still believing in God. Now we have a split between creationist scientists and evolution scientists depending on which direction each scientist took in their studies and beliefs.

So these people have been forced to try and think of other possible ways how life could exist on earth in so many different forms (from a single cell all the way up to complex life forms called Homo Sapiens or human beings).

The evidence of the natural world is so overwhelmingly strong that the existence of evolution cannot be denied by anyone who has seriously studied the world. This in no way prevents people from believing in God.

Like I mention above, many who believe in God still keep the theory of evolution as a possibility. It's when they start looking at things like the gaps in the fossil records that scientists like to sweep under the rug, and claims about mutations into another species (which is impossible), that people who believe in God start to question the theory of evolution

In addition he stated that nature, over long periods, gradually selects and promotes features of increasing complexity and usefulness for survival. He called this built in feature "natural selection".

It's not a 'built-in feature'. It's a consequence of the existence of variation, and selection acting on that variation.

Natural Selection is the most ridiculous theory of all. Look at the human eye, the human kidneys, the human liver, the wings of a bird. Natural selection says that each stage of evolvement is an advantage, but is a mindless process which cannot plan ahead or conceive of a goal. That means the organs above, and the wings of a bird had to evolve accidentally, with no goal in mind and wind up performing ALL of the complex functions they perform today. If the eye didn't form in the same sequence, or decided to stop forming after 95% of what it is today, it wouldn't be able to see. If the wing took a different turn or stopped evolving early, no birds would fly. What if our kidneys, evolving mindlessly, not knowing where they were going, made a different turn or stopped early? There would be no life on earth because our bodies can't function without kidneys. Human life couldn't exist with 85% of a kidney.

If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformations over long periods that Darwin spoke of. They do.

There ARE gaps in the fossil records, and evolutionst scientists admit this. There appear to be gradual transformations in some areas, while other living things "appear" fully formed in other areas. This is a fact and I have quotes from many others on this fact. The fact that this happens and no scientist can explain why shows that there is something wrong with the theory of evolution.

But despite intense research for over 100 years since the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin, It's nearly 150 years, by the way. Not a single instance of a transitional form has EVER been found in the fossil records. Complete and utter bunkum. Museums are full of what any reasonable person would call 'transitional forms'.

These quotes from others on transitional forms say a lot (these are just a few):

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/trans_forms.htm

What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what went before it. Completely untrue, as even a brief study of palaeontology will reveal.

To deny this is to simply look in the other direction at findings over the last century. Here are some quotes from others on life appearing fully formed (these are just a few):

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/transitional.htm

For example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began.

Which is what we find with conodonts and such like. Though this is NOT the case. It is. Instead, fully formed life forms such as certain classifications of fish, and other life forms suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere, Utterly untrue. With illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Evolutionists do not dispute this fact. Yes they do, because it's not a fact. It's a lie.

You have a very weak argument by just saying "not a fact" to this with nothing else. I have quotes from notable people in the link I provided above, and if you want more, I can easily get them.

I skimmed through the rest of your reply which was extremely lengthy, and noticed a lot of "read the book" and "not true" without much backing. I'm going too cut to the chase here and state some key things that are bogus about the theory of evolution.

1) As I mentioned with Natural Selection above, for example, saying the human liver mindlessly and without a conceived goal evolved into an organ that secretes bile and is active in the formation of certain blood proteins and in the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins by CHANCE is ludicrous. And our kidneys maintain proper water and electrolyte balance, regulate acid-base concentration, and filter the blood of metabolic wastes, which are then excreted as urine ALL by accident, by just HAPPENING to perform a critical function like this which is critical to sustain life is actually comical for people to say no goal was in mind and it was a mindless process for these to be created. To get the exact functioning kidney humans need to live is like hitting lotto. Then to do this with other organs is like hitting lotto again and again. The whole natural selection thing is comical.

2) And the other claim about mutations is also a joke. Mutations are shown to be extremely rare, are typically a disadvantage, and have never crossed the species boundary. Yet evolutionists use this mutation discussion to help prove evolution from one species to another.

3) And we can joke all night about all the hoaxes like Piltdown man and Java man, and the supposed finding of Neanderthal which many scientists say shows signs of a bone disease like rickets, which explains it's appearance. Other says Neanderthal is very close to Aborgines.



I have to go for now. Have a good night...

Paul
------------------------------------------------------

As I am not very well versed with evolution and not that articulate enough to disprove or prove the theory, this article seems to shed light on the theory.
Hope its helpful:) :) :)

Am I missing something or is the text that you pasted very contradictory?

"For example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Which is what we find with conodonts and such like. Though this is NOT the case. It is."

Sorry? What?

It looks like a reply to a letter merged into the letter. But the formatting has been lost both here and on the link that you provided. It's very confusing.

Pretty much all of th creationist arguments presented here have a completely logical scientific rebuttal, which the author has ignored to further his agenda. The article, as far as I can make out, is poorly written and biased towards proving a point.

Why isn't it a fact then?


"Just a theory"....

I quote:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

It IS a theory, which means that it's well founded.

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?
Here is a website that can answer some questions for a person that doesn't come with a presupasiton and an agenda. Answersingenesis.org

Duke-of-URL:

I'm sure you realize that the site you referenced is not interested in science - it's stated purpose is "believing, defending, and proclaiming" a literal interpretation of Genesis. It starts with the belief that the "Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God," as this site states, and hence clearly it is not interested in considering alternate natural explanations. Many of the arguments it makes are based on religious or philosophical arguments involving "the character of God," "the bible's teaching," and "the doctrine of redemption." (See for example: What are the most compelling scientific evidences of a young earth? (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp))

These are not scientific arguments. No scientist would ever put forth a theory and defend it through faith. This is a science forum, and so we should be limiting our discussion to science topics. Discussions that are based on faith belong in one of the religion forums, not here.

Why isnt it a fact then?
This is just an issue with wording.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms changing from one generation to another and being selected for those changes is evolution and is fact. The theory of evolution is a theory which describes this and other facts. We use evolution in 2 different ways here, one of the ways is a fact, the other way is a theory.

Gravity causes 2 bodies to be attracted to one another, this is fact. The theory that explains this and other facts is the theory of gravity. Gravity is both theory and fact.

here is a website that can answer some questions for a person that doesn't come with a presupasiton and an agenda. answersingenesis.org

The domain name is as far as I needed to go to know that this source is biased.

Here's what my search for evolution came up with this time...

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494
------------------------------------------------------

Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science

Gregory Koukl
Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.


I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)


The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.


I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories--scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things--are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.

By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No problem. But that doesn't mean Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty of his friends believe in God, but their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets, inside their homes and behind the closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and science, God and evolution, fantasy with fact.

Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists. Believe in God if you want. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you must. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through non-directed, materialistic processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on this issue makes that very clear.

When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's when evolutionists like Gould stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand evolution if that's what you think actually took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't have design by chance."

Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen. There is no such thing.


The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it.


The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.



This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St. Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
--------------------------------------------

I am just trying to shed light on the subject!:) :)

------------------------------------

AHhahahahhahaah

Thank you for the laugh firm believer. He raises only 3 points in this whole long winded article, and fills the rest of it with babble.

1: he doesnt agree with the pope when the pope says "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."
I agree with him here. Darwinism and Creationism cannot live hand in hand.

2: he doesn't agree that you can believe in god and adhere to a belief in evolution.
I disagree with him here. If you don't believe that the Old Testament is to be taken literally (ie, that creationism as told in the Bible is not literal), then there is absolutely no problem in believing in God and evolution. He doesn't even consider this view in this article.

3: He doesn't believe that evolution describes abiogenesis.
The fact of the matter here is that evolution doesn't claim to explain how life first came about. It claims to describe how life got from the first reproducing organism to life how we know it today. It does this very well.
He mentions this as the second thing that evolution must do. But it's really the only thing that it claims to do, and he makes no attempt to show that it doesn't do it.

So, to summarise:
One good point that the pope said something that is misguided.
One incorrect point that failed to analyse all the possible points of view.
And one completely misguided point about what the Theory of Evolution is.

The religious and the scientific perspective clash and are controversial
I think we should take evolution as a scientific study ,rather than religious.

the religious and the scientific perspective clash and are controversial
i think we should take evolution as a scientific study ,rather than religious.

A friend sent this to me and I thought it was semi relevant here. The page, Are You a Quack? is by a physicist, but it's about what is science and what isn't and, more or less, how people without training in science can't just decide to play without learning the rules.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Cheers,
Asking

Asking, that is similar to the "crackpot index". A way of assigning points to a piece of work, and if it comes out with a positive total, you have yourself a crackpot! I'm sure you'll enjoy this read :)

Crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

Capuchin,
I am in a state of bliss, sitting here drinking my coffee in my pjs and reading the crackpot index. This is the first time I've felt sorry for physicists; I had no idea how bad it was.
Thanks!
Asking