If humans came from apes, why do apes no longer give birth to humans??

Answer 1

*chuckle* These just keep getting more and more inane.

Answer 2

Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the “doubtful” arguments.

Why are there still apes on earth, shouldn't they all have turned into humans?

In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting,” as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.

So, for those who believe in creatioinism, do not use this as an arguement for creation and against evolution.

Answer 3

There was no sudden transition from 'chimpanzee-like thing' to 'human'. The evolutionary process took much longer than that; indeed, even 3000000 years ago we were probably already more advanced than modern chimpanzees or gorillas. You can't expect a chimpanzee to suddenly give birth to a human naturally any more than you can expect a fish egg to suddenly hatch into a lizard. Evolution takes much longer than that.

HOWEVER, as a matter of fact, the answer to your question may soon be different. Technology is reaching the point where we may be able to implant a fertilized human egg inside a chimpanzee and, with the use of some anti-rejection drugs, actually get a chimpanzee to give birth to a human baby. But of course, it wouldn't have happened naturally through a chimpanzee mating, so it doesn't really count.

Answer 4

If an ape (by which I presume you mean a chimpanzee, gorilla, orang utan etc.) gave birth naturally to a human, it would disprove evolution at a stroke.

You see, there are hundreds of thousands of genetic differences between humans and even our closest relatives - the chimpanzees - so it is utterly inconceivable for all those hundreds of thousands of genetic changes to happen just by chance and all at once so that a chimp (for example) gave birth to a human.

However, if we look at the amount of genetic difference, the evolutionary divergence of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor of around 6 million years ago gives an estimate of 2 x 10^-8 base substitutions per site per year in those organisms (i.e. how much change in the DNA there would have to have been during that time). Observed rates are between 1 and 5 x 10^-8 per year, a very good match with the prediction of evolutionary theory.

So, a chimp *today* couldn't possibly give birth to a human, if evolution is true, but we certainly *could* have evolved from a common ancestor of chimps and humans in 6 million years.

The way to understand evolution is to remember that living organisms are in a state of constant change - It's not that evolution *can* occur, but that it *must* occur, simply because there is no mechanism in living organisms to ensure perfect, flawless reproduction for ever.

Now, suppose you could study a population of chimpanzees in the jungle, on a timescale of millions of years. Clearly, each individual only lives a few decades, so the population is constantly being succeeded by individuals which are different from their parents, because reproduction is imperfect - and remember, this is *inevitable*. It can't *not* happen. All the time this population is inter-breeding, the genes are getting mixed together, and only genes which work well with all other chimpanzee genes will tend to get passed down to successive generations (because individuals with genes that don't work well together will tend not to survive and reproduce).

However, suppose that circumstances arise which cause a group to become genetically isolated from other chimpanzees. This could be as a result of an accident of geography (e.g. an impassable river) or breeding preference or simply great distance. There will develop two distinct groups of chimpanzees which can never again exchange genes, because they have become different enough that mating will not produce viable offspring. This is what biologists define as speciation - i.e. the population has forever split into two distinct groups. Biologists have observed many instances of speciation, so there is no doubt that it occurs.

Assuming that both groups continue to survive, it is again *inevitable* that they will diverge genetically - There is no possible way that both groups, isolated and independent from each other, can change in exactly the same ways, and the longer they continue to breed, the more different they will become. Over millions of years, given that the rate of genetic change via mutation tends to remain fairly constant, the two groups will become as distinct as today's chimpanzees and humans are from each other, and from their most recent common ancestor.

That also explains why other apes are never going to evolve into humans.

All this is based on what we *know* is true - it's not supposition or guesswork, and remember it's not just possible, it absolutely *has* to happen, because there is no mechanism in biology to make reproduction a 100% perfect, flawless process.

NB: The reason we're classed as apes is that there is no valid way to group all the other apes together that doesn't also apply to humans. In other words, whatever criteria you use to define what is an ape, in order to include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs and gibbons, humans will also fit those criteria. Indeed, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas, and gorillas are more closely related to humans and chimpanzees than they are to orangs, so any classification that separated humans out from those other apes would simply not make sense.

Answer 5

No human was ever born to an ape. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. We have adapted (if evolution is your belief, by the way) from an earlier form to what we are now. In theory, the process of evolution continues rather than stops with any specific goal or ideal.

Answer 6

They do, they're just called humans now.

It was a long, gradual transition of mutations. You may have seen the news story last week about the three million year-old 3 year-old girl? She walked like a human, but had arms that were still ape-like which enabled her to swing from trees. She was a stage between apes and homo sapiens (modern humans) called Australopithecus.

Answer 7

Humans and apes come from a common ancestor - evolution does not and never has postulated that humans come from apes.

We and chimps share 95+% of our genes and we are obviously very similar to the great apes (tho they, on average, treat their kids much better than we do, with mommy's milk on demand and no day care!)

If one is going to argue against something, one should understand it first.

Answer 8

Think of it like this:
Some apes started using their hands more and standing upright thus evolving gradually (very slowly in fact over thousands of years) and others didn't.
That is why we have two species apes and humans.

Answer 9

For the ten thousandth time, no evolutionary biologist anywhere asserts man evolved from apes. The assertion is all primates have a common ancestor in the distant past and it was not an ape.

Answer 10

hahahahah i realy hope that your kidding. apes did not give birth to humans. humans evolved from apes. the apes changed a little bit each generation and then became humans!

Answer 11

...while some humans give birth to apes? honestly have no idea, it has to do with evolution. probably, some apes evolved to humans.