if humans came from monkeys and apes,why r the monkeys and apes nowadays r not changing into humans?

Answer 1

We did not evolve from present-day apes. We are apes that share a common ancestor with other apes; and also an older common ancestor with other monkeys, and an even older common ancestor with all the other mammals, and so on.

We never "changed" into humans from chimps, why and how should they "change" into humans?

All species evolve continuously, but this doesn't mean that they change into other existing species (unless we're talking about populations that merge by hybridization). And we are evolving, of course, but not "toward" becoming another living species; evolution does not have a destination.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE:other answers
- Evolutionary changes do not "only take place in the embryo stage". In fact, evolutionary changes do not take place in individuals, but in populations. The hereditary variations present in individuals are the main "ingredient", so to speak, for the operation of evolutionary forces. But no individual evolves, or adapts: what individuals do in response to environmental changes is, at best, become acclimated, or learn new behaviors.

- Evolution is a fact and is perfectly measurable in terms of change in allele frequencies in populations. The theory of evolution is a corpus of hypotheses about how this change takes place, and is backed up by evidence from the real world. I would really enjoy to exchange ideas, explanations and examples with anyone that took some time to study a basic biology textbook and understand the statements they're making before writing them down.

- Gaps between species: there are so many transitional fossils that I won't even bother to go into this. Check this site if you're really interested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
And of course there are no transitional fossils between other greater apes and humans, because none of these species evolved from one of the others. Should we also expect a chimpanzee-orangutan form?

- RE archaeological evidence: archaeologists study remains of utensils, buildings, etc. left by human populations, therefore, they study ONE species, Homo sapiens. In any case, biological anthropologists are the ones studying anatomical variations in human populations, and they do find differences, but still, this is a single species we're talking about.

Pelt? we're covered in hair!! It's thin and short (mostly), but it's still there; and when we were still fetuses, we still had more hair, a special type called lanugo (some kids are born with it). And anyway, it's been a long time since our cultural development allowed us to be independent from fur for protection from the elements.

Answer 2

Calimecita's answer is excellent. I just wanted to add a few points:

Although we are descended from a common ancestor as the great apes, it is not possible for an ape today to 'change' into a human. If such a thing occurred, it would be massive evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution, not for it.

The selective pressures on our ancestors were different than they were for our chimpanzee cousins. These pressures acted on the variations in allele frequencies present in those populations at those times. There is no way that the same degree and amount of variation in a population would be the same, even if you were to run it again in the same environment over the same period of time.

If a population of chimpanzees were to evolve into exactly the same phenotypic and genetic duplicate of the human species, it would be like your aunt and uncle giving birth to baby who is an exact duplicate of you, right down to the DNA.

Monkeys and apes today are changing. They are evolving and the genetic variation present in their populations is changing over time due to selective pressures. The chimpanzees we see today are not the same as the ones that were around 6 million+ years ago when humans and apes diverged. They've had 6 million years of evolution acting on their population, just like we've had.

However, there's no way that they will ever transform into a human. If selective pressures were to favour the development of intelligence, sentience, bipedalism, speech and tool-use again, you might get a species that looks somewhat similar to man - perhaps Pan sapiens - but it would be genetically quite distinct from humanity, with any number of different features. It would be its own species, not a recreation of Homo sapiens.

Answer 3

Its fascinating how high the level of scientific ignorance is in these American rooms.

If you asked this in a UK room you'd get a proper answer and none of this 'good point' nonsense - its not a good point.

It just shows that you're ignorant. I can't answer the question since the premise 'if we came from monkeys and apes' is false and misleading. If you want to discuss evolution please learn something about it first.

As for those who say its just a theory... well it just shows you dont understand what a theory is in science as opposed to a hypothesis or mere speculation. We have a theory of gravitation, don't we? Do you think because its 'just a theory' we might all at some moment float up in to the sky?

Answer 4

If all monkeys evolved into humans, then there will be no monkeys in the world and our future generations will miss the chance of knowing how their ancestors look like. Inorder to show ancestors to our next generations god didn't turn some monkeys into humans.

Answer 5

The monkeys and apes of today are a side branch of the evolutionary tree ,as we are.We didn't develop from them,but we had a commom ancestor.Since that ancestor is nonexistant today,since they have developed and changed,we don't see any new species of humans developing.Moreover the process is too slow to map.Most importantly,humans have developed so much that they have modified the nature,so the pace (and presumably,the direction) of evolution has changed due to human interference...

Answer 6

Calimecita's answer is pretty good--the main point being that both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor (humans did not evolve FROM chimps).

I'd like to add that evolution from natural selection relies on a complex interaction of both genetic and environmental factors. Because it would be nearly impossible to replicate the genetic diversity of the common ancestor population or the environmental conditions (quantity, quality, and type of food available; climate; level of competition from other organisms) that existed in the past, we cannot expect to find that evolution repeatedly occurs in the same way (we would not see the same results happen again).

And of course, dramatic evolutionary changes happen over millions of years, so they are not casually observed. But the evidence is staggering--go to a good museum, read books by evolutionary biologists, or take a class at a college and really find out what evolution is all about.

Answer 7

The rate of evolution depends upon the rate of mutation. Many animals have suffered a kind of evolutionary stagnation and they are called "living fossil".Sphenodon is a classic example.It has not undergone any change for million years. Ants too are what they have been millions of years back.
It is the differential rate of evolution that you have to keep in mind and also remember that evolution does not take place in a day. It is a very gradual process which cannot be appreciated even in 5000 years.Living fossils are on the brink of extinction.
It may a cause of worry that they have not undergone much change. For such reasons you cannot pass a sweeping judgement on the entire evolutionary process or the theory you have read so far.

Answer 8

This is a common misconception spread by people who know nothing about evolution.

If you actually read what Darwin wrote, he said that apes and humans "share a common ancestor." Present-day apes will not develop into humans because they have already evolved, INTO apes. Whatever species present-day apes evolve into and whatever humans evolve into will always be separate in the future; the common ancestor we both evolved from is extinct.

Answer 9

Evolution is the natures most simple but powerful force.
The reason that we are not seeing apes changing into humans is because the major change like that can take millions of years.

There is no question among scientific community about evolution's hand in natures design, the only question is the driving force behind it.( is it god or a simple rule like natural selection)

There are many sites which question's evolution. But Evolution is a proven theory
AIDS virus itself can be taken as a proof for evolution . AIDS virus get immune to drugs very soon(this is due to evolution), in this case evolution takes place in a very short span of time may be in hours. Due to mutation (mistakes in dna copying) virus itself changes into a slightly different virus and become immune to drugs.
Is the same force which made humans now against us??

Answer 10

A priori, you cannot rule out that at some future point, the descendants of these animals will not have human characteristics. Likewise, you cannot predict that they will not. What is happening at the moment is likely to be irrelevant to evolution, aside from the occurance of chance mutations that may ultimately confer a survival advantage. If that survival advantage results in the formation of humanoid phenotypes, then your negative hypothesis would be disproved.