If evolution exists then why arn't apes turning into humans in front of our eyes?

Answer 1

You are SOOO brilliant!!!!
Why haven't biologists around the world thought of that unique and intellectual perspective?
(Pardon the DRIPPING sarcasm!)

Well, for one thing, apes are being reduced in their population by poaching and habitat destruction, which reduces their genetic variability.

For another thing...
Apes of the same species are not being geographically or reproductively isolated, which has to happen for speciation to occur.

For another thing...
Evolution takes tens to hundreds of millions of years to occur on such a level.

For another thing...
Humans haven't been around for that amont of time to watch anything evolve to that kind of level.

For another thing...
Apes didn't evolve from humans, we both evolved from a common ancestor. That isn't to say that present day apes can't evolve, just that they can't evolve into humans. If they ever evolve, they would have to evolve into something else.

For another thing...
If apes evolved into humans, then they would be human, and we wouldn't know, unless you've been sitting in the jungle watching them for about 100 million years.

For another thing...
This question is basically a StrawMan attack, and shows your scientific illiteracy.

Tell Hovind, Wells, and Gish that I said "hello."
If creationism has so much going for it in the way of facts and evidence, then why must they rely on fallacies and pseudoscience to further their "theory?"

Any other silly questions?

EDIT: 08/112/07
Near of DN,
Both of your links, when read, reveal that those findings simply mean that the "tree of evolution" may need to have their branches redrawn, not that there aren't any branches.

The difference between what YOU suggested and what the articles you posted suggest is the difference between saying (you) a certain person has no parents and just appeared from nothing; to (evolution theory) a certain person has a different set of parents than previously believed, but they still have parents.

BIG difference.
Maybe you should read the articles you post before you summarize them.

SECRETSAUCE;
Nice post!!! Yet again.
Not a surprize.

El Chistoso

Answer 2

First, your question assumes that all evolution leads to human form and that it happens quickly. This obviously isn't true. Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Second, it is also possible that evolution does not occur without a need. If evolution occurs through genetic variations that lead to a mutation if physical form, not all mutations will lead to useful changes. If the change does not help the creature survive, the individuals with that mutation are no more likely that the other "normal" creatures to survive. Even then, it is only once a significant portion of the entire population of that particular type of animal have taken on the trait that evolution has occured. If the separate populations are geographically separated and the trait is not mixed between populations they can then diverge further through other mutations.

Of course small changes in the entire population could occur quickly if the entire popluation is limited to a small location, thus we see radically different animals on some small islands. For an example see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203374,00.html

Answer 3

To observe evolution, we need to consider many, many, many generations of apes because they have long life spans. It is virtually impossible for a single person, or even a few human generations, to observe considering the time scale it takes for changes to happen.

Many cases of natural selection (which leads to evolution), however, has been documented. (1) Eg: Guppies, HIV viruses, mosquitoes. These CAN be seen because their life spans are relatively short.

There is also a very common mistake that evolutionary critics make. Ape and humans come from a single common ancesstor, which does NOT mean that humans are evolved from apes. They have branched into separate evolutionary paths thousands of years ago. So even if the evolutionary process is fast enough for us to observe, apes still would not turn into humans. They will evolve into something else. Also, evolution is not a change in an individual - it involves the whole population.

If you call yourself a homo sapiens, it sort of means that you belief in evolution.

Answer 4

Evolution cannot occur within one single generation. It takes many many generations. It requires genetic mutations that can be benefitial or not. Simply put Apes have similar DNA to humans but are in fact a different species. An ape is an ape and homo sapiens are homo sapiens.

If a human was born with a significant genetic mutation and was able to survive, reproduce and over many many generations have the offspring continue to pass on this mutation (genetic change) ultimately becoming the norm for any decendant of a mutated individual. AND If eventually these now genetically mutated individuals were unable to reproduce sucessfully with a "normal" (non-mutated genetic human) then they could be classified as a new species and thus would have evolved from humans.

The new species would have different DNA, and would be only able to reproduce successfully with VIABLE offspring with a member of this species.

Something "evolving" within a single generation or even a couple would be considered an adaptation, not evolution.

Answer 5

Based on the wording of this question, I am guessing you are under the common impression that humans evolved from apes. However, this is untrue.

Humans and apes both evolved from a single common ancestor millions of years ago. However, over the course of these years, both species have continued to evolve in their own patterns and directions due to the process of natural selection (which was first explained by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace). This process can be compared to that of a tree, with the common ancestor being the tree's trunk and the top branches symbolizing modern-day humans, chimps, bonobos, and other primate species. The tree's middle branches represent those species that have been found in fossil form, including Australopithecines and early species of Homo (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.).

This analogy shows that humans are not descendants of apes... more like distant cousins. Therefore, as modern apes continue to evolve, which there are doing, they would never "turn into" humans.

I have included a few sites to further explain this concept:

Answer 6

If you think you are demonstrating your vast intellect by asking a silly question like this you have another think coming.

As I suspect you know, evolution doesn't happen like that and for your information CHARLES DARWIN NEVER, AT ANY TIME, CLAIMED THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS OR APES.

That was merely the nonsensical interpretation put about by opponents of anything that even looked as though it was casting doubts upon the literal interpretation of the Bible which had been accepted blindly for hundreds of years but which very few serious scholars would attempt to defend these days

What Darwin said was that we both probably evolved from a common ancestor which isn't the same thing at all and that most other organisms evolved in the same way.

What is more he produced quite a bit of evidence to support his theory and wrote much of it down in his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".

Answer 7

To understand evolution you must first understand the basics behind it.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight, it is a slow ongoing process which for even the most basic of advancement in the evolutionary chain can take thousands, if not millions of years. To those people who say that evolution doesn't exist I say 'How did we achieve our state today?' We weren't born this way were we? No! we evolved from being primative apes. We learn't to use tools just as primates do today, we learn't to walk upright on our hind limbs, hence the term Homo Erectus. We learn't the power of communication.


Evolution is a slow process which cannot be seen but does happen.

Answer 8

this question was a troll, and quite successful too, but I'll answer anyhow.

Evolution takes millions of years, at least animal evolution does.

However ...

Corn is an artificial organism which "evolved" only about 6000 years ago, so it fits within the confines of biblical time. Corn was the result of a "catastrophic sexual recombination" between two unrelated species of grass growing somewhere in South America. I know the King James bible speaks of "corn" in several places, but what they are referring to is sorghum. Real corn suddenly popped into existance from (practically) nothing one fine afternoon around the perimiter of some farmer's field. He just happened to have attracted the right species of weed which then crossed with his grain. Amazingly, the next crop was far larger. Did God create corn? No - man did. Quite accidently, no less!

Answer 9

Do you remember all that stuff they taught in school about an ape becoming an ape man and eventually becoming a man with a briefcase? Well scientist have changed that theory. So now all those text books are just made up lies.

You may wonder how that information got in books if it wasn’t solid proof that Evolution was true…
That is what evolutionist do. They take a theory and try to draw up imaginary pictures and call it fact. Then when new facts come out they say “well we are learning and growing and it’s good that we have NEW evidence”
That’s fine and dandy but don’t take GOD out of school and then stick a bunch of lies in our books instead.

Teach kids the GOD theory
Teach kids the Science theory.

Why are atheist so worried about hearing both sides of the story? Afraid you will loose your faith?

Great websites to check out that disprove evolution and support the God who created us!

http://www.epm.org/articles/evolution.html
www.evolutiondeceit.com

Answer 10

Apes are evolutionary cousins to humans, not ancestors of humans. Similarly, modern reptiles are evolutionary cousins to birds, but not their ancestors. Humans developed from a particular line of primates many centuries ago; modern apes developed from related, but different lines of primates. All the animals you see on earth now developed originally from simple organisms that lived in the oceans, but that doesn't mean that fish should be developing into birds for evolution to be "proved". Evolution is happening all the time, and can happen quite quickly - look up something on the Galapagos finches, for example, for a good example of well-documented evolution over a span of years instead of centuries. Also, it would help if we all used the same definitions of words - I have the feeling that your definition of "evolution" is (a) not the same as mine, and (b) not something that any biologist would recognize.