Darwins Theory of Evolution says Human is next generation of monkey if so then why didn't it continued further

Question

Darwins Theory of Evolution says Human is next generation of monkey if so then why didn't it continued further

Answer 1

It is obvious that you do not understand evolution and that you did not actually read the Origin of Species.  Not that it will do much good, but I'll type slowly in case something sinks in.

Evolution is defined as change in allele (variants of a gene) frequency in a population over time.  That's all it is.  Evolution is a fact just as saying the earth revolves around the sun.  The mechanism that causes evolution is what gets the religious and the egotistical upset.  

This shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.  The reason why the gene frequency changes with each generation is that different combinations of genes have different survival value depending on the environment.  Those with traits that are useful and help the organisms to survive will convey a reproductive advantage while organisms that have deleterious traits will have fewer offspring.  

Evolution is not directed.  There is no such thing as more "advanced" or more "evolved."  The set of traits that may be of benefit under one set of environmental conditions can prove to be detrimental when conditions change.  The act of selection happens in the moment.  Natural selection can't anticipate the future.  

All populations (including humans) evolve.  There are are some genes in particular that are changing at a high rate but because the time between generations is so long for humans, it hasn't shown up as gross physiological differences.  

Humans are complex.  Our brains have become so complicated and somehow these collected macromolecules have become self-aware.  However, that doesn't make us more "advanced."  We have been on this planet for much too brief a timespan to decide if complexity and self-awareness is of any survival value.  The average life span for a mammalian species is 20 million years while we've been around for 100,000 years (give or take a few thousand).  If our intelligence only serves to outsmart ourselves into an ecological holocaust and self destruction, then that will be the end of this experiment in so-called intelligent biochemical machines.

And to add a point because so many others have brought this up, is that the reason we are so similar to primates is that we are primates.  We have a shared ancestry.  Imagine if we were to ship a bunch of people off to another planet.  Those people would make up a different population where no gene flow is possible with the people back on earth.  After thousands of generations of selection, the two populations would diverge as the traits that are selected for would be different.  So, if our spacefaring cousins change, it does not force the population back on earth to change in the same way (if people came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?).  In the meantime, the population on earth would change over the generations so that now there would be two different species on two different planets.  Neither quite like the original homo sapiens from which they were derived but with a shared ancestry that explains their similarities.

Answer 2

Evolution process is so slow that we can only see, smaller improvements coming one by one...

Examples: myopia is a result of the deformation of human cranium, thus pressuring the eyes in an oval shape. Also teeth problems are a symptom of cranium deformation. Actually, evolution theory says that every 1000 generations (about 10000years) life form is experiencing a kind of genetic mutation jump. Drosophyll flies do reach 1000 generations in only 20 years...

In other words, human beings are in a kind of transitional phase, evolutionary speaking.

Answer 3

Darwin's theory of evolution has more to do with natural selection (and he borrowed it from previous generations).  It basically states that when mutations do occur within a species and are then beneficial, they are kept to aid in the survival.  Thus through generations of such mutations (which are the body's way of adapting to local environments) species evolve and eventually into new species.  However, he dealt mostly with micro evolutionary processes and later applied those to macro ones.  An example of the micro evolutionary process would be a wild dog species grows long hair and more fat stores to keep warm.  People's skin colors change after many generations of living in a different climate.

Answer 4

There are NO transitional fossils.

None!

The evolutionists gave up since Darwin's theories are without support.

Answer 5

Darwin made no mention of humans in the context you are referring to. also where do people get the idea that evolution has a direction?

some intestinal parasites evolved from free ranging organisms.

for example if stupid people have an average of 3 children while smart people have an average of 2 & this continues for enough generations the average intelligence of people will go down and continue to do so until people become to stupid to survive and/or reproduce.  proof of this can be seen in antibiotic resistant germs.  the antibiotic kills most of them leaving a few resistant ones to reproduce. since a generation in germs is measured in hours or days after 15 or 20 years all germs of that particular type are antibiotic resistant. evoloution is not something that happened once a long time ago it is operating now just the same as it always has.

Answer 6

This is an answer to all these evolutionary questions.  In particular to a question that was recently posted by Everona, who chose an exceedingly flawed answer to her question from An S.  Obviously this question is very much ill informed in its thought process as well, so this answer still fits here.

Here we go.

Evolution only works if characteristics are detrimental enough to reduce "reproductive sucess".  There are technological arguments which defeat every point that An s makes such that the net effect, as far as "reproductive sucess" is concerned, is nill in light of his proposed environmental changes.  Every time that you try and make a point concerning evolution, ask, "How will this characteristic stop someone from producing an average number of babies within their lifetime, or allow them to have more then the average?"  Straight vs curly hair just doesn't cut it in reproductive terms.  With folic acid and vitamin d suplements the benefit of skin colour in given environments is negated as far as reproduction is concerned.  With good winter clothing and a fan or a/c the fat skinny argument is debunked.  Even a short trip to any major city in Africa and you will quickly realize that as modernization has taken place, skinny has only been selected for where more traditional lifestlyes have allowed it to continue to be a successful characteristics.  In the cities their are countless numbers of very large bodied Africans who have adjusted to sedentary lifestyles.  Come to think of it, I don't see Americans who live in the southern states getting any thinner, and I who am as skiiny as they come, am from Canada where I'm known to wear thick coats and drink hot chocholate during the long winters.  And, my family continues to grow in size (now slightly above the average of developed nations, I have 2 children the average is 1.8)  So far our adjustment to pollutants has had nothing to do with any type of biological change in our "lung capacity".  Instead as asthma worsens or allergies become worse humans just pop pills or puff ventilators... in other words, pollutants have not yet had ANY significant effect on the reproductive sucess of humans.  I hope that this helps you Everona, to clear up the misleading conclusion that An S had somehow convinced you of.  One of the Cornerstones of the evolutionary process is reproductive sucess, so if an environmental pressure does not effect this then it is NOT an evolutionary pressure.  Simple as that.  

All right that takes care of An S's answer to the previous question... now evolution and more generally what is effecting reproductive sucess... who is experiencing an increase or reduction in their genes in successive generations?

On a global scale, most of the forces that are actually effecting reproductive sucess are not as environmental, as they are cultural.  The countries which have the highest birth rates usually tend to be poor with a lot of uncertainty in life.  When I was volunteering in a hospital in Vanuatu http://laurelprescriptions.com/vanuatu/ the average birth rate was 7.2 children... why?  When I asked my friends there, they would say that they felt that they needed to have at least 5 children because they felt that it was likely that 1 or 2 of their children would die while they were still young.  Insecurity, a feeling of lack of control over your families destiny pushes them towards large families.  In many parts of the world polygany is allowing some men to aquire a much greater reproductive sucess then the average man, but this is not only a cultural force but a economic one as well.  In developed countries, it is actually poor families that are having a greater reproductive sucess then the rich.  Well off people are limiting the amount of children that they have so that they can give them the world (financially/resources) while poor people have no resources to protect and thus invest what little they have into having a larger family hoping that one of their offspring can beat the cylcle that they have found their family stuck in.  In an evolutionary sense it is these cultural-environmental forces that are driving the human evolution much more then any mythical ecological-environmental force.  These Eco-Env forces are just negated via are scientific knowledge and adaptation anyways!

Another interseting thing to investigate is the trivers-willard hypothesis of sexual selection, stating that in poorer families within every society, that females will be preferenced over males because they have a more guaranteed shot at reproducing, while in weathier families males are given preference to enhance their opportunities at reproductive sucess given that their female offspring should find reproductive sucess without as many additional preferences being made.  Interestingly enough this hypothesis has found a considerable quantity of scientific backing from scientific and ethnographic studies regarding the socio economic standings compared to the health and treatment of children in societies ranging from the Masai all the way to modern households in the United States and Canada.

All right, rant over...

Answer 7

Why don't you think that evolution isn't taking place at this very moment?

Answer 8

Well apart from the major flaw with this over simplification...

Yeah logically there will be future hominid species evoloving from any surviving Primate species. Including the Human species.

.

Answer 9

You're wrong. Humans are apes, not monkeys. Evolution continues because the organism, animal etc is changing to suit its environment. How do you know that it is not continuing further? If we did not arrive to our present state by evolution, but by creation, there why aren't we more perfect? Why not give us better eyesight, hearing etc. Whatever senses we have, there are animals that can do it better.

It would seem that we have a bit of evolving to do.

Answer 10

A question reeking of ignorance... Next

Answer 11

You are incorrect.

Darwin's theory did not make such a claim.

Further, biological science does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

The monkey fits its current environment well enough for monkeys to continue existing as they are, thus they continue being monkeys.

It is not the situation that all members of a given species evolve into some other particular species.

When evolution occurs, it is because one or a few members of the first species lead, through subsequent generations, to a new species.

The members of the original species that did not get the (evolution) mutation which lead to the new species can easily continue on having children that are just like them & not evolving into a new species for many, many generations.

The deal is, only some members of any species get a particular mutation.  Thus, only their children have that mutation.  Thus, only their distant future relatives develope into the particular new future species.

The members of the original species that did not have the mutation continue passing on unmutated genes, thus allowing both mutated and non-mutated individuals to live side-by-side.  

Thus, we have both monkeys and humans, and plankton, and cockroaches, etc, etc.

P.S.  Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, not monkeys.  Only 2% difference in our genetic code and theirs.

Answer 12

You are a moron