According to Charles Darwin.......?

Question

....Apes were transformed into human beings,why now apes are not turning out to be humans.

Answer 1

because it's not true that we evolved from apes.

Answer 2

The concept is that apes and humans evolved from a similar creature millions of years ago. In a few million years there might be several species that have evolved from humans. Apes will evolve into other things. One thing Xians always fail to realise is that evolution doesn't happen overnight. That would be mutation (even then it's not usually that fast). Evolution takes a long time. We are not here long enough to witness it taking place.

Answer 3

why do some people write novels on here for there answers noone wants to read all that

Answer 4

Charles Darwin and Human Evolution

    Darwin’s theory of evolution challenges religious teachings, because it challenges the teaching that humans were created by God and that we are separate and apart from the rest of creation. According to the Bible, God created the earth and gave man dominion over it. Since Darwin’s theory of evolution directly effects us as individuals it is difficult to accept the full implications of evolution regardless of religious teachings. However, since science has advanced to a point where it can use the records stored in fossils from various time periods to prove the theory of evolution, it is difficult to argue with the facts that at least our bodies did evolve from other species. Most scientists believe that our large brain size, which provides us with the intelligence to be aware or conscious and communicate with others in our species, is also the result of evolution. While most scientists say that they do not believe in a God, in the sense of a religious God, some scientists believe in some natural God or some God of order. Nature appears to be orderly. Thus, it would appear that life was created according to some design even if it was not created by some higher, all powerful being.

    A close examination of Darwinian evolution now can be used to support an argument that life on earth could have evolved without a plan, and that the human species is, as Stephen Jay Gould has characterized, just a “glorious evolutionary accident”.  The implications of believing that the human species is just an evolutionary accident is --  if it were possible to turn the clock back and run the evolutionary process forward again, there is very little possibility that the process would result in the human species again.

      Since this concept touches the human psyche so deeply, it is a concept that is difficult even for scientists to accept. In fact, some scientist have suggested that this concept is so threatening to a person’s sense of meaning that even scientists, who do not believe in God, still hold onto the belief, either consciously or unconsciously, that the human species did develop according to some plan.

    In his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennett methodically and quite lucidly explains the implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution from a philosopher’s point of view. The complete implications of  Darwin’s idea are so significant that Dennett calls it “Universal Acid” and he writes over 500 pages to fully  develop and document his ideas.

    Dennett’s analysis is so significant to higher meaning, in fact the subtitle of his book is Evolution and the Meanings of Life, that I believe it is essential to provide some overview of his ideas. I hope that I do them justice. However, I suggest that one must read Dennett’s book, if you need to be convinced of the truth in his arguments.

Universal Acid

    Dennett starts his analysis by describing the problems one would have, if one created an imaginary substance he calls universal acid. Unlike other acids, which only change some substances, universal acid changes everything that it comes in contact with. This compares with many acids that are highly corrosive to metal, but can be contained in glass containers, because they will not react with glass.

    The quandary of developing universal acid is, once you develop it, how could you contain it.  If you did develop universal acid, the ultimate impact would be that you would change all things on earth as it came in contact with the universal acid. The idea is somewhat like the China Syndrome, where the meltdown of a nuclear reactor would go through the earth until it reached China. By the same token, once Darwin developed his theory of evolution it was destined to change all philosophical thinking that came before.

    It is also important to point out that based on other accounts of the how Darwin went about developing his theory of evolution, it appears that Darwin had no prior intentions of contradicting contemporary philosophy or religious teachings. His indent was only to publish what the facts revealed about the development of life. In reality, he struggled with the implications of his theory and held back on the publications of his work for many years, and when he did publish, he published only some of his ideas.

    Prior to Darwin, world views were all of a top down orientation. I might add that for practical purposes, our daily lives today are still oriented in a top down orientation. All things fit into a hierarchy, which Dennett calls a Cosmic Pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid is nothingness or empty space or not even space if you think like a physicist. Next comes chaos, which can be put in order. The order is created according to some design or plan. The plan is developed by a mind. And, the ultimate mind, the all powerful all knowing, mind is God. I might add that this is how I was taught in Catholic school, that there is a God, and why he has the qualities that he has.

    For his analysis, Dennett believes that it is important to distinguish between order and design, which at one time may not have been an important destination. For example, science has been able to determine the universe has order, but it has not been able to determine that it has a purpose. When humans make things, they make them for a purpose. When we make an automobile its purpose is to provide transportation. However, when we look at the universe through science, we cannot determine that the universe has a purpose.

    What Darwin was able to show with his theory of evolution was  -- if we have a universe that just has order, given enough time, design can flow from order and the rest of the Cosmic Pyramid is not required. Simply stated, Darwin was able to provide a new way of thinking that was originally criticized as a “strange inversion of reasoning”. Darwin was able to overturn the Mind first way of thinking, which was essential to the proof that the universe was the product of Gods intelligence or Mind.

    The anthropomorphic principle is the idea that we as humans think about God in human terms. Thus, we tend to give him human qualities only that they are the ultimate state of these qualities. Naturally, it is logical for us to assume that some ultimate power or creator would create the universe in the same way that a human would design and create the universe, if only we had the power. The power of Darwin’s discovery is that life on earth has developed in a different way than the way a human would develop life.

    It is this concept that has been the source of all the controversy over evolution and not the simple fact that men are descendants from the apes. Ironically, because Darwin’s ideas were so controversial many people tried to disprove his thinking or find some fatal flaw. However, these efforts to disprove Darwin as well as much of what evolutionary science has done since have only reinforced his work. Darwin also left open the possibility of reconciling his ideas with prior world views. He suggested that while the process of natural selection was an automatic process that flowed from order, the design of the automatic process came from the Mind of God. However, this was more an accommodation to his critics rather than a true limitation to his ideas.

Design Without Intelligence

    Until Darwin’s discovery, the only design that we had been able to discover was design through intelligence. We are all familiar with the process of research and development, which is really a two step process. We define the term pure research as the process of discovering basic laws of how things in nature interact. Using this basic information as a resource we then design an artifact to perform a specific function. The essential part of the process is that we use our intelligence plus information about nature to configure the artifact so that it uses the basic forces of nature to accomplish a purpose that we have established at the beginning of the R&D process.

    If one looks at the complexity and elegance of nature, and one also only has one concept of design, it is not hard to conclude that something as complex as a human being must have been made by some higher intelligence. Most people have heard the criticism of evolution, which addresses the process of random variation and natural selection, which states  --   “No matter how long a thousand monkeys banged on typewriters they would never be able to create even one page of meaningful text”.

    What people do not understand is that Darwin discovered a whole new way of design. He combined an algorithm working over a long period of time with a means of storing the results of each step of the algorithm so that it did not have to be done over again each time. This process is what Dennett calls “the accumulation of design.

    Although I am trying to make this explanation as bare bones as possible, I do have to go back and define some terms. An algorithm is a process, which does not require the input of intelligence while the algorithm is working. It also could be described as what we think about as a mechanical process. The algorithm that works in evolution is selective adaptation of a species to the environment. The device that stores the information from each step is DNA. It is interesting to note that at the time that Darwin made his discovery, he was not aware of genetics, although Mendel had already done work in this area.

    It is also important to think about the way we think about an artifact and the design process. When individual humans take an active part in the design process, they have the end purpose of the artifact at the beginning of the design process. I would like to emphasize the word individuals here, because as I will discuss later, I believe that if you look at the long term development of a product in the market place, a product actually follows a Darwinian design process.

    In business, it is common for a company to reverse engineer the products of their competitors. In reverse engineering, a company already knows the function of the product. What it is trying to determine is how the product was made, or how much it might cost to make the product. One of the mistakes we make when we look at evolution through the fossil records is we try to apply reverse engineering to the process of evolution.

    Although there have been millions of steps in the evolutionary process that resulted in the development of the human species to date, the process is only on the current step. The process has no way of knowing what the next step will be until variation occurs and the one species that is more adept at survival in the environment, actually prevails over other species. Approximately 30,000 years ago Neanderthal men could no longer compete with Homo sapiens or Cro-Magnon men and they became extinct.

    When people look at the human species or any other animal and its ability to function in its environment, it is easy to assume the evolution is a very efficient process, when in fact it is just the opposite, however, it is very elegant. Many species have vestiges in their anatomical design of capabilities that are no longer required in the current environment. For example, some whales are born today with small leg type limbs, which are holdovers from the time, about fifty million years ago, when the whale’s ancestors walked on land.

    The evolutionary design process has limitation in the sense that once a species moves down a particular path, through evolution, it may never be able to develop a curtain capability. For example, it would be almost impossible for plants to develop eyes or legs. We also are only able to observe the species that survived long enough to leave a record in the fossil record. Evolution involves a constant process of emergence and extinction where species are relatively short lived. Thus, one could say the process is very inefficient, at least compared to the human method of design. However, if survival of life under conditions that are not known in advance is the end objective, this method of design appears to be the most reliable, if not the only process to use.    

    While most people do not have a problem accepting Darwinian evolution as an explanation for some of the development of life, many people still have a problem accepting the idea that evolution is responsible for the entire process from emergence of the first complex molecules all the way to the human species.

    Dennett introduces the idea of cranes and skyhooks. In his analysis, a crane is some acceptable step or improvement that can be explained by observed data or logical thinking, whereas a skyhook is some conceptual force or factor that is beyond logical thinking or the observable data. In evolution, a skyhook could be the hand of God. Since Dennett devotes a major portion to an analysis that supports the idea that Darwinian evolution can be explained through the use of cranes alone, I will simply state here that he makes a convincing case.

    However, in terms of the meaning of life, I believe it is important to look at the idea of cranes. More important, this example may illustrate why there is higher meaning to life, which can be use to establish personal meaning or a least can be used as guides in living life.

We Build Upon What Came Before

    Darwin’s process of evolution takes place by the smallest possible variation in design that is then selected by environmental factors. This is a slow process, so slow in fact, that it can not be perceived in action with the exception of observing some organisms, such as viruses, that have a very short time frame for each generation. There are some cranes such as sexual reproduction and human intelligence that can accelerate the process. These cranes do come at a cost. In the case of sexual reproduction only half of an organism’s genes are passed along in each generation and the organism must find a suitable partner. With human intelligence, which can anticipate rather than just react to current circumstance, we are able to develop genetic engineering. Through genetic engineering we can develop species that wouldn’t develop under natural circumstances.

    What we are able to accomplish as individuals or even as a species depends upon a very long period of design work. It has been about 600 million years since the first multicell organisms emerged. While we may be able to make huge leaps in design in terms of historical evolution we are making only a small addition in terms of the design work that has come before. While we believe that we have made huge advances in technology in the last hundred years, we have only learned how to use tools that were developed over billions of years. We did not create the tools we are simply using them.

    The timing of the development of the theory of evolution may be of interest to people as they think about the meaning of life. When Darwin published On the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, the English class system dominated society. People in the upper class believed that their superior position in society was due to some inherent qualities that they had at birth. It was hard for the upper class to accept that all people, including primitive peoples, had the same physical and mental capabilities. To the English gentlemen people sitting around at afternoon tea required more intelligence than people sitting around a campfire in the African Bush

Answer 5

Youre making a rookie mistake in assuming that humans are the ultimate form of life. While we are quite successful, the many extinct hominins of the past shows that bipedalism is not necessarily the best traits for every single environment. Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, and siamang ancestors were very well adapted to their environments, moreso than hominins were adapted to the environments of the other apes.

Answer 6

Evolution doesn't have a goal to produce humans.  It is simple selection.  It is very difficult for an animal to evolve into an occupied niche.  Humans aren't likely going to surrender the planet to some upstart ape anytime soon.

Answer 7

evolution is a fraud.  while the majority of believers of evolution argue that believers of intelligent design have no proof that there is a God, i would argue that believers of evolution have no real proof of evolution besides some similarities in bone structure that primates have compared to humans.

Answer 8

that is an oversimplification of Darwin's theory so oversimplified that the statement is wrong.

Answer 9

it takes some lakhs of years to transform from ape to human so the apes existing now will transform into human but takes plenty of years in which we can't alive, hope you understand well,if you still got dought send me a message ok

Answer 10

well it didnt happen one fine day it took millions of years of adaptation and selection.

you need to read the darwin theory thoroughly

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.c...

Answer 11

Darwin had a glimpse of the evolutionary page but didn't see the entire book.  A Great Student of Nature, he was but his theory needs work. The conclusion he came to is incorrect.

Answer 12

Because he was wrong.  His early theory was incomplete.  he assumed, like you do, that evolution is linear progressing until we reach Humans.  

Evolution is not linear.  Evolution is just progressive changes in our DNA, sometimes for better- sometimes for worse.  Competition between species and different environments cause those changes to be selected if they are positive; or not selected if that are not.  Human skin color for example: darker skins closer to the equator, where the sun is strong and protection is needed.  Whiter skins to allow more Vitamin D absorption from the Sun at the higher latitudes where it is weaker and less protection is needed.  Neither is better than another overall; but I am better suited further north, where others are better suited further south.  I can live in the south; and they can live in the north.  I just need a ton of sunscreen.

We are, of course, more closely related to Chimps than Apes.

Answer 13

Those apes who had better genes got transformed to human beings , and as on now

whose genes have degenerated are transforming human being to apes. TV shows a lot of humans acting like apes.