various perspectives on this question 
If evolution is the underlying principle of creation, why don?t apes
still evolve into men?

---

Request for Question Clarification by mvguy-ga on 19 Dec 2003 14:37 PST

What evidence would you need for an acceptable answer?  I'm not sure
what "various perspectives" there are, since the fact of evolution
isn't in dispute among scientists.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 19 Dec 2003 16:14 PST

Hi there,

I'm a biologist, and I'd be glad to give you a biologist's perspective
on why apes aren't evolving into humans.  But I'm not sure from your
question if a biology perspective is what you're looking for.

---

Clarification of Question by supermal-ga on 19 Dec 2003 17:07 PST

biology perspective is good

Hello again, supermal-ga,

You've asked a very interesting question, and one that gets right to
the core of one of the main tenets of evolution, as it is understood
by modern biologists.

Evolution is non-directional.

By this, I mean there is no evolutionary "push" for an ape (or for any
other organism) to become something more complex, more brainy, less
ape-like and more human-like.

As digsalot-ga pointed out in a comment, below, no one claims that
humans evolved from apes.  Rather, both species evolved from a common,
long-extinct ancestor.

Nevertheless, many non-biologists have an idea that evolution tends to
the more "sophisticated" forms of life, so that apes should gradually
be evolving into a "higher" form like human beings.

Not so!

All species have natural variations in their genetic makeup that
introduce variability into the population -- some individuals (whether
bacteria, plants, insects, apes) will vary from others in their color,
size, strength, sensitivity to smells, sounds and sights, and so on.

If the change is detrimental to the individual (and detrimental means
"makes it less likely that it will reproduce), then the gene for that
change is not likely to be passed on to future generations.

If the change is beneficial (i.e. the individual is more likely to
reproduce) then the gene for that change is more likely to get carried
forward to future generations.

So...it's quite possible that apes ARE still evolving.  That is,
natural variations in the population are being selected for or
against, and -- slowly -- an ape population takes on new
characteristics.

And I do mean slowly!  These are changes that accumulate over the
course of many generations -- think thousands or tens of thousands of
years.  So we're not likely to see many obvious changes in the course
of a mere human lifetime or two (genetic changes can accumulate faster
in, say, bacteria, which can reproduce several times a day, but ape
reproduction takes many years).

But if we could somehow glance ahead into the future, it may be that
some populations of apes have changed quite a bit -- maybe they've all
become bright blue!  Or perhaps they would be able to digest wood as
part of their diet.

Bottom line is that they may well be evolving, but there's no reason
to expect them to evolve in any direction that would have them
becoming or resembling human beings.

One species of humans on this planet is enough, if you ask me!


There's a pretty good on-line encyclopedia entry on evolution at Bartleby.com:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

which defines evolution as a: "concept that embodies the belief that
existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual,
continuous change from previously existing forms."

You'll note that neither in the definition nor anywhere else in the
article, is evolution given a "direction" whereby apes "should" become
more human-like.

This is obviously a complex topic (though fascinating, no?).  If
anything here isn't clear, just let me know by posting a Request for
Clarification, and I'll be happy to assist you further.

pafalafa-ga


search strategy:  none, really, other than a search of my own gray
matter...I enjoyed the opportunity to put my biological training to
good use.

That amongst many other arguments is a reason why evolution is nothing
more than a theory.  Evolution hasn't, can't and never will be proven
to be the mechanism for creation.  It is typically deemed as fact in
light of unbelief in a higher order.  Scientifically, the mechanism of
evolution is relegated to the realms of theory.  So how can evolution
be deemed a fact without a proven mechanism?  One must "believe" that
evolution is true in order to accept it as fact.  It's a faith.

Evolutionists have not claimed man evolved from apes.  Both apes and
man share a common ancestor which is quite a different thing.

These incessant repetitions of untruths by creationists demonstrate
two things.  1 - that they act from ignorance and 2 - that they
deliberately mislead and misinform for the purpose of an agenda based
on dogmatic absolutes- - their deliberate misuse of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is a good example of the latter.

Their deliberate misuse of the word "theory" when applied to
scientific principle is another good example of a deliberate attempt
to lead astray.

The dictionary contains several definitions of the word "theory".
Science uses the word to mean, a model - a set of ideas that tries to
tie a body of knowledge together. Much like "music theory".

Some good examples of those things which scientifically fall under the
concept of "theory" are Euclidean Geometry - Archimedean Statics -
Galilean Dynamics
Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory - Einstein's Relativity Theories -
Quantum Theory - and the Theory of Gravity.

By the time science defines something as "theory" it is well past the
point of being ONLY theory by the common definition of the word.  It
is the common definition that creationists push in the hopes it will
sidetrack people from the solid facts evolutionists can state.

In fact, the word "theory" is not even used by evolutionists or
biological science any longer.  It fell out of use shortly after the
end of the Second World War.  The current statement made by those in
biological sciences is "Nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution."  Only the creationists have held on to the word "theory"
and try to convince others that that is where the scientific community
is still at.

Now I know there are a couple of renegade scientists who have joined
the creationist bandwagon, mostly for the deep pockets it provides,
such as Michael Behe, who has already been proven a liar when refering
to research he claims was never performed but much of which has been
dated to long before his books were published, and a couple of others.
 But the overwhelming majority of "creation scientists" are bunk and
demonstrably so.

Creationists keep asking the same questions over and over.  They have
been given answers.  However, they ignore those answers, claim their
questions were ignored, and ask them over and over again.  It seems to
be based on the principle that if a lie is repeated often enough, it
becomes the truth.

I seem to spend half my time going from school board to school board
battling this same issue.  I am just sorry it finally raised its head
in here.

If I get in trouble battling the creationist attempts at misleading,
misdirection, deliberately misquoting science and demonstrated fact,
evangelizing for scientific ignorance, and to put it politely -
deliberately pushing untruths - in here - so be it.  I can live with
that.

Creationism is superstition, plain and simple.  There is not one
single iota of scientific principle involved in "creation science." 
There is not one single claim that creationists have ever made that
has not been disproven by valid science - not one.

Yet they refuse to acknowledge the answers and they certainly refuse
to let anybody know they have been answered.  They will ask the same
question again tomorrow.

Creation Theory is indeed a science. If you want to get to know more
about it you can read about it here:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

Easterangel-ga

I wouldn't give much credence to a site that says evolution runs
counter to the second law of thermodynamics. Statements like that give
creationists a bad name.

With all due respect (perhaps not much is due?) to the site at the [
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ ]link, I could very easily answer
the "unanswerable" questions that "should be asked if you believe that
evolution is true."

For example: "How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution
explain this? "

Why possibly could evolution NOT explain this phenomena?  The formed
relationship is simply something that was first allowed for by some
random genetic change, however slight, that allowed the creatures to
approach each other.  Other behaviors interate, and the combined
relationship allowed more survivabilty than the individual behaviors
alone, and thus they both has increased chances for reproduction and
evolutionary retention.

I would LOVE to answer each one of these, actually, but I'm quite tired.  

I also realize also that no amount of this sort of discussion will
discourage these "scientists."  "Creation theory by default" is a sad
misinterpreation of scientific principle, but because it is rooted in
established religion will be quite difficult to dispel.

Regards to all,
-Andrewxmp

Why in the world does the Creation vs. Evolution controversy die so
hard?  My theory includes the fact that a whole culture came into
being in the USA, which required that the Negro slaves be considered
as animals, (i.e. without souls), in order to justify the horrendous
treatment they received.  Evolution includes the fact, not only that
monkeys are our "ancestors", but also that blacks are the ancestors of
whites.  Given the "slave holders' culture", this simply had to be
refuted, and the absolute arguments against Evolution survive to this
day, (along with the racism).  We could get into endless specifics,
such as are touched on by andrewxmp-ga.
But the simple fact governing this question, is that God has the right
to use evolution to create Mankind, if He/She wishes to.  If God wants
to use millions of years, to create everything, who are we, (the
potter's clay), to protest, and require that God create with "magic".
Certainly, almost every Christian understands that some statements in
the Bible are symbolic statements, with symbolic meanings.   If you
are one of those who believe that all statements in the Bible can only
be literally true, I have a bridge in Manhattan I would like to sell
to you.
So, I happen to believe that God "made" everything, and that does not
prove that nothing evolved.  Part of the beauty of this "theory", is
that we do not have to assume that God is so short-sighted as to
disallow our "evolving" further, in the future.  Far be it from God,
to ever want us to be bored.
So, theoretically, modern monkeys could "evolve" into "humans" in the
future, but we all know that isn't going to happen, because we humans
would not allow it.  Just as we "Cro-Magnon, (sp?)" are suspected to
have killed off the "Neanderthal", we would never allow modern monkeys
to successfully "compete" with us.  And that is just as God would have
it, I believe.
If you want the authoritative "religious theory", backing up my
assertions here, you must study the new revelation called "Divine
Principle", which can be found through the following links:
<http://familyfed.org/>
<http://www.euro-tongil.org/>
<http://unification.net/>
Bon appetite,
God Bless,
trueparent-GA