Let's leave the apes for a minute. Let's ask a better question - if the reason for species evolving is necessity (natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz) then how come bacteria, who are reputed by evolutionists to be the first creatures, are also the most abundant, the most prolific, the most adaptable, the most long lived species and also constitute, in spite of their very small size - much smaller than a single human cell - some 90% of the biologic mass on earth?
Explain that one.
When evolutionists can prove to me that needing a million dollars results in a million dollars being deposited in my bank account, I will start believing in evolution.
Just in case anyone reading this thread mistook sophistry for an intelligent question:
if the reason for species evolving is necessity (natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz) then how come bacteria:
1. who (sic: which) are reputed by evolutionists to be the first creatures,
The carbon-dated fossil record seems to indicate that the earliest life forms were some various sorts of primitive prokaryotic bacteria. There is no evidence yet known of more developed creatures prior to or even contemporary to those early single-celled creatures.
2. are also the most abundant,
where's the contradiction? Almost all forms of prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria reproduce by cellular fission (mitotic division) and do so very rapidly, their generations measured in minutes under ideal conditions, and continue until the bacterial consumption of biological resources equals or exceeds the supply, at which point the explosive reproduction rate plateaus, even falls back. The only thing bacteria can do is eat and replicate. That's all they do, and they do it well.
3. the most prolific,
Again, where's the contradiction? See above.
4. the most adaptable,
Yet again, where's the contradiction? They are incredibly simple organisms which replicate by mitotic division. This means that the parent bacterium itself is the literal source of the material of two daughter cells. Any non-lethal change in any bacterial cell's DNA will be passed down to all of that cell's descendants. The parent cell ceases to exist as an individual upon the first mitosis, replaced by two "daughters" with identical DNA. Those two daughters undergo mitosis and give rise to four cells, which in turn make eight, and they in turn make 16, etc... so long as environmental conditions permit. The DNA of bacteria are just as subject to random transcription error and environmentally induced mutation as that of somatic and gametogenitor cells in a more advanced organism. The difference lies in the rate of generational replication and the abovenoted fact that the DNA is passed directly to the daughter cells. (Genetic changes in bacterial DNA also occur due to transduction, conjugation and transformation - an explanation of which would require several web pages). In an advanced sexually-reproduced creature, the mutation must be located in the gametogenitor cells for it to have any chance of being inherited, and the odds of the gamete of any particular mutant gametogenitor being used to create offspring are quite low. Daughter strains containing non-lethal mutations which are also not disadvantageous survive. As environments change, and as new environments are colonized, new strains come to dominate the new environmental niches. The end result is that bacteria speciate far more rapidly than do larger, more complex creatures.
5. the most long lived species,
Ah. Now that's a load of bull. Individual unicellular and multicellular bacteria are generally very short-lived. See above: the parent cell CEASES TO EXIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL upon mitotic division. A point which might lead to confusion: many forms of bacteria have the capacity to go dormant if in a non-hostile and non-nourishing environment. Like certain amphibians, fish, and arthropoda which can be frozen solid, all activities of active life are suspended until the environment becomes less austere. Another point which might give rise to confusion: species dependant upon mitotic division for continuance do not have replication restrictions encoded in their DNA, unlike somatic cells in advanced creatures. In sloppy layman's terms: they are not "programmed to die", and we are.
6. and also constitute, in spite of their very small size - much smaller than a single human cell - some 90% of the biologic mass on earth?
Well, let's see, now: Photoplankton (cyanophytes) constitute the largest segment of bacterial biomass. They inhabit in vast quantities all of the temperate and tropical waters on Earth. They are present in all soils. The Earth's surface is over 75% covered by water. The rest is largely covered in soil. Does this begin to clarify this last quibble, Grasshopper? Is anyone similarly upset that insects, ants especially, which individually mass far less than a human being, constitute the overwhelming percentage of the animal biomass on Earth? This was a very silly quibble.
I will add that it is the hallmark of the dogmatist to pester an opponent with a glom of many different questions phrased as a single, simple question. Liars, Lawyers, and politicians argue thus. When you see it, automatically suspect dishonesty and malice.