Sir — Mr Surman writes (August 29) 'all humans are descended from apes, and to suggest otherwise is inexcusable'. The word 'descended' suggests humans are of a lower order than apes, so perhaps 'ascended' would be a better word — after all humankind does dominate the planet, thanks to powers that no other animal possesses. What are these powers? One might cite reason, language, and speech.

Darwinism proposes that species arise differently according to the environment, so that for example a bird's beak will adapt from another species to eat insects rather than nuts. So, are we to suppose that speech in humans derives in a similar way from an ape's grunts or squeals?

How many generations would this take, and why do modern apes not show signs of developing speech, as their predecessors apparently did? And what was different about the apes that developed speech, and those that did not, and remain apes to this day?

Or is there a primeval ape, from which gorillas and humans owe their common ancestry? Are there any remains found of the many intermediary semi-apes that would have been necessary for this long transition from ape to human to have occurred?

All in all, we need to remember that Darwin's Theory of Evolution, brilliant though it was, is still only a theory, and should not, as Darwin himself recognised, be applied indiscriminately or unquestioningly.

Meanwhile, let us be protected from ideas which contend that opposing opinions are inexcusable, treasonable, or heretical.

Ken Weavers, Headington