My view is that your question is implicitly teleological, at least the way it is phrased.
You kind of assume, a priori, that there is a 'why', when in fact the existence of humans is just one endpoint of a series of highly contingent events, some guided by selection, others completely stochastic. If we could 're-run the clock' of evolution *even with the exact same starting conditions* humans might look entirely different or not even exist at all.
Others have already commented on the various roles of selection, different types of selection, and random 'chance' processes. What must be remembered is that the overall process of evolution is not in any way directed at an outcome. Nor does all evolutionary change necessarily arise from some 'need' on the part of an organism.
TWR writes:
why have we not stayed consistent in being able to do things that past "ancestors" were able to do - from apes to the first origin
That easy. A lot of evolutionary change requires trade-offs. Organisms end up with new traits that essentially replace older traits. So sometimes old functionality is lost, never to be regained, when new functionality is acquired. Every organism has evolutionary constraints that arise from its phylogenetic history and limit the possible pathways for future evolutionary change.
Hope this helps.
EZ