do you believe we evolved from gorillas/monkeys?

Question

If we evolved from gorillas than why are there still gorillas if something evolves than what was is gone and the new is what will continue to populate.

Answer 1

This idea that apes are still around, so we couldn't have evolved from them is a surprisingly common argument that reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

Some Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Answer 2

We did not evolve from gorillas or monkeys -- or chimps or any other ape.

And, no evolutionist or biologist will tell you that we did. Evolution has never claimed that we evolved from apes.

We share a common ancestor with apes. This is very different:

In other words, apes are our cousins, not our grandparents.

Chimpanzees are our closest ape relatives: Their lineage "branched off" from our lineage about 5 million years ago. Since then, we have both clearly evolved to do very different things:

They evolved to live a wordless life grunting about while searching mainly for plant material in the rain forests.

Humans evolved to talk, think, plan, hunt, fight, and compete with other humans for status, love, power, and a thousand other things.

Evolution is like a BUSH, not a LADDER: New species branch off, then other species branch off from that one, and most species eventually go extinct. Evolution doesn't work like a ladder, in which one organism somehow turns into another (like a gorillas evolving into humans), and yet the "lower" form still sticks around.

No, the species we evolved directly from are all extinct. All that are left are distant cousins.

There were lots of other "hominid" species a few million or a million years ago: Other creatures that walked upright, talked, and made tools. It appears that we -- the new and cleverest and most aggressive model -- drove them to extinction.

Answer 3

IF we evolved from monkeys and gorillas there would be an in-between species


anything that has evolved there would be an in-between species

there is no gorilla-man or monkey-man or even orangatan-man, despite how you might feel about some blokes

Proof: in the british museum there are a row of horses that prove evoloution, hey, wait a min, they are all horses - same species.

same with dogs, there are many different breeds - they are ALL dogs

Answer 4

We didn't evolve from gorillas, or monkeys. That's just plain ignorance arguments from christians who don't read about evolution. The evolution theory says we evolved from primitive forms of primates, which branched off and formed all the different primates we have today, gorillas, chimpanzees etc.. We have a common ancestor and thus share 98% of genes with chimps.

Answer 5

First at all I consider that we are not evolved! We are extremely dependent on society and unable to leave normally without a lott of additional support from all directions.
We waste space and energy and destroy the environment around us, extinct other species around, and declare that we are evolved.
I believe we are relatives with some monkeys, and we are derivating from some other species, but we are not at all evolved.

Answer 6

No : It is the gorillas and monkeys who are feeling disgusted just now, about their latest discovery - they THEY evolved from us !
:-))

Answer 7

I think we did cause some of my friends act like gorillas or monkeys and they're not even trying to. it's scary.

Answer 8

nope... but i have a feeling we did share a common ancestor with them. the good thing is there is plenty of evidence to support this. Why we developed big brains is not the right way to ask this. We developed larger brains over time because having a larger brain gave us an advantage other animals didn't have.

Answer 9

we do not evolve from the gorillas. they are their own species and so are we.

Answer 10

It seems pretty clear that "some of us" have. But anyway, I would suggest reading up on Carl Sagan & his series "Cosmos". Then I would offer to you, to study up a bit more on the subject(s) "English" & "Grammar" (no offense). Happy reading & Good Luck!