Atheist please.?

Question

I have one question and I mean this with no disrespect or mockery.
I once heard this question posed to an Athiest and he could not answer it with a plausable make sence type of answer.
Here goes.
If we are decendents of apes, monkeys etc., why are there still monkeys, apes, ets? If one group of monkeys/apes were able to learn and evolve then why were the others not able to? Monkeys/apes learn by example so it makes sense to say that if one monkey/ape saw another monkey/ape doing something that was improving life for them and the family then why did the monkey/ape not take it back and teach his/her family group.
Just wondering if I can get a answer with out mockery and slander that makes sense.
thanks

answers that are answering the question please.

remember folks. I am asking a question. Without disrespect or mockery. let see if Aussiechick actually answer a question with out one of the two. And Yea, I am sort of new to the site so please educate me.

Answer 1

I am not an atheist, but I will, indeed answer the question without mocking, without cutting and pasting, and without needing to insult anyone in the process.

Evolution does not state that humans evolved from apes and monkeys. It states that human beings evolved from common ancestors with apes and monkeys. Those species which are currently present on the face of the Earth aren't less evolved versions of human beings which were left behind, they're the currently evolved versions of older ancestor species, most of which are long extinct.

As environments change, organisms must do one of two things. Either a) they adapt to their new circumstances, or b) they suffer and die.

Over the course of time, those organisms which most successfully adapt to their new world produce offspring which can out-compete those organisms which are not as capable. Naturally, they consume a greater and greater percentage of resources and secure greater opportunities for mating, literally forcing the older, more ill-adapted species into extinction if they haven't gone extinct from sheer lack of ability to survive in the new environment.

As environments diversify and change in inconstant ways, one ancestor species may give rise to several descendant species, each of which is a representation of how it evolved to fill each changing niche (Darwin's finches are a good example of this).

Each species may share common ancestry with the other species descended from its ancestors, but that doesn't mean they're descended from one another. In the case of primates, it means just because we're related, we're not necessarily descended from monkeys and apes.

We can trace our evolution back quite far and can show where our ancestry began to diverge (about two million years ago) from other primates. For humans, the trail began because our forests began to die off and become the Savannah we see in today's Africa. Fewer trees meant less food concentrated in one place, and greater amount of time spent walking on flat ground (which most primates aren't very good at) to get from one food source to the other as they dwindled and became more scarce.

As a result, those of our ancestors whose knees-- and it was the development of our knees, and not our brains, which began our evolution to the humans we are today-- were most able to cope with propelling them on the long journeys were able to more easily collect adequate food, avoid predation while walking from food source to food source, expend less effort in their searches (leaving them more time to search and leaving them in better condition to breed). As time went on, eventually those with good knees edged out those without them and drove the less adapted members of the species into extinction, leaving behind a new species... the beginning on the long road to man.

Why didn't those ancestors who were better adapted to walk from one food source to another teach their families how to do it? The answer to that, while it may be a bit rude is... why don't parents simply teach their wheelchair bound children to walk?

It isn't a matter of learning that keeps these children from walking properly (or most anyone else, for that matter). It's a lack of physical ability. No matter how much effort you put into it, no matter how much time, you cannot teach someone a physical trick their bodies simply cannot pull off. I have little doubt much effort was expended by our ancestors to help the more ill adapted members of our species survive.

We are pretty social creatures, and it's long been our habit, even though we're often savage, to drive ourselves to greater effort to aid our families and social groups. So, I would imagine quite an effort was made by those who could make the trip to gather up the food and at the very least bring it back to feed the rest of their families. Over the course of a lifetime or two, though, those who couldn't fend for themselves would have died out despite those efforts, though.

While they were waiting in vulnerable spots for the more evolved animals to bring them back food, they would have fallen prey to other animals seeking food (they were not well adapted to run away, remember), or they would have died of thirst and exposure under the hot sun while others were taking necessary rest in the shade and re-building their strength for the return trip with food, etc... so no matter how caring, over the course of time evolution would have had its way and done away with those organisms which couldn't survive because we had not developed the talent to defy the world yet.

The same holds true for learning. Have you ever tried to teach someone who was mentally handicapped a task you found easy to accomplish? Have you ever trained a dog? The task is so simple you could simply pick it up on the first try, something so within your grasp all someone would have to do is walk by and say "sit down" without even explaining the result they expected, and you could do it, but is it that easy to teach them? Suddenly the effort takes days and weeks, if you can figure out how to teach others the task at all. Quite often they don't learn because it's simply beyond their capacity to. Today we simply continue to care for those of our own species, or others we choose to adopt, because we've become sufficiently talented that it's within our grasp to do so and sustain them... but we often don't have the skill to do so, as can be easily seen through most of our history, and which continues to be seen by our grief and frustration as we lose those we want so desperately to save from suffering and death because we simply don't have the talent to save them yet.

While it may be a very long row to hoe and a complex one to explain adequately when talking about just how humans evolved (and admittedly there are ways in which we are atypical in our evolution... for instance, we show virtually know radiative evolution), it isn't a mystery how we evolved, and there aren't nearly as many unanswered questions as Creationists would have you think.

It's just that, as with all scientific explanations concerning large processes over a long period of time, the explanation is very involved, often very technical, and most people simply don't have the talent or education to understand more than the basics of it... which leaves them believing there are a lot of problems with the explanation when it's their understanding of the situation that's faulty.

Answer 2

First of all, humans evolved from the same ancestors as the other great apes (which are different from monkeys). The great apes are spread out over a very large area of the world. Most did not have the same environmental pressures that our ancestors did. Because of this difference, the other great apes evolved in a different direction. One big misconception is that the apes haven't evolved. They have, just not the same way we did.

Second, evolution is not about 'learning', it is about the genetics of a population changing. Cultural information can be passed from individual to individual in the same generation, but genetic information cannot. What determines which evolutionary track a species takes is survival based on the genetic differences, not the cultural ones. Also, realize that what works best for the plains of Africa doesn't work best for the rain forest, or the deserts, etc. There is a lot of variation.

Answer 3

Basically its the same as every other evolution path taken. Some take the path, other stay behind. Its kind of hard to explain so just try to understand what I'm trying to say.

Take dinosaurs for instance. At one point, during evolution, all the creatures on earth dwelled in the water. Throughout time, some of them took to land, but not all of them.

This works the same way for ever species that ever evolved. Some will go one way, some another. It may be likely that the monkeys of today too have evolved from their common ancestor with humans, but simply took a different path.

I mean, if you really study evolution, then you would know that supposedly we all came from, what was it, amoeba or something of the like? If so, several of the same thing took different paths and branched out into many many inumberable numbers of creatures.

There are many other examples of animals that have common ancestors but are very different today. I recall one about the hippo being related to the whale.

"One has no legs and swims in the ocean, and the other has
four legs and lives in rivers, but a genetic study shows that the whale and the hippo are close relatives in evolutionary history." (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0289.html)

Answer 4

The others were (are still) able to, but dont need to, they thrive as they are.
If any do evolve then it gives them the abillity to live somewhere else and not compete with the original stock.

I think that you are assuming that only the best will do, anything less will not survive. Nature sure doesnt work that way, it is efficient and "good enough" will certainly do. If a monkey doesnt need to think or reason to live where it does would it bother doing it even if it could?


You would think that, to a snake, legs would be a "must have", and anything that could have legs would. There are reptiles that have only tiny remnants of legs, they didnt need them. So that has gone even further than the monkey example, from not having a "bonus" feature to having it, then not having it again.

Answer 5

How long have you been on this forum? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and I am going to assume that you've never seen the many many times this has been asked.

Here goes.

The theory DOES NOT say that man came from the apes we see today. It says that we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with apes.

This common ancestor could be called an ape, or referred to as ape like... but it no longer exists. We will call that common ancestor "CA"

So... imagine there were all these CAs running around. Some went in one direction and some went in another. Some went to the jungle, and they evolved ***to adapt to their environment*** into various species of apes and monkeys.

Others went to dry areas (or wherever) and evolved into humans. Not all at one time, but in little steps, as evidenced by the many hominid fossils we have. (see link)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

That is how it happened. And, if you would like to know more - remember, you don't have to agree to understand, so don't be afraid - then explore the other areas of this site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

And... the person above me has a good point. I am not an atheist or a theist. There are people from all wroldviews that accept evolution. The term is evolutionist.

Answer 6

I am no longer an Atheist, but I do believe in science and will try to answer your question.

I believe it has something to do with the region or area of the world in which they lived.

There are many species of bugs, but certainly the ones in the rain forest have developed differently than the ones in the desert-they have done what was necessary to live. Just because some of the bugs have evolved, doesn't mean they all have, or that they have done so at the same rate or in the same way.

It is possible that in the area that our evolutionary ancestors lived, their was greater competition for survival, so we had to prolong our aging to adulthood in order to learn. Some of the other species of apes might have lived in an area where this did not become as much of a necessity.

Good question!

Best wishes.

Answer 7

Most likely the group of monkeys/apes that evolved into humans, started from a small group of monkeys/apes or just 2 monkeys/apes, that seperated from the rest of the monkeys/apes and went to a distant land or a cave and then developed into what humans are today, in between the group of humans seperated into different continents of the world and from their we developed seperately, which is why we have seperate looks and mentalities due to our historical evolved cultures and adaptations to the climate and environment.

The reason why the other monkeys/apes didn't chase after the ancestors of humans before they started to become different from monkeys/apes, is for the same reason why monkeys/apes have different species that have different looks and behaviors. Actually I think it must have been God that guided the acnestors of humanity away from the other monkeys/apes and led us to the path of righteousness, for generally monkeys/apes are the opposite of righteousness to one another, and it must have been something out of this world that led one group of monkeys/apes to go against the innate "monkeyish" behavior and get along with each other and develop together like how to write on walls to communicate and how to make tools and etc. without constantly fighting with each other over females or food.

Answer 8

Evolution takes millions of years in species like the humans. This is not necessary the condition of other animals like fishes or lizards. Many families of fishes evolve rapidly in isolation, for example the ciclids of the African lakes of Malawi or Tanganyika need to adapt rapidly to the changing condition of the lakes caused by the drying seasons. Another interesting example of the adaptation are the sharks of the like Nicaragua , this lake was a part of the Pacific Ocean some millions of years ago, they are the only sharks living in not salty water. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, we are not monkeys. Think about the Orcas(Killer Wales) and his similarity to the dolphins. I will highly recommended the last issue of National Geographic where you see an excellent article about the Humans and Chimpanzees.

Answer 9

If you seriously research evolution, you will discover that it does not call for "a leap of faith", but rather sound reasoning. If you were to sincerely examine all the facts for yourself, you would you reach the same conclusion

When an organism evolves it changes over very long periods of time to adapt to new conditions. when a group of mammals climbed up trees they developed the monkey like form, where the developed an opposible thumbs to grip branches, this does not mean the land mammals cease to exist, When a group of monkeys came down from the tree and began to lean to walk upright, this freed their hands to be able to make tools.

When evolution creates the branches, it does not keep one and discard the rest. Each one of the various species that exists today is most suited to its environment. That is the natural law of life.

1. How else will you explain how we have almost similar DNA.
2. How would you explain, the fossils we have found showing the transitory stages of evolution.

Another example is agriculture and the breeding of dogs. we genetically altered plants to give better fruit according to our likes. we have created so many breeds of dog through breeding practices. If you were to put a great Dane next to a chuwahwah you cant even tell they belong to the same species, but a DNA test would reveal the truth.

If we reject evolution we are also rejecting biology and everything that come with it, including medicine, agricultural sciences, DNA research etc.

Find out more info and verify for yourself by participating in the Genographic project-
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

Answer 10

If on the other hand, Man was created from dirt, why do we still have dirt.

Humans did NOT evolve from monkey--no evolutionists claim this. The claim is that at one point, there was a ape-like descendent whose evolutionary path split in two--one path becoming human, one becoming apes (not monkeys)

Guess what, that descendent is not around anymore, so there's your answer right there.

Please stop using this silly argument. Even extreme fundamentalist groups have acknowledged that it is not a valid argument against evolution and have asked well-meaning but ignorant creationists to stop using it as it make creationists look silly.

Answer 11

Several million years ago one type of ape evolved into two or more distinct groups, perhaps as a result of being geographically isolated from each other. One group further evolved and diverged into a number of different forms including modern humans (all the other forms such as Australopithecus are, of course, extinct, but we know about them from their fossilised remains). Another group evolved into other kinds of ape, including the several species of chimpanzee that we see in the world today.

We are rather more genetically distant from monkeys than we are from other apes (monkeys have tails, apes do not) so the most recent common ancestor of humans and monkeys existed longer ago than the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. On the same principle, we are genetically even further from other mammals, further still from reptiles, yet further still from bananas and so on, but we know that all species ever studied on Earth are related by common descent because many different kinds of evidence show this to be so.

Non-human species do indeed learn from others and have a 'culture' of sorts (i.e. shared behaviour which is learnt rather than inherited), but by its very nature learned behaviour doesn't affect evolution. The two things (learning and evolution) are completely different and independent.

Hope this helps. Try the talk.origins website for better and more detailed information, and then go on to some popular science books by authors such as Steve Jones, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan etc. Happy reading :-)