OK, on we go with evolution. Some answers that I got to a different question about evolution?

Question

stated that we didn't evolve from monkeys but from a common animal that both evolved from. So I still have the same question!
Why did we , humans, not evolve with the phyical skills that monkeys have? Instead we evolved into pretty rigid, easliy broken, creatures. There can not be a logical answer to this but give it a shot. Why?

Quite funny how one answer asks me: Do you think primates never get injured? Of course they do but not nearly as easily as we do. They can use their feet just like they were hands. They have a tail they can hang with. And then their is the ever present, we have brain power instead, which is not a logical answer. Wouldn't we be better off with all these things combined? The theory of evolution would not even be in place today, if it were not for the fact that monkeys and apes exist. Think about where the evolutionists started out from. A missing link. Which will never be found because there isn't one to find.

Natural selection, the basis of the theory of evolution. Wouldn't you all agree with that?
So if it were natural selection, we would be stronger then we are, have the abilities of other primates, not get sun burned, not have knees that break so easily, and still be where we are today. That we have made tools to overcome our inabilities only shows that these abilities should have been evolved into what we are today. And monkeys and apes, in their natural state do no harm to the enviroment. They need no fire. No transportion. And they live in family groups that take care of each other. Etc.

Answer 1

Because Evilution is nothing but a myth

Answer 2

Why do creationists such as abdulaziiz above engage in dishonest quote mining? Have they no morals? Have they no sense of honor and decency?. Are they so dishonest that they will take quotes out of context to make an absurd point?

Let's see the quote mentioned above in context:

Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago [...]

A discussion follows of the extensive fossil evidence of dryopithecinces and ramapithecines, biochemical estimates of the date of divergence of humans and chimps, a discussion of the rise of bidpedalism, and David Pilbeam's estimates of the branching times for the various groups of hominoids. That's just chapter three ("Ape-Like Ancestors"). Chapter four ("The Early Hominids") picks up on the near side of the fossil gap referred to in the quote.

Notice the matter of fact assertion of the relatedness of the apes and humans, compared with the qualified warning about making inferences about the precise paths involved in the origin of hominoid sub-groups - the first point is well-confirmed, whereas the second topic had plenty of room for dispute in 1981 (and there remains plenty of room for debate still, of course). Does this passage really question the relatedness of apes and humans? Of course not. Does it call for caution in pin-pointing the timing of the branch off points for the various groups, and in identifying the particular evolutionary paths, Yes.

It is thought that the same mutation which enabled our large brains also made us weak. Weakening the jaw muscles allowed the skull to be larger.

Answer 3

There is a theory that after we climbed down out of the trees and learned to stand up, we went swimming again...which is why humans have stream-lined bodies and can swim so well...also it may account for the habit of most humans to spend time at the beach whenever they can and how come suburban backyards sprout swimming pools.
If we did return to the sea (or river/lake) after the trees this would also account for us not being as strong as gorillas and why we are a whole lot less hairy. And why orangatangs enjoy fruit and leaves while we enjoy a good feed of fish and chips.
Both tools and fire came into use sometime about then.
Also it has been proven by archeologists that Neanderthal Man was a close cousin, but like the gorilla, it evolved on a different branch. Indeed Homo Sapiens may well have contributed to the Neanderthals extinction/genocide.

Answer 4

I don't understand your question? are you asking why we didn't evolve the same way as other primates? Think of the common ancestor as a grandfather. (Yes, it's over thousands of generations, but let's allow the microcosm to represent the macrocosom for a moment, okay?).

Grandpa is the father of two children. Lets say your dad and your cousin's dad. Now lets say your cousin was born with color-blindness and you were not. Okay, you have the advantage here. But your cousin is a gifted musician. He has the advantage THERE.

Physically, we have nothing like the other primates abilities, but mentally, we've got the advantage.

Now what you have to understand is that the human and ape were not just born as cousins one day, but rather that, over millions and millions of years, this common ancestor's offspring evolved until there were two distinct sub-species - like grey squirrels and red squirrels... the same species, but somehow different. With further evolution, eventually they become unable to breed with each other and still produce fertile offspring (like donkeys and horses produce mules, which are always infertile). This is the point at which we can say they are two distinct species. A horse and a donkey still look pretty much alike, but if they breed together, it is a one-time thing: the offspring will not be able to reproduce and evolve further. Horses can mate with horses and donkeys with donkeys. Eventually, the horse and the donkey will elvolve to such an extent that they will not longer be able to mate with each other. That is where humans and other primates (probably the chimpanzee is our closest cousin) are. We cannot mate with them and produce offspring.

I hope that helps.

Answer 5

I DID ALREADY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:

"Evolution created traits that are best suited to the environment."

"From this ancestor humans evolved our current traits by living in one environment. Modern apes evolved their traits from living in another environment. One group, or gene pool, lived in the jungle, where strength and agility were far more valuable then being bipedal and gaining intelligence. These became modern apes. Another gene pool lived in the savanna, where strength and agility weren't as important as intelligence and bipedalism."

We evolved different physical traits then monkeys because we were exposed to a different environment. The bigger, stronger a species is, the harder it is to maintain/grow. So s species will evolve to be as strong as it needs to be within an environment.

Answer 6

Because humans substituted strength for intelligence. We're physically weak because our brains adapted in a way that allowed us to build houses and make clothes to keep us warm, spears so that we no longer needed to have strong teeth. Because of this, natural selection no longer favoured the slightly more robust. Does it matter if a man with thick, strong bones, or a man with brittle bones throws a spear? Would it matter if we had wooly coats to keep out the cold when we had fire? The weaker of us survived because of these technological advances and were therefore able to interbreed.

Answer 7

You think other primates never get injured? How could you assume something like that?
Added: Okay since apparently you can't read between the lines can I see your statistical data on primate injury by species?

As to why we don't have the same skills, evolution is adaptation to environmental conditions. We don't need the same skills as monkeys. There is evidence of our shared heritage however, such as our opposable thumb.

and the David Pilbeam quote, that's ridiculous. His evolutionary research is funded by the National Science Foundation. I'd like to see your source because the quote was obviously taken out of context...now I see. You attributed something to him he never said.

Answer 8

Your question is evolving slowly but surely into "pretty rigid, easily broken question. The logical answer is this quick shot, back!

Answer 9

Simple answer... different evolutionary paths. Our species had different challenges to overcome than that of apes, chimps, or the rest of the primate family. Different environmental challenges favor different attributes to be selected.

Answer 10

To sum the evolution theory up :

God created everything what we see around us as it is.
“In the beginning God created”, period. A Christian will believe it and stick with it.

The Serpent’s seed (Satan’s children) will have their own theory - evolution - because they don’t know where they are coming from...

The whole scientific search - since the very beginning - was to try and identify the missing link between Man and animal.

Satan’s children uses the theory - evolution - to try and trace their origin, which they will never discover, because God had cursed that being (whom their father the devil had used) into the form of a snake.

Originally the snake was an upright being who had the appearance of a man, could walk and talk like a human being, but just without a soul. It was a specie between a chimpanzee and man. Crossbreeding is possible between many species in the chain of creation, except between man and animal.

This particular being, who was called the “Serpent” could do cross breeding and Satan used that opportunity to create his own race upon the earth. Cain was a direct offspring of that beast, by stature and by nature …

Cain was the son of Satan via the Serpent (beast) and is still with us today
Abel/Seth was the son of God via Adam and is also still with us today

They both had the same mother - Eve - but two different fathers (genes) - God in Adam and Satan in the Beast (Serpent)

God had called enmity between the serpent`s seed and His own Seed.

We see the results of it all around us everyday in the form of Wars, Murders, adultery etc.

Satan is the father of all darkness and filth and confusion ...
God is Purity and Rightiousness and His children will find that rescue Place of Redemption. They will be affected by Satan`s sin, but not be conformed to it, because it is not in their nature ...

Answer 11

In the spirit of science, which will always entertain an idea long enough to puzzle it out--because a real scientist loves a good puzzle...

Though I couldn't say where, in said proposed scenario, the two paths might have divulged...remember that monkeys have better physical skills and are smart, but not smart at all compared to us. (Well, most of us, anyway.)