Evolution question?

Question

If man evolved from apes and monkeys, why are there still apes and monkeys?

Answer 1

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University. The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer.

Answer 2

Man didn't evolve from apes and monkeys. Humans, apes, and monkeys share a common ancestor that no longer exists. Those are two very different concepts.

Learn a little about evolution before you question it.

Answer 3

There is a group of monkey-like animals. One of the monkeys are born with a weird ability---he was bigger, bulkier, and more intelligent. This did not hinder it's social interaction, but he was different and had to find his own ways to get food. Now this weird monkey's mother had another child---this child was the same as the other monkeys. Over time, this weird monkey had many offspring, some of which got even weirder. The weird monkeys sister had a steady descendant line with no oddities. Over more time, the weird monkey became an ape. The normal monkey's descendants stayed a monkey. Now to the apes. The apes that descended from this weird monkey had another weirdo---this weirdo walked upright. And the story starts over again, with the weirdo becoming man and the weirdo's brothers and sisters staying ape.

That is evolution, my friend.

Long story short: Monkeys and apes came from a common ancestor. Monkeys go along one line of this ancestor, apes go along another. Now apes go along this same line, while humans branch off and go on another.

Monkeys are not ancestors---they are cousins.

Answer 4

I have seen this silly question two dozen times. Why shouldn't there be apes, monkeys and humans living together? Evolution involves one small group of a species, so the majority remain as they are. If God created man from dust, why is there still dust? If Eve was made from Adam's rib, why do men still exist? Your question is as senseless as these are. You should study evolution more before you listen to illiterates who try to find invalid flaws in it. Men and apes are cousins, not parent and child. Say something original, rather than repeating nonsense. I am certain you can concoct something as silly as Morris et Cie do.

Answer 5

Are you serious?
No, I want to know. Are you honestly this stupid?
I'll try and explain this in small words so that you won't get too confused.
Man and apes and monkeys are related. This is a fact.
Man and apes and monkeys are primates. This is a fact.
Primates all have a common ancestor. This is a fact.
Understand now?
Or do I have to dumb it down even further for you? Because quite frankly, thinking down to your level gives me a migrane.

Oh and panacea, thanks for the strawman arguments. It's clear that the education system let you down.
You have my pity.

Answer 6

A man evelved from apes to man in a really looooooooong time. N the apes now might evolve into better human beings. N many creatures r still evolving, n it goes on.
U know something, even we humans r still evolvin slowly, like:
The appendix in de large intestine, used 2 store de stone which we were eating accidently has been reduced a lot in size, hair is reduced on de body, melanin is reducin, n so on.

Answer 7

Sometimes I begging to wonder why people worry their head with what is not there. Must there have being a beginning for man’s existence. We met ourselves here and we have been seen people die and people born…what’s up with human beings, if there is anything like evolution, man should have turned to another thing, or has the power of evolution wear thin? If at all it existed, it would still be going round like what goes around always comes around. This is what we do when we have nothing doing, engaging our time thinking what is not there. The world belongs to man and no one else had being here before man. I have a father man father has a father his father had a father and so on. There is no begging and will be no end. Man’s organ has not stopped pumping and woman’s womb has not stopped taking in, so what's all this evolution and creation myths got to offer us, if I must believe any, I think the creation theory makes more sense. Thank you all

Answer 8

AHHHHH!!!!!!! not again! Do a search, this question is asked EVERY DAY!!! not only that it only shows us that you have no idea what evolution really is.

Take this question where it belongs... to the Biology board.

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys evolved along side each other from a common ancestor.

Answer 9

We didn't. Monkeys and man share a common ancestor. If you descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?

Really, most arguments against evolution can be answered by simply THINKING for 30 seconds. Is that really too much to ask these days?

Answer 10

Because we didn't evolve from today's apes and monkeys, we simply had a common ancestor.

Answer 11

That's not the right question. The right question is what scientific evidence is there for evolution. The answer is, despite over 100 years of intense examination over multiple fields of science.....exactly none.

The argument against evolution is not religious. It's not even common sense. It's scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory. It must meet certain objective standards that are the same no matter who is investigating the matter. They are not open to interpretation and everyone applying this system gets the same result no matter what.

Evolution fails this paradigm. Evolution is scientific. Specifically, it has been scientifically proven as false.

If you feel differently, simply provide the evidence. If you can do this, it would be such a monumental accomplishment that you will immediately be awarded a noble peace prize. Your name will go down in history besides the likes of Einstein. Forever afterward, every science book, especially every biology text will figure your name in there prominently.

If you can do it....which you can't.