If we evolved from apes/monkeys why is it that there are still apes/monkeys around??

Answer 1

Quoting from Answers In Genesis, a Young Earth Creationist group...
"the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’"

The question can also be asked as, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"

Even some creationists recognize that this question is invalid, but others still continue to use it to attack evolution. These creationists seem to conveniently forget that criticisms of evolution, even when the criticism is valid (which in this case, it is not), does not constitute proof that we were created from scratch via magic.

Further, populations do not have to be geographically isolated (allopatric speciation) to evolve. Speciation can occur without the geographical separation (sympatric speciation). In either case, the speciation is usually gradual, not immediate.

Species that are asexual or hermaphroditic can evolve very rapidly because they do not need to find mates.

But even if we did evolve from apes, which is not even what evolutionary scientists believe (They think we split off from a common ancestor millions of years ago), would it make us any less human? Any less saved? Any less loved by God? Obviously, we are not who our relatives are, and if we have distant relatives who are criminals, that doesn't mean we will become the same.

Ultimately, the criticism that we descended from monkeys is a fallacy (Wishful Thinking). What we want to be true doesn't make it true.

Answer 2

If an organism can make a good living being and doing what it is and does, natural selection will tend to preserve that organisms anatomy and behavior in its descendants. It's called stabilizing selection.

The environments that monkeys and apes live in have been pretty stable. The range of the forests and jungles just shrank a little. That change in environment, from forest to savanna, is what triggered the evolution of the hominids and eventually humans.

The apes that couldn't find a place in the jungle became humans the ones that could hold on to territory in the forest became modern apes.

Put simply the places where monkeys and apes live haven't vanished or changed radically so they haven't had to evolve into something else.

P.S.: Monkeys are not relevant to human evolution except as a food source for apes and hominids. Citing monkeys in any discussion about human evolution is a dead giveaway that your knowledge of natural history is sorely lacking.

Answer 3

Why do Creationists find this to be such a brilliant question? It really is precisely the opposite ... a question that demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says.

This "we evolved from apes/monkeys" idea is the CARTOON version of evolution. First, apes/monkeys (as we understand the terms today) are not ancestors, but modern descendants of the same ancestors we came from. Second, that ancestor is extinct ... so the point of the question goes away. Third, apes/monkeys aren't "still" around, any more than we are "still" around ... the apes, monkeys,and humans we see today are ALL newcomers ... they are just as recent a product of evolution as we are. And fourth, evolution isn't just a species morphing into a different one ... species are born when two subpopulations of a species become isolated from each other, and then evolve in different directions, thus branching into two species. Creationists just seem unable to understand the simple concept of BRANCHING.

It also demonstrates why Creationists have such a fine reputation as skilled researchers: Namely, I went to the same Ask window you use to post this question, and I typed in "why are there still apes ..." and "why are there still monkeys ..." and Yahoo told me that this question has been asked 436 times! (I am not exaggerating.)

Here are the two indexes to the 436 times people have asked and answered this trivially unchallenging question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=Aue08yVMnapfM8KEqUT4D1EjzKIX?p=why+are+there+still+apes
http://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=Aue08yVMnapfM8KEqUT4D1EjzKIX?p=why+are+there+still+monkeys

Is there a reason you just had to make it 437?

......

And mr. w ... yes there IS evidence of macroevolution, REAL evidence. The fact that it has been duplicated in a laboratory, and documented in nature is just a start. I suggest you read the following:
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Answer 4

When animals evolve it is not the entire species that evolves, just a population.
For example,
Monkey population A lives west of the rocky mountains
Monkey population B lives east of the rocky mountains
They are the same species.

East of the rockies experiences a severe climate change and population B evolves to adapt to the new environment. They become a new species.

Population B remains in the same environment. They never change.

Just remember that when evolution happens, its not every individual in a species changes. Sometimes it does, but is usually an isolated population. Thats the theory anyway.

Answer 5

Because they evolved from our common ancestor too. The great apes, including chimpanzees, are stronger than us humans. (A 180-pound chimp would wipe the floor with a 180-pound wrestler.) The others are smaller and more nimble that we are. (Watch a gibbon swinging through the trees, but don't try to imitate him, unless you have an affinity for broken bones.)

Here is a little something extra for you, what the Cajuns call "lagniappe", like the free cookie the baker gives the kids when Mom buys a big birthday cake:

Back in 1776, monarchists argued against democracy as a form of government. They said it was absurd to believe that "All men are created equal" because anyone could see men came in different heights, weights and colors. Case closed.

My point is not about democracy. It is about debate. Before you argue about something, you should understand it. If you don't understand it, you'll look foolish. Gilda Radner, on the original "Saturday Night Live" TV Show, used to do a sketch every couple of weeks in which she made completely ridiculous arguments. One night she argued vehemently against the "Deaf Penalty", instead of the "Death Penalty". She looked absurd, which was the point, and we all laughed until the beer came out our noses, which was what she wanted. You don't want people to laugh at you.

In a serious debate, you should understand the other side. Note that I didn't say "Believe". Understanding is not the same as believing. If you were to study 20th century European Political history, you would have to understand several forms of government: communism (the USSR), fascism (Germany, Italy), socialism (Lots of countries), socialist democracy, capitalistic democracy and constitutional monarchy. You would not believe in all of them; you could not believe in all of them at once. If you tried, your head would explode. You would, however, have to understand their basic concepts.

If you were to study comparative religion, you would have to understand what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists and Confucians believe. You would not have to convert to a new religion every week, but you would have to understand the other ones. You would not get very far in your studies if you dismissed all the other ones as "wrong". They believe their path is the right one just as strongly as you believe your path is the right one.

99% of the biologists alive today believe that species evolve, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. Christian biologists, Jewish biologists, Muslim biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists; Australian, Bolivian and Chinese biologists; 99% of them believe it is the best explanation. Yes, it is only a theory. Planetary motion - the theory that the earth went around the sun, not vice versa - was only a theory for a long time. Some people still don't believe it. Their eyes tell them differently.

Species don't evolve at the same rate and they don't all have to evolve. Alligators, to take one example, haven't changed much for 40 million years. The ones that were 50 feet long have become extinct, but the normal 14-footers are still there in the swamps, hoping men don't shoot them to use their hides for shoes. They didn't have to worry about that 3 million years ago. We humans are at the top of the heap today, either because we evolved or God liked us better than He did the alligators. Either way, we can make tools better than any other species.

Your question has been answered, hundreds of times, by people more versed in biology than I. It gets answered ever week here at YA.

If you are truly curious, ask your minister to give you a short, reasoned explanation of evolution. If he says he can't because it is wrong, he is as ignorant as those monarchists I mentioned above.

Answer 6

There didn't used to be the monkeys we know today. There was a common ancestor to both modern monkeys and humans. Humans evolved in different way mostly for circumstantial reasons - such as geographical location, availability of food, predatory threats etc. All of these parameters added up to the fact that a certain branch of that common ancestor had more cerebral challenges and thus its brain evolved to a much more advanced form. That split, eventually, created a form of monkeys that live on trees and another for of monkeys who vote for Bush.

Answer 7

Because those apes and monkeys ALSO evolved from (other types of) apes and monkeys.

Very few animals go on for hundreds of thousands of years without evolving into new species. (Those that do are awesome...sharks, horseshoecrabs, wow!)

The chimpanzee and the gorilla are as new to the world as humans are, and some would say they are even newer.

Answer 8

This is not declared at all. All that was said was the apes were our ancestors, but it was not said that today's apes are the apes from which we descended.

These apes evolved in parallel to humans.

Answer 9

better take that evolution class again, because you severely misunderstood.
nowhere does the theory of evolution propose that we evolved from monkeys.
it contradicts it actually, by stating we both evolved from a common ancestor.

nor does an ancestor that another specie evolves from, have to be extinct.

Answer 10

One theory is that we evolved from one type of monkey, while another type of minkey evolved to become the monkeys we see today.