Why do creationists say: If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Question

This surprisingly common argument 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.
http://www.sciam.com/

Answer 1

You hit the nail on the head; they are ignorant about the Science of Evolution.
The solution is simply to keep trying to educate them. I know it's hard and at times seems futile, but we have to keep at it. A country is in REAL trouble when people start becoming more religious and less Scientific. Low IQ and poor education lead people to religion. Higher IQ's and better education lead people away from religion and towards science.
That is not opinion, but verifiable fact.

Oh and for a_blvr, there are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. The most famous one of course being Archeoptryx. Ever hear of that one sparky?
Here is a list and not even an exhaustive one at that for you;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Answer 2

Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest would tend to indicate that only the fittest survive. If humans evolved from monkeys than that would indicate monkeys were not the most fit and would then, due to competition with the more fit higher evolved version, be killed off by the next step of pre humans. But the fact is that monkeys are fit and they do not need to evolve any further to survive just fine as they are as is the case with all of the millions of different species. Just the extreme diversity itself among nature speaks against Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest, except in the most narrow interpretation and very narrowly defined conditions.

Answer 3

IT IS THE LACK OF COMPREHENSION ON THESE LEVELS:

1. TIME
2. DISPLACEMENT
3. Randomness

THAT IS IT, SEPARATED BY MANY MILES IN TIMES OF NO FLIGHT, CARS, THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS, THERE WILL BE CHANGE. IT IS A MATTER OF 'WHY DID THIS TRAIT SURVIVE?'.......CUZ IF IT DIDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OBSERVE IT.

That answersingensis website may soothe some minds, but some of us are not religious apologists, deep down. We don't get our morals from a book, we get it from our learning.

EDIT- OUR CLOSEST RELATIVES HAVE BEEN KILLED OFF BY US. I THINK US HUMANS KILLED THEM OR STARVED THEM OUT AGES AGO. THAT IS EXACTLY MANKINDS NEED FOR RELIGION, THEY COULDN'T HANDLE THE LORE....AND IN THE END MADE THEIR OWN LAW. WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW, THE WORLD IS COMMUNICATING MUCH MORE THAN BEFORE. THOSE LAWS CONFLICT, YES.....BUT THEY KEEP GOING BECAUSE SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE SHOULD HAVE SAID: GOSH, I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS......MAYBE I WILL LEARN.....AND THEN I WILL USE MY KNOWLEDGE TO DICTATE TO OTHERS. RELIGION WAS CONTROL FOR THE MASSES. THEY NEEDED IT TO SURVIVE. NOW THAT WE ARE GLOBAL, WE NEED A COMMON ORDER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AMONG ALL OF US. RELIGION IS CANCER.

Answer 4

It's hard for people to except when they are told that everything they have been taught and believe in is a lie. Personally, while I do believe in evolution, I don't think we originated directly from apes. We may be very closely related but there are still to many differences. I might except it someday, but for now I need a little more proof. Besides most people don't want to believe that when they die, that will be the end.

Answer 5

I'm not a creationist or an evolutionist. Perhaps I do not understand evolution then. I thought that species adapted in order to survive. Wouldn't apes survival chances improve if they adapted better to human environments? Humans, supposedly evolved to where we are today because of adaptation to survive. Why wouldn't apes also evolve that way?

Answer 6

Beacause if we decended from monkeys were are those half monkeys half humans things(transitional forms). There has not been a transitional form found anywhere in the world. This is the GREATEST evidence against evolution.

Answer 7

I have not heard Creationists say such issues, besides the undeniable fact that, it truly is an quite valid, medical think about a fashion. All children strengthen as a lot as grow to be adults, interior a similar way, if evolution is authentic, we would want to continually see a similar ingredient everywhere in all existence varieties. as a remember of actuality, we see it no the position, no longer something appears "evolving." there is a few version happening, all properly interior the conventional perimeters positioned into the layout of the DNA. anytime an evolutionist tries to furnish an celebration of something evolving, I even might want to giggle because they ought to no longer might want to furnish any examples -- it will be self obtrusive. One might want to no longer fairly be able to destinguish between animals. One might want to continually be evolving into yet another, and at quite some degrees. jogs my memory of that movie "the Land that factor Forgot" the position on one island, each degree of evolutionary progression of guy might want to be present day in successive order from the most primitive to the most more suitable. type of stupid on an island, yet on the completed planet, it truly is a distinct tale, we would want to continually obviously see it. One an island the following, or a continent there, there should be guy at his quite some stages of evolutionary progression. The extra time evolutionists throw at their concept, the further this might want to be. allow's merely end and picture a minute and say to ourselves, "what if evolution is authentic?" If we fairly do this, then we are able to arise correct away with those varieties of authentic, difficult complications. Did you imagine for a second on the region that I merely offered? you probably did? sturdy, then it got here about to you that we would want to continually see each of the evolutionary degrees of progression with each of the plants and animals (and etc) on the planet earth too. and they should be at present, obviously replacing in the front of our eyes, going from one step to the subsequent. Evolutionists might want to no longer be searching for examples, they ought to have the examples by the trillions. Do I even might want to communicate about different obtrusive issues alongside those lines? such issues because the gadget might want to fail tens of millions of situations before it is going ahead only one step? would not it "click" in everybody's options that we would want to continually see on the spot exinctions, de-evolution everywhere? positioned down your faith evolutionists and %. up the technological awareness.

Answer 8

Hi. I'm an evolutionist.

This "common ancestor" we evolutionists talk about, don't you think to the naked eye it would look like a monkey?

We sound like idiots attacking creationists telling them no no don't call it a monkey call it a common ancestor,

when what we should be saying is, yes our common ancestor looked like a monkey but because of geographic isolationism . . .

Please dont report me for abuse of calling the asker an idiot I'm not saying that he or she is,

merely that it is idiotic to attack creationists use of the word monkey,

Answer 9

creationists are becoming frustrated, because they are fighting a losing battle, they dont want to admit defeat, and most of them will die thinking they are right. There is no way to change the stubborn, they will either change on thier own or die in the struggle for change.

Answer 10

Because they don't understand
1- that we are not direct descendants of monkeys
2- that evolution isn't a straight line