Wouldn't evolution be disproven if there weren't still monkeys?

Question

Think about it. If there were no monkeys or apes still alive--if all of them had gone extinct--then there would be no remotely close relatives of humans alive. That would mean that the only evidence for humans having evolved at all would be fossils, which can easily be explained as creations of God that were not related to each other and just happened to be created in what looks like a sequence to our fallible human eyes.

So really, without any living monkeys, the idea that humans evolved would be completely untenable. And since in my last question, I proved that because there are living monkeys, the idea that humans evolved is completely untenable, that means that evolution is impossible!

Whether monkeys exist or don't exist, humans couldn't have evolved from them! That's because if they exist, then there's no reason why they wouldn't all have evolved into people together; and if they don't exist, then there's only fossil evidence which just shows completely unrelated, non-transitional fossils that just happen to randomly look like they're transitioning from one to the next! Evolution is not just false, but 100% impossible.

The fact that we share so many genetics with chimpanzees just proves that we were both created by God. DNA is God's signature! Why do you evolutionists interpret the evidence in accordance with your own presumptions about the way the world works, rather than in accordance with mine?!

Answer 1

I think you misunderstand the concept of human evolutionary theory. It doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys, but that we and monkeys (and the rest of the primates) evolved from a common ancestor. The assertion that all the members of this species would have evolved into humans is absurd. We see different branches of the evolutionary tree all the time. We don't just have one species of cat, but many, ranging from lion to my cute little Martial (i.e. housecat). In the same way, primates evolved along different lines, and the species along that branch range from lower primates to apes to modern humans. To say that these things must inevitably evolve into humans is to underestimate the variations of nature (and, if you take the argument along the religious route, the creative power of God).

As for your first argument - yes, the fact that our evolutionary cousins are still around does help us out when we think about evolution; however, we're not the only species that evolves - every species does. The mechanism of evolution can be seen in the variation of any related groups of species - plant, animal, bacterial, fungal, what have you. Apes and monkeys are of use to understanding human evolution, but even if they weren't around, there would still be no reason to doubt that we came about as a result of the same mechanism of change that everything else does.

I think that in your zeal to prove your religious beliefs correct, you've fallen into some bad arguments. Here's my advice: relax. Believe whatever you want to believe. Trust me, I'll do the same. Contrary to what you might believe, evolutionary theory is not a threat to your system of beliefs. Take it, instead, as the creative expression of a God more subtle than you imagined could exist when you first learned of Him.

Answer 2

Yes, and don't the Darwinists hate that answer. Until about 1975 it was all about the monkeys and apes. But since that was debunked about a thousand times then they switch answers and call us stupid, go figure just who is being stupid.

Surely, Darwin used monkeys and apes as an example to try and prove evolution. And surely some humans can only look at the here and now and somehow believe that all can be explained by a theory. The human animal is so gullible and so self-centered to believe that we can look back millions of years and figure out all that has happened. Totally absurd.

We can't even look back a couple of hundred years without inserting conclusions. And the theory of evolution dismisses all so many unknown factors. Inbreeding, catastrophic events, natural extinction, climate, and surely the notion that a supreme being maybe involved. If one dismisses all the variables then one look back, as through a telescope, backwards, and see whatever it is that they want to see.

It always was and always will be about the "missing link", which will never be found because there isn't one.

Answer 3

You obviously haven't studied the theory of evolution in much detail... There is indeed reason "why they wouldn't have all evolved into humans together". Evolution is not a group event. It starts with one random mutation in one single organism, which gets passed on to that organisms offspring.

That's why we have different species in the first place - not just monkeys/apes and people, but also turtles, birds, insects... Different random mutations went different ways. Some, in fact most, just died out, but a few went on to evolve into new species or sub-species.

Apart from that, humans are not evolved from *today's* apes, anyway. Homo sapiens and the other primates go back to a common ancestor, that was different from all of them. They evolved from there in different ways, because of different random mutations/adaptations.

Furthermore, whether monkey/apes are currently alive or not has very little bearing on the theory of evolution. For one thing, it can't only be shown with humans. Did you ever notice the differences between, say, a St. Bernhard and Chihuahua? Do you believe that they both descent from wolves? (There's actual evidence of human selective breeding, so this isn't even a matter of believe.) So obviously it can happen.

Now imagine the same thing on a much larger scale, going on over millions of years instead of a few hundred.

Answer 4

Even in this scenario, evidence of evolution is there outside of the primate branch and would be picked up on considering Darwin's first conceptual ideas were based on the common descent of finches and not primates. In fact Darwin's original theorum had nothing directly to do with primate descent as the answerer above me seems to think.

To be quite frank, you seem overly biased against the idea that humans are descended from "monkeys" or rather the same ancestor, and are looking to debunk it in any way possible. Well, I'm sorry to tell you that picking holes with hypothetical scenarios really doesn't help you here.

Answer 5

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Sorry, had to get that out. Evolution does no longer say that human beings advanced from monkeys. It says that human beings and apes had a common ancestor. you may only to boot ask, if my brother and that i both got here from my father and mom, why is my brother nonetheless alive? aspect note: that is sweet up there with the "the 2d regulation of thermodynamics prohibits evolution" argument. Any time absolutely everyone makes one among those arguments, I recoil. both are flawed interior an identical way - it exhibits that the guy making the argument would not truly understand evolution or the guidelines of thermodynamics, and it reinforces the stereotype that Christians are in reality scientifically illiterate. Please - before you're making an argument like this again, study biology. study physics. study what, case in point, the note "entropy" ability before you attempt to apply it in an argument. it will do wonders for my continuing alleged sanity. Edit: *sigh* it truly is stated as an "analogy". it truly is why I stated "you may only to boot say". i assume i'm asking too a lot that you'll parent that out, inspite of the truth that. and that i say sorry for the insulting tone of the edit, yet i have already screamed once in this answer. you do no longer understand how problematic it truly is to make certain Christians make needed mistakes in technology, thereby giving weight to the presumption that we are all blind morons.

Answer 6

No. They evolved from our common ancestor too. We humans got smarter. The great apes, including chimpanzees, got stronger. They are stronger than us humans. (A 180-pound chimp would wipe the floor with a 180-pound human, even a college wrestler.)

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 (Monarchists are people who want to be ruled by a king or queen, not butterfly fanciers.) 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. One night on the "Saturday Night Live" TV show, Gilda Radner argued vehemently against the "Deaf Penalty", instead of the "Death Penalty". She looked absurd 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.

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. Tell him you don't want to believe it, of course; you just want to understand it. If he says he can't because it is wrong, he is as ignorant as those monarchists I mentioned above.

Answer 7

Omg another pseudo-scientist with an axe to grind. Evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys. Fossils can be explained as creations of god ?? - only in your mind.

Do you really think you have just disproved the work on evolution studies done by thousands of scientists over the last 150 years ?

Answer 8

Ever heard the term 'common ancestor'? You don't know what you are talking about. Our genetic make-up is 99.9% the same as a chimpanzee, this is FACT. Apes are still alive as they still fill a niche, a different niche from ourselves.

Try studying genetics at university for 4 years and then tell me apes aren't related to humans.

Answer 9

There are so many holes in Darwin's theory it is like thinking inside a tight box and you are never allowed to think outside this box. The scientist today are even saying that a Creator must be considered because without it, nothing makes any sense. You can't make something from nothing without some intervention from a higher authority.

Answer 10

The only thing possible from that interpretation - is it makes religion look utterly rediculous.