If humans evolved from monkey's/apes, why are they still here?

Answer 1

I answer this question about every week, and yet every week a new person asks it.

Here we go, ready?

The apes/monkeys that are around today ARE NOT the same apes we evolved from. That common ancestor is long gone!

So we had a common ancestor, millions of years ago:

Common Ancestor------------->Humans
|___________________>other apes

Notice that we aren't evolved FROM the modern apes, but from a species of apes of LONG AGO, that is now extinct.

This is yet another moronic Creationist "counter-argument" to
evolution.

It's like saying that if subways "evolved" from trains, how come there still are trains around?

Or if modern tires "evolved" from wooden tires, how come there still are wooden tires around.

What a stupid question.

Answer 2

(Sigh)

Humans did not evolve from monkeys/apes.

Humans and monkeys/apes evolved from a common ancestor.

They are all *branches* on the tree of life.

...

I have a theory as to why this question has been asked over 790 times on Yahoo Answers (I'm not exaggerating). And why people like 'rose01' feel a need to reject evolution even though she clearly has NO idea what the theory actually says.

It seems that some people get the image of evolution like cars rolling off the assembly line. When Ford starts making the 1987 Taurus, they stop making 1986 Tauruses. So the '86 is replaced by the '87, then the '88, then '89, etc. etc.

Life doesn't work like that.

Life is a *tree* not a chain. A species is born by branching of a single species into two. This happens because two populations get isolated, and then start evolving separately. Both branches continue to breed and survive, and can evolve to be *very* different animals.

Answer 3

People who misundertand evolution often pose the question of why monkeys are no longer evolving to be humans. They fail to grasp that 1. evolution is not teleological; that humans do not sit on top of some evolutionary "ladder" to which lower life forms are climbing; and 2. that while monkeys, apes and humans share relatively recent (in geological time) ancestry, each species is evolving in an independent direction (like branches on a tree).

Having said that, it appears as though many apes and monkeys are undergoing rapid selection for increased intelligence. This may be a result of having to adapt to their ecosystems undergoing rapid change from human impacts. University of Chicago geneticist Chung I-Wu compared the DNA sequences of genes expressed in brain function among chimps, humans and several species of Old World monkeys. Wu found that the brains of chimps and the monkeys are rapidly evolving for increased intelligence, while those of humans have been static for the last few thousand years.

Answer 4

There are different variations in evolution that we species. Species develop at different rates which is why we're more advanced than apes/monkeys. Snake skeletons have small bony protrusions suggesting that they once had legs or are developing them. Using that example we can reason that the tail bone on humans is being phased out by evolution because its unnecessary. Also in the genetic structure between apes and humans, they vary only by a few chromosomes. And humans are still evolving today. Just look at the different races of humans there are. Our skin has evolved as humans spread out around the world. Closer to the equator and areas that receive the most sunlight, the people there are darker because of the extra pigment protection they need.

Answer 5

Because 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.) I don't expect you to believe that, but if you try hard enough you can understand it.

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 6

there was probally a split in the evolution chain. some of the monkeys moved to another spot and needed to get down fom the trees because they were dying out. others might have needed the trees for protection so stayed in them and lived a long happy life free of all the problems with modern day society.

Answer 7

You make the common error of thinking of evolution like a ladder, where a new species replaces the one before it. think of it instead like a bush, with many branchings. Just because a new branch forms, the branch it came from doesn't die away!

This is a common misconception of evolutionary thought used by the religious fundamentalists to confuse the issue. Be more logical in your thinking than they hope you will be!

Answer 8

Not again!!! I am Irish, and my grandparents emigrated to America, but the Irish are still in Ireland. So much for your intellectually feeble argument, which is so ill posed that you have been told 15 times that we and apes have a COMMON ancestor!! Go here and begin your education. Do not confuse education with schooling, because it is obvious that you were ill-schooled.

http://www.talkorgins.org

Answer 9

they lived in different part of the world where living condition is ideal for monkeys and apes

but the envolved monkeys lived in africa and there were too many of em and not enough food, so they had to leave and as monkey travel they learn, and got smarter and eventully

Answer 10

because only certain apes envolved, not all of them. There are other holes in the theory though like the ablility to track all DNA to one woman in Africa. If humans evolved from apes, it would of happen to serval hundred of them at one time therefore the DNA could not be track to just one person but hundreds of people.