If humans evolved from monkeys, why can't monkeys walk erect?

Question

Doesn't the fact that monkeys aren't bipedal prove that humans and monkeys are completely unrelated? If you saw a human who could walk erect and another human who couldn't, wouldn't you assume that the two aren't related?

For the same reason, humans can't be related to monkeys! There are too many differences. I can't think of a single similarity between humans and chimpanzees that is any less superficial than, say, the similarity between a rhinoceros and a rhinoceros beetle! Can you?

Is that the best you can do, silly_fud? Walking upright is the exception, not the rule, for monkeys; the opposite is the case for humans!

Penguins can walk on two legs too. Does that mean I evolved from penguins? Hell, I can teach my dog to walk on two legs! The fact stands that there are no non-superficial similarities between monkeys and humans.

Answer 1

Actually, there are quite a few ways in which humans and chimps are similar. One is an opposable thumb on each hand, which allows primates to grab. Very few other animals have this trait (one would be the opossum). We share forward-facing binocular vision with them. And perhaps the most telling, fingernails - nobody else has got them but primates (yes, fingernails are different from claws). Also, we both have long, inward-clenching fingers. We both have an unspecialized body plan. There are a lot more, if you'd care to read any book that has a section on primate biology.

I'm also slightly surprised that you don't trust your eyes - don't we look a bit alike (i.e. in body shape)? Even the ancients, who didn't have a clue about Christian creation traditions or evolutionary theory, noticed the similarities between us and the higher primates.

Secondly, bipedalism is, of course, a feature of hominids. But the fact that other primates don't walk upright doesn't prove that we're not related - not by a long shot. It means that slowly, over time, some offspring of our common ancestor (common here means "shared", not "frequent") were born with bone structures that made it convenient to walk upright. These mutations, over generations, led to bipedal hominids. However, not all of the species gravitated towards bipedalism. Some evolved differently.

Say my grandpa had two sons - one with brown hair and the other with red. Now my father, who has brown hair, gave me this same trait. My uncle, the red one, passed that hair color trait along to my cousin. Does that mean that my cousin and I can't possibly be related (and yes, this is the case in my family - and I'm glad I got the brunette gene)?

I'm surprised that you ask for characteristics that are non-superficial. Is there any other kind of characteristic? If you discount genetics (which accounts for superficial features) and take only personalities and character traits as evidence, you could make the case that I'm not related to my own father (what can I say, we like different things). The superficial traits are the ones that get passed down. Transmission of non-superficial characteristics is a bit more complicated, and we're still trying to figure out how it works for humans, let alone chimps (or whether chimps even have them in the sense that we do).

Look, I know you're proud to be Christian and all, and I'm happy for you. But before you go passing judgments on all the scientists and researchers who've developed evolutionary theory, remember that they're the same guys who've developed medicines to cure your loved ones and technologies that enable ideas about religion (and yes, ideas about evolution) to travel further than the early Christians could possibly have imagined (think of what Paul could've done with a TV camera and a cellphone). Most people, religious and not, are perfectly happy to use the fruits of these "blasphemous theories".

Science isn't a way to disprove religion - it's a way of understanding the world around us - of fulfilling our curiosity and love of knowledge (these traits are divine gifts if there ever were any - or did Christ not command his disciples to be "as wise as serpents"?)

Science and religion just don't deal with the same questions. Science is not the path to understanding God, and if anyone claims it is, they're quacks. And the purpose of religion, and Christianity in particular, isn't to answer questions of origins but of destinations. It's a way of understanding your (individual) relation to your maker through the concepts of the Redemption and the Resurrection. Anyone who tries to boil Christianity down to a question of the origin of man is missing the entire point, just as much as any scientist who devotes his career to disproving the existence of god is completely missing the point of science and discovery.

Dude, try to lighten up. There are times when I think that everyone on this site's paranoid. Nobody's shoving evolution down your throat, just like nobody's forcing Christianity on atheists. Who cares what's taught in schools anyway? I've taught high school, and trust me, those kids won't remember a thing about science in two years' time. Hell, I paid attention, and I don't remember half of the stuff I learned in biology.

Answer 2

Please...

Before you ask another "If humans evolved from monkeys..." question, LEARN a little about evolution. Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys. No scientist or anyone knowledgeable on the subject ever claimed that.

Get an education, then we'll have an intelligent discussion. (Only then CAN we.)

To tigertrot1986:

Though I'm not an atheist, I'll address your pompous, hypocritical comments.

Yes, I think it's fair that anyone trying to sound so authoritative as yourself or the questioner KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. Hence, if you're going to criticize science theory, first get it right! You don't like attacks on the Bible by those who haven't studied it. Practice what you preach.

In this case, it's important partly because human arrogance often prevents them from considering they descended even from Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon, much less apes or monkeys or chimps (the usual twaddle Creationists keep repeating).

No wonder some people have trouble learning and accepting the reality about evolution -- the myths are so widespread! If those eager to learn weren't constantly being fed ignorant Creationist propaganda about science (a little out of their field) they could more likely see the logical progression that *has* taken place.

Further, one doesn't *need* to fully "understand" the Bible -- or even to read it -- to see the mountain of evidence (read it again; your sarcasm slows your thinking) -- supporting evolutionary theory. Every few years scientists uncover more bones of our distant ancestors. I don't ask that you know all about this -- unless you're going to "ape" your fellow "hear no evil" crowd and ignore these discoveries in your diatribe.

Finally, I don't expect anyone to subscribe to "my" theories, which you call flaky {mountain of evidence}. On the contrary, it is only when you start talking about things you obviously don't understand that I get irritated. You'll never find me attacking anyone who (even vocally) believes differently from myself -- unless *they* attack *science*. Nor do I mind that your criticisms flaunt your ignorance. I just don't like what people like you are doing to hinder the spread of knowledge and reason.

To illustrate the sloppy reasoning I'm talking about, I'll touch on your last sentence... Good luck on "proving" the Biblical Creation to ANYBODY!

Answer 3

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. We are "cousins" in an evolutionary family tree.

Try the sites I've listed below.. they'll give thorough answers to your questions on the subject.

Answer 4

Hopefully smarter! If ecological catastrophes killed off the higher primates yes its possible some monkey species migth evolve in a direction that allows them to fill the same niches as the higher primates did. So five or ten or twenty million years from now what were once monkeys might have developed speech and sapiency?

Answer 5

First off, I'm a Protestant Christian. I believe in the Biblical account of Creation.

Second, according to science, humans are supposed to have evolved from primates, not monkeys. Therefore, whether or not monkeys are bipedal is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Monkeys are primates, but primates are not always monkeys. Primates are a vast taxonomic group encompassing many organisms.

Scientists believe monkeys are related to humans because they have found that we share 98.7% of our genes with chimpanzees. Humans and monkeys both are roughly similar in shape (hands, fingers, feet, toes, etc.)

Finally, a tip: when arguing against atheists/non-believers in the Biblical Creation, it is important not to give them any ground for rebuttal. Otherwise, they'll smash you down for not knowing their petty scientific theories inside-out. Sad (since they refuse to make the effort to actually understand the Bible, yet expect Christians to subscribe to their vague, flaky evolutionary theories) but true. Good luck on proving the Biblical Creation to the atheists!

Answer 6

For further scientific reasons why so-called evolution theory is wrong see these websites; www.forbiddenarcheology.com
www.humandevolution.com

Founder of ISKCON, Prabhupada's arguments below as way of joking remarks. For scientific reasons see the website above.

Why the monkey does not produce a human being?
According to the arguement of Darwin, monkey is the forefather of Darwin. Better kill them so that there is no opportunity of criticism that "You are coming from monkey." You extinct this species. It is rather insulting. If I say that you are descendant of monkey, then it is insult. So extinct this monkey.

That means that individual person has left. That is the proof, that is the proof of individual soul. Just like there are so many plants of the same species. One is dead. That individual plant is dead, but other species are living. It is not extinct. How can you say the species is extinct? How you can say? Darwin's forefather might be extinct. But the monkeys are there.

Prabhupada spoke about evolution quoting from Bhagavad gita, which states that dehi (atma in the body) changes from one body to another body (deha).

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. Bhagavad-gita (2.13)
PURPORT
Since every living entity is an individual soul, each is changing his body every moment, manifesting sometimes as a child, sometimes as a youth, and sometimes as an old man. Yet the same spirit soul is there and does not undergo any change. This individual soul finally changes the body at death and transmigrates to another body; and since it is sure to have another body in the next birth

Changing the apartment. It is not the fact that apartment is becoming a different apartment. This room cannot develop into another room. But I, the resident of this room, can go from this apartment to another apartment. Or I can create another apartment.

Answer 7

Another thing you might find interesting is the evolutionary tree linking a normal human being and your average norwegian bridge troll.

The ties are closer than you think...

Answer 8

I don't know why evolutionists aren't here to answer? evolutionary tree Says we are not only apes; I was a lizard one day.. but I evolved and now I'm using yahoo Answers, See! It's that simple.

evolutionists used to find a bone of some and say: "Aha, this man lived.... years ago, he was .... Cm. Tall, his name is Max and His wife's name was Blinda.. His mother in law was fat and silly. he used to wear........... eat............... and drink........!

From 1 piece of bone!

Answer 9

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501

It's a really cute story!