If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

Answer 1

Suppose a long time ago there were monkeys and apes. A random genetic mutation occur and humans are formed. Monkeys and humans both manage to survive, adapt to the changing environment and reproduce. Thus we still have both of them co-existing now.

Answer 2

If you want a real scientific answer then here goes.

Humans, monkeys and apes are all primates but members of different families. Consider just four primate families - humans, great apes, Old World monkeys and New World monkeys and then compare them to families from another group of animals the carnivores. Four carnivores families are cat, dogs, bears and hyenas. In this case you have no problem in understanding that cats didn't evolve from dogs or hyenas; they have a separate evolutionary history but if you go back far enough in geological time then they will all share a common ancestor.

Exactly the same argument applies to primates - humans did not evolve from monkeys or great apes at all, but at some stage in their history shared a common ancestor.

Humans are most closely related to the two species of chimpanzee, it is debatable whether they should be in separate families as they are more closely related to each other than to any other species.

Here is one possible evolutionary scenario of how chimps and humans arose - there was an ancestral species of ape dispersed across Africa. The climate changed and West Africa was dominated by tropical forest and East Africa drier Savannah. In West Africa the ancestral ape specialized to forest living and in East Africa to savannah life and eventually the two types split into separate lineages - one leading to modern chimpanzees and the other to modern humans. Both species were adapted to different environments, which is why one didn't compete with the other and why both still exist.

Monkeys don't even come into the equation, they are adapted to a different ecological niche again. Humans or chimps for that matter would be completely incapable of surviving on a diet of leaves high in the forest canopy in the way that specialist leaf-eating monkeys do.

The really interesting question in human evolution is why only one species survived until modern times. In early hominid evolution there were several species and even in Europe, which was colonized by hominids relatively recently, there existed two species. It seems that humans were essentially all adapted to the same ecological niche and that Homo sapiens out-competed all others causing their extinction.

Don't make the mistake of believing that there is any particular order of progression in evolution. One species becomes adapted to one environment and a second to a different one. Humans are not a 'better' version of a monkey or a chimpanzee they are all different and do different things - humans supposedly have the advantage of greater intelligence, but given the way they like to destroy things, even this is probably arguable.

Answer 3

I used to wonder that too but then when I saw the monkeys these days I figuared it was just the intelligent monkeys that evolved into us humans!

I think many years ago it all depended on the environment where the monkeys were living and therefore some needed to adapt/change to carry on surviving. However when you see documentarys about cave men you never see a monkey! It is strange.

Answer 4

This question gets asked so often that some answerers in Religion & Science have made a drinking game of it - much like the TV show "Frasier", when Frasier, Niles and Martin all watched "Antiques Road Show" together. In the episode, every time someone said "veneer" they would all take a drink; Niles and Frasier of a fine wine, Martin of Raineer Ale. You may get some answers that say "Swig" or "Gulp" or "Thanks for the excuse to drink". That's what they mean. If you do a search on "still monkies", "still monkeys" and "still apes" you'll get roughly 2 - 3 per day since YA started.

Here is a short answer:

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.

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 5

i think that man evolved from a specific specie of monkeys which is now extinct.

Answer 6

Cheers!

Answer 7

You go ask charles darwin in his grave.