whata kind of creatures would have existed inbetween monkey and human transformation, monkeys still exist, why all monkeys didn't evolute like humans, some were retained as monkeys...other turned into humans.
2007-04-10 23:28:40 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Jilius C (one of the answerer) is a bigot and racial
2007-04-10 23:37:56 · update #1
Ugh... who told you that humans evolved from monkeys? Whoever told you that lied to you. If you look at a phylogeny tree you'll see that humans and monkeys have the same common ancestor, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Monkeys, especially chimpanzees, are very similar to humans genetically. That is why scientists have deduced that we have the same common ancestor.
2007-04-11 01:19:44 · answer #1 · answered by Frannie 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys as per the theory of evolution.
The monkeys we see today are not just "unevolved humans" ... they are "highly evolved monkeys." They are just as evolved as we are, just as well adapted for their environment as we are for ours.
Instead monkeys and humans are descended from the same ancestor (as per the theory of evolution). That is a *very* different statement.
The theory states that this ancestor species got split into two or more populations that lost contact with each other. Each population accumulated enough genetic differences to where they could no longer interbreed (even if they did come back into contact) and were therefore forever different species. Once they are different species they can continue to accumulate more and more genetic differences, and become more and more physically different. THAT is how species are born according to the theory of evolution.
And that answers your question about why there are now both humans and monkeys (actually *many* species of monkeys, and several species of apes).
2007-04-11 05:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, there was theoretically a common ancestor, from which branched off monkeys, apes and finally humans. The theory of evolution says that monkeys and apes are, along with humans, are related by some mammalian common ancestor.
All of these species didn't evolve into humans because they were subjected to varying environments and natural selection favored different species over time.
2007-04-11 01:17:59 · answer #3 · answered by tryzub91 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Monkeys are thoroughly distinctive to human beings and no monkey like creature has ever developed right into a human. some human beings have philosophical motives for wanting to have confidence it is so however the evidence does not help it. each hominid fossil chanced on so a procedures is the two for sure human or for sure ape - no lacking links. there is, after all, no customary mechanism to function genetic advice, as postulated via evolution. Mutations do not upload advice. do not take my be conscious for it, and don't take the above ranters' be conscious for it. examine out the evidence for your self. solutions in Genesis has a extensive type of articles - some particularly technical. of direction they have a biased interpretation of the evidence, yet then so do evolutionists. everybody has the comparable surely evidence - see if *you* think of it helps the evolutionary hypothesis. I checked and located it does not.
2016-10-28 10:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by michale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. All "creatures" in between that ape ancestor and us humans would be other species of ape (with both ape-like and human-like features) which are already extinct, for example the Homo habilis, Homo erectus etc
2007-04-11 01:24:00 · answer #5 · answered by Moo i'm a cow 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The theory of evolution doesn't propose that humans evolved from monkeys, it suggests a common origin of species
2007-04-11 00:04:07 · answer #6 · answered by doobie 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That isn't how evolution works. There was a common ancestor and the different species evolved from that ancestor. You will never find a "missing link". It's more like a fork in the road where one species splits into two. Then those species split again.
2007-04-10 23:33:02 · answer #7 · answered by DNA G 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your understanding of the theory of evolution is flawed.
Ignoring the whole fact that you missed the common ancestor concept, I seriously want you to think about how many fish they are in the sea.
If evolution went in a straight line for all species, there would be only one kind of plant, only one kind of fish, etc.
If you can't see the bajillions of errors in your question, I'm not sure we can help you.
2007-04-11 02:12:50 · answer #8 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,791-1,00.html
Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.
2007-04-14 02:16:31 · answer #9 · answered by J D 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I believe in creationism.
I believe that the surrounding universe, the earth, and all beings on earth were created by a Supreme Diety.
Which is taught in many religious beliefs.
2007-04-11 03:49:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋