Are there any science textbooks that teach that man came from monkeys? I never read that anywhere but Y!A?

Question

I've only read it from religious theists in this category, the question "If man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys".

I'm just wondering, are there any science textbooks that say man came from monkeys?

Answer 1

You know, I have to say, monkeys or "common ancestor", what difference does it make? People put too much emphasis on correcting this minor mistake and not enough on correcting the overall lack of understanding on evolution. If you want to call our common ancestor a monkey, then go for it. I'm sure it was rather monkey-like. Just don't think you can make any kind of informed decision on the topic when you obviously know nothing about evolution.

Answer 2

I think that almost everyone (except those still in 6th grade or below) knows that the theory of evolution says that man and apes come from some common ancestor and not that man evolved from apes (or monkeys).. but it is much shorter to state as evolving from apes (or monkeys)...

There ARE a few people that ask the same question over and over about why are there still monkeys.. but I think that most of them are under age 10 or 11.

Answer 3

Well, some people think that the idea of a common ancestor might as well mean you descended from them. Sort of like some areas where your parents are your cousins, and "Uncle Daddy" is used affectionately.

But there are no science textbooks (or any of Charles Darwin's writings) that teach we descended from monkeys.

Answer 4

probably not.

When I was young, we all saw the chart of the small monkey to larger apes to caveman to modern man. That's where the idea came from - that 'simple' monkeys became larger, more intelligent apes, became man.

Now, most evolutionists use the term 'common ancestor' for man and monkey. So they now believe we didn't evolve from monkeys, but parrallel to them.

This theory solves the problem of your question - why do lesser apes and monkeys still exist and removes the need for transitional fossils, or at least moves the need for transitional fossils to needing only a few transitional fossils, such as the one from the common ancestor to man.

Answer 5

I've never seen any in the 32 years I have taught science or when previewing numerous textbook series for adoption. I have also never seen any that have humans and dinosaurs living here at the same time or any that talk about Adam or Eve. They tend to be pretty well limited to facts that can be backed up by scientific evidence. Imagine that!.

Answer 6

Coupla points: Man is a species of ape, not monkeys. Our original common ancestor is long extinct, but it's possible to trace our family tree relative to other members of the ape clade:

A picture of that tree can be seen at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apeclade.png

CD

Edit: And for matazama, here's some new data on abiogenesis:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479&sc=I100322

Answer 7

Actually we came from Archaebacteria, or from non-life, would be the general consensus of science textbooks. Abiogenesis, is probably the worst generally accepted scientific theory of all time we should not try to change evolution cough fundies, but really get rid of Abiogenesis as at the moment it is horribly unsupported.

Answer 8

Science textbooks don't say that because that's not what the theory of evolution states. Evolution states that men and monkeys each evolved from a common ancestor.

Answer 9

It isn't that man came from monkeys. Evolution holds that man and monkeys come from common ancestors and that the change to homo sapiens came over time.

Answer 10

When I was in school, we did learn about the evolution of man and the stages. I remember doing the homework, and putting on my paper that science says this is how man got here, but I don't believe it. The new books may not show the stages of the caveman (ape/man), but they use to.