why do scientist believe that we came from?

Question

monkeys

Answer 1

They believe we came from a common ancestor of the great apes. Why?... Because of fossil evidence, and DNA, along with our primate behavior. Try reading Origin's by Richard Leaky.

Answer 2

Because we look like monkeys, and DNA hybridization experiments show we share a lot of DNA sequences in common with them. We also have fossils running the gamut of monkeys, monkeylike apes, apes, humanlike apes, creatures of the genus Homo, humans.

=
Secretsauce, I doubt you'll be reading this, but...
We did indeed come from monkeys. If I showed you a picture of our ancestor from 29 million years ago, you would point at that picture and and say "Old World monkey, hitherto unidentified species." We call monkeys of 29 million years ago "monkeys." Stop quibbling.

It is true we are not descended from MODERN monkeys, just as I am not descended from my second cousins.

Answer 3

They DON'T.

Scientists believe that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. That is a *completely* different statement.

Why is the difference important? Because if you look at any modern monkey species and think that scientists see an ancestor ... you are completly wrong. The monkey has just as long a path of evolution from our split from them as our own path. There is no path from any modern monkey species to humans.

And that is precisely why the anti-evolution people love to encourage the "man from monkeys" misunderstanding of evolution. They present an absurd version of evolution ... so that they can then call it absurd.

What DO scientists believe? That two branches of early primates split about 29 million years ago ... one went on to become what we now call the "apes", and the other went on to become what we now call the "monkeys." Each of those branches split again ... and again and again ... producing the many species of apes and monkeys we now find, and many more that went extinct. One of those branches of the ape branch that still survives is the branch called Homo sapiens.

Why do scientists believe this? Because the evidence is there in droves in the fossil record; in the genes and even the junk DNA (non-gene-related) we share with them; in structures we share; in embryology; in proteins (such as the proteins in our blood that give us our A, B, O blood-typing system that we share with the other primates, but not with many other mammals ... and the proteins that give us color vision, which we share with the African and Asian apes, but not with the monkeys or with the South or Central American apes), etc. etc.

For example, there is a muscle in your calf called the plantaris muscle that serves no purpose in humans. It is long and thin and totally useless, and is commonly removed surgically (e.g. for muscle tissue to use in heart surgery) without any effect at all. However this is the same muscle that has a special function in the other primates ... namely, grasping with the feet. That's just one small example.

That's why.

{edit}

emucompboy - I appreciate your point, but the "quibbling" is necessary. Whether the common ancestor to apes and monkeys would itself qualify as a "monkey" by today's classification, or would more correctly be called a "prosimian" is unclear ... the word "monkey" is vague enough in modern taxonomy, but is extremely vague in historical taxonomy. But what *is* clear (and worth keeping clear) is that humans did not evolve from any modern species of monkey ... and in my answer above I clarified that this is what I meant. Unfortunately, this interpretation (that "monkey" means MODERN monkey) is part of the common misunderstanding of evolution whenever someone uses the phrase "humans from monkeys" ... as evidenced by the ubiquitous "why are there still monkeys?" and "why did monkeys stop evolving?" questions. This not only shows that they think of "monkeys" as a single species that still exists, or at best as one of the modern monkeys they see in pictures or in the zoo, but it shows precisely why this erroneous image is such a *terrible* barrier to understanding. It is important to clarify that this is simply NOT what scientists believe. *That* part ain't quibbling.

I am also equally uncomfortable with the "humans came from apes" phraseology ... since humans *ARE* apes in modern taxonomy, that phrase is meaningless (and misleading) for slightly different reasons.

Answer 4

I know you are seeking an answer, but please research the question before coming here. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, as you say scientists believe. They believe humans and primates are related because they are both descendants from a common ancestor (LUCA). The theory of evolution is still a theory though, partly because hard evidence of the existence of LUCA has yet to be discovered.

Answer 5

Scientists don't actually believe this. They believe that modern primates and man came from a common ancestor. But man was never the modern monkey.

Answer 6

They don't. That thought comes from anti-Darwin propagandists. They are trying to make the theory of evolution sound so bizarre and ridiculous that no one believes it.

Is it working?

Answer 7

Every scientist thinks on their own terms and has a different idea or belief about it. It really depends which one you ask. You can't lump them together like that.

You research different theories but don't generalize tooooo harshly.

Answer 8

because of the genetic similarities, it has been proven that we evolved from apes so its not just a belief. there genetic make up is our just unevolved.look at a cave mans skeleton and an apes, its undeniable.

Answer 9

Science has discredited that belief since they found modern man living alongside Neandertal,

Answer 10

They look at you and make the obvious conclusion.