If Human are evolved from Apes, why the Apes (our distant cousins) still remain where they are?

Answer 1

This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

Answer 2

Dude,

someone asks this exact same question every week, la. I don't know if you do this to make Christians look stupid, or to get a rise out of the atheists. But the question always does both.

The first girls' answer is basically the correct answer. We did not evolve from apes, they are our cousins. We have a common ancestor. Unless someone is from W. Virginia, the chances of that person descending from their own cousin is pretty low.

Hundreds of years ago, the Church labelled scientists who could demonstrate that the earth was not the center of the universe as heritics, because they believed the science was contradictory to the bible. Eventually the Church had to give in to the irresputible facts. But apparently, the Church did not learn its lessons. Now it is evolution. Why does the Church continue to do this? While evolution may contradict a few paragraphs of the old testament, it is not incompatible with the basic teachings and spirituality of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam). So why do so many people take this "if we evolved from Monkeys or Apes, why are they still here?" question, which is factually incorrect as the basis for challenging a solid scientific theory?

It would be like asking "If Newtonian physics is correct, why don't all the apples fall out of the trees?" It is a nonsense question which only serves to underscore the fact that MOST people who challenge the theory do so out of ignorance. This is not to say that there aren't some better questions that people could be asking to challenge the theory... but most people don't understand the theory well enough to ask those questions.

Peace

Answer 3

Long ago the monkeys that would eventually become us steeped out into new open land and evolved into us, while the rest stayed behind in the trees where they would remain relatively unchanged. The new environment meant they had to evolve to survive (the result : us) while the rest were already good for climbing trees and stuff and didnt need to change much

Answer 4

Good question, Jason: In fact, they have never found a foot where the great toe is migrating from it's heel where it is on primates. That is because God put it there so they could cling to branches.

There is a picture of a very large human footprint contemporary with dinosaurs posted at http://abiblecode.tripod.com

Lucy, the only "real" evidence they have was piece-together in a false manner. The monkey head was found 50 ft higher than the human "articulating" knee cap, that was one mile distant.

Chuck Norris is the only tangible evidence that God created mankind is evolving into monkeys.

Read the link above, and it proves Jesus is the Messiah, our Creator.

Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben Yeshua

Answer 5

OK first..like many here have said that is not what Evolution says...and for people to think it shows they lack brainpower to read.

This is just like that "Darwin recanted Evolution" lie that people spread because they hate light, decency, morality, intelligence, reason, logic and God. They figure if the follow Hitler's idea of "make the lie simple, say it often and people will accept it" then everyone will worship them as living gods....at least that is my assumption because otherwise there is no good reason to lie so boldy.

Answer 6

Jeez, how many times do ya gotta say "COMMON ANCESTOR" before it sticks?

If Spanish evolved from Italian, how come people still speak Italian?

COMMON ANCESTOR!!!!!!!

SPANISH & ITALIAN evolved from LATIN.

But ya know what. YOU CAN STILL SPEAK LATIN!

If Gorillias were the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans, no bilogical law would require their extinction.

If Caucasians came from Africans, how could there still be Africans?
God, I just don't know why every black person didn't kill themselves once they heard about the 'white skin' mutation.

Lets try one more.

If you came from your fathers testicles,
how come he still has testicles?

Seriously folks, if you are trying to prove Man did NOT decend from creatures with much smaller brains.

This question isn't helping.
~

Answer 7

figure it out if there are thousands of apelike creatures and one mutates eventually gaining a somewhat human like
existence there is still no reason why the others would not necessarily survive as they were . But on the other hand a god that has a talent for creating to stop cold and never create a thing in our lifetime is difficult to reckon with. oh well
peace enjoy it

Answer 8

What you fail to realise is that they're nearly all gone, and soon such an ignorant and ill informed creationist question won't be able to be asked any more..!!

If christianity evolved from judaism, why does judaism still remain where it is..?

You are an ignorant, uneducated and scientifically illiterate religious fool..!

Answer 9

No. Apes now are NOT the same as apes 200,000 years ago. They're just as evolved as we are; they too are endpoints of their respective path of evolution.

You're assuming that the human form (and perhaps our other attributes) is something evolution aims for; while evolution is only 'concerned' (quotes as it is a blind process) with optimising each species for its environment.

Answer 10

They are wiser. They refused to migrate and evolve knowing where we their cousins ended up with nowadays.
They kind of predicted we would have Blair, Bush, Beckham and other BB's