If evolution is true. Why are there still monkeys?

Answer 1

First, I am not going to give you the common brush off to your question: "We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor". That's just avoiding the question, and frankly, I don't agree with it. I'm going to assume that when you say "monkey," you not only include those animals called monkeys that are alive today, but also animals that looked and behaved like monkeys that lived millions of years ago. An animal that lived about 40 million years ago, known as Aegyptopithecus, is believed by scientists to be a direct ancestor of humans. If I saw that animal swinging through the tree branches today, I'd certainly call it a monkey.

I'm going to go one step further and assume that you are using the term monkey even more colloquially, and include chimpanzees and gorillas under the general umbrella of monkeys. Technically those are apes, but since they are non-human primates that are indeed decended from monkeys, let's go ahead and let that one by. So below, I'm going to cover a scenario whereby humans might have evolved from apes, while leaving apes still existing.

Before I continue, though, let's clear one thing up. It is natural to think of humans as "more evolved" than other animals, but this isn't true in any scientific sense. We are differently evolved, simply adapted to a different environment. It so happens that our intelligence, and the culture and technology that it spawned, has turned out to allow us an unprecedented degree of success, and the ability to live in environments that our ancestors couldn't. But evolution didn't somehow anticipate this.

The point is, evolution is only "directed" in that it favors survival, it does not favor high intelligence or walking upright or use of tools, unless those features aid in the survival and passing on of genes to the next generation. Other animals, for instance mosquitos, don't seem to be suffering for lack of these human-like capabilities.

Answer 2

Because evolution does *NOT* say that a species automatically replaces its ancestor.

If it did, then logically there would be only one species on the planet! That would be a pretty stupid theory!

Instead evolution also means that a species can split (or "branch") into two species. The two branches are then able to evolve in two different directions.

Why does a species split into two species? Because species will often get separated into isolated populations. So if a species of early primate (and whether you call this a "monkey" or not isn't really relevant) inhabited a jungle above a certain elevation. If climate change altered the terrain of the intervening valley so that it was no longer jungle, you would then have some populations isolated on different mountain sides. They would then start evolving in different directions until they were no longer able to interbreed with each other ... they were now all *separate species* ... permanently isolated from each other genetically.

So one population could go on to become what we now know as the apes, while the others could go on to what we now know as the monkeys. And both branches could in turn branch again ... and again, and again, producing all the different branches of apes (including humans) and monkeys.

In fact, this is how evolution explains why there are so many different species on the planet.

The reason people respond with "humans did not come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor" is because it is *ESSENTIAL* to understand this.

Modern monkeys and apes are not some sort of "unevolved" humans ... something frozen in time. That indeed would NOT make sense. Instead, every species of monkey or ape you see today is a *FULLY EVOLVED* species ... just as evolved as we are. There is no reason they should have followed the same path as we did. There is no reason they should be thought of as still following that path. They are their own species, every one of them.

If you can't understand this, then you are correct to have rejected the rather absurd theory that you think is evolution.

Answer 3

Do you hate monkeys or something? Why shouldn´t there be monkeys? How is there being monkeys a conflict with evolution? Don´t worry. At the rate we are going, destroying the habitats of all the great apes, there won´t apes OR monkeys very soon.

Consider this little conundrum in the mean while. I am sure you are aware of what happens if humans don´t get enough vitamin C. We get sick and die. It just so happens that most animals, including humans, have a set of genes that can manufacture vitamin C. Only in humans these genes have been switched off. And so we need to eat food containing vitamin C every day. There is another animal that has the exact same problem. Chimpanzees. If evolution is false how can this be?

Answer 4

Evolution says creatures are in the process of evolving; it does not say that monkeys have to evolve into man. Environment is a huge factor and different environments can affect the speed and way of evolution.

Answer 5

For the same reason that there are so many types of monkeys with various levels of intelligence. If evolution weren't true, wouldn't all monkeys be exactly the same?

Answer 6

If your line of argument is true, there can surely be only one species of animals in the entire world. It does not mean that all animals must evolve at the same rate into a particular species.
Evolution occurs when there is a selective advantage for a particular mutation in a particular environment/habitat.

For example, the occurance of sickle cell anaemia, in which the red blood cells are not of the normal round shape, but shaped like sickles, the people suffering from this disease are immune to malaria. So, the people with sickle cell anaemia will survive better in a malaria-infected environment while those with normal shaped RBCs will likely die from malaria. Eventually, given that malaria in THAT region is not controlled, then the whole population living there will be suffering from sickle shaped anaemia but otherwise unharmed by malaria. This is evolution.

It does not mean that the whole world of humans have to have sickle cell anaemia like those in THAT region, right?

Answer 7

Because monkeys are our *cousins*, evolutionarily speaking - not our grandparents.

We both evolved from a common ancestor population: some of those ancestors evolved into humans, while others evolved into other modern-day primates.

Answer 8

It is same as human beings in one part of the world are more advanced than some other parts of the world where they don't have access to many new scientific inventions.

And later in years to come, the gap will increase and we will have sort of more evolved and less evolved humans. (if not physically, it will happen in mental status)

Answer 9

Becuase We evolved under different circumstances, and therefore needed to adapt to different surroundings, and needs. Where as they did not evolve the same way.

Answer 10

Because they represent a breed that did not posess the same needs and adaptations that our primative ancestors had.