is he an evolved animal? like from monkeys? if so why are monkeys still exist? how come they did not evolved to humans?
120200
Human is the supreme creation of God.\nAnimals were created to serve human not to evolve into human!
160690
Humans didn't come from apes- but apes and humans share a common ancestor, if you go back a few million years. The difficulty that people have is that they mistake the name of something (which is fixed) to the actual organism. A species is a dynamic flow of genetic material. What we see today is a snapshot of that, in this time frame. When we find a fossil, that is another snapshot from another timeframe. If we found enough fossils we would be able to show the movie of humans and apes diverging from a common ancestor. Given the conditions that are necessary for fossils to form, and the relative rarity of hominids (the group that humans and apes belong to) this is not likely to happen. \n\nYou can see genetc change by looking at the way we breed dogs. Dachunds and Saint Bernards are both Canis lupus, but a male dachund would find it near impossible to mate with a Saint Bernard. If all other dog breeds were wiped out, they would speciate, evolving into different species. One could argue they are well on the way. Inheritance can be observed by the similarity people share with their parents. \n\nAdam and Eve, sadly, are a myth. What race would they be?
169224
There is numerous concrete fossil evidence of the lineage leading from apes to man, from the fossils of Australopithecus afarenesis, A. africanus, and other Australopithecines which do not appear to be in the line leading to humans, to the early Homo species, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus, to the archaic Homo sapiens specimens to anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens fossils.\n\nPiltdown man was never accepted as valid by most paleontologists, even at the time.  It was popular with a few British archaeologists, because it was found in England, but it was shown to be a hoax consisting of an orang-utan jaw and a human skull inexpertly modified with a file by paleontologists (the very people whom creationists incorrectly try to blaim for the hoax).\n\nNebraska man was also shown to be a pig's tooth by experienced anatomists and paleontologists, rather than the untrained reporters and doctors who forwarded the claim.\n\nOta Benga was a sad case of racism expounded by an explorer a circus promoter and the insanely racist director of the Bronx zoo.  It had nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, any more than the Branch Davidians in Waco had anything to do with the bible and Christianity.\n\nNone of these cases disproves any of the scientific tenets or proof of evolutionary theory.
315659
I totally believe in Unicorns. I mean, how far fetched is the idea? They are just like horses with a horn on their head. If Apes can turn into humans over time, why can unicorns not loose their horns and evolve into Horses.\nHaving said that there must be some still around.\nI cant prove they exist/existed but i am a beliver in saying that , unless it can be disproved, then keep on believing.
215898
First, whoever told you that "humans evolved from apes" doesn't understand the theory ... humans and apes have a common ancestor.\n\nBut your real question (which nobody is addressing) is "if X evolves into Y because Y is more 'fit', then why doesn't X become extinct?"  That often does happen.  E.g. dinosaurs evolved into birds, and later went extinct ... why? because a global catastrophe happened for which the birds were better suited to survive, and the dinosaurs were not. Species become extinct all the time, leaving only their more 'fit' ancestors.\n\nBut it doesn't *have* to happen immediately, and it doesn't have to happen at all.  Just because Y is better than X at a certain task doesn't mean that X must immediately become extinct ... both X and Y may be quite successful.   X may be better at gathering fruit from trees at night.  Y may be better at moving around on the ground during the day.  Both may survive quite nicely in their different environments.  But soon X's will stop meeting Y's for mating purposes and they become different species, the ancestors of X and the ancestors of Y.  It's not that complicated.
665570
Okay, first of all...we didn't evolve FROM monkeys.\nMonkeys, apes, gorillas and humans all evolved from a common ancestor who was not exactly an ape, gorilla, human or monkey.  That is why there are "still" monkey--we never were monkeys.\nSecond, the offspring of 2 parents could indeed be smarter. Otherwise how would we get people like Einstein and DaVinci?  Everyone has a tiny bit of mutation in them as well as a blend of the two parents. That's how evolution works. If your mutation makes it more likely you'll survive, you'll pass it onto your offspring.  If it makes  you die, then you won't pass it along.
106214
Evolution is almost a proven fact.  In fact it's one of the basic concept of biological science. In fact humans have been tinkering with evolution for thousands of years.  Why do you think we have so many breeds of dogs? If you take selective breeding far enough you could "create" a totally new species. Germs and viruses are constantly evolving. Do you think the AIDS virus was spontaneously created by God?? It evolved from closely related chimpanzee virus that we can no longer be infected with. But the AIDS virus evolved from this virus that we can no longer be infected with. \n\nEvolution is obvious when you look at rapidly reproducing living things such as germs and viruses.  It is not as obvious for a longer living things as process is so slow that it takes millions of years. But fossil evidence is overwhelming that evolution is how we came to be human beings. \n\nWe did not evolve from apes!  Apes are our distant cousins that branched off millions of years ago. We are related to chimps and gorillas, but think of it as very very distant cousins. I don't know the exact percentage, but humans and chimps share over 99% of the genes. It's that one percent that makes us human.  \n\nI don't belive in god, but existance in a supernatural beings does not mean evolution is wrong. I don't think belief in god and evolution has to be mutually exclusive. If god created life, then he/she/it also must have created evolution to go with it.
334988
I don't agree.This is law of nature.we all living things are created in different shape and sizes.apes will remain as apes.monkey will remain as monkey and human being will remain as human being.only human being has got extra ordinary brain to think and Analise it
132107
We know that evolution exists. Science can prove it. We also know that modern man was created by God, the Bible proves that! So what about all those creatures that existed on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years? Of course they evolved. And some of them very much resemble modern man. But God said He created us in His image. Maybe not necessarily physically, God doesn't have a body! But the difference between us and those creatures is indeed that "missing link" that cannot be "found". The link is God. The difference is that we (modern man) were created with a free will. No other creatures have ever had that. \n\nIf you read Genesis 1:1 you see that God created the heaven and earth. But something very drastic happened probably over a very long period of time between verse one and two because we see in verse two that the earth was without form, and void...\nNow what does God create that is without form and void? Nothing! Everything God creates is perfect.\nSo what happened and how many years passed between verse one and verse two? Science tells us that, there's no mystery. Creatures of all kinds evolved, the popular idea is something hit the earth and tilted it on it's axis. That triggered all kinds of weather changes, ice ages countered by global warming (without benefit of fossil fuels I might add), dinosaurs lived and died off. Primitive man-like creatures became dominant. It's all there!\n\nSo yes, you can believe in God and understand that creatures indeed evolved. But modern man, with all of his uniqueness, was created by God.\n\nNow concerning your lack of passion for your faith... read Acts Chapter 2 in the New Testament a couple of times and see if that piques your interest. I'll guarantee you have never been taught that in the catholic church. You need to ask yourself why. It is clear by the scriptures that Jesus intends that everyone with a love for the truth receive the gift of the Holy Ghost just as described in Acts 2. Read it again! It still happens just that way. It's still real. I see it every week. I see the power of the Spirit being used through ordinary people like you and me. Ordinary people like Jesus and the disciples were. Jesus didn't come and die so that we would have to seek everything we needed through a priest. He came that we could boldy go directly to Him with our needs. That is scripture! You need forgiveness? You need to ask Jesus, not another man. You need compassion and love? Ask Jesus, don't ask another man. Do you want to understand exactly what He has for you in this life and the next? You need to ask Him, not some portly old fellow in a black robe. Ask God directly. Go boldly to the throne and tell Him you need to know more. You will be amazed what you will experience if you are sincere and have enough character!\n\nUpdate 5-1-06\nI read with interest one of the answers below that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the churches today. Sure, just ask someone (other than God). And if you don't like that answer just go ask someone else. That say's two things:\n1. The "authotities" in the churches don't even agree on truth.\n2. People only are interested in what they want to hear.\n\nThat's what I meant when I said God will show you the truth if you seek it from Him with a true desire to know. Why ask another man who has no clue anyway? We are talking about something as important as the salvation of your soul. Why wouldn't you go directly to the source if the source asked, indeed pleaded with you, to do so?\nAnd Paul absolutely did not encourage people to believe whichever way was best for them. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ep. 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You see this repeated throughout the New Testament. There are not many paths to God, there is one.  Please, read the scriptures for yourself. You do not need someone to interpret the Bible for you. Let God show you
314832
Human beings did not descend from chimpanzees.  Rather they had a common ancestor.  It appears from recent research that initially they were not occupy seperate genus, and continued to interbreed.  Probably around the time the Great Rift Valley opened up, they divurged sufficiently for this to cease.  A likely explanation is that man, tho' genetically nearly idential to his chimp cousin at this point, was sufficiently more adaptable that he was able to sustain himself on the east side of the valley, which had become a savannah rather than rain forest.
664247
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...
158030
Sorry to be picky, but we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes!\n\nModern monkeys aren't the same as our and their common ancestors, they have evolved too! They've just changed in different ways to adapt to their environment. Evolution has made them very well adapted to living in trees, e.g. long prehensile tails and both "hands" and "feet" that can grip. Note that humans don't have these marvellous adaptations!\n\nWe got bigger brains, tool-making and language skills, and the ability to walk upright, which enabled us to thrive in environments that monkeys would struggle to survive in. But you try living in a tree and eating bananas all day and see how well adapted you are to that! Evolution has just treated us differently, that's all.
188137
FYI  Answer one is absolute garbage, totally fictitious rubbish.  In fact this answer is a scam answer probably set up by yourself.  It would not be possible to provide this answer in that time so unless the chap has been waiting for someone like you to post this question for ever and just happened to be there when you did in order to post first, then he is you.  How stupid do you think we really are.\n\nAnswers 2 & 4 have it right.  We did not evolve from monkeys and apes, we share a common ancestor.  It would actually have been as equally valid or stupid a question to say, "If monkeys and apes evolved from humans, how come there are still humans.  To believe humans are superior in anything other than their intellect takes the arrogance of religous belief or "faith".
176935
I've been debating creationists for the better part of a decade and I have still never heard a single piece of evidence against evolution (really, common descent, almsot all creationists accept evolution, though they hate the word and refuse to use the correct definitions).\n\nIf they had anything, we'd have heard of it by now.  Instead we just get, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and such nonsense.  (Hint: that question has been asked on Answers.Yahoo at least ten times since I started coming here three days ago, and it has been answered for over 100 years, GET UP TO DATE CREATIONISTS!)\n\nCreationists have no evidence against evolution.  If they did, it still wouldn't make creationism a reasonable proposition.  They need explanations for the evidence that contradicts creationism, such as the sorting of the fossil record (how did all those mangroves make it to the top?).
673720
Humans and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor.\nNow humans and monkeys are seperate species. \nComparisons between chimp and human DNA show the two species share 95 per cent of their genetic material.\nMonkeys aren't going to change into humans - this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory on human origins.
626594
This idea that apes are still around, so we couldn't have evolved from them is a surprisingly common argument that reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.\n\nSome Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.\n\nSpeciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the Univer
584546
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj