If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?
364515
If you are going to comment about evolution, at least do yourself the favor of actually learning what it is.\n\nHumans did not evolve from the species of apes and monkeys that you see today.  Instead, all current primates (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor.  That was an "ape" that lived thousands of years ago, but it didn't look like the monkeys and gorillas you see today.\n\nGo to a museum, read a science book, or watch the Discovery channel sometime.  They all show you how humans evolved.\n\nIt doesn't take faith to believe in evolution.  It just takes the ability to open your eyes and look at the evidence.
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
1170584
The word  evolution means to evolve to change. So if we  came from apes how come we still have apes, after all if man went with an ape the ape population would no longer be around, I've never heard of such utter rubbish in my life, we were created by a power beyond our understanding, just look around you, what do you see, take a seed, how does it grow into a tree etc etc. It only takes a bit of common sense.\n\nGloria(BSYA)
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
638157
Apes and humans had a common ancestor (which was what we could call ape-like).
1091627
yes!\nWe share 95% of our DNA with monkeys. We have watched the evolution of animals as they have become more adapted to their changing environments. Humans have been able to teach monkeys to communicate too. It seems obvious to me that god created a universe that is ever changing and growing, not stagnant. Why is it so hard to believe that god may have started evolution? Maybe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman but not created from the dust of the earth? Just a thought
422256
I have all the respect in the world to Darwin. He is a good scientist, and even though evolution does indeed occur; it occurs withIN one species. So, in effect, an insect can evolve into an 'evolved' insect, but it can't evolve into a fish! Primates might 'seem' similar, but I do not hold them in the same 'species' as humans. In other words, I do not believe that WE evolved from monkeys, and therefore, we have no 'relatives' from the animal kingdom. If primates evolved into anything; I think it is into bigfoot, but not humans.
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
475630
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.
422068
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".
292034
We all had a common ancestor.  It just so happens that apes evolved differently to suit their environment than humans; we didn't evolve from each other, just divergently from our ancestor
1098773
We did not evolve from apes. I find it hard to believe evolution can create two different species.  That's like a cat evolving into a duck.
5138
Exactly. Humans did not evolve from primates. The theory of evolution is full of holes.
833870
No, its not true. If its true and that human being evolve from monkeys, then why can't they find one monkey that is half man and half monkey. If they can find one, then i'll believe. The chicken came first. Believe me.
260696
good lord, the level of the ignorance here is amazing!  please, see gs saint's answer, people.\n\n-man did not evolve directly from monkeys, he evolved from apes\n\n-there are still apes around because not all apes evolved into humans, only those in a certain locale did.  the environment man lived in was diffferent from the environment of the apes, spurring him to evolve in a different manner than chimps or bonobos.\n\nTurkishGamer13: it is not a flaw in the theory of evolution.  the coexistance of humans and other primates is fully supported by evolutionary theory, and is what would be expected if eveolution were true.  Umm, just about every characteristic of organisms today started out as a mutation.  Many mutations are harmful, because it is not likely that a random change in a being is going to be beneficial.  Some are though.  I have no wisdom teeth, and my dentist says i never will.  this is a mutation which benefits me.\n\nKajaK: science is moving away from evolution? LOL, read a book on the subject. there are controversies among biologists about the details of evolutionary theory, such as whether evolution occurs gradually at a steady rate or quickly in rapid bursts.  but these controversies do not affect the strength of the theory itself.  Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories - it is independently confirmed by all different branches of science: chemistry, biology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, ecology, etc.\n\namrmusicqueen: yes, the thousands of scientists over the past 100+ years, working with the most advanced technology, and who have devoted their entire lives to research, study, and experimentation in the issues of biology are ignorant about their subject.  Thousands of PhD's who have each spent decades studying the theory of evolution, trying to find flaws (if a scientist was able to disprove evolution, he wuold be one of the most famous scientists ever, so there is a lot of incentive for scientists to over turn previously established theory) are ignorant about the subject.  But a girl who has never studied the subject (this is a justified assumption, because if you had, you would not be so quick to make hasty generalizations) is qualified to pronounce evolution as "not-cutting it."  LMFAO.
1110596
to put it in very simple terms, all primates (humans, apes, etc. etc.) have descended from a common ancestor. its is like the common ancestor was walking when he came to a fork in the road and split into two groups......over millions of years this process kept happening. the phenomenon is known as speciation.....where one population of individuals of the same species gets spilt and are kept apart for so long that over millions of years they become so different due to genetic mutations that they are no longer one species.\n another analogy, similar to a fork in the road, is the branching of a tree. so you basically get the idea of what happens. well....for a monkey to 'evolve into a human' its would first have to regress to the common ancestor and then follow the path of the humans. and it is not a conscious effort that can do it but only conditions of nature and natural selection.\n it is possible for the 'monkey' to evolve into a creature that resembles humans(though not genetically), but i think thats as far as it will get.\n hope this answers your question
1149364
Ummmm Last time I checked humans have never evolved into monkeys.  However, there has been a lot of scientific research indicating that apes may have evolved into humans over very long amounts of time.   Evolution is something that occurs over an extremely long amount of time... if humans started living in water now- in thousands of years we could live like a fish. Do your research and don't judge people on what they do or do not believe. That isn't very Christian-like is it? Christians are supposed to be really nice and respectful aren't they?  The Bible could hold some truth, or it could possibly just be a way of setting good morals. No one knows for sure if God exists, and thats a fact.  I think you need to do some research.... I mean good grief- you thought we evolved into monkeys. I think you're a little backwards.  haha!