If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?
958806
Humans and the other apes evolved from a common ancestor. That ancestor split from what we call monkeys some time before that.\nwww.talkorigins.org has a lot of good information. There is a good article here:\nwww.nature.com/nature/focus/hominid\n\nI also second the recomendation of www.becominghuman.org
594431
1. There is no such thing as a "lower primate". Only creationists who are ignorant of evolutionary science would ever  use such a term. All organisms have been evolving for EXACTLY the same amount of time. There are no "lower" organisms.\n\n2. We are not simply the descendants of apes, we ARE apes. Humans are one of the 5 currently living great ape species. \n\n3. The most compelling evidence is in the degre of genetic homogeneity, with over 95% of genetic material shared between humans and the chimp species.
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
445160
Actually, Darwin NEVER said we evolved from monkeys! (Quoted from my Biology Professor at LSUA). There is this huge creation/evolution stink going around, but all evolution states is what has already been stated...the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.  Now he DID say we could have all resulted from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, just so happened that the monkey developed one way, and the humans another way, but he doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever.  The result is evolutionary adaptation, the accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.  In modern terms, evolution is defined as a change over time in the genetic composition of a population.  in 1859, Charles Darwin published a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".  Look it up and check that out.
731469
There are several species of apes one type evolved based upon circumstances, remoteness and to adapt to changing environments. This would mean that the apes that were left behind would evolve in other ways ro stay in statis. This is why many species could share a common ancestor, because due to some circumstance their evolutionary path branched from the main one. \n\nTry this experiment at home. Take a species that has a short life-cycle such as a fruitfly, introduce them several into two closed systems in a tank. Place some stress on one group and you will find that the flies will have changed to overcome the stress over a few generations. The flies in the other tank will not have changed. So apes evolved in one region to deal with some form of environmental stress to enable survival, whereas apes in another area may have had an environment that was in stasis or they could cope with and so they did not evolve.
422753
Just because man evolved from apes does not mean that the apes have been wiped out or replaced in that process.But what actually happened is that around 2-3 million years ago a group of apes started moving from their habitat in the African heartland toward the drier northern regions.As a result of changing climate and ecology They had to make certain adaptations in order to survive and thus these apes started evolving into humans wheres the groups which stayed back carried on with their existing traits because those characteristics were suitable for their habitats.So you have to understand that evolution takes place because there arises a need to change which can be attributed to change in ecology,climate,population etc...And it is only this group which is subjected to change conditions and it is only this group that actually evolves.
1019723
Noo we werent monkeys...\nit was said that we evovled from monkeys in other words we were ancestors. We humans look like monkeys, even a long time ago, because we share the common ancestors with the monkeys... It is believed that not too long ago (compared to the life history of the earth), a certain type of old ape started to evolve toward what ended up as humans today, but some of them also evolved toward the ape direction and gave rise to the apes of today. It is not hard to imagine why we look so similar to apes since really we have not had a time long enough to really diverge our appearance since we originated from the same ancestor.
1106498
I have often pondered this question too.  I believe that scientists would say that human evolution involves a new genetic trait that resulted in some, but not all monkeys.\n \nSome say monkeys, some say birds, fish or small rodents...it's all weird.
214059
human evolution, theory of the origins of the human species, Homo sapiens. Modern understanding of human origins is derived largely from the findings of paleontology, anthropology, and genetics, and involves the process of natural selection (see Darwinism). Although gaps in the fossil record due to differential preservation prevent the complete specification of the line of human descent, H. sapiens share clear anatomical, genetic, and historic relationships to other primates. Of all primates, humans bear particularly close affinity to other members of a group known as hominoids, or apes, which includes orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Humans and their immediate ancestors, known as hominids, are notable among hominoids for their bipedal locomotion, slow rate of maturation, large brain size, and, at least among the more recent hominids, the development of a relatively sophisticated capacity for language, tool use, and social activity.\nThe Evolutionary Tree\n\nHumans are mammals of the Primate order. The earliest primates evolved about 65 million years ago in the geological period known as the Paleocene epoch. They were small-brained, arboreal fruit eaters, similar to modern tree shrews. Primates of the Eocene epoch (55 to 38 million years ago) were similar and ancestral to contemporary tarsiers, lemurs, and tree shrews, and are classified as lower primates or prosimians. During the late Eocene, the higher primates, or anthropoids, developed from prosimian ancestors and, aided by continental drift, diverged into New World (or platyrrhine) and Old World (or catarrhine) monkeys. The branching of Old World monkeys and hominoids apparently occurred in the late Oligocene (38 to 25 million years ago) or early Miocene (25 to 8 million years ago), a time period poorly represented in the fossil record. The lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs) and other hominoid lines diverged about 20 million years ago, while the Asian great apes (the orangutan being the only surviving form) diverged from the African hominoids about 15 to 10 million years ago. Genetic evidence suggests that the ancestral lines of gorillas diverged about 8 million years ago and that chimpanzees and hominids diverged about 5 million years ago.\n\nHominid Evolution\n\nThe earliest known hominids are members of the genus Australopithecus, the earliest of which date to more than 4 million years ago. Unlike other primates, but like all hominids, australopithecines were bipedal. Their crania, however, were small and apelike, with an average cranial capacity of about 450 cc in the gracile species and 600 cc in the robust forms. Australopithecines that have been considered ancestral in the lineage leading to the human genus Homo include A. afarensis (an important skeleton of which is popularly known as Lucy) and A. africanus. The exact position of these and other early species on the hominid family tree continues to be disputed.\n\nThe first member of the genus Homo, a small gracile species known as H. habilis, was present in east Africa at least 2 million years ago. H. habilis was the first hominid to exhibit the marked expansion of the brain (with an average cranial capacity of about 750 cc) that would become a hallmark of subsequent hominid evolutionary history. By about 1.6 million years ago, H. habilis had evolved into a larger, more robust, and larger-brained species known as Homo erectus. Cranial capacities ranged from about 900 cc in early specimens to 1050 cc in later ones. H. erectus persisted for well over a million years and migrated off the African continent into Asia, Indonesia, and Europe.\n\nBetween 500,000 and 250,000 years ago, H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens. Transitional forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens are referred to as archaic H. sapiens. With the exception of H. sapiens neandertalensis (see Neanderthal man), no additional subspecies are recognized. Indeed, some scientists consider Neanderthal a separate species. Archaic H. sa
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)
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.
12016
Different apes.  Both people and present-day apes evolved from a common ancestor which was ape-like, but not the same as a present-day ape.
14634
becuz we didnt evolve from monkeys.\nhonestly if u idiots want to say u evolved from a hairy stupid animal then go ahead and make fools of urselves.\nyea yea the ape is smart not as smart as humans.
638157
Apes and humans had a common ancestor (which was what we could call ape-like).
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".
260527
Genetic research actually showed that the ancestors of humans and apes did split apart at different points in time. \nUnfortunately this doesn't leave us in a better position to get out own biological family after all: \nOrang Utans, Gorillas and Chimpanzees are actually a lot closer related to each other than to humans. On the other hand, humans and bonobo chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) are more closely related to each other than to any other ape - we shared the same branch for quite a while after it split off the rest of the apes. \nSo I suppose either we end up in the family Pan with the other apes or we will have to take the Bonobos into the human family.
107257
Monkeys?  Humans evolved from this source, however, it wasn't over night, this took place over thousands of years.  There are snow monkeys anyway, living in the Himalayas so that blows your theory.