Darwin Theory Question?

Question

This is for the true Darwin followers...can you answer the following questions (and if you can't, admit that you can't please):

#1.) If we evolved from "monkeys", why do monkeys still exsist? Why haven't they all evolved humans? *now before you jump on that on, wait for this next one.

#2.) If monkeys still exsist, why don't Neandertals and Australopithecus "Man Ape" still exsist? I'm trying to see this connection, but am failing to do so, which has me doubting Darwin's theory even more.

Answer 1

Man did not evolve from monkey's. With the exception of some creationists, nobody is making such a claim.

We share a common lineage but the split from humans and apes took place millions of years ago.

Humans are part of the hominid family. They are both part of and descended from them. The process of this development is called evolution. In brief, this means that new species develop and expand as they are better at dealing with their environment then others. See: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

for a discussion of the evolution process.

The hominids include humans and the apes. They are part of the family Hominidae, of the order Primate. To repeat, humans did not "descend from the apes" We share a common ancestor with them and are considered "cousins." Chimpanzees, our closest relative, share a 99% match in DNA. In protein sequencing, the match is closer, no differences at all.  When man's protein sequencing is compared to gorillas there is only two differences in the match with hemoglobin, red blood cells and amino acids. Lastly the antgen-antibody reaction for humans is 97% from chimpanzees compared to 50% for baboons. In other words we're related. DNA is today used to show how closely people are related (as in determining paternity) and to determine if people were at a crime scene (as a means to determine guilt or innocence). It also is used to determine how long ago species split off from each other.

The split from the apes is put at 8 million years ago. That's based both on the fossil remains and the know rate of change for DNA. The first bipedal hominids (walking on two feet) is 4 million years ago. The first known bipedal hominids were the Australopithecus. ("Southern Ape") There are several known types and the exact lineage is still being argued. The known family tree is:

Australopithecus afarenis "Southern Ape of Afar" This is the species "Lucy" belongs to.  Brain size is about 410cc, they stood between 3 and 4 feet and weighed about 65 pounds. They went extinct about 2.5 million years ago.

Australopithecus africanus "Southern Ape of Africa" Probably evolved from Australopithecus afarenis and lived 3 to 1 million years ago. Brain size was about the same as a gorilla's and they stood between 3 and 4 feet tall. Weight was about 45 to 90 pounds.

Australopithecus robustis "Robust Southern Ape" This species is larger then Australopithecus africanus , 4 feet 11 inches and 5 feet 7 inches, and weighed 110-154 pounds. Brain size is put at 500cc. This group lived 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago. There is argument that robustis was the male of the afarenis or africanus species.

Australopithecus boisei "Bosie Southern Ape" boisei is named after one Charles Boise and supporter of fossil hunts. The original name was Zinjanthropus "East Africa man" The species lived 2.5 to 1 million years ago. Height was between 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 10 inches. Weight was between 132 and 176 pounds. Brain size was about 500cc.  boisei is nicknamed "Nutcracker man" due to its large jaw and massive grinding teeth. However, examination has shown that it could chew no harder then us and it's diet seems to have primarily been of leaves.

Homo habilis "Handy man" This is reported to be the first known species of the genus Homo. The brain is larger the Australopithecus, 650-800cc compared to 500cc, the arms shorter, and hip bones that facilitated bipedal walking. Body size was reduced from boisei and robustis, back to between four and five feet. Weight is put at 110 pounds. The species is dated at 2.5 to 1.5 million years ago. Habilis was a throw back in that the head had not changed with the rest of the body. It still retained the brow ridges, jaws and nose of the Australopithecus. In fact, some discoveries were so labeled.

Homo erectus "Upright Man") was the first hominid to leave Africa. His existence dates from 1.6 million years ago to perhaps 200,000 years ago. However, recent discovers have suggested that isolated populations may have existed even later.

Brain size is put at 850cc, height up to 6 feet and weight was comparable to modern humans.

Early discoveries of Homo Eretus remains were variously named Peking Man, Java Man and Heidelberg Man. His range was all of Africa, most of Europe and as far east as China. Sites in California have been suggested as containing Homo erectus finds. No one had satisfactorily explained how the vast distance from China to California was crossed. Recently a small sample the population of China was tested to determine their DNA. The theory tested was that man developed in Africa, spread out and then further developed in China. What was found suggested that waves of hominids came out of Africa, each developed the race further. The idea how having man develop in several regions and not just Africa has supporters as does the "out of Africa" theory.

Homo sapiens neanderthalenis "Man from the Neander Valley" This species is today considered a "dead end," someone that did not give rise to Homo sapiens sapiens. The latest support has come from DNA analysis of his bones. They don't match with Homo sapiens sapiens. In other words, humans did not develop fro the Neandertals. Neandertals are larger in body then modern humans with massive bones. They have short, compact bodies, with large joints and hands. The body shape suggests they were well adapted to cold environments. They are dated between 200,000 to 30,000 years ago. In some sites (the Middle East at Jebel Irhoud, Tabun, and Skhul) the two species (Homo sapiens, and Homo sapiens neanderthalenis) lived near each other. It has been suggested that an archaic Homo sapiens gave rise to the species. They had to date been found only in Europe and the Middle East. It has been suggested that while the species was successful, they may have a a lower birth rate then the early humans. Given only a 2% lower rate per generation would lead to extenuation.

Homo sapiens "Man who thinks" The archaic form is dated between 500,000 and 150,000 years ago. Brain size is about 1200cc. The species shows strong links and the characteristic of Homo erectus.

Homo sapiens sapiens Modern man. The first know group appears some 40,000 years ago during the Neolithic period. However, new finds are pushing that date back.

Notice that brain size has been increasing. We also developed foreheads and our bone structure has become more slender.

About "why don't Neandertals and Australopithecus "Man Ape" still exsist?"  Consider this question: Why aren't we still using the same early cellphones?

http://www.jancorver.org/ombouw/nokia/im...

or the newer models from the 1980s?

http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/...

Why is there a demand for iphones?

http://www.kottke.org/plus/misc/images/i...

The answer is technology has evolved. Of course the creationists will look at the photos and say this is only a 'theory" and ask why there aren't any "missing links" shown in cellphone evolution.

So why use an iphone over a 1980s 'brick'? The answers include efficiency, speed, number of uses, range, cost and what you can do with it.

In a nutshell that's why earlier humans aren't around anymore.They were replaced my newer, more efficient models.

Answer 2

I admire that you are trying to learn on your own, and not just asking fellow creationists.  There is actually no problem with your two questions and the evolutionary theory; actually, they fit perfectly.

1) Technically, monkeys are more of a cousin to humans.  We are much closer related to apes (monkeys have tails; apes don't).  So why do other apes exist?

Answer:  We did not evolve directly from anything that is in its present form today.  Rather, humans and modern apes all evolved from the same species millions of years back.  Try not to think of evolution as a guided, linear path.

2)  Australopithecines do not exist because either they branched off our evolutionary path (and were unfit to survive), or continued evolving into what is now modern humans.

It's not an easy concept to grasp, but we see evolution happening all the time on a small scale.  Generally it are these small changes that over time lead to a new species.  When you take into account the fossil record, biochemical data (DNA), and structural comparison, the evolution theory is the only explanation that incorporates all the evidence.  Every new finding supports and adds to the theory, especially with the discovery of DNA.  Evolution has many practical uses, and is the backbone of biology.

Edit:  Let me also point out that in scientific terms, a "theory" is not less than a fact.  One aspect of evolution is fact:  that change occurs within a species over time.  Nobody in their right mind can deny that.

Evolution is a theory because it explains how.  Plate tectonics, gravity, and the atomic theory are all "theories," but calling them so does not give them less credibility.

Answer 3

Monkeys still exist because they were adaptable to their environment.  The second part of the first question is, they did!  The original never went away, it was some small part that changed.

Neanderthals and Australopithecus  didn't adapt as well as monkeys and moved around too much to expand the group and eventually died out.

Darwinism doesn't have all of the exact answers that I can see either, but it's as close as we can get without being stupid and believing that god or some alien did the job!

If nobody believed in any god, it would eliminate hope for us humans and that could have lead to chaos worse than we've seen over the course of history.  We're bad enough, without something to control us a little bit, like religious rule and such, we'd be in one h**l of a predicament!  The elders that have passed may have been archaic, but they knew that rules and hope and such are what would separate us from the monkeys!  

We don't have all the answers yet and maybe we never will, but you can bet your next paycheck that somewhere in the family lineage of humans, there's a monkey's uncle!!!!!

Answer 4

We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn't evolve from the species of monkey you see today.

We are "cousins" in evolutionary terms. Like a tree with two branches.

Answer 5

The one thing that many who don't understand evolution very well have a mistaken notion that it involves one line of creatures changing to others.  What is more important is changes in the environment that favor those animals that can adapt to it.  The one thing that is required for species to split into two species is separation into more than one population.  Let's take the bonobo (pigmy chimp) and regular chimp as an example.  The human chimp common ancestor split into two populations from some barrier that either could not cross, perhaps a river.  The species that became chimps seems to have moved into the niche of the forest and it evolved extremely strong arms.  The common ancestor was probably already very intelligent and chimps didn't need to evolve greater intelligence to thrive in its niche.  There is an ideal size of the brain for a particular niche.  If it gets too big, it requires too much energy and is difficult to protect and carry around.  The bonobo's knucklewalking either evolved or remained to cope with the underbrush.  Frankly we are not sure if the common ancestor was bipedal (as I think likely) or a knucklewater.   At some point in the Congo a million years ago, two rivers separated a population of chimps that later became the bonobos.  These bonobos seem to have evovled less than regular chimps and are more human looking and acting.  I won't go into differences but this is supported by genetic and behavioral studies.  When you look at a chimp, the relation to humans is very obvious.  I know it is offensive to Catholic school teaching but for me it isn't at all.  I think they are magnificent creatures.

In my opinion, both Neanderthals and Australopithecus (assuming they didn't evolve into an existing creature including us), died because of compitition with our ancestors or other creatures better adapted for particular niches.  In the history of life, creatures have sometimes had only brief periods before they were replaced.

Answer 6

Evolution is the act of change driven a species ability to adapt to their environment.  Life is constant variation.  We vary greatly within our own species regarding physical traits (short and tall, thin or broad, dark skinned and light skinned, dark hair and light hair, etc).  As a species' environment changes, the new environment offers challenges and opportunities.  Environmental conditions will give advantage to one specific physical trait and disadvantage to another.  The advantage will lead to creatures who possess a specific trait flourishing, remaining healthier and stronger.  They will also have greater opportunities to breed and pass on the trait.  The opposite goes for the disadvantaged.  Thus, the trait, at first considered a variation or even mutation, will eventually become the norm.  This is evolutionary change.

Regarding monkeys: We did not evolve from monkeys, but do share distant genetic ancestors.  At some point, early primates split into multiple groups.  Adaptation to multiple environments lead to different groups evolving into different species based upon their local environments.  These groups evolved separately into numerous modern primates, including humans and monkeys.

Regarding Neanderthal: A key thing to understand in studying evolution is that the species we document (e.g.: Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Homo ergaster, etc.) are snap shots in time.  We don't have a benefit of having evidence for every year going back 5 million years.  What we do have are fossil evidence which document evolutionary stages hundreds of thousands of years apart.  Imagine if we could see our ancestors in a slide show of yearly photos from "Lucy" to modern man.  We would discovery thousands of new species in between the few dozen that we have documented. Or, we may realize that all of those species in between are simple early family photos of one continuous species that has simply changed over time.

Answer 7

You said:

"I am still a big believer in Creation, but am open to hearing this "theory" because I do think there is SOME truth to it, but not don't think there is enough evidence to disprove creation over evolution...in which some need to remember that it still is only a theory...because if it were fact, it would be a Law (i.e. Newton's Law, etc.)."

No, it wouldn't be a Law. A theory in science is NOT the same as a theory in English usage. Gravity is a theory, it's been 'proven.' Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, but it has been proven in the laboratory many times.

In the same way, evolution has been proven many times, both by fossils, genetic evidence, and laboratory experiments with quickly-reproducing organisms. The claim that "evolution is only a theory" is simply a misuse of the word 'theory.' When people say that, they MEAN to say that "evolution is only a hypothesis," when, in fact, it is a full-blown, empirically supported theory.

Darwin's theory, Gravity, and Relativity are all proven, but they will never be scientific laws. This is only a result of the definition of what can and cannot be a 'law' in science, and it has nothing to do with its scientific validity.

Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY.

The FACT of evolution is that we can look back at fossil evidence and genetic evidence and conclude that all creatures evolve and speciate.

The THEORY of evolution is a scientific explanation for why the FACT of evolution occurs.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's article about evolution as both a fact and a theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...

I cannot stress this enough: In Science, there is NO controversy about evolution; it is accepted by 99.9% of scientists as being representative of what really happened, and is still happening, in nature. The .1% of scientists who reject evolution do so for religious purposes (people like Michael Behe),

The ONLY opposition to evolution is from the religious sphere, because they believe that it cheapens our worth as human beings. If it weren't for religion, there would be no evolution "controversy".

Hope that helps!

Answer 8

You are seriously confused on many things, Penguin Lady. You have got some good, explanatory answers here, but it is up to you to unlearn some of that nonsense you seemed to have picked up somewhere. Two other site that you need to peruse.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 9

I believe in the creation theory as well. But they is an explanation for your question #1. Only a branch from the monkeys evolved.

Answer 10

1) Because monkeys are mischievous like that.

2) Neanderthals and Australopithecines do exist! They just believe in creation.

All snark aside, it's galling to have someone so steeped in ignorance trying to play the logical syllogism gotcha game.

As a previous poster so clearly stated, the theory of evolution is not disputed or waiting to be proven. The fossil record, genetic research, common sense, ecology all prove it again and again, without dispute. It's as much a theory as gravity is, so if you'd like to sit around under apple trees waiting for the apple to fly into the stratosphere too, be my guest.

To answer your questions, we did not evolve from the monkeys we see today. We and monkeys have a common primate ancestor many millions of years ago. All organisms on earth are branches on a family tree, evolving in complexity and differences across the millennia. Evolution does not mean perfection, or working towards something higher - it simply means that we are best adapted to our respective environments in terms of survival and reproduction. I think we can all agree that howler monkeys are far more adept than we are at leaping between trees in the rain forest just as we are better adapted to driving Subarus.

Which brings us to your second question - Neanderthals and Australopithecines no longer exist because they were pushed out of their niches by a better model. Genetic mutations led to changes in the species, which led to a different more evolved species that was better adapted to the environment, better adapted to surviving and reproducing, than the Neanderthals or Australopithecines were.

Let's consider penguin evolution. (Shades of Bloom County circa 1985 here...) Penguins are perfectly evolved to live in their environment. A parrot couldn't take it. A sparrow couldn't take it. Penguins have several adaptations which allow them to live in the environment that they do. But then why are there so many different species of penguins? Why have emperors and chin-straps and Adelie and all the others? Why are there still one kind when the others exist, as you asked of monkeys and humans? I mean, they look quite similar, clearly penguins have some kind of common ancestor. The answer is that they've branched out from that common ancestor, each variety evolving and adapting to fit a different niche.

Funny - the Catholic Church itself doesn't dispute evolution anymore. Maybe you need to read the latest bulls from Rome?

Answer 11

Didn't explain your teachers??.. Man doesn't evolved from monkeys... according evolution theory, man evolved from hominid species. And neanderthal man was extintc because weather changes and other reasons.

Answer 12

Good answers so far.

Natural selection says that environmental pressures will promote those organisms best adapted to cope with them.  

The modern theory of evolutionary synthesis, however, is much better developed than the ideas first put forward by Darwin.

The same forces that produced previous homonid species would also have led to their demise.

As a parallel example - consider the sequoyah trees.  They have existed in the temperate rain forests on the west coast for a very, very long time.  But they are adapted to a very specific environment; they don't have any mechanism for controlling water loss through foliage.  With temperate rain forests shrinking, sequoyahs are being replaced by trees that tolerate a wider range of water conditions.

And, with only the fossil record to work from, the process of figuring out what gave rise to homo sapiens in the first place has been an enormous challenge.  There is a great deal of information we do not yet have.  That doesn't invalidate evolutionary ideas.

Answer 13

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Read this it will help you understand the controversies that exist over evolution.