What bothers me is Man evolved from monkeys and Apes. How come we still have monkeys and Apes?

Question

What bothers me is Man evolved from monkeys and Apes. How come we still have monkeys and Apes?

Answer 1

We didn't evolve from monkeys and Apes, so that shouldn't bother you. I think majority of the people who answered before me said it best, so thanks for the 2 points.

Answer 2

I wonder how many times that same question has been asked and answered by scientists. Please follow this link. It provides a response to this and most other claims creationists have made in their attempts to unsuccessfully debunk evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list....

Answer 3

maybe you want to rethink that evolution theory.

we evolved from human beings that were originally living in conditions in which they needed a body similar to the Apes for survival.

as they progress through the ages, this Humans had less need for sleeping on trees, and or caves etc.

Answer 4

WE didn't evolve from monkeys and apes, we evolved from the cross breeding of neanderthal (ape man) and alien.

Answer 5

If you don't know enough about evolution to know that evolution does not indicate that modern man evolved from "monkeys and apes", then you need to do some actual -reading- on the subject.  Something other than what your church tells you to read, I mean. Monkeys and apes evolved from the same ancestors that humans did.

Answer 6

We didn't evolve from *modern* apes and monkeys.  Humans, apes and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor that looked more like a monkey/ape, and so people say that we evolved from monkeys/apes.

Then different species ended up living in different environments (eg. grasslands vs. trees), which ended up favoring the evolution of certain characteristics.  Those that stayed in the trees kept more monkey characteristics, whereas we became bipedal and the rest is (pre-)history.

Answer 7

Many species can have a common ancestor.  Some split off from the group and live in a different climate which requires a different set of traits.  They evolve or die.  Monkeys have always been and and are still evolving in their own way.

Answer 8

What's amazing is that people still ask this question, though it has been answered here and no doubt at a dozen other places gosh only knows how many times. Humankind did NOT...NOT...evolve from either monkeys or apes. Our species evolved from the same ape-like ancestor as present-day apes, along separate paths, taking a different course to what you see today. We are primates, we are animals. It's nothing to be ashamed of, silverback apes are splendid critters.

Answer 9

you are the only ape left

Answer 10

Apparently, like most people, you have never read Darwin's

theory. He never said that we evolved from apes. What he

said was that we and the great apes evolved from the same

antecedents.

Answer 11

As pointed out by others, we did not evolve from apes, but from a common ancestor where both of our species now represent 6-7 million years of disparate evolutionary paths to fill completely different niche.  The "savanna hypothesis" of hominid evolution has also popped up in the answers... THIS HYPOTHESIS WAS DISPROVEN OVER 25 YEARS AGO.  I don't know why so many people pretend to be educated on this subject and then submit out-of-date information.  I will cover environmental pressures towards bipedalism as an addition to your question to attempt to clear up this misconceived hypothesis that so many have thrown your way.  Although, the root of this suggestion is that our hominid lineage was seperated and put under a different environmental presure for a time, this much is true.

To answer your question, however, we must first address what evolution is. Evolution is conditional on variability within a population, and how this variation is selected for within the environment via reproductive success. While this process has been acting upon humans since our separation with our common ancestors with apes, it has also been acting on this same common ancestor to result in the differences in the apes as well.  Look at our closest relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos); they too have continued to evolve during their 6-7 million years of separate evolution to their distinct environments.  Of course seeing as their generational spacing is large, like it is with humans, this evolution is more difficult to see within a small time frame as well. Evolution, however, is based primarily on reproductive success whereby the most fit individuals within given environments will produce the most offspring and the characteristics which provided that success will spread amongst the group. Chimpanzees and Bonobos diverged from our common ancestor around 6-7 mya and then consequently split from their shared common ancestor 2-2.5 mya. In this time an array of distinct differences have evolved that make these two species very distinguishable from one another and these differences are clearly from environmental pressures. The bonobos, for instance practice bipedalism much more frequently then Chimpanzees and also have a drastically different means of conflict resolution, where as chimpanzees are much more quadrepedal, aggressive and competitive. So why have these characteristics sprung up in the mere 2my since these two groups were isolated from each other because of the changing flow of a river which geographically split their common ancestor into two groups? Well, the bonobos were restricted into a more swamp like/arboreal environment which was confined in space, where as the chimpanzees were left in a savanna/arboreal mixed environment which was expansive. The swampy aspect of the bonobo habitat forced them to practice bipedalism frequently because their terrain was not fully traversable without adapting to this strategy periodically. Those individuals who were better adapted became better foragers in providing access to resources and removing these same food resources from swampy areas and this characteristic has been selected for over generations. Chimpanzees meanwhile have found great success in being primarily quadrapedal because the mixed arboreal savanna environment has no selective advantage towards being bipedal much to the chagrin of contemporary anthropology. I wish that they could look at the primates that have adapted more bipedalism (proboscis for traversing mangrove forests, crab eating macaques when carrying their shellfish to shore, Japanese macaques when bathing in the hot springs) before jumping to their foolish "mixed" hypothesis conclusion. Anyways, that is a completely separate topic; let me continue with your question. The other differential traits between bonobos and chimpanzees that are very apparent are in how they deal with conflict resolution. Bonobos, who live in a confined environment, rarely result in full out conflict. They have a culture of threat displays and sexual resolution techniques that are fully employed before conflict arises. This includes running bipedaly while dragging sticks, to p***s fencing, to female genital genital rubbing. They appear to be bi-sexual at first, but upon further observation it becomes obvious that these rituals are all about relieving stress and combativeness in a controlled manner and they are not actually s*x crazy primates as some have portrayed them. Quite honestly, because of their confined space this group of primates can not afford to fight aggressively because conflicts would be too frequent and too costly to the group, so other means of conflict resolution have formed to adapt to this confined environment. Chimpanzees, alternatively, do not have this confined environment and are an ultra competitive group of primates who tend to use physical dominance to acquire a higher ranking thus hopefully attaining more reproductive opportunities. Chimpanzees have also been observed to conduct warfare and will murder males from neighbouring groups and they have clearly defined territories. If bonobos were to live like this they would no longer be existing today because their troops show much more overlap between one another and conflicts and murders would have become far to commonplace if they lived like chimpanzees. Research at Yerkes primate research center has utilized interactive and educational tools to determine the cognitive abilities of both of these primate species and as would be expected and corroborates what field observations would predict, bonobos are much better communicators, where as chimpanzees are much better tool makers. If evolution was not occurring in monkeys then we would not be able to tell these two species apart, yet the distinctions are too numerous to ignore.

More recently primates of all types became afflicted with SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus). Originally SIV would have acted much like HIV acts within the humans that it afflicts, but in the modern primate species SIV is hardly even noticeable. Evolution has adapted to the severity of such a virus and in modern primates their are many carriers of this virus who carry it completely through their reproductive lifespan. This is a great example of primate microevolution, and much like the human biology is constantly warring with bacteria and viruses on the micro level, the same is occurring in all primates.

As you can see all primates, including humans, are in a constant state of evolution. If an environment on a macro scale is no longer very influential like is seen with humans especially, then there is little reason for any noticeable phenotypic expression that might cause noticeable morphological changes. Undoubtedly, however, the environment on a micro scale is much more active due to the extremely short generational cycle of micro organisms and, as-of-such, this rapidly changing micro-environment is constantly being adapted to and evolution at this level is very apparent within all primates.

To summarize, evolution is not "unique" to humans and all the primates surviving to this day have evolved from our respective common ancestors to fill their unique niche as well.  Modern Apes and Monkeys are the result of these separate evolutionary paths.

Now concerning the environmental pressures that allowed for our bipedalism.  The earliest hypothesis put forth to explain this was the savanna hypothesis, which became discredited when the archaeological record of hominids showed sites previous to the time of savannas being the primary landscape feature in Africa, namely sites that preceded 3 mya. Archaeology at this point has even unearthed a few hominid sites that are proposing that early hominids were present even as far back as 6 mya, and if this is the case then the savanna is truly an impossible environment to have allowed our evolution. It was Raymond Dart who first proposed the savanna hypothesis and he did so because he had discovered hominid remains that had lived in South Africa. The archaeological evidence for his site proposed a savanna environment. Being one of the first hominid sites to be found, he was free to conjecture whatever ideas he saw fit from his evidence and hence the birth of the savanna hypothesis. Over the last 25 years, the savanna hypothesis has been increasingly discredited because of the discovery of sites that date back to earlier times that did not have a savanna environment.

With this fact, contemporary anthropology has more and more began to describing our evolutionionary environment as being that of a mixed hypothesis, which is a primarily arboreal environment with savanna patches between forests. As some Chimpanzee groups live in this "mixed" environment, whereas Bonobos live in a swampy/arboreal environment and display much more incidences of bipedalism, it is my humble opinion that the mixed hypothesis is also flawed in its reasoning, yet that is where anthropology stands on the subject. Other contending hypothesis for the origins of man are:

The ice age hypothesis, which states that Northern Hemisphere ice ages made the African environment drier suddenly, thus forcing the rapic evolution of our species.

The arboreal hypothesis, which states that our constant tree climbing allowed for the adoption of a more upright posture. There are a lot of arboreal monkeys/apes however which are by no means showing the same tendancy so I don't buy this one.

The hypothesis of neotony, which simply states that some undefined rapid environmental change pushed our ancestor towards more generalized neonatal characteristics (baby characteristics) in order to expand our biological toolkit for adaptation.

And my personal favourite, the aquatic hypothesis, which does NOT propose that our hominid ancestors swam in the open ocean as many of it's opponents will have you believe. In fact their is a lot of geological evidence that shows that the great rift valley flooded around 10-8 million years ago and that this would have resulted in an island remaining in Eretria. The aquatic ape hypothesis postulates that the apes that were in this area were forced together onto this Island as the water rose during this period of flooding and as the population became too dense for the remaining terrestrial resources to support this population of apes, they began to experiment with new food sources. Over the years one food source that became more and more abundant were the shellfish in the adjacent tidal areas and it was these resources which these apes began to exploit (like the crab eating macaques do in South East Asia). As this environment was exploited more and more as a food source, the most successful apes were the ones that had advantages (ever so slightly) towards holding their bodies erect as they searched for crabs or oysters (excellent protein source for brain development) in the tidal regions and over many generations (about 1 million years of isolation) bipedalism, a reduced size of our hair, the ability to control our breath, increased fatty tissue, a diving reflex and a whole host of other characteristics came about in these now early hominids. Similiar adaptations took place in a whole bunch of other fully aquatic mammal species like seals, dolphins and whales. The difference with hominids, however, was that the waters receeded after we had only made a partial adaptation towards aquaticism, and as of such they were suddenly left with a new set of characteristics that could be applied within the terrestrial environment where these hominids now found themselves. If these characteristics were not beneficcial then hominids would have gone extinct then and there, but as history has proven, this little, naked hominid stood the test of time and was able to apply his new biological toolkit to adapting to new environments throughout the globe.

The Aquatic hypothesis is the only opposing hypothesis that has gone to great lengths at giving details concerning our biological adaptations and I find that it successfully competes and is even superior to the ideas currently being put fourth by the mixed hypothesis. I do not deny that both the ice-age and neotony hypothesis, respectively, could have contributed within the scope of either the mixed or aquatic hypothesis as mechanisms that may have assisted, or hastened our evolution. It is the aquatic hypothesis hypothesis, however, that I believe will eventually be given "theory" status once enough empiracle evidence is provided.  Contemporary anthropologists, however are still adhering to the mixed hypothesis as the savanna hypothesis has been dead for a long time now.

Answer 12

the basic answer is that of two chimp-like species:one was forced onto the plains by climate change and had to adapt and compete in a whole different way to the other, which stayed in the jungle and so stayed the same: modern chimps derive from this one. The savannah ape became us - once a certain number was reached they competed with each other, whihc began the enormous and rapid drive to intelligence and skill we see today.

Answer 13

Some mutated one way and some another.  The human race is still mutating.  Do you know anyone born without wisdom teeth?  They are mutants.  Think back before animals.  Have you ever seen a picture of a crinoid.  Man supposedly evolved from them.  Your ancestors were once plants. . .

Answer 14

Its amazing how many people keep asking the same questions over and over again, but obviously don't pay any attention to the answers because they aren't really interested in understanding.

Each species is like a branch on a tree.  Evolution is not linear.  If it were linear, all the single cell things would have died out when the multi-cell things evolved.  Invertebrates would have died out when fish evolved.  Fish would have died out when amphibeons evolved and so on.  But it doesn't work that way.  Yes, some branches die out because they were no longer viable in the environment in which they lived, but many branches are able to keep surviving and growing.

But why do I even bother answering this question, you probably aren't interested anyway.

Answer 15

You have got the proper answers, but go here to learn.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 16

This is going to make me really unpopular.

*sigh*

Oh well. I'm too outspoken for my own good.

*Ahem*

Mr. Darwin, I address you to the subject of this song.

I hope you're not offended when I tell you that you're wrong,

But when you tell me that my ancestors are a flower or a tree,

Mr. Darwin, I have to disagree.

You said that we were slimy once and crawled out of the sea,

And though I am no scientist, I know that wasn't me

I don't know what quite possessed you to say all the things you said,

But when Jesus comes your face will sure be red!

I don't know what made you think those things you tried to say

All I know is you and I were never made that way.

And though our lives may show similarity

Lets not make a monkey out of me!

For it was God who formed me from the dust and gave my body shape.

It is he that I've descended from and not some hairy ape,

And it is He who loves and cares for me.

This much I know is true:

Mr Darwin, Jesus Christ loved you.

Answer 17

be bothered no more, for man did not evolve from monkeys or apes.  humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, which is now extinct.

Answer 18

waiting to become men...duh

Answer 19

We didn't.  Humans, monkeys, and apes all have a common ancestor, which is extinct.  Different populations of that ancestor gave rise to monkeys and apes, and the ape common ancestor broke off into gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and us.  The reason that we still have our closest cousins (for now) is that we evolved in different environments, exploiting different resources.  We never directly competed, until now- and we're winning.  Humans became human in the savannah, while the other great apes stayed in the forest.  Why would forest-dwelling chimps die just because there are some other primates in the savannah?

Answer 20

Ancestry, just like Creationism and humans. They exist from one generation to the next.

Answer 21

If all life forms evolved from bacteria, then why is there still bacteria?

Answer 22

Anyone that asks a question like this is too ignorant to be allowed close to a computer.  I am reporting you as I simply cannnot comprehend anyone being that obtuse.

Answer 23

once a week someone asks this same question. I wonder why you even bother answering it.

Answer 24

Men, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, monkeys, or what have you, all descended from a common primate ancestor that was markedly different from modern primates.  Ecological differences have different selective criterias for what constitutes advantageous traits.  Favorable genes were passed down and gradual accumulations of those changes lead to speciation, where now you have the wide range of primates (including man) today.