If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

[Skwim]

This is an old one that really grates on the evolutionist, and even the knowledgeable creationist, but because it keeps popping up from time to time I thought I might explain (got nothing better to do---it's raining outside).

Fact of the matter is, monkeys still exist because we never replaced them. They evolved from early prosimians millions of years ago. Like 25 ++ millions of years ago, the same time another form of primate diverged from the prosimians, those that eventually evolved into the apes.
While recognizing that humans and monkeys were never that closely related---and we're not---some people think we humans evolved from apes, meaning the gorillas and orangutans, and question why these creatures are still around. Well, the answer is the same as that for the monkey question: Gorillas and orangutans still exist because we never replaced them; we evolved separately and in a different direction.
But, they will say, if that's true then why do evolutionists call humans "apes"? Easy answer: because of convention. When the ape lineages and the monkey lineages diverged the ape lineage became quite diverse,eventually embracing the gorillas, chimps, humans, etc. To denote this varied clad (group) of animals and so as to distinguish them from all the other primates, zoologists decided to call it the "ape" group. ("Ape" is thought to have come from the ability of these animals to mimic human expressions.) So, under the designation of "ape" we have the gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, gibbons, and humans.

Don't like being thought of as an ape? Tough!

Here's a graphic I put together to better visualize the relationships I'm talking about.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Yeah but evolution is just a theory

 

[Skwim]

Yeah but evolution is just a theory

Oh, that's right. What was I thinking of.

 

[Neo Deist]

Because we did not evolve from "monkeys," but rather both humans and monkeys/apes evolved from a common ancestor. There's a reason why humans/simian primates have a ~97-99% DNA match.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, that's right. What was I thinking of.

You also forgot the most cromulent documentary.....

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because we did not evolve from "monkeys," but rather both humans and monkeys/apes evolved from a common ancestor. There's a reason why humans/simian primates have a ~97-99% DNA match.

Technically humans are apes and you could even argue that they are monkeys, too (long polyphelytic taxonomy discussion). But I would just say we didn't evolve from any extant primates, just extinct ones which other extant primates also evolved from.

 

[Skwim]

You also forgot the most cromulent documentary.....

That's a toon theory. Just an old toon theory. Pshaw!

 

[Sapiens]

Technically humans are apes and you could even argue that they are monkeys, too (long polyphelytic taxonomy discussion). But I would just say we didn't evolve from any extant primates, just extinct ones which other extant primates also evolved from.

Given a cladistic view your are perfectly correct, but then with a cladistic view we are all just highly specialized fish.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

This is an old one that really grates on the evolutionist's ear, and even that of the knowledgeable creationist, but because it keeps popping up from time to time I thought I might explain (got nothing better to do---it's raining outside).

Fact of the matter is, monkeys still exist because we never replaced them. They evolved from early prosimians millions of years ago. Like 25 ++ millions of years ago. At the same time another form of primate diverged from the prosimians, which eventually evolved into the apes.
While recognizing that humans and monkeys were never that closely related---and we're not---some people think we humans evolved from apes, meaning the gorillas and orangutans, and question why these creatures are still around. Well, the answer is the same as that for the monkey question: Gorillas and orangutans still exist because we never replaced them; we evolved in a different direction. But, they will say, if that's true then why do evolutionists call humans "apes"? Easy answer: because of convention. When the ape lineages and the monkey lineages diverged the ape lineage became quite diverse,eventually embracing the gorillas, chimps, humans, etc. To denote this varied clad (group) of animals and so as to distinguish them from all the other primates, zoologists decided to call it the "ape" group. ("Ape" is thought to have come from the ability of these animals to mimic human expressions.) So, under the designation of "ape" we have the gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, gibbons, and humans.

Don't like being thought of as an ape? Tough!

Here's a graphic I put together to better visualize the relationships I'm talking about.

Ok, why don't you explain what caused the change to begin with. If we are apes, why did some apes evolve into humans and others didn't? What triggered the change to the apes that would evolve into humans?

Look even scientists can't explain what caused the change. It's a theory and will be replaced with another theory that makes more sense. Like almost every other theory. I guess science is never wrong, huh? Except is has been sometimes, and other brighter people correct the mistake

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Given a cladistic view your are perfectly correct, but then with a cladistic view we are all just highly specialized fish.

We are all Chordata.

 

[Sapiens]

Ok, why don't you explain what caused the change to begin with. If we are apes, why did some apes evolve into humans and others didn't? What triggered the change to the apes that would evolve into humans?

Simple: open niche space in one area that did not exist in other areas.

Look even scientists can't explain what caused the change. It's a theory and will be replaced with another theory that makes more sense. Like almost every other theory. I guess science is never wrong, huh? Except is has been sometimes, and other brighter people correct the mistake

What caused the niche space to open? A niche is an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n-resource states. Niche space opens when there are changes in one or more of the resource states. The bigger the open (hyper)volume that is created, the more rapid and larger degree is the eventuating evolutionary change.

There, not too hard to grok, eh? For a fuller and more robust answer, please see:

Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution
Princeton University Press, 2003
F. John Odling-Smee, Kevin Laland and Marcus W. Feldman

 

[Skwim]

Ok, why don't you explain what caused the change to begin with. If we are apes, why did some apes evolve into humans and others didn't? What triggered the change to the apes that would evolve into humans?

Oh, you mean write another book explaining the whole thing? No thank you. There are plenty out there as it is, and no doubt some at your local library. Here's one you might want to start with.

​

Look even scientists can't explain what caused the change.

I assume you mean "changes." In any case, sure they can, just evidently not to your satisfaction, which I don't think they're losing any sleep over.

It's a theory and will be replaced with another theory that makes more sense. Like almost every other theory. I guess science is never wrong, huh? Except is has been sometimes, and other brighter people correct the mistake

And your point? That unlike religion, science isn't afraid to correct itself when it needs to instead of going into stonewalling mode? I agree.


.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Simple: open niche space in one area that did not exist in other areas.

What caused the niche space to open? A niche is an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n-resource states. Niche space opens when there are changes in one or more of the resource states. The bigger the open (hyper)volume that is created, the more rapid and larger degree is the eventuating evolutionary change.

There, not too hard to grok, eh? For a fuller and more robust answer, please see:

Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution
Princeton University Press, 2003
F. John Odling-Smee, Kevin Laland and Marcus W. Feldman

Yeah I heard that before. If you don't accept every single scientific theory, that must mean you hate science or deny it. That childish argument gets so old. I guess people don't know what a THEORY is or the difference between evidence and proof. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you want to think so. So are apes millions upon millions of years old? Doesn't it TAKE millions of years to evolve. Reptiles have been around far longer and not one of them have evolved into beings like us. Those apes in an isolated area mutated? You do know most mutations are not beneficial right? I'm not a scientist and even I know this.

But what is causing the change. And I seriously doubt those apes were the only life forms that evolved. Are you telling me there weren't any bugs in that area? Why didn't they evolve too? Was there some cosmic radiation that evolved us? Explain.

 

[Ouroboros]

If cheese is made from milk, then why is there still milk in the store?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because we did not evolve from "monkeys," but rather both humans and monkeys/apes evolved from a common ancestor. There's a reason why humans/simian primates have a ~97-99% DNA match.

You mean to tell me that if I go too far back, my ancestral search would be over. It would be a monkey? Wouldnt that kinda save me the search? Innteresting.

 

[Skwim]

If cheese is made from milk, then why is there still milk in the store?

I know! I know!

God created both cheese and milk at the same time, and yogurt . . . and butter. . . . .and, and cream.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I know! I know!

God created both cheese and milk at the same time, and yogurt . . . and butter. . . . .and, and cream.

Cheese comes from milk. How is an ape related to a reptile or a fish? They are entirely different. Way back then the oldest creatures were fish and bugs. And reptiles and money's evolve from that? If there was nothing but fish or bugs back then, we would all be a different version of the same thing, not completely change into something entirely different.

 

[Skwim]

Cheese comes from milk. How is an ape related to a reptile or a fish? They are entirely different. Way back then the oldest creatures were fish and bugs. And reptiles and money's evolve from that? If there was nothing but fish or bugs back then, we would all be a different version of the same thing, not completely change into something entirely different.

Not about to bother, but here, this should be in your local public library too. Try the children's section. The information is all over the place. All you have to do is pick it up and read.

 

[Ouroboros]

I know! I know!

God created both cheese and milk at the same time, and yogurt . . . and butter. . . . .and, and cream.

And ice cream, and the green cheese moon.

which leads to the question: If the moon is made out of cheese, why are there still cows?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Not about to bother, but here, this should be in your library too. Try the children's section. The information is all over the place. All you have to do is pick it up and read.

Gee why am I not surprised. I ask questions and all you do is say "lolz" you don't know anything." You not only not answer any of my questions or back up your claims, but you point me out to books that say pretty much the same thing and also not answer any of my questions.

I don't know why people got this idea that science is the final word on everything and it's always right, even though it has been wrong numerous times, and better theories replaced the obsolete ones, by people who didn't hate or deny science, they just thought those theories didn't make sense and offered their own explanation and backed it up with more convincing evidence.