“If We Evolved From Monkeys, How Come There Are Still Monkeys?”

This question is a favourite among creationists; they often ask this to dismiss the Theory of Evolution. Although this probably dates back from the time of Charles Darwin, many creationists, when engaged in a discussion (especially in an online discussion), act as if they had just discovered this particular zinger. They believe this is irrefutable, an argument that would surely reduce those smug, know-it-all evolutionists into blubbering idiots trapped in an existentialist despair. If you see this question in an Internet discussion board, this is usually followed by “HAHAHA,” which tends to make the impression that creationists are raving lunatics.
This caricature of Charles Darwin with the body of an ape was used since the late 1800s to ridicule him and his ideas about evolution

To be fair though, there are people out there who ask this question out of genuine curiosity, maybe because they were told (and taught) all sorts of misinformation and fed lies, deliberately or inadvertently, about science, particularly evolution—of which many have a serious misunderstanding.
It is also interesting to note that the website “Answers in Genesis,” a creationist site that advocates the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis' account of creation (“Creationism”), discourages their followers from using this as an argument. They had probably realized that this is one of the dumbest things a person could ask, when attacking evolution.

And here are the reasons why:

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that humans evolved from monkeys. What evolution shows (among other things) is that humans and modern apes (including monkeys) descended from some ape-like creatures millions of years ago. Humans and the modern apes share a common direct ancestor that existed 5 to 8 million years ago; the species diverged into separate lineages, one of which developed, ultimately, into apes, and the other evolved into early humans called hominids that became the ancestors of modern humans. 
There have been a number of different hominid species; many are close relatives. Most of these species became extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of these species that we know today through fossils are almost certainly Homo sapiens’ direct ancestors. We may never know the exact number of hominid species that existed and their relationship with each other, but our knowledge increases as new fossils are found.     
The “monkey question” also assumes that ancestral forms must disappear as evolution takes place, which is not the case. It is important to know that it is possible for a species’ direct ancestor (that is, the species itself, not the individual) can exist for a long time without evolving. If for example the species became isolated from the rest of the population, and there are no environmental pressures for the species to evolve, then they can go for millions of years with no (or very little) evolution (see living fossils). In these conditions, the species would have no biological imperative to evolve. This means that evolution does not have to occur, if there are no reasons for it.
If however part of this species’ population migrates into a habitat with a new set of conditions, (e.g., new food source, presence of predators, etc.) then there is pressure on the species to evolve. The species may evolve into a new one over time, while the ancestor remains relatively unchanged.   
Charts like these are misleading, for it suggests that humans developed in a linear and progressive manner, from monkey-like to human-like. This is probably one of the reasons that inspired the monkey question.
Creationists do not acknowledge that evolution have happened, and is still happening. Evolution takes a multitude of paths, and not through a process in which species progress up a sort of “stages” or “ladder” in a linear manner. Evolution is not random; rather, random factors affect evolution, and the species that had the best results from those random factors survive.


Next: So You Think Evolution Is Just A Theory?  

Comments

Post a Comment

So, what do you think? Post it here:

Popular posts from this blog

The Square Cube Law and How It Killed Giants

Image
We are so used to the idea of giants that we take it for granted that they exist, or must have existed at one point in our history.  You know, those very large and very tall human-like creatures, carrying a humongous club, and being very nasty. Like this: And if you are a typical, god-fearing Catholic Pinoy, you would swear that not only are they true, you even saw one beside that big-ass, scary-looking tree not far from your home, one night when you were going home after an evening of binge-drinking with your buddies. And the bastard’s smoking a cigar as long and as big as your leg! Or you know someone who saw one of those cigar-smoking monsters. This creature is called a kapre —a cigar-smoking giant wearing a loincloth. Or maybe a tikbalang —a half-man, half-horse creature about as tall as a kapre. Unlike a centaur, however, a tikbalang is a giant with the torso and arms of a man, and the head and legs of a horse.  Scary creatures, these—and, if I may add
Read more

Dog of War

Image
Besides ruling the largest land empire the world has ever seen, Genghis Khan apparently is also the ancestor of 0.5 percent of the world’s male population. That’s around 16 million living, breathing great, great, great (and so on) grandkids of the Scourge of God himself. While the Phoenician Empire was built through commerce , Genghis Khan’s empire was built through warfare, with the result that he killed off a good portion of Asia’s population during his bloody conquests.   To be fair though, he also helped repopulate the world . How’d he manage it, though--how did he build an empire that, at its apex, occupied 16% of the world’s total land area? For one thing, he had an efficient, disciplined, well-organized army. For another, he had history’s greatest generals leading that army. One of them was Subutai, widely considered as the military mastermind behind the Mongol Empire. One of Genghis Khan’s legendary “Dogs of War” (there were four) Subutai is arguably the grea
Read more

Where Did Money Come From, Anyway?

Image
It is difficult to imagine the world today without money, or the concept of money. But surely, the first civilizations did not start out using money, right?             Long ago, people did not use money to buy things. They also did not use money to pay the person who repaired their roof, or built their tables, chairs and other furniture. What they did was to exchange the things they had for the things that they needed. If they had a lot of rice, they might want to exchange some of it for fish, so they would find somebody who has a lot of fish, and see if that person wants to trade some of it for rice. Or maybe a person who was very good at repairing roofs or making chairs and tables would get paid with bananas, or whatever fruit was in season. This type of doing business is called barter .              As you can imagine, barter trade has some serious flaws. For example, what if the person who had just repaired your roof wanted, say, flip flops? And you only had bananas? Mor
Read more

Can We Be Good For Nothing?

Image
So, in this season of hope, peace and good will, Catholic League president Bill Donahue has launched a campaign—“Adopt An Atheist,” is what it’s called. Behold : Here’s what our campaign entails. We are asking everyone to contact the American Atheist affiliate in his area, letting them know of your interest in “adopting” one of them. All it takes is an e-mail. Let them know of your sincere interest in working with them to uncover their inner self. They may be resistant at first, but eventually they may come to understand that they were Christian all along. If we hurry, these closeted Christians can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”   What he is doing is just perpetrating the bigotry that religious nuts like him have towards people who happen to not share his set of beliefs.  Religion could be dangerous, as it is; combine it with ig
Read more