Mailbag: Monkeys and Evolution
Subject: Why are there still monkeys?
I am a devout evolutionist. I have a friend who isn't sure which way to go one way or another. I have provided him with both information for and against evolution. However, I certain question has pervaded me. He asked if all of this changing took place, how come we still have Chimpanzees and Apes, of whom we supposedly evolved from? Why aren't they extinct?
I'm not sure how "devout" applies to evolution. After all, evolution is simply a part of the biological sciences - it's not a religion or anything like that. You wouldn't hear someone talking about being a "devout quantum physicist" or a "devout volcanologist." It just wouldn't make any sense.
I am not sure how to answer this. He had a major misconception of the actual time we as humans or subhumans have been in existence. But my main question is, "Why are there still monkeys around if we evolved from them, and all our ancestors such as Australiopithicus, and Neanderthal Man are gone?" Any information or direction would be greatly appreciated.
We didn't evolve from the monkeys that still exist today - so there is no reason for there not to be any monkeys. It's like asking: if we evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms today? Why aren't there only human beings?
But that question simply makes no sense. Just because one line of evolution from single-celled organisms resulted in us, that doesn't mean that no other lines of evolution could exist. Some apes evolved in a line that became us. Others branched off to chimpanzees, others branched off to gorillas, others branched off to orangutans, and so forth.
Dana's friend seems to assume that evolution moves in a line form "lower" to "higher," and once a "higher" organism exists, then there must not be any reason for the "lower" organisms to exist. But that is a misunderstanding of evolution. The only "line" that exists is that from one adaptation to another. We are not "higher" than other organisms, we are just more adaptive and better suited to more environments than most primates (because of our brains and our ability to alter our environment to suit our needs). The creatures best able to survive are the ones that survive, not the "higher" species. Some times, the best adapted might be a single-celled creature that feeds off of sulfur, not the bipedal primate with the big brain.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
The “devout evolutionist” line, to me, says the writer is either a creationist fishing or someone with little or no actual knowledge of evolution. It fits the basic model of many creationists that evolution is a religion.
That said, don’t forget that organisms are adapted to specific environments and roles (humans are somewhat an exception thanks to our intelligence), and unless those things change, there will be room for monkeys to exist - I don’t see a lot of humans living in trees feeding on leaves and fruit, for example. Also, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors who had split off from monkeys millions of years (I am unsure how many) prior to that. Since our ancestors were not competing with the ancestors of todays monkeys, there would have been no pressure for them to go extinct (at least from that direction).
“[H]ow come we still have Chimpanzees and Apes, of whom we supposedly evolved from?”
That question is so bad, this guy should be embarassed. I mean, it’s on the AiG list of Creationist arguments not to use for goodness sakes. At least they guy has the good sense to blame the question on his “frend”. The words “devout evolutionist” is a pretty clear keyword to point out that he’s a Creationist.
As for the question. Chimps and Humans are apes. It’s a grouping that includes the old world primates. The flaw is in the assumptions made by the question. It’s not an evolutionary ladder, it’s a tree. We are one branch. Other apes are on other branches. Also, it’s pretty safe to note that the chimp-human common ancestor isn’t alive anymore. And hasn’t been for 5.6 million years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html
“friend” — I was implying that he was “my friend” not that he misspelled the word.
The friend and the email-writer need to take some basic biological anthropology classes. Humans didn’t evolve from apes and other primates; we evolved side by side from a common ancestor. This ancestor would have had a significant cognitive ability and an opposable thumb, as well as the many traits we primates share today.
It is more ridiculous to believe that we all developed these extremely similar traits on our own than to share them due to evolution from a common ancestor. No explanation can account for another reasonable explanation.