"If we came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

This question clearly shows creationists' ignorance. Yet, because I can't answer this question when I have conversations with creationists, they think that they won and that they have me stumped, and therefore evolution can't be true. But, this would be exactly like asking, "if we came from adults, why are there still adults?" This question is always brought up by creationists maybe as a last resort argument or something but its so annoying.
Also, I hate when people refer to evolution as "just a theory, so it hasn't been proved true yet." I dont have good responses to this one either but this frustrates me. I know evolution is true but creationists get on my nerves when they bring up these two arguments.

Views: 2081

Tags: evolution, monkeys, theory

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jo Jerome on August 15, 2009 at 7:47pm
The whole field of study is wildly fascinating and like JayBarti points out the line from Ape to Human isn't so much a direct one but a massive spider web of species who branched off and died off and branched off and died off.

Another common argument to be prepared for is when the Fundie speaks of Evolution as being random events. There is nothing random about survival of the fittest. My brain is easily amused pondering the wonder that is the most basic elements of life ever mutating and changing and adapting into this animal or that plant.
Comment by Chrys Stevenson on August 15, 2009 at 7:26pm
Kate, there's a little, inexpensive book which gives you great ammunition for these questions. It's called The Top Ten Myths About Evolution by Cameron M Smith and Charles Sullivan. It's easy to read, non-sciencey, and addresses the 'it's just a theory' kinda questions. I recommend it highly.
Comment by JayBarti on August 15, 2009 at 5:07pm
As I understand it to be...

There are currently 5 existing species of ape (if you count human as an ape, I do). We share a common ancestor, that is possibly similar but most likely different to what we think of as an ape today, but you would recognize it in the way you see human faces in other primates.

That common ancestor, shared a common ancestor with monkeys and even lemurs at some point.

The fossil named Ida, is as I understand the oldest common ancestor between us and several of these currently existing species.

Humans are not unique, we come from a very long and deep web of species slowly standing on the shoulders of their shared genetic inheritance. We are simply the only species that has made it this far, in so far as we know. We think that the the fossil of Ida is a direct descendant of modern humans, however it is simply the best candidate we have right now, given what we know. There might be something better that we haven't found yet, who knows?

The study of DNA has now added another layer of support that human evolution is true.

We are not monkeys, the specie that we share a common ancestor with is not a monkey either, instead it is a unique species that highlights a shared history between us the animal and the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms.

We are related in a deep history way to bacteria, in almost the same way we are related to monkeys, if your willing to look that far back into history.
Comment by Baphomet (AIM Soldier) on August 15, 2009 at 4:21pm
Christians will look for any excuse to insert their God of the gaps. They aint brave enough to deal with waiting for answers cos they need instant lies rather than truth dat takes time.
Comment by Jim Mo. on August 15, 2009 at 4:21pm
This is probably too subtle to be helpful but I started reading "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne. He reminds the reader that Evolution does not say that humans are descendants of monkeys. Instead both monkeys (primates) and humans are descended from an earlier primate species that is now probably extinct. (That common ancestor is not necessarily extinct because of our descent from it)
Comment by Jo Jerome on August 15, 2009 at 3:53pm
"Hehe, I've read longer definitions that were still much worse than yours. ;-)"

:) Thanks - I was one of those high IQ kids in school who really hated high IQ style writing. Explain and be explained in the simplest, laymen's terms out there (hence I often end up oversimplifying too much).

One of my crowning jewels in college: Had to do a report in an IT Networking class on the inherent differences between switches, routers and gateways. I explained it all using the analogy of various ways cavemen might beat each other with rocks and clubs. I got an A and a thank you from the Proff for helping him stay awake while reading all those dry papers!
Comment by Jaume on August 15, 2009 at 3:08pm
it seems the core of the theory is pretty solid and accepted

It would be solid if it was testable. Unfortunately, it would require apparati like, say, a
partcle accelerator the size of Earth's orbit to test. And while the basic tenets of the theory may be accepted by their community, string theorists often diverge in their interpretation of them.

Do I have it right so far?

Hehe, I've read longer definitions that were still much worse than yours. ;-)
Comment by Jim DePaulo on August 15, 2009 at 3:02pm
They difference is between ancestral and line of descent. Some monkeys are ancestral to us but none are in our line of descent. Consider a great aunt, she would be ancestral to you but would not be in your line of descent.
Comment by Jo Jerome on August 15, 2009 at 1:45pm
Well again, a gross oversimplification. I suppose I shouldn't have used a word so solid as 'solid,' but in the end, a theory in the scientific context is something that falls between extremely well supported and all but impenetrable. Again, sort of like a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt court case in legal terms.

I don't know a lot about string theory, but from what I do understand, it seems the core of the theory is pretty solid and accepted; that somehow, someway, all matter in the universe is inherently, physically connected. String theory, unified field, all attempts to explain the same principle phenomena. Do I have it right so far?

I do find it very fascinating!
Comment by Jaume on August 15, 2009 at 12:47pm
There is an allowance for a one in gazillion something or other to alter the theory, but for the most part it is solid and only going to get more solid.

I take it you don't consider string theory to be a real theory - it gets altered almost every other day, and it's far from solid today.

Before de-evolving into Sarah Palin.

LOL. The real question should be, "If we came from Monkeys, why is there still a Sarah Palin?"

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Rick Springfield replied to Luara's discussion Global culture
7 minutes ago
Luara commented on Konopek Karl-Heinz's status
3 hours ago
Gia joined Dr. Terence Meaden's group
3 hours ago
Plinius replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Vegetable stir fry in the group Food!
5 hours ago
Dyslexic's DOG replied to Carrot Hare's discussion Atheists around the world! ASSEMBLE!
6 hours ago
k.h. ky commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 hours ago
roland707 posted a discussion
6 hours ago
TNT666 replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
6 hours ago
roland707 replied to Sentient Biped's discussion More than 30,000 Nexus members. Where are they?
7 hours ago
Konopek Karl-Heinz posted a status
"This to A Wise Atheist humiliates Frank Turek in a debate about god – YouTube"
7 hours ago
Konopek Karl-Heinz posted a status
"Hi long time no here !!! look at this if you like A Brief History of Disbelief Atheism Documentary Episode 2 - YouTube"
7 hours ago
booklover commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
7 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service