If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

a reply to: secretboss

the simple answer is we DIDN'T evolve from monkeys , we evolved from an "ape-like" creature.

originally posted by: Jekka
a reply to: secretboss

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a genetic relative of them. Also, they do have primitive civilizations and social orders. The thing is, since our growth as the dominant species on this planet has happened, and we are all over the globe, destroying their habitats, they have been more concerned with survival than invention or art. We have observed possible proto-religious ceremonies in them and some exhibit a reverence for their dead. So yeah, they are moving along, it's just that A) evolution takes a stunningly long time and B) civilization doesn't spawn overnight.

You seem to be another person on my wavelength. Maybe that means we're stunning stupid, but nonetheless it's a pleasure.

Advanced intelligent species aren't free, bottom line. It's not magic. It has a cost. It requires massive energy. But neither is it necessary for a species to be this way. Ants are doing fine. They have a similar total cellular count, last I checked. Lots of lifeforms manage quite nicely without being able to send spaceships into orbit or the like. Presently, we rely on many of them. On the other hand, with the capacity to annihilate the Earth with super weapons, to seed other planets wiht life, to send probes to other stars, humans are not the same thing as other species on htis planet. And that's the message. All species are different and have a role they can fill.

I guess it depends. How much will we adapt to Earth, as opposed to adapting it to us? And how much is it necessary, one way or another? Some say we must adapt to Earth because without its diverse ecosystems we could not live here (and would surely perish). Others say it's only a matter of time before we attain the ability to not rely on it--and can leave. I think the truht is inbetween. We'll do both. And by this I mean the extremes too. Some humans will stay on Earth and both adapt to it and adapt it to us. Others will leave and maybe die--or not. Some will attempt to adapt fully to Earth, shedding whatever human things which separate them from Earth.

If God created man from dirt, why is there still dirt?

2nd.

originally posted by: eeyipes

originally posted by: Abysha
Saying humans evolved from monkeys is like saying that Pugs evolved from Labradors.

That's not how it works, at all. Pugs and Labradors both evolved from prehistoric wolves. Just like humans and monkeys both evolved from a distant ancestor. We are technically apes, you know.

Except pugs didn't evolve from wolves. The only reason we have pugs is because an intelligent designer interfered with natural breeding selection to make pugs.

Interesting, no?

Interesting...No.

Pugs evolved from wolves. But were selected by man.

The biggest problem anti-evos have is seperating abiogenesis, evolution and selection. They want yo lump it all togther and then complain that one doesnt explain the other.

Abiogenisis aim to explain how life began
Evolution is change over time.
Selection (natural or otherwise) explains diversity.

We can disduss speciation when I've had less rum!

a reply to: schuyler

We are one of the Great Apes along with chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

And we're one of the mammals along with cats and whales.

However, the OP's point seems to be that the origin of species isn't other species.

A fair point to make since the old prop' mill insists quite heavily on the opposite.

Louis Pasteur, an actual scientist, disproved Darwin, a theologian,'s most basic assumptions in real time by disproving what the Darwinians called "spontaneous generation".
He also went ahead and proved that living cells aren't as simple as rancid soup.

And since, scores of actual scientists have continued to gently show that the origin of species isn't other species.
Preventively I say spontaneous generation isn't *the same* as speciation but is widely understood even today by the state religion's priests including Dawkins to be a prerequisite, thus Pasteur got the root of the chimera.

But the monkey business went on with the likes of Charles Lyell who published

"The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation1”

Explaining that there are no monkey-men simply because they died millions of years ago.
Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.

For perspective, here is a cranium of an adolescent chimp:

photo

Now of course, human skulls vary in shape and size, and necromancy isn't my strong suit but check out Monsanto's "agent orange" campaign in Asia to see what genetic mutations do to people and their skull shapes.

Oh and hint: not one spiderman or monkeyman or even Piltdown man.

Cheers

Well at least your last sentence is accurate.

a reply to: secretboss

Because we didn't evolve from animals.

Evolution just means a change in the frequency of alleles over time.

Nowhere does that mean we evolved from apes. Evolution exists--but the archaebacteria-to-fish-to-ape-to-man b.s. is Herbert Spencer/eugenicist BULL POOPY.

Their own facts prove their theories false.

Try it. It's fun.

This may help OP.

This HAS to be a troll thread.

a reply to: wisvol

Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.

Liar, liar pants on fire!

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
This may help OP.

But... but...

What about Adam and eve?

a reply to: Barcs

a reply to: wisvol [quoted: Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.]

Liar, liar pants on fire!

That's not what liar means.
I'll take the bait: show us a monkeyman.

there's nothing which can be said to convince the op of otherwise. he already has a profound belief which no common sense or educated argument can undo. and its not like he's saying to each their own, or I accept what you guys took time to show me and thanks, but I still have my beliefs . no, its just arrogance and refusal to accept there are more than one theory of creation.


I see now why ATS took down the deny ignorance banner.
its now encouraged.
otherwise , no way this thread would have 7 pages making the same case over and over.

a group of 8th graders would have a good laugh if an adult asked them, 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

a reply to: odzeandennz

I see now why ATS took down the deny ignorance banner. its now encouraged. otherwise , no way this thread would have 7 pages making the same case over and over. a group of 8th graders would have a good laugh if an adult asked them, 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

Ignorance is not encouraged here.

This is why the same debates have been going on for years, and only those who apply the scientific method stand a chance in the gale of discovering which side if any has it right.

You see, truth isn't a democracy where you get a gender-neutral trophy for having an opinion.

Great adults have made children laugh by asking this question.

Bob Marley comes to mind, and he elegantly had it taped, he evens explains briefly how funny this is:

Bob Marley, legendary composer & performer, on monkeys

thank you for posting this, I researched the scopes trial and learned something. I learned that as recently as 1925, the idea of teaching modern science in schools as actually debated, and there was even racism about which monkey we were evolved from, american or "old world" monkeys. what a world

scopes trial

Some of them wanted to stay monkeys...they liked Bananas...who the hell knows!

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
If God created man from dirt, why is there still dirt?

2nd.

God never created man from dirt. Lord God created Adam from dirt.

Man was created in the image of God.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: odzeandennz

I see now why ATS took down the deny ignorance banner. its now encouraged. otherwise , no way this thread would have 7 pages making the same case over and over. a group of 8th graders would have a good laugh if an adult asked them, 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

Ignorance is not encouraged here.

This is why the same debates have been going on for years, and only those who apply the scientific method stand a chance in the gale of discovering which side if any has it right.

You see, truth isn't a democracy where you get a gender-neutral trophy for having an opinion.

Great adults have made children laugh by asking this question.

Bob Marley comes to mind, and he elegantly had it taped, he evens explains briefly how funny this is:

Bob Marley, legendary composer & performer, on monkeys

I see you cleverly tweaked my post to make some sort of rambled point. I guess you missed the part where I said there may be more than one theory for life and begged the OP to be open minded and realize that many post tried to a teach him what evolution theory is and we are not descendents of monkeys.
the truth is not a democracy obviously, people can believe what they want, the key point is that one must be open to pragmatic and sensible opinions and show a modicum of respect. you should instead of trying to logic-shame me (that's not a thing but whatever you tried to do in your post) post the quotes from the op's posts and see who you should point your Bob Marley reference and other passive agg counter arguements..

Twain said it best.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

originally posted by: wisvol


Louis Pasteur, an actual scientist, disproved Darwin, a theologian,'s most basic assumptions in real time by disproving what the Darwinians called "spontaneous generation".
He also went ahead and proved that living cells aren't as simple as rancid soup.

How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle? You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.

For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.

And since, scores of actual scientists have continued to gently show that the origin of species isn't other species.
Preventively I say spontaneous generation isn't *the same* as speciation but is widely understood even today by the state religion's priests including Dawkins to be a prerequisite, thus Pasteur got the root of the chimera.

So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.

But the monkey business went on with the likes of Charles Lyell who published

"The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation1”

Explaining that there are no monkey-men simply because they died millions of years ago.
Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.

Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.

For perspective, here is a cranium of an adolescent chimp:

photo

Now of course, human skulls vary in shape and size, and necromancy isn't my strong suit but check out Monsanto's "agent orange" campaign in Asia to see what genetic mutations do to people and their skull shapes.

No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.

Oh and hint: not one spiderman or monkeyman or even Piltdown man.

And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: odzeandennz

I see now why ATS took down the deny ignorance banner. its now encouraged. otherwise , no way this thread would have 7 pages making the same case over and over. a group of 8th graders would have a good laugh if an adult asked them, 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

Ignorance is not encouraged here.

This is why the same debates have been going on for years, and only those who apply the scientific method stand a chance in the gale of discovering which side if any has it right.

You see, truth isn't a democracy where you get a gender-neutral trophy for having an opinion.

Great adults have made children laugh by asking this question.

Bob Marley comes to mind, and he elegantly had it taped, he evens explains briefly how funny this is:

Bob Marley, legendary composer & performer, on monkeys

There is no scientific debate or controversy about evolution. A few scientists that disagree doesn't equal a controversy. Teaching the Controversy failed over 20 years ago.

Children also laugh at creationism.