While I could go on for months debunking evolution, this is the fourth and final installment in my evolution series, tackling another topic in the Scientific American’s article “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”. Many creationists (and others who just want some clarification) ask the following question:
“If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
It seems like a valid question. Luckily, the Scientific American provides a brilliant, educated response. Here it is:
“This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.” (1)
Since when did evolution stop teaching that humans descended from monkeys? Yes, it does teach that everything came from a “common ancestor”, but it also teaches that humans came from monkeys. If you don’t believe me, feel free to go look at your notes from school, a quick Google search of “the evolution of man”, or even the drawings in the Scientific American’s article itself!
But let’s just assume that what the Scientific American says is true – that evolution does not teach humans evolved from monkeys, just a common ancestor. This brings us to the question of: what is this “common ancestor”? I visited the Friends of Darwin website to find out more about what it is and what it looked like (seems like a reputable source for the topic). Here is their explanation:
“Human beings did not evolve from modern-day monkeys; human beings and modern-day monkeys both evolved from an extinct common ancestor (which was also, colloquially speaking, ‘a monkey’).” (2)
Oh, okay. This “common ancestor” is defined as a monkey – maybe not a modern-day monkey, but a monkey nonetheless. Yet, according to the Scientific American, evolution does not teach that humans evolved from monkeys. These statements don’t match, and their first argument does not hold. Let’s look at their next (and last) point in their argument:
“The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.” (1)
Maybe it’s just me, but their example question seems kinda dumb. The reason why there are both adults and children is that they are both human. Nobody in their right mind would say that children evolved from adults…because later in life, the children become adults. That’s not evolution – that’s growth. The only difference between the terms “child” and “adult” is age. Specifically, 18 years old, at which point the human is termed an adult (at least in America). The same thing happens with dogs. You have a puppy and you have a dog, and the puppy ages and grows and gets called a dog. It’s just vocabulary that terms it a puppy. The same is with a calf, kitten, foal, gosling, etc. The terms “child” and “adult” are only reliant upon how long you’ve been alive. Their example leads to the question, “If humans descended from monkeys, do we turn into monkeys once we get older?” I’ll leave you to answer that one on your own.
If these terms (“child” and “adult”) are not solely dependent upon age, here’s a question, using their example. Since new species evolve by splintering off from established ones, if we put all children on an island, completely isolated from adults…would they become a new species? Would they never become adults? Pretty sure the answer is a loud and emphatic, NO.
This argument by the Scientific American has done nothing but confuse and reject all notions of common sense. They have compared apples to oranges (evolution vs. the life cycle of humans).
If you want to know the real answer to the question at the beginning of the article, here it is. The reason why there are still monkeys and humans is because humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys. There have been zero “transition fossils” and no scientific evidence that shows humans evolving from monkeys. The answer is clearly outlined in Genesis 1, but here is another science-backed answer:
Assuming you’ve taken a biology class, you likely would have learned about Mr. Carl Linnaeus – the man who formalized binomial nomenclature…aka the scientific naming system. The great thing about the scientific naming system is that, no matter where in the world you are, you know (or can figure out) exactly what the other person is talking about. For example, if someone mentions Homo sapiens, you likely know that they’re talking about a human. Strictly speaking, homo = man and sapiens = be wise. (3) The scientific name very specifically describes what you are talking about.
I would use the “apelike”, colloquially-speaking, monkey of a “common ancestor” that evolutionists love talking about, but since they (conveniently) don’t know what it is, let’s just take a look at Lucy and other supposed hominoids (a post-monkey, pre-human thing). If you want to read more about these “transitional fossils”, click here to read my previous post.
(Note: don’t get tripped up in trying to pronounce these names in your head – that’s not the point).
Lucy’s scientific name is Australopithecus afarensis…translated as “southern ape from the Afar triangle of Ethiopia” (4). There’s also the Australopithecus anamensis, which was an ancestor to Lucy (5). Don’t forget the Ardipithecus kadabba (which, by the way, with only “a few post-cranial bones and set of teeth”, was concluded to be an “early human species”. That’s like finding some nails and screws, and 32 bricks, and somehow concluding that they used to be a three story house with gingerbread trim, painted dark green, and located on Main Street). (5, 6) There’s also Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), the Taung child (Australopithecus africanus), and my favorite, the Gigantopithecus species (aka Bigfoot or Sasquatch) – all of which are known in the scientific community as only a few of the ape-like ancestors to humans (5).
Here’s a question for you – what is exactly the same in the following names: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Ardipithecus kadabba, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus africanus, and Gigantopithecus?
If you said “-pithecus”, you’d be right! Would you like to know what “-pithecus” means? “-Pithecus” means ape (4,7). That’s right…a monkey. The scientific name tells you exactly what these fossils are – apes. Not humans.
But what about the “early humans”, such as the Neanderthals and Homo erectus? The Neanderthals’ scientific name is Homo neanderthalensis. Bonus points if you can tell me what Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis all have in common. That’s right – “Homo”, which we already know means “man”. Now, I don’t agree with there being different “species” of humans (since we all came from Adam and Eve), but the fact is, these fossils and bones are indisputably human…not even remotely ape or apelike (which is noted in their scientific names). Click here to read more about Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.
Binomial nomenclature (scientific naming) itself shows us that we only have two species: apes and humans…we don’t have a third ape/human thing. The scientific names also show you that they incorrectly placed us into the order Primates (there is no evidence of “-pithecus” in Homo sapiens, but if you want people to believe that humans and apes are related, you’ve gotta manipulate and hide the evidence). See, my biology classes never taught me that “-pithecus” meant ape…they only tried to teach me that apes and humans were related. This is a great example of why you can’t just take things at face value. You have to do your fair share of research – no matter the subject.
Why aren’t schools and media teaching us the truth? Why are they going to such great lengths to keep us from believing that God created man in His image and that we all came from one race – the human race? There are multiple reasons for this, one of which is racism (but that’s a separate post for another day).
Let’s revisit the question asked in the beginning:
“If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
The Answer: Humans didn’t descend from monkeys.
The Proof: Science and the Bible.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
– Genesis 1:26-27
If you are not 100% sure that you’ll go to Heaven when you die, now is the time to repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ. If you have any doubts or questions about your salvation, click here to learn how you can be saved!
- Rennie, John. “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”. Scientific American, 2002. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
- The Friends of Charles Darwin. “If humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” Friends of Darwin. http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/why-still-monkeys/
- Harper, Douglas. “Homo sapiens (n.)”. Online Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/Homo%20sapiens
- Menton, David. “Did Humans Really Evolve From Apelike Creatures?” Answers in Genesis.https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/did-humans-really-evolve-from-apelike-creatures/
- Gibbons, Ann. “The Human Family’s Earliest Ancestors”. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-human-familys-earliest-ancestors-7372974/
- The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. “Ardipithecus kadabba”. The Smithsonian. https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/ardipithecus-kadabba
- Dorey, Fran. “Australopithecus garhi”. Australian Museum. https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/australopithecus-garhi/