How come there are still monkeys?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other answers)
(What could this question possibly mean?: even AIG says not to use this one)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
The real problem is that creationists who ask questions like this generally do so thinking they've made a real zinger that you can't possibly answer, and the entirety of evolution thus falls apart. They have little to no interest in seriously discussing the issue in a way that acknowledges the existence of joined-up thinking, let alone its usefulness.
 
The real problem is that creationists who ask questions like this generally do so thinking they've made a real zinger that you can't possibly answer, and the entirety of evolution thus falls apart. They have little to no interest in seriously discussing the issue in a way that acknowledges the existence of joined-up thinking, let alone its usefulness.
 +
 +
Some creationists, such as [[Answers in Genesis]], do advocate that creationists not use this question as an argument.<ref>[http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#apes Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Answers in Genesis)</ref>
  
 
==Serious answers==
 
==Serious answers==

Revision as of 12:35, 20 May 2010

Several people who engage in disputes with evolution-deniers report that one of the most frequently asked questions about evolution is, "If man descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"

This question is so deeply and profoundly stupid that engaging with it may put you in danger of permanent brain damage. It is, however, a question that actually gets asked. You may wish to risk sanity by attempting to answer. Maybe you don't have a gun to hand.

It may just be asked innocently. There are a lot of misconceptions about evolution. Some are caused by the subject being taught badly, and others are spread by creationists themselves; Harun Yahya being one of the worst offenders. So go easy on some of the first time offenders.

Contents

What could this question possibly mean?

This is the most difficult part of this question. Most of the simple, but unfortunately very common, "arguments" against evolution stem from serious misunderstandings of the science and principles that underlie it. Exploring the confusion about evolution that lies behind the question is a key point to grasping a way to answer it.

"Why are there still monkeys?" stems primarily from the misinterpretation of evolution as a linear process: thinking of evolution as a straight line, usually upward, like the old, pre-scientific idea of a "Great Chain of Being." This is a simple way of viewing evolution and changes are easily visualized in a linear fashion - the famous picture of human ancestors walking behind each other is a prime example. However, this isn't the entire case.

The real problem is that creationists who ask questions like this generally do so thinking they've made a real zinger that you can't possibly answer, and the entirety of evolution thus falls apart. They have little to no interest in seriously discussing the issue in a way that acknowledges the existence of joined-up thinking, let alone its usefulness.

Some creationists, such as Answers in Genesis, do advocate that creationists not use this question as an argument.[1]

Serious answers

There are two key rebuttals that address the misunderstandings behind the monkey issue:

  • Evolution is a change in populations, not in individuals.
  • Evolution is not a process in which species universally progress up a "ladder".
  • Evolution says we came from an ape like ancestor , not a monkey, monkeys are more distantly related as are bananas , passion fruit and the wombat.

Socratic answer

You can try to elicit from the questioner what on earth the question means to them. I.e.;

  • Why shouldn't there still be monkeys?

They're probably thinking in terms of linear evolution working up a ladder of life, but the details may be of interest.

The danger with posing this sort of question as a response, however, is that you may be led into a detailed discussion of the creationist world view and thinking patterns, with the concomitant risk of permanent brain damage.

Informal answers

Sometimes what is needed is not a scientific or generalized explanation, as these can be difficult to grasp for someone with a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. One of the best ways of dealing with the "why are there still monkeys?" question is by an informal analogy that gets the idea of non-linear evolution across very simply.

  • If white Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?

This gets across one of the most powerful ideas in evolution; that speciation is caused by physical separation. Just as Americans are separated from Europeans by the Atlantic ocean, species can diversify along different routes when isolated from each other. One may change dramatically, one may stay the same. There are still Europeans. There are still monkeys.

If this doesn't work, it is probably best to cut mental losses and proceed to outright mockery.

Joking answers

Sometimes the best idea at times is not to take the question seriously. Indeed, the point is so into the field of not even wrong that this may be a viable option. One does run the risk of cementing even more misunderstandings about evolution this way, but what the hell, it's not like these people are even interested in what real science says about evilution. Take these examples, or make up any old shit you like;

  • When monkeys turned into humans, then the gap was filled in by shrews turning into monkeys, and then in turn, worms turned into shrews, lizards turned into worms, fish crawled out of the water and turned into lizards, and so on all the way down the line.
  • Some of the monkeys, when given the choice, preferred to stay the same.
  • Humans actually came from Portsmouth, which is why they have no fans left.[2]

Troublesome answers

And then there are answers that depend upon the meaning of the word "monkey", and might, rather than clarify, only result in semantic disputes. These answers can be defended as they're technically correct, but are likely trouble-makers.

  • Humans didn't descend from monkeys. That is, from no modern species of monkey - both monkeys and humans had a common ancestor and both evolved from that. Although if we saw some of our distant ancestors around today, most people would probably say they looked like monkeys (the interesting thought is "would monkeys say they looked like humans?").
  • Humans are monkeys. That is, any clade which includes the Old World Monkeys and the New World Monkeys also includes Homo sapiens. Well, humans are really apes, but that's still just fiddling with the details of the question. Humans also evolved from shrew-like mammals that appeared around the time the dinosaurs died out, so the question may as well be "why are there still furry rodent-like creatures?"

Other answers

Your question is wrong, or perhaps not even wrong, it is akin to asking "If all swans are purple, how are they able to fly?". There are a number of reasons for this.

Complexity and intelligence

Your question seems to assume that evolution moves from more simple to more complex. You probably assume that humans are more complex than monkeys and that consequently "humans evolved from monkeys". However evolution is about adaptation and not increase in complexity - though increases in complexity are frequently the result of improved adaptation. While modern humans certainly seem to possess intellectual skills far superior to those of modern monkeys, it is by no means clear that their common ancestor was less intelligent - or even more monkey-like - than the modern monkey.

Modern groups

The terms "monkey" and "human" are both modern terms. To suggest that humans evolved from monkeys is as absurd as saying that goats evolved from sheep or that sheep evolved from goats. Both are modern terms and neither evolved from the other.

Disappearance of ancestors

The question also seems to be predicated on the assumption that ancestral forms must disappear as evolution takes place. This does not have to happen. If an ancestral form is well adapted to a particular set of conditions, but a sub-population needs to evolve to fit a different set of environmental conditions following a migration - then the new sub-population may evolve to fit these conditions while leaving the ancestral form relatively unchanged.

People asking this question who have understood, let alone been convinced by, any of the above replies

Tumbleweed.gif



External links

Footnotes

  1. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (Answers in Genesis)
  2. "Metro Mail", Metro (UK), Wed 21 April 2010, in response to "Puzzled of Paisley" asking this precise question in the previous day's paper. Come on, which of you was it?
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support