did humans really descend from monkeys?
548919
no they are our closest ancestors
445160
Actually, Darwin NEVER said we evolved from monkeys! (Quoted from my Biology Professor at LSUA). There is this huge creation/evolution stink going around, but all evolution states is what has already been stated...the survival of the fittest, or natural selection.  Now he DID say we could have all resulted from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, just so happened that the monkey developed one way, and the humans another way, but he doesn't say that we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever.  The result is evolutionary adaptation, the accumulation of inherited characteristics that enhance organisms' ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.  In modern terms, evolution is defined as a change over time in the genetic composition of a population.  in 1859, Charles Darwin published a book called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".  Look it up and check that out.
614376
look at the monkeys man if we all evolvoled from them then why are there still monkeys, were they to stupid to evolve with us or what? nope i say we are as we always were if not why havent we evolved farther?
644132
I am curious as to who the "they" is that you are referring to...\n\nCurrently there are two theories regarding the origins of modern humans, "Multiregional" and "Out of Africa".\n\nThe Africa origin theory is pretty well supported with fossil, artifact (tools, etc.) and DNA evidence, the multiregional origin theory has less evidence (currently) but this should not completely discount it.\n\nThe first link has more on the differences between these, and examines the evidence in more detail. The next two provide some examples of the competitiveness of this debate.\n\nKeep in mind that proponents of either theory are well aware of human evolutionary history and understand that current evidence suggests the first upright primates DID come from Africa (see last link)
1183298
no, humans aren't evolved from anything.  they were created by God.
713110
Thank you, Mr. Fallacy.\n\nWhy do you put both "monkey" and "theory" in quotes?  Do you not believe in monkeys?\nHow did you get to decide where the burden of proof lies?  Who gave you the authority to erase fact, by stating the contrary?\n\nNow, to answer you question, first, I'm taking monkeys out of quotes.  I don't hide facts.  Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor.  The similarities come from both that common ancestor and convergent evolution -- the tendency for similar structures to develop in similar environments.  The differences came from divergent evolution.  Your whole question is based on the premise that I didn't inherit my cousin's eye color.  Behe can fling empty rhetoric well.  You can't.
841059
Mankind did not land on Earth. Rather, we evolved from lifeforms already present on the Earth. Our evolutionary roots can be traced a few million years back and the species that most closely resembles us in terms of genetic makeup(which is also most probably the one from which we completed the final stage of evolution) is the chimpanzee.
1168344
Okay, first of all...we didn't evolve FROM monkeys.\nMonkeys, apes, gorillas and humans all evolved from a common ancestor who was not exactly an ape, gorilla, human or monkey.  That is why there are "still" monkey--we never were monkeys.\nSecond, the offspring of 2 parents could indeed be smarter. Otherwise how would we get people like Einstein and DaVinci?  Everyone has a tiny bit of mutation in them as well as a blend of the two parents. That's how evolution works. If your mutation makes it more likely you'll survive, you'll pass it onto your offspring.  If it makes  you die, then you won't pass it along.
425495
For the last time, we didn't evolve straight from monkeys. We had a common ancestor that was wiped out because of the forces of evolution.
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
517863
This is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution.  The theory of human evolution does not claim that humans came from apes.  Instead, it says that many millions of years ago, there was a species that was neither a human nor an ape.  This species split into at least two groups.  Over millions of years, one of those groups gradually changed to become what we now know as apes, and one of them gradually changed to become what we now know as humans. \n\nWhether you choose to believe the theory of evolution or some other explanation for how humans came to be is an entirely different matter.  That's something you have to decide for yourself--a bunch of strangers on the Internet can't tell you that.
214059
human evolution, theory of the origins of the human species, Homo sapiens. Modern understanding of human origins is derived largely from the findings of paleontology, anthropology, and genetics, and involves the process of natural selection (see Darwinism). Although gaps in the fossil record due to differential preservation prevent the complete specification of the line of human descent, H. sapiens share clear anatomical, genetic, and historic relationships to other primates. Of all primates, humans bear particularly close affinity to other members of a group known as hominoids, or apes, which includes orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Humans and their immediate ancestors, known as hominids, are notable among hominoids for their bipedal locomotion, slow rate of maturation, large brain size, and, at least among the more recent hominids, the development of a relatively sophisticated capacity for language, tool use, and social activity.\nThe Evolutionary Tree\n\nHumans are mammals of the Primate order. The earliest primates evolved about 65 million years ago in the geological period known as the Paleocene epoch. They were small-brained, arboreal fruit eaters, similar to modern tree shrews. Primates of the Eocene epoch (55 to 38 million years ago) were similar and ancestral to contemporary tarsiers, lemurs, and tree shrews, and are classified as lower primates or prosimians. During the late Eocene, the higher primates, or anthropoids, developed from prosimian ancestors and, aided by continental drift, diverged into New World (or platyrrhine) and Old World (or catarrhine) monkeys. The branching of Old World monkeys and hominoids apparently occurred in the late Oligocene (38 to 25 million years ago) or early Miocene (25 to 8 million years ago), a time period poorly represented in the fossil record. The lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs) and other hominoid lines diverged about 20 million years ago, while the Asian great apes (the orangutan being the only surviving form) diverged from the African hominoids about 15 to 10 million years ago. Genetic evidence suggests that the ancestral lines of gorillas diverged about 8 million years ago and that chimpanzees and hominids diverged about 5 million years ago.\n\nHominid Evolution\n\nThe earliest known hominids are members of the genus Australopithecus, the earliest of which date to more than 4 million years ago. Unlike other primates, but like all hominids, australopithecines were bipedal. Their crania, however, were small and apelike, with an average cranial capacity of about 450 cc in the gracile species and 600 cc in the robust forms. Australopithecines that have been considered ancestral in the lineage leading to the human genus Homo include A. afarensis (an important skeleton of which is popularly known as Lucy) and A. africanus. The exact position of these and other early species on the hominid family tree continues to be disputed.\n\nThe first member of the genus Homo, a small gracile species known as H. habilis, was present in east Africa at least 2 million years ago. H. habilis was the first hominid to exhibit the marked expansion of the brain (with an average cranial capacity of about 750 cc) that would become a hallmark of subsequent hominid evolutionary history. By about 1.6 million years ago, H. habilis had evolved into a larger, more robust, and larger-brained species known as Homo erectus. Cranial capacities ranged from about 900 cc in early specimens to 1050 cc in later ones. H. erectus persisted for well over a million years and migrated off the African continent into Asia, Indonesia, and Europe.\n\nBetween 500,000 and 250,000 years ago, H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens. Transitional forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens are referred to as archaic H. sapiens. With the exception of H. sapiens neandertalensis (see Neanderthal man), no additional subspecies are recognized. Indeed, some scientists consider Neanderthal a separate species. Archaic H. sa
410905
Yes, they both come from the Human family. They are second cousins to Chimp and Zees and distantly related to many other primates.
1019723
Noo we werent monkeys...\nit was said that we evovled from monkeys in other words we were ancestors. We humans look like monkeys, even a long time ago, because we share the common ancestors with the monkeys... It is believed that not too long ago (compared to the life history of the earth), a certain type of old ape started to evolve toward what ended up as humans today, but some of them also evolved toward the ape direction and gave rise to the apes of today. It is not hard to imagine why we look so similar to apes since really we have not had a time long enough to really diverge our appearance since we originated from the same ancestor.
594431
1. There is no such thing as a "lower primate". Only creationists who are ignorant of evolutionary science would ever  use such a term. All organisms have been evolving for EXACTLY the same amount of time. There are no "lower" organisms.\n\n2. We are not simply the descendants of apes, we ARE apes. Humans are one of the 5 currently living great ape species. \n\n3. The most compelling evidence is in the degre of genetic homogeneity, with over 95% of genetic material shared between humans and the chimp species.
353195
*Sigh* This question has been asked so many times, it's almost sad. Here's the deal: we did not evolve directly from monkeys and apes. Humans, monkeys and apes all evolved from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR. This common ancestor has since died off. So, let's put it this way: monkeys and apes are our distant cousins, rather than our distant brothers and sisters. That make sense?\n\nHere's a better question: if man DIDN'T evolve from monkeys and apes, why are we 99% genetically similar to them? \n\nThank you, by the way, for stating monkeys AND apes in your question instead of just monkeys. Strictly speaking, we are more related to apes than to monkeys. And yes, there's a difference.
217423
no.  gorillas and humans certainly shared a common ancestor, which was an ape that lived about 5 to 10 million years ago, but the morphological and genetic data indicate that we are not directly descended from the gorillas themselves.