"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

I...Chuck...77...am not in favor of the "why are there still apes around if..." argument. [...] I don't think it's a good argument.

Tangle writes:I am now trying to renew my acquaintance with evolution theory and I came here for help in doing that when I found myself unable to satisfactorily answer some questions from a Jewish friend.

Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.Here is how their misguided thinking goes: If evolution were true, then modern humans descended from apes. (After all, we’ve seen many scientific charts showing apes as man’s ancestors.) So, since apes still exist, they didn’t turn into humans, and evolutionists are being silly when they say apes evolved into humans. Case closed! People who think this way (and I have met many, but not within Answers in Genesis ministries) sincerely believe that the present-day existence of apes discredits evolution.Well then, why don’t we ask the obvious question: If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist today? If they evolved into humans, the apes should naturally be gone . . . right?Well, no, not really.This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe.This is another argument the Christian should not use.

Here you go Tangle. Tell your Jewish friend this isn't an argument he should use anymore:"If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?
Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use

It seems to me you are arguing against evolution here. Are you not?

Well in order to demonstrate that the existence of humans, the existence of other apes, and the theory of evolution are mutually consistent, it isn't necessary to have a complete set of intermediate forms, just to show that there's no inconsistency --- that the evolution of humans wouldn't somehow magically make all the other apes disappear.

Completely agree - just in this particular case if fcuks up my story. (Which would have been a good one had it worked).

Hmm - that's interesting and a little disappointing :-)Could it be that those involved in the battle were warriors and therefore larger? I really don't want to believe that all those medieval buildings had doorways too small for the people living in them!Is there any evidence that modern man gets taller with improved nutrition? Are Asians in fast developing countries like India and China getting taller?

Im sorry but that doesn't seem like something an evolutionist or an atheist would say at all.It seems to me you are arguing against evolution here. Are you not?

Well in fact now I think about it displaying a complete set of intermediates wouldn't actually answer the "why" question any more than pointing out that chimpanzees etc are not actually extinct. Anyone who thought that that would be contrary to theory could go on thinking it.

It would simply demonstrate, with evidence, how both lines developed from a common ancestor and it would have been quite a powerful story that is fairly easily explained.I wasn't expecting it to change all creationist's minds - particularly the ones found on these boards.I seem to remember that the horse has a pretty good fossil record - anyone know what its nearest living relative and common ancestor are? ["Hello Google"]

I seem to remember that the horse has a pretty good fossil record - anyone know what its nearest living relative and common ancestor are?

The nearest living relatives of horses are zebras and asses.