Skip to main content

Monkey and man

This common image that suggests that man directly evolved from the monkeys and apes that are exactly like those that exist today is misinformative. 
Recently, a friend of mine from the mission tried to press a point that I couldn’t understand. He said that he just didn’t see how we evolved from monkeys. He felt that the very idea was absurd. We are God’s complex creatures, uniquely made in His image, he said. The fact of our being here, on earth, is proof of God and proof of Creationism.

As we discussed the issue, I came to understand how he understood the late steps in the evolution of man: that homo sapien had emerged from what were, essentially, modern monkeys, becoming man as we know us, today.

Thus, in how he envisioned things, monkeys were static, and, somehow, we are to believe that humans emerged out of that. A vast silliness, he thought.

Well, that’s not how our evolution is understood to have happened. Here’s the matter, pithily explained, quoting from the “evolution” webpage at PBS:
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
I do believe, and say often, that Evolution is the most proved and certain thing other than 1 + 1 = 2. I am always taken aback to see polling that shows how few Americans are as certain as I am that Evolution is The route by which humans got here, on earth. [Was my schooling that different than the majority of Americans!? How can it be!?]

The idea of Evolution pre-existed Charles Darwin’s 1859 book “On the Origin of the Species” and has been rigorously proved in a dozen different disciplines since, yet Darwin takes the brunt of the glory and blame for the “theory.” People were breeding dogs for many millennia before Darwin’s book. We knew that traits could be “selected for” in that species and others. We certainly have known since before written history began that family traits can get carried down from generation to generation. The evidence was piled high already before Darwin collected his own evidence to produce his controversial book.

Recent science has shown the great similarity between us and monkeys, even though our bloodlines diverged five- to eight-million years ago. Not only is our DNA 95% in synch with chimps, but our brains are, too, despite our supposing our human selfs to be so very vastly more complex and superior [or, as many Christians think, on a different order of being than that of (non-human) animals].

Frans de Waal, Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote recently in an essay in the New York Times:
If we consider our species without letting ourselves be blinded by the technical advances of the last few millennia, we see a creature of flesh and blood with a brain that, albeit three times larger than a chimpanzee’s, doesn’t contain any new parts. Even our vaunted prefrontal cortex turns out to be of typical size: recent neuron-counting techniques classify the human brain as a linearly scaled-up monkey brain. No one doubts the superiority of our intellect, but we have no basic wants or needs that are not also present in our close relatives. I interact on a daily basis with monkeys and apes, which just like us strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation. Yes, we use cell phones and fly airplanes, but our psychological make-up remains that of a social primate. Even the posturing and deal-making among the alpha males in Washington is nothing out of the ordinary.
The Evolution of Man doesn’t disprove the existence of God, nor undermine the Book of Genesis. It does, however, require us to understand Genesis’ Creation Story as being metaphorical — which is a good thing! Metaphorically, the story of Adam and Eve is layered and rich in symbolism and meaning. Taken only as literally true, the story is an assault on our experience of life and sense of justice. Indeed, even most who believe the Adam and Eve story to be literally true, understand it metaphorically, whether they admit that or not. It is only from delving into its meaning that the Garden, temptation, knowledge of good and evil, suffering and the challenges after the fall become keenly interesting.

Besides, no person was there at the time Adam and Eve were, supposedly, in the Garden, to take notes and report on the interactions between the first man, first woman, God and the serpent. I maintain that what happened is what is rather obvious: A very clever guy, in the year 1000 BC — give or take 500 years — ‘created’ the best storyline he could conger up to explain human existence and our suffering. And that story, changed and enhanced a dozen times on its way to us, 3000 years later, is what we have (and are stuck with, for good or ill), today.

Recommended reading re Evolution:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
"Tom's First Sermon at Union Gospel Mission" written by me, from my other active blog, Homeless Tom


Good Piece T, good piece
Tom Armstrong said…
Thanks, T. I added some recommended reading just in case some readers of this post need further evidence of the truth of Evolution.
I already read the Dawkins book on my Kindle. It actually clarified some stuff I didn't know, like how genes switch off and on during embryonic development, thus the difference in length of leg bones, jaw bones, etc, etc, even though the embryos start out almost identical among vertibrates.

Popular posts from this blog

More Homeless Hate from Marcos Breton

There was a long spell a handful of years ago when Marcos Breton said something so fully ridiculous in one of his hateful screeds against homeless folk that it appeared to be very apparent he had been taken off the Homeless Beat by his superiors. Unhappily, after a few months, Breton was again writing disparaging columns about homeless folk

In today's Bee [3/5/17], Breton has written one of his longest columns. Online, it is titled "The price downtown Sacramento is paying for Mayor Steinberg’s homeless crusade
Read more here: It goes on for days. The message, essentially, is this: Homeless people poop; they're getting a great deal of what they want from the overmuch-helpful mayor; and business people proximate to Chavez Park are made miserable by the forever-disgusting homeless that are there in great number.

O.K. Let's get into all this a bit. Except in Breton's mind, homeless pe…

The first-person dimension of homeless Sacramentans suffering from Schizophrenia

"Disabilities and dysfunction process from having been shunned and denied access to needed opportunitites and networks of support."
~ the brothers Lysaker in Schizophrenia and the Fate of the Self What is schizophrenia? How many are homeless Sacramentans?

Perhaps 15% of the Sacramento homeless population suffers from schizophrenia. The percentage is difficult to determine for many reasons that branch from both the fuzzy definition of the malady and that many people within the homeless community who have the illness (1) are in denial and are undiagnosed and (2) have the illness as a diagnosis only – the disability can be faked by people who are successful claimants of social security and other benefits.

What is schizophrenia? One webspace gives us this definition: The most chronic and disabling of the severe mental disorders. Typically develops in the late teens or early twenties. The overt symptoms are hallucinations (hearing voices, seeing visions), delusions (false beliefs ab…

Homelessness and Remembrance

This is a follow-up on the matter of remembering homeless people who have died and the Wall that Libby Fernandez wants to build in remembrance of the deceased. [See earlier blogpost "Tell Libby NOT to build her wall."]

This blogpost is prompted by a Philosophy Bites podcast released in the last couple days -- titled "Cécile Fabre on Remembrance." Fabre's take on why we honor or grieve for certain individuals or certain collections of individuals is not greatly helpful -- since his focus is mainly one of fallen war heroes and war casualties -- but it does open up the issue of why should there be a remembrance effort for deceased homeless people at all. Who is served by it? And has the effort been perverted by the avarice of charities in their insatiable drive for donations.

It is, for starters, a curious thing for "homeless people" to be a collective that is honored. I write that NOT because I don't want the best for homeless people. But, homelessn…