"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
This right here is the problem. People don't even understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
And yes, in the context of people in the developed world -- which is to say people who almost universally have access to information -- it really is just us retarded Americans who still have a foot in the 18th century when it comes to science.
Bush round 1 you are sane.
Bush round 2 you are insane.
Same for Obama.
You are out of your mind to support either of these comical jokes of 'leaders' in round 2.
Furthermore, you may be insane to think 'human' politics can lead to positive effect.
Round 1 we all get a pass.
Round 2 exposes the fools.
Further support of human politic is tantamount to renouncing your humanity.
How come there are still monkeys? - RationalWiki
I'm guessing that's all I should need to post, but in the bigger picture....Some creationists ask questions like this thinking they've made a real zinger you can't possibly answer, and all of evolution thus falls apart. These have little interest in your answer, let alone in serious discussion of the issue.
Evolution is the change in populations, not in individuals.
Evolution is not a process in which species universally progress up a "ladder".
Humans are not descended from any modern species of monkey; both monkeys and humans are descended from some long-extinct ancestor pre-dating both. Although this species, if it were transferred to today, would be considered a "monkey", it is not any living species of monkey.
Evolution explains how humans developed from a primate ancestor, but not an extant species of monkey or ape. (Modern primates include: bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, macaques, lemurs, gibbons, and humans. None of these is a descendant of any other.)
Speciation can occur by branching into two or more reproductively isolated populations (cladogenesis) or when a single population changes over time to such an extent that the later population is considered a different species (anagenesis).The question also seems to assume that evolution moves from more simple organisms to more complex ones. Given a simplistic view of evolution, it's easy to assume that humans are more complex than monkeys and that consequently "humans evolved from monkeys". But evolution is about adaptation, and this doesn't necessarily involve an increase in complexity — though increases in complexity are frequently the result of improved adaptation. While modern humans certainly 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.
Humans are only "superior" to monkeys in terms of intelligence, and the hidden assumption is that intelligence is a sign that we are the "most evolved". From our anthropomorphic point of view, this makes us superior. However, if we were to classify "most evolved" as meaning "most able to live in trees" then the pinnacle of evolution would be held by monkeys. One could choose any extremely evolved capability to make the same claim—an elephant's trunk for example.
Honestly....please don't dumb-down evolution to "why are there still monkeys". It's just rather sad and pathetic.