Ever since Darwin, enemies of evolution have been protesting that they’re “not descended from monkeys.” Ok, Darwin in fact said that we and monkeys had a common ancestor. Be that as it may, why are these people still hung up on monkeys? Why not something earlier? Why do we never hear “I’m not descended from reptiles.” or “I’m not descended from sponges.”?
Because they’re too stupid and/or uneducated to realize that we actually did descend from reptiles.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m descended from aristocracy.
Because how could all that happen in 6,000 years?
I’m not going to try to hunt this down, but I read somewhere that the Victorians regarded monkeys as sexual degenerates and were appalled that we were cousins. I recall a quote from some early proponent of Darwinian evolution which went something like “If only we had been descended from the noble lion, the hard working horse, or the faithful dog, people would have been much more inclined to accept the theory.”
Yet they somehow think being descended from dust is more noble than being descended from monkeys.
Be fair–sometimes they’re hung up on apes as well.
The reason being, obviously, that monkeys and apes look like hairier, dumber humans, so that to the simple-minded descent from such creatures seems degrading. Lizards don’t look enough like humans to be threatening. Descent from a lizard doesn’t pack any punch.
Personally, I want to hear an argument about evolution that doesn’t involve humans at all. Just once, I want to hear a passionate argument that hamsters aren’t related to mice.
I remember casually saying that we descended from fish while being baby-sat by my mother’s long-time work friend. She snapped at me like I called her a venereal-riddled whore. It was very disconcerting, even from someone so shrill and funny-smelling.
No we didn’t.
Amphibians, yes. But not reptiles. Sauropsids (reptiles and birds) and synapsids (whose remaining descendants are the mammals) both descended from basal amniotes, which may have resembled lizards but were not, strictly speaking, reptiles.
I’m glad someone corrected the reptile thing.
They also seem offended at being descended from microbes - microbes to men is the scornful comment. I’m not sure if that is disgust or just a failure of imagination.
Because “Monkey” is an Inherently Funny Word. Subconsciously, therefore, it is interpreted as both an insult and a joke, and takes on a life of it’s own.
I wouldn’t give your Funny Word to a monkey on a rock.[/letterman]
I think that’s basically it. The monkey thing is supposed to mock the idea of evolution because monkeys are kind of ridiculous in a way eukaryotic bacteria or sponges aren’t (see for example, here).
Its not really supposed to be a logical argument against evolution, so pointing out inconsistencies is kind of a waste of time.
I’ve actually head this one.
Since when are there eukaryotic bacteria?
So why are there still monkeys?
Neil Shubin says we are. I have watched two parts (the third is tomorrow night) of his TV sequence based on “Your Inner Fish” and the second part was called “Your Inner Reptile” and pretty much claims we are descended from reptiles.
It seems to me that I once read that there is no clade called amphibians. That is there is no common ancestor of all amphibians.
They had the best bananas!
Adam had 'em.
Forget evolution. These headaches were going on back when Linnaeus had the audacity to classify us as animals, let alone simians.
As for the OP’s question, you often see stuff like “life didn’t come from slime!” or similar.