I suppose I am, since nobody's ever been able to explain something to me:
If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?
So we can have barbecued stuff with our beer.
I'm of the opinion that they don't still exist.
If Americans came from Europe why are there still Europeans?
And yes, the author of this piece is too dumb to understand evolution.
Why wouldn't they? There's nothing in the Theory of Evolution that requires an ancestral species to go extinct.
But, point in fact, though we share a common ancestor with the other great apes, that common ancestor is extinct.
Evolution does NOT say any current species evolved from any other of the current species.
Current species, by natural selection, came from ancestors who were different.
Homo sapiens did not evolve from today’s apes & monkeys. Today’s primates evolved from ancestors who were different from any of today’s primates. Not only are we changed from our ancestors, so are all the other species that exist today also different from THEIR ancestors.
Possums did not evolve from kangaroos, nor did kangaroos evolve from possums. Both evolved from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.
“If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?”
they didn’t find a rock to crawl out from under like I did!
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”
In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting,” as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”
So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?
I'm no Darwinist, but this is a really, really dumb question.