‘If men evolved from apes, why are apes still here?’ They say that’s a very bad question. It supposedly reveals a lack of comprehension of evolution, along with yokel-like incomprehension of anything. One shouldn’t ask this question, they say. In fact, this question tends to stir up immediate dramatic results in the form of hysterical reactions, and lots of them. Try it yourself. This is, by itself, a sufficient reason to have a closer inspection of it and the responses to it.
The usual answer to ‘if men evolved from apes, why are apes still here’ is something like this:
England is still here, isn’t it? If America came from England, why is England still here, you blithering moron?
What sort of response is this? Taken at face value, it implies that England’s existence is the explanation of why apes are not extinct. The argument can be cast like so,
Apes exist because England exists.
This is a reductio ad absurdum, and it is one way to meet the evolutionist’s response. But perhaps the evolutionist meant his response as an analogy. America is analogous to humans, England is analogous to apes, and ‘came from’ (which I put in bold above) is analogous to ‘evolved from’. But you can immediately reduce the analogy to stupidity by putting back the intended “evolved from” in the place of the more nebulous manner whereby the evolutionist phrased it: “came from”. We can go further, though. Since man supposedly evolved from apes by random variations and natural selection, we can put it this way…
England is still here, isn’t it? If America evolved from England by random variations and natural selection, why is England still here, you blithering moron?
America did not so evolve from England, and this simple fact dispenses with the analogy and the evolutionist’s response to the question. So we see that, despite being a supposedly foolish question that no thinking person would ever ask, ‘If men evolved from apes, why are apes still here?’ is not addressed by the usual one-liner type darwinian responses. Rarely will you see a serious response to the fabled “why are there still apes?” question. I suspect there is a good reason for that, for to contemplate a serious response to it would involve the contemplation that there is something wrong with what Darwin said, and perhaps much more, and that cannot be so. So it’s better to just insist that the analogy is a good one.
If the evolutionist insists that the analogy is a good one, we can (and should) indulge him…
Long ago there was an England. England copulated with a foreign power and left many offspring, who likewise left many descendants. But, to paraphrase Darwin in single-quotes for the rest of this tedious exercise, ‘…each nation-state strove to increase in a geometrical ratio. Each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, had to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction.’ Soon the earth became full of nations struggling for food and struggling to reproduce as many offspring as they possibly could, in a geometric ratio preferably.
‘Natural selection, always intently watching each slight alteration in politics, economy or national make-up; and carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends to produce a better nation. We must suppose each new state to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed.‘ ‘In nations, hereditary variation will cause the slight alterations in constitutions, laws, method of government, etc, and generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of nations of many kinds; and may we not believe that a nation like America might thus be formed as superior to England, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?’ ‘Natural selection was daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations of these offspring nations, rejecting those that were bad, preserving those that were good.’ ‘As natural selection acts by life and death, by the survival of the fittest, and by the destruction of the less well-fitted nations’, it preserved and accumulated nations with a twinge of America-ness while old England-like variations, being inferior, were rigidly destroyed in the struggle for existence. Thus was America born.
So, why is England still here?