Because the squirrels evolved into monkeys.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor (I don't know what that is). This "We came from monkeys..." stuff is very old and I'm not sure why it keeps coming up lol.

lol, i have no idea ....

The scientific explanation of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys. It is more complicated than that. Primates and humans share common ancestors. There is plenty of scientifically supported fact on this subject that is easy to find online. If your question is not rhetorical, you should educate yourself.

i have asked that same question for years. another one i have is, why cant we talk to them? you know what i mean?

This question appears about every month. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, both species share a common ancestor that evolved into humans AND monkeys. We are not 'higher evolved' than monkeys, we just took a different path. Monkeys adapted to the life in trees and jungle, therefore they're better at climbing than we are. Humans adapted to living in the 'cognitive niche', we use intelligence for social structures, hunting and other things.

I'm sorry I've already answered this question. But it just occured to me that I've saved an explanation and introduction for evolution. So in case you're interested, you can read it here. At the end of the answer, I'll also give you a link where I've summarized some evidence for evolution. It's long and you don't have to read it, but I encourage you to do so because it's very interesting, and, even if you don't agree with it, it would be good to know what exactly you're arguing against. Let’s start with how science works, the scientific method. 1. Observations. The phenomenon that needs to be explained is observed, quantitative data is collected, some experiments are made and measurements are taken... 2. Hypothesis. The data is analyzed and interpreted. Based on this, the scientist comes up with an intelligent guess that explains the phenomenon and the data. A hypothesis is what you call ‘theory’ in ‘everyday language’. Hypotheses should be falsifiable, otherwise they are discarded as invalid. 3. Experiments. After a hypothesis has been formulated, it is tested with experiments. Based on the hypothesis, the scientist makes predictions, then performs experiments that should result as predicted. There are also experiments that try to proof the hypothesis wrong, each part of it is tested. Only if a hypothesis stands up to all those tests, and if enough further evidence is gathered, the hypothesis eventually becomes: 4. Theory. A scientific theory is not the same as the word ‘theory’ in ‘everyday language’. A scientific theory is based on so much evidence that it is considered fact. It has stood up to rigorous testing for centuries. Scientific theories include the theory of relativity, theory of electromagnetism and the theory of evolution. 5. Law. Absolute phenomena that can be described by math eventually become ‘a law’. Gravity is a law for example, apples always fall down on earth, and one can calculate exactly how fast this happens. Evolution for example can’t become a law, because you cannot predict mathematically exactly what will happen. Analogy: You know that seeds grow into trees, yet you can’t predict the exact height and form of a tree by looking at the seed. Evolution is a scientific theory, it’s the very foundation of biology and literally 99.8 percent of biologists accept it as fact. More historians deny the holocaust than biologists deny evolution. But I’m sure you aren’t impressed by such figures, it’s better to think for yourself, so I will later present you the evidence for evolution. First I want to define it though, and explain how it works: Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life. It states that all organisms on earth evolved from a common ancestor (primitive, one-celled organism that lived about 3.5 billion years ago). So note that evolution doesn’t say how the first self-replicating entity got there. It starts with it already existing. By the way, that’s the reasons why many Christians see evolution as the way god ‘created’ life. As his tool. They then claim that god created the first self-replicating thing. In Europe, the majority of Christians actually accept evolution, the whole Catholic Church for example does, and they are known to be pretty conservative. Anyways, I don’t agree with this view that god created the first replicator, but I’m glad those Christians at least acknowledge science. In the field of the origin of life, there is no scientific theory, only a couple hypotheses, so believing that god did it doesn’t contradict clear evidence. Back to evolution: How does it work? Evolution happens because animals reproduce, somehow (be it sexual reproduction or bacteria who divide themselves) they make copies of themselves. The copies are however not 100% identical. Due to shuffling of the genes and random mutations (caused by cosmic rays, malfunctions in the cells etc), the DNA sequences of parent and child vary. The individual with the best genes for living long and reproducing often passes on more of its fair share of genes to the next generation, therefore beneficial genes accumulate in the gene pool. As time goes on, more and more changes improve the adaptation of the species, and the species gradually changes appearance, if this is good for survival. If the environment stays the same, no significant evolution happens, because no small mutations are possible that would improve the individual at making a living. A note about mutations: Mutations can just be changes in letters of DNA, sometimes also copying errors of whole genes or chromosomes, they sometimes get deleted or duplicated. In ‘everyday language’, mutation is linked to freaky things like cows with tree heads or so. Of course, that would be a mutation, but also neutral, very small changes in DNA that don’t even get translated into proteins (and therefore don’t have an effect at all) or actually beneficial changes are called mutations. Mutations are random, and since animals are already very well adapted to the environment they live in, most mutations are harmful. However, due to statistics, some mutations are beneficial, and those are the ones that prosper because of natural selection. The bad mutations are wiped out over time, the good ones accumulate. Good and bad of course being relative. Evolution has no long-term goal, no foresight. Something that helps a species survive might lead them to extinction some million years later. It’s important to get an impression of the time that is involved in evolution. Creationists like to claim that ‘macro evolution’ (A term invented by creationists defined as evolution from one species into another NEW species) has never been observed. Actually, it has been observed in bacteria, but that’s the only place where you can find it because bacteria reproduce at a very fast rate and therefore there are many chances for mutations to happen and accumulate. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Creationists then say ‘well it’s still a bacteria, it didn’t turn into a dog’. That’s clearly retarded, evolution doesn’t magically change species into other existing species! Bacteria evolved into a new kind of bacteria, another bacteria that has never existed before. Evolution started 3.5 billion years ago, and up to like 800 million years ago, there was nothing else than bacteria on earth. Then a watershed event happened, some one-celled organism ganged up to form colonies, the colonies evolved and became multicellular organisms. This new blueprint was the foundation for growth, systems of billions of cells slowly emerged, and about 500 million years ago the first water organisms that fossilized evolved. Again, all life has a common ancestor, and every organism on earth has had the exact same time to ‘evolve’. Humans did NOT evolve out of chimpanzees or gorillas, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor (lived 6 million years ago). Those human-chimp ancestors must have become geographically separated about 6 million years ago. It’s likely that a small population of those animals got isolated and eventually evolved into humans, humans changed more than chimps (they look more different from gorillas and other great apes than chimps do). But the rest of that group evolved too, and eventually became the modern chimps (actually there was another split about 2-3 million years ago, splitting the group into chimps and bonobos. So chimps and bonobos are equally closely related to us. The human line split too, the Neanderthal people are actually not our direct ancestors, they split apart from our line somewhat later. Human evolution went on from Australopithecus (3 sub-species, rhobustus, afarensis and africanus are distinguished) to Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and eventually to us, Homo sapiens (150000 years ago). A note on species: Just because we give them different names doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally different. The term species is human-made, animals are defined into different species when they cannot interbreed successfully. The apparent paradox of ‘there had to be a Homo ergaster giving birth to a Homo sapiens’ is no real paradox. Parents always look similar to their children, and changes in evolution were always very small and gradual. There was never a generation that couldn’t reproduce with the previous generation, only with hindsight we define fossils into different species when there clearly is a lot of time and evolution between them. Species keep changing, they are not set in stone.

God made humans.

The hair-splitting answer provided by people that believe in evolution is that it was "ape-like" crweature. They cannot explain why species supposed to be extinct for tens of millions of years have not changed one bit in all that time when they find a living example. "...When something is found alive that is believed to be extinct. It is never evolved past the point of how they found it fossilized (goes totally against evolution theory). The 325 million year old fish, that has not changed, has left evolutionist trying to figure out an excuse." ~http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.24.html Alligators haven't changed either. "The evolution theory, stretching from matter to man, is impossible, because of many impassable gulfs. Some of these impassable gulfs are:-- 1. Between the living and non-living or dead matter; 2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms; 3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates; 4. Between marine animals and amphibians; 5. Between amphibians and reptiles; 6. Between reptiles and birds; 7. Between reptiles and mammals; 8. Between mammals and the human body; 9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man, bearing the image of God. There is not a scrap of evidence that these gulfs have ever been crossed." ~ http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Evolution-Of-Man-Scientifically-Disproved2.html Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said:--"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness? Prof. Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: "The attempt to find the transition from the animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal." Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.... There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

I know a few who still are

Maybe they are late bloomers. ;)

If children are born from their parents, why do their parents remain alive?

The ape we evolved from no longer exists, there are many species of primate, not all of them have found a need to evolve the traits we now have.

I'm of German descent. If that's true, then why is there still Germany?

Maybe apes where something else and they evolved into the apes we know today.. Also in evolution animals can evolve in different ways and maybe there was a very subtle difference from us and other apes... just enough difference to spark evolution.

It's because apes didn't evolve into people

Some are slower than others. That is why they have special ed.

We didn't evolve from apes, we and apes evolved from an earlier ancestor, apes are our cousins, not "parents". Even if we did, there are many different types of apes, (gorillas, chimpanzees, orang-utans etc.) so even if we did evolve from one type it doesn't mean the other types wouldn't still be here.

This question is asked a lot. I'll give a very general, simplified answer. Say there is a group of apes. Just as in all groups, some of these apes are smarter, some are dumber, and some are average. The smarter apes figure out how to use a stick to crack open a nutshell, and access delicious, nutritious nuts. The lady apes are relatively impressed by this, and they mate with the smarter apes, as they know that these guys will be able to look after them and their babies, by providing delicious, nutritious nuts. Consequently, the smarter apes reproduce more, as the lady apes are drawn to their impressive nut-obtaining qualities. This means that the genetic trait of intelligence will be passed on, and a new generation of smarter apes will appear. This continued, over thousands of years, not just with intelligence, but also with other traits, until humans emerged (this is VERY simplified, please note). The dumber, less desirable apes don't disappear, they still breed, but they remain as-is. If this doesn't make sense, comment me, and I can elaborate to the best of my ability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution The link above leads to a pretty good article about evolution, and it's in regular language, so there aren't too many technical and confusing terms.

Why not? Who says a group has to go extinct when another group evolves from it? If Americans are descended from Europeans and Africans, what are there still Europeans and Africans. One theory is that humans are the apes who came out of the trees into the savannah, and evolved to fit in there. The apes are the ones who stayed in the trees, and didn't have to change.

If god made Adam from dust, why is there still dust? If God Made Eve from Adam's rib, why are there still ribs? Humans and apes have common ancestors. We are their cousins, not their sons. You do not comprehend Evolution. You cannot effectively criticize anything that you do not even begin to comprehend.

Who else would eat the bananas ?

We evolved alongside with them.

cause they stayed monkeys and apes