Evolution If Humans are on average Taller then they were 200 years ago, how come monkey arent any closer

Evolution: If Humans are on average Taller then they were 200 years ago, how come monkey aren't any closer...?

Evolution: If Humans are on average Taller then they were 200 years ago, how come monkey aren't any closer to becoming humans?

For example; 200 years ago, on average humans were a lot shorter. Another form of obvious evolution.. humans' pinkies were longer (in comparison to their other fingers) then they are now. Men were shorter and therefore, beds were created much smaller then they are now.
So, how come you don't find a monkey that is a little more human-like? Evolution is an ongoing process, so why has it stopped it monkeys and other animals? Sure, animals (like humans) evolve, but there is NO proof that animals evolve into OTHER animals. This is why Bigfoot is called The Missing Link.

Other Answers:

Well, the theory of evolution doesn't say that monkey involved into man, it says that at some point monkeys and man had a common ancestor. Plus the timeline you are talking about (200 years) is absolutely nothing in the scale of time it take for a species to evolve. The change in height you are talking about has to do with diet.
- Generally, you should talk about chimpanzees if you are discussing comparisons to humans. they are our closest relative in the evolutionary chain.

We have better nutrition now and we eat more. It could be due to sexual selection. You can even see this with first generation Americans. For example, I am 5 inches taller than my mom and an inch taller than my dad. My brother is 5 inches taller than my dad. This is just one generation.

Evolutionists do not believe in linear evolution. We believe in radial evolution. We are not evolved monkeys rather we diverged from a common ancestor. You can't refute that we have similar genes, number of chromosomes, physiological traits, etc.... We had a common ancestor at one point and both monkeys and humans have been evolving the same amount of time.

Check out this really helpful website:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...

I hope that this gives you some insight on what an evolutionary biologist believes.

First off, most scientists that believe bigfoot is likely suggest it is a descendent of Gigantopithecus which is a giant ape probably closely related to Orangutans. Bigfoot is not the missing link. In fact there is no "missing link". There have been numerous "missing links" found. Since every generation is a link, I suppose you could call them missing but to suggest there isn't fossil evidence of intermediate species is simply false.

Your contention that once dinosaurs died off they should have been recreated somehow might be logical except that there were a few factors that prevented it. Mammals had much shorter lives and evovled much more quickly. They were evolving with flowering plants that had just begun to evolve in the late Cretaceous. When nearly all the large dinosaurs were killed, the animals most readily available to take the new niches were mammals and they quickly evovled into giants but not on the scale of dinosaurs.

A chimp has everything we have. All its bones are the same. It has a brain that is like ours, just not as good at language but it is quite good. Its DNA differs only marginally. Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate we have a common ancestor that is about 5 to 6 million years old. You can conduct Mitochondrial DNA studies with humans and it indicates what you would expect from most groups. If you take it back further it can be used to find when last common ancestors existed for humans and other animals such as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, monkeys, etc.

Actually logic suggests that the evolution with its mountains of evidence is almost certainly true. It is not logical to ignore the evidence.

Because animals(and humans) evolve to fill an ecological niche. There is a niche for humans and monkeys but there isn't a niche for a monkey to be more man like. So until evolving to be more man like will help monkeys fill their ecological niche they will stay as they are.

EDIT Many animals niches can overlap and so if one species dies the other animals can still fill that niche although it can cause havoc especially if it is a keystone species that was destroyed.

Also it didn't make dinosaurs again because the environment had changed so that the particular characteristics of the dinosaurs did not fill the remaining ecological niches as well as mammals so they died out. Also not very many if any survived the meteor impact to die later due to lack of a niche.