Wasn't the common ancestor of humans and monkeys a monkey?

Your right. The common ancestor between Humans and the other primates (ape and monkey are vague terms that can describe hundreds of species, which causes a lot of confusion) could be considered a monkey. However, when someone says "monkey", they most likely think of a living simian with a tail (as opposed to an ape, like a chimpanzee, bonobo, or gorilla). That common ancestor, however, is extinct.

The wording is to answer people who ask those questions about why are there still monkeys if man evolved from monkeys. The point is, that "monkey" we evolved from is extinct, hence it being a "common ancestor".

The best answer for such questions, though, is to explain that evolution is NOT linear, it does not work in a line. Evolution branches. So a common ancestor could also be the common ancestor to many other living species. It is also important to understand that species don't evolve, and individuals don't evolve, POPULATIONS of a species evolve. When a population of a species becomes isolated from other populations of the same species, changes in DNA (mutations) become a lot more concentrated and spread around a lot faster, and with enough time, the populations' gene pool will become too different to interbreed, and new species evolve. This is how evolution branches.

That ancestor does not look like your regular monkey at all. There are very substantial differences between that ancestor and us. You have to go a long time back to get that common ancestor, probably over 10 million years back in time or so.

There is no "if you think" in this question; like anything else in Science, this is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence. Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor, the evidence for that is overwhelming.

Anyway, maybe I'm not the intended person to answer this question.

Edit: Creationist have no say in this. Every single one of their arguments is either plain incorrect or based on a fallacy. There is no point considering their opinion (which is just that, an opinion based on no evidence).

I think the Dryopithecus was one of the fossils which is regarded to be both in the lineage of humans and other great apes. You can google image for some reconstruction of how that may have looked like.

I don't know which fossil species is regarded as a common ancestor for monkeys and also great apes. Generally a lemur-type of primate is regarded as an ancestor species of all primates. One example fossil is Notharctus.

The question "why there are still monkeys if humans evolved from monkeys" is as intelligent as asking why there are still Europeans and Africans if most of today Americans came from Africa and Europe. Or as intelligent as stating that it is impossible to have cousins.

Ancestor Of Man

Yoru right cibryn. The correct way to state this distinction would be "Humans did not evolve from any extant apes or monkeys. Humans and extant apes both evolved from a common, extinct ape ancestor."

Please remember that we usually say this to creationists, who don't believe in evolution at all. Therefore, when they say "If humans evolved from monkeys..." they are talking about extant monkeys. And that is of course not the case.

Nothing that is alive today, that's why it's an ancestor. We don't know exactly what it is, because fossils don't occur of every species that exists. We haven't found a species that perfectly fits our [most recent] common ancestor yet.

Monkey is a rather nonspecific term. Common names have vague meanings and as you say in this case cause confusion with living and extinct species. The use of Latin is far more accurate but comes across as jargon and can interfere with an explanation unless it is carefully translated. However when the question is about common descent the term prosimian - simian - hominoid (arthropoid apes) for the early species split is useful. The hominid (great apes) evolution leading to the hominins (humans & chimps) avoids the emotional over tones monkey comes with.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Hominoids.html

http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp20.ht...

http://www.ecotao.com/holism/add/Hominoidea.html

Prosimian

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_prim...

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_09.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_2.htm

No. Homo sapiens sapiens and monkeys were created. Humans are animals in the physical sense, but sentient life has a soul, animals do not.

Monkeys did not exist when the split occurred. You have chosen to ignore ALL of the published and verifiable evidence that a progression of species has and is happening on the earth. The IDIOCY that something cannot exist because something more advanced has developed just shows how s****d some "thought" processes are. Why do dog sleds, horse buggies, wolves, 1932 Ford Coups etc exist? Today we have snow mobiles,cars, dogs, 2008 Fords etc. Every day there are hundreds of uneducated people who decide to share their lack of thought.

It was a primitive primate somewhat like a lemur.