The claim “I didn’t come from a monkey” is a favorite by creationists because they believe that it both defeats all claims that evolution makes and also somehow elevates them above all the other members of the animal kingdom.
The interesting thing about the statement is that it is actually true, however even that fluke by creationists betrays the lack of understanding by them in making the statement. The statement is what is known as a strawman fallacy because no scientist has ever stated that humans do come from monkeys.
What scientists actually say is that humans share a common ancestor with monkeys (and of course with all other lifeforms). This page investigates the issues and details the mistakes that creationists make when they make such statements.
Humans are not monkeys; we are apes. And we didn’t come from apes because we are apes. Such a statement is akin to saying that a lemon came from citrus fruit – which is nonsensical since a lemon is a citrus fruit.
The following diagram (a cladogram) shows the relationship between humans and the sorts of animals about which creationists believe scientists are confused (image taken from the Ape Wikipedia article):
The pictures are the animals that are alive today, however the horizontal lines (with “Mya” numbers) represent classes of animals that had representatives alive that many million years ago.
Animals to the right inherit characteristics from the animals in categories to the left. Therefore humans have not inherited anything from chimpanzees, however humans have inherited things from ancestors that were in common with chimpanzees (the Homininae). See Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor for more details (a Wikipedia article).
That method of determining inheritance is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt thanks to both the fossil record and DNA analysis.
Scientists make a branch from a class when there is clear evidence that differentiates two animals that otherwise share many characteristics. Therefore humans and chimpanzees are different genus of the Hominini tribe because of observed differences such as: the number of chromosomes, skeletal structure, brain size, muscles and hair, use of language and tools, etc.
The Aegyptopithecus (Wikipedia article) is an early Catarrhini that predates the divergence between apes and old world monkeys. The following is the view of the skull from that species (image taken from the same Wikipedia article):
It shares several key characteristics with modern apes:
- Dental Formula: Like modern apes, it shares the 2:1:2:3 catarrhine dental formula (2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars, 3 molars).
- Molar Patterns: Its lower molars exhibit the Y-5 cusp pattern (five cusps arranged in a “Y” shape), which is characteristic of ape dentition.
- Forward-Facing Eyes: It featured fully enclosed eye sockets with a complete bony plate separating the eyes from the jaw muscles, allowing for binocular, stereoscopic vision.
- Reduced Snout: Compared to primitive prosimians (like lemurs), its skull reveals a flatter, more anthropoid face.
- General Primate Traits: Like apes, it had nails instead of claws and an opposable, grasping thumb and big toe
It also shares several key characteristics with new-world monkeys:
- Dental Formula: It possesses the standard catarrhine dental formula of 2:1:2:3 (2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars, 3 molars) in each half of the jaw.
- Postorbital Closure: Like modern monkeys, its eye sockets are completely enclosed by a plate of bone, which protects the eyes from the heavy chewing muscles.
- Diurnal Vision: The shape of its eye sockets indicates it was active during the day and possessed forward-facing eyes for acute binocular, stereoscopic vision.
- Monkey-Like Locomotion: Its postcranial skeleton was basically monkey-like, featuring a long, balancing tail and short, robust forelimbs designed for walking on all fours along branches rather than swinging beneath them.
- Sexual Dimorphism: Much like many living monkeys (such as baboons and mandrills), Aegyptopithecus exhibits marked size differences between males and females, including significantly larger, fang-like canine teeth in males. This suggests they lived in structured, male-led social groups
The classification of examples found in the fossil record is a fluid study and there are issues in contention that may lead to reclassification. That only goes to strengthen the principles involved in the classification of evolved species.
So humans and old-world monkeys do come from members of the order catarrhine (such as aegyptopithecus). Humans do not come from monkeys, and monkeys do not come from humans.
Creationists tend to ignore all of the above evidence that has led to a staggering and useful scientific framework; instead, they prefer pithy statements such as “I didn’t come from a monkey”.
Note to creationists: no scientist has ever said that humans come from monkeys. It’s only the types like preachers in mega-churches and on social media that pretend that scientists believe that.
Here’s the model that such preachers want you to believe is the model developed by scientists (image taken from an online image generator):
The sequence depicted in the image clearly deceives by presenting something that no scientist believes. By dumbing down the concepts in evolution, the preachers have created a trap that they find useful to keep their gullible followers in line.
The good news is that you no longer need to fall for their trap.