Evolution takes millions of years and many generations for any drastic changes. Monkies in zoos often are not allowed to breed. Also, natural selection does not come into effect as much because they do not need to try to get food, fight, etc. ---EDIT--- From http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm "We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend. Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument). The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep). The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments. The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle). Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals. To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance." EDIT: Here's some more: http://www.google.com/search?q=proof%20of%20evolution

Evolution is not a spontaneous process. It take breeding and mutation. The chance for evolution resulting from a successfull mutation expecially in an enclosed enviroment that is designed to suit their current needs is slim to none.

Because the monkeys in the zoo are a far off distant cousin of the primates humans evolved from. Humans are a differant species than that of primates today. The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, Wikipedia has the best explanation I can find thus far, it's interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae Also your sarchasm preceeds you, it takes millenia for a species to evolve, it does not happen all at once in ones lifetime. The species of hominidae we know today will probably be on the verge of extinction by the next century and all totally wiped off the face of the globe by the next millenium... your bones will be dust by that time and evolution the least of your worries. Mans ancestory can be traced back 270,000 years to the southern tip of Africa and parts of Australia, where the oldest living tribe "the Aborigini's" still live and attempt to carry on their ancestors primitive traditions. Believe it or not, the science of gentics can trace every human on the planet to those African tribes, we all carry the trace genes of Aboriginal DNA and it can be retraced through anyones family historys to those tribes. YA KNOW I SURE WORK HARD ON THIS END,...A RATING WOULD BE NICE OF YOU. I appreciate your candor, ... I respect your religious beliefs as well but I hope they do not blind you... every living person related to your religious cause is a decendent of the Aboriginal tribes... we all carry that trace DNA. The religious concept of the world as we know it being created in seven days, is hard to fathom from devout scientist point of view, religion would have us dismiss creation and compare it as the equivelent of a child baking a cookie in an Easy Bake oven. Scientifically it's not that simple. So you can understand why the rational scientist is not going to buy this creation theory because it is far more complex than the discriptors of religion. - Thats very kind of you, thanx.

It's evolution. A slightly longer process than 'Pantene'

How do you know they are not? Evolution takes thousands of generations. How many generations have we been observing them, in zoos or in the wild? Can you see the hour hand of your watch moving? No - unless you have superhuman senses. Which proves that it isn't moving, and midnight will never come.

Evolution takes many forms. I believe that monkeys are similar to humans in many ways, I don't believe we actually evolved from them (monkey to human) instead I believe that pre-humans were not monkeys and evolved on our own path and that is why monkeys are not evolving into humans. Whatever the pre-monkeys were evolved into monkeys, not humans. Mutation and adaptation happen all around us everyday in many species and have been for millions of years. I believe that climate changes and other environmental changes will soon trigger adapting genetic mutations and our children's children may yet see the human race evolve into something a little more varied than what we are now.

A few reasons: - Macro-Evolution happens over HUGE amounts of time (hundreds of millions of years) - The zoo enclosures where they are kept are specifically made to replicate their natural habitat as closely as possible, thus meaning they have little if anything to evolve towards - They are almost definitely micro-evolving out in the wild all the time... Just don't expect them to morph into some other type of animal, micro-evolution is a very small step (something like, different hair lengths to help with temperature change, different skin colours to help with natural camouflage, etc) - Humans didn't evolve from anything we see around us today, we evolved from a 'type of ape' which no longer exists... because it's us! :D Just a little side thing: You have every right to believe anything you want to, but I don't think you should have any doubts about evolution... We see the results of it, and the process of it all the time around us: You should have doubts about "Macro-Evolution" if anything, but Micro-Evolution is still Evolution, and it can be tested by yourself in your own backyard even... ^ I know you are religious, and I appreciate that, but Evolution has nothing to do with any Religion at all... It has no say in the 'creation' of life, merely the development of it over time... It is just as sound as the theory of gravity, or the fact that the sun exists, or anything really (Macro-Evolution has evidence, but I appreciate people not agreeing with it, Micro-Evolution however, happens every generation, and I think it's amazing that people don't believe it exists)

Careful! This is the kind of question in which you get trapped in pointless debate with some angry guy that says you MUST be a driveling idiot unless you WORSHIP at the alter of evolution! Besides, everyone KNOWS that BIGFOOT is the missing evolutionary link between freaking rhesus monkeys and humans.

Who says they aren't?

Think of Apes as our cousins in which we share the same ancestors. Evolution occurs when it is necessary, so much interference from man is believed to be one of the reasons Evolution has slowed down in certain species. Explain why we have tailbones and no tails.??

why do you keep asking the same question?

We've filled our niche, that's why. The monkeys we see in jungles have been evolving for as long as we have, but in a different direction - and are very good at living where they are. Humans have been evolving in our direction and are now very good at living as we do. We've filled our niche so completely there's no room for another animal to develop into it. Evolution itself has no "direction". It doesn't single out an animal and target it for Higher Intelligence. Variations just happen - if there's no pressure to change though, the variations just wander into and out of a population without changing it significantly.

Because they have no need to.

Don't you mean "why would monkeys not BEGIN to evolve into humans?" Hmmm?

If an ape is born today with a genetic mutation that makes it more fit to survive, it will help its species evolve.

Your question show a basic misunderstanding of the way evolution works. Please do your homework before you ask any more questions that showcase your educational shortcomings.

Evolution takes millions of years to actually become a visual phenomenon (sp?) Before woodpeckers had such strong skulls and beaks, they were just ordinary birds, but those birds who had stronger skulls and beaks could chip through the wood and get the food and survive, then they mated and had babies with the same traits, or amplified traits. These minute changes over millions of years can change a monkey into a man, by making it less hairy, amplifying mental cababilities, and making it stand upright. So they still are evolving, but we would have to look a milion years into the past to see what it was before it was a monkey.

Evolution of all life forms on Earth only stops when meet with extinction.

"Rome wasn't built in a day". You're smart, you should be able to figure it out.

Ever hear of the 'humanzee'? A true chimp, but with just the sort of mutation that is suspected caused the Nephilim, Adam's soul-less predecessors.

Why isn't your cousin turning into you? Same premise.

Why aren't we growing wiser? Evolution never ceases to amaze me...

The change from something like a monkey or even an ape into a human is something that would probably take so long that it would not have been noticed within all of recorded history...or something to that effect.

Humans did not evolve from the apes you see today, humans and apes share a common ancestor. This common ancestor, is not identical to modern apes but almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point scientists estimate approximately 7 million years ago this species divided into two distinct lineages, one of which were humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.

Sheeet! I saw one w/ a calculator at the LA zoo last summer! ;-)

First off, we didn't evolve from monkeys. Secondly, evolution happends on a different timescale than humans are used to thinking about. We obviously aren't going to see anything within our lifetime.

Since Darwin's time, the issue of the rates of evolution has been controversial. Darwin was a convinced gradualist, and his belief that evolution is a slow continuous process has been the mainstream view ever since. The theory of punctuated equilibrium (Eldridge & Gould 1972) challenged this orthodoxy, suggesting that evolution proceeds through periods of comparatively rapid change separated by long periods of stasis. How fast can this rapid change be? What is the fastest possible evolutionary change? Are there any limits on the speed of evolution, which follow just from the nature of the selective process ? An upper bound on the speed of evolution is derived. The bound concerns the amount of genetic information which is expressed in observable ways in various aspects of the phenotype - defined as Genetic Information in the Phenotype (GIP). The GIP expressed in some part of the phenotype of a species cannot increase faster than a given rate , which is determined by the selection pressure on that part. This rate is typically a small fraction of a bit per generation. Total GIP cannot increase faster than a species-specific rate - typically a few bits per generation. These bounds apply to all aspects of the phenotype, but are particularly relevant to cognition. As brains are highly complex, we expect large amounts of GIP in the brain - of the order of 100 Kbytes - yet evolutionary changes in brain GIP are only a fraction of a bit per generation. This has important consequences for cognitive evolution. The limit implies that the human brain differs from the chimpanzee brain by at most 5 KBytes of useful design information. That is not enough to define a Language Acquisition Device, unless it depends heavily on pre-existing primate symbolic cognition. Subject to the evolutionary speed limit, in changing environments a simple, modular brain architecture is fitter than more complex ones. This encourages us to look for simplicity in brain design, rather than expecting the brain to be a patchwork of ad hoc adaptations. The limit implies that pure species selection is not an important mechanism of evolutionary change. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070828084425.htm

Please learn what evolution is before asking a question like this. In fact, if you learn about evolution then you won't ask a question like this.   Man did not evolve from monkeys.   Evolution has not stopped. You are just expecting noticeable differences to pop up constantly, another indication that you don't know what evolution is.

it takes millions of years to notice the process of evolvolution, you or i will not be around to see the changes...

1. Man didn't evolve from monkeys. 2. Evolution is a process that never stops. It happens most rapidly when the environment is changing, but a rapid change in evolution would mean hundreds of thousands of years.

They are - just very, very slowly. Every time a monkey is born and is slightly different to either parent, evolution has occurred. The monkeys and apes living today have evolved for the same amount of time humans have - they filled different niches though. Humans are terrible at swinging through the high canopies of rainforests. Today's monkeys are extremely good at it. Today's monkeys are smart - but not nearly as smart as us - and we dominate our "intelligent species" niche so well, no other animal will ever be able to evolve into it while we are around.

Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys. And monkeys are currently evolving RIGHT NOW. Every single time a mommy monkey gives birth to a baby monkey, and baby monkey isn't identical to mommy monkey, and thus responds in some minute regard to environmental pressures differently than mommy, it's evolution.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, if we all came from Adam & Eve, can you please explain how we have so many different races of today within 6,000 years? Also, if Noah only brought two of every animal, can you please explain how we have over 150 different types of dogs in the world ranging from Chihuahua to Poodles to Retrievers?

There is no logical explanation for the huge gulf between humans and today's primates, other than that the process did not take place as advertised.

Evolution isn't a one-way street. Our ancestors struggled as monkeys so in order to survive they gradually turned into us. Others were perfectly happy and thriving as they were so they had no need to evolve.

How about learning about evolution before asking such a dumb question?