Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[AV1611VET]

I'm just saying if old world and new world monkeys are both monkeys so are we :>

Including Jesus?

 

[Loudmouth]

hmmmm on reptiles, I think that one actually is fair to say were not reptiles, could be wrong, but the one evolutionary tree I saw had humans splitting off from reptiles, before they became reptiles, as in they were still more amphibian end of the spectrum or such.

The same logic would apply. The common ancestor of reptiles and mammals, if alive today, would be classified as a reptile. The better term is actually amniote which includes both mammals and reptiles while excluding amphibians. The evolution of the amnion membrane in eggs allowed the amniotes to lay eggs on land instead of in water, an ability found in reptiles and some mammals (i.e. monotremes).

 

[Picky Picky]

Including Jesus?

No. If he's dead he's an ex-monkey; if he's still alive he's clearly something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. If he's dead he's an ex-monkey; if he's still alive he's clearly something else.

Is this an inside joke or something?

 

[Picky Picky]

Is this an inside joke or something?

No, a straight reply to your straight question. Do you disagree?

 

[lesliedellow]

we would call it a monkey if we saw it today

Have you got a photograph of one of them?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, a straight reply to your straight question. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

I'm not an evolutionist.

But for those who are: is Jesus a monkey, or isn't He?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, I disagree.

I'm not an evolutionist.

But for those who are: is Jesus a monkey, or isn't He?

When he was on Earth, he was one of the great apes, like the rest of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you got a photograph of one of them?

Now, now, you know that we don't have actual pictures, but reconstructions can be made with fossils. There is not too much available on this particular time in the evolution of life, but there is part of a jaw and that fits with the concept that it would look like an animal that would be called a "monkey" today:

http://www.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html

 

[AV1611VET]

When he was on Earth, he was one of the great apes, like the rest of us.

What about Heaven?

Doesn't He still have the nail scars (in human hands)?

 

[lesliedellow]

What about Heaven?

Doesn't He still have the nail scars (in human hands)?

The Second Person of the Trinity is not an embodied being, any more than the Trinity itself is.

 

[W2L]

Don't believe everything science tells us. Monkey see, monkey do

 

[Picky Picky]

Yes, I disagree.

I'm not an evolutionist.

But for those who are: is Jesus a monkey, or isn't He?

If he's dead he's an ex-monkey. If he's alive he must be something else. You, I take it, believe he is alive, as would any Christian. Does that answer it?

 

[Picky Picky]

The Second Person of the Trinity is not an embodied being, any more than the Trinity itself is.

Educate me. Doesn't incarnate mean embodied?

 

[lesliedellow]

Educate me. Doesn't incarnate mean embodied?

Yes, incarnate means embodied, or, more precisely, enfleshed. The human Jesus was God Incarnate. However, the human Jesus is no longer around.

 

[AV1611VET]

If he's dead he's an ex-monkey. If he's alive he must be something else. You, I take it, believe he is alive, as would any Christian. Does that answer it?

No.

 

[Shemjaza]

In colloquial language, we did evolve from monkeys. In scientific terms, there are no monkeys, either living or dead. To further cloud the issue, scientists often move freely from colloquial to scientific descriptions. However, if we stuck just to the scientific taxons, then not one of them would be called "monkey".

The real confusion springs from the fact that the colloquial terms predate the theory of evolution and do not reflect the tools that scientists currently use, namely cladistics. "Monkey" is a paraphyletic term, which is a big no-no in cladistics. Terms need to be monophyletic which means that the common ancestor and ALL descendants must be described by the same name. If we do stick with monkey, then humans are still monkeys according to cladistics.

Just to be clear, the same problem exists for other very common names such as reptile, mammal, and ape. These are also paraphyletic groups. I guess it all comes down to how much of a cladistics-Nazi you want to be.

What's the issue with the "ape" classification? Unless we are only talking about ape as gibbon, chimp, gorilla and orangutan... but not humans?

 

[AdamSK]

I just don't understand educated people who scratch their heads and wonder, "What went wrong?"

Nothing went wrong.

Sure it did. The boys were raised to be productive and responsible members of society and instead they shot a bunch of people. Their upbringing did not accomplish the desired result. Something went wrong.

 

[Picky Picky]

No.

Difficult to see why this is so ... difficult. You ask if Jesus is a monkey. I reply that it depends on whether he is alive or dead.

If he is dead, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did not happen and he is not divine, that he is a dead human, and in the terms of this thread a dead monkey.

If he is alive, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did happen and he is divine, and therefore is not a monkey.

(I am assuming that, like me, you have no truck with divine monkeys. Theology may hold divinity and immortality to be characteristics of a god; science does not, I think, hold them to be characteristics of a monkey.)

 

[AdamSK]

In colloquial language, we did evolve from monkeys. In scientific terms, there are no monkeys, either living or dead. To further cloud the issue, scientists often move freely from colloquial to scientific descriptions. However, if we stuck just to the scientific taxons, then not one of them would be called "monkey".

The real confusion springs from the fact that the colloquial terms predate the theory of evolution and do not reflect the tools that scientists currently use, namely cladistics. "Monkey" is a paraphyletic term, which is a big no-no in cladistics. Terms need to be monophyletic which means that the common ancestor and ALL descendants must be described by the same name. If we do stick with monkey, then humans are still monkeys according to cladistics.

Just to be clear, the same problem exists for other very common names such as reptile, mammal, and ape. These are also paraphyletic groups. I guess it all comes down to how much of a cladistics-Nazi you want to be.

Mammal and ape are both Monophyletic clades. "Monkey" just means non-ape simian, and "reptile" just means non-bird sauropsids.