Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry common ancestor is not allowed on this board.
That is the rules established by the atheists.
Your going to produce evidence some other way.

No, YOUr claim of common ancestry with Joshua, Abraham, whatever Biblical characters is not allowed since you have never shown evidence for it. The common ancestry shown by evolution though is a fact, so we can show it.
Seriously: grow up.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, YOUr claim of common ancestry with Joshua, Abraham

The evidence points to Aaron, the brother of Moses. This is known as the cohen genetic marker (Y-chromosomal Aaron) There are lots of articles on the internet about this haplotype.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

 

[Armoured]

The evidence points to Aaron, the brother of Moses. This is known as the cohen genetic marker (Y-chromosomal Aaron) There are lots of articles on the internet about this haplotype.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

Does not necessarily mean that everyone with the gene is descended from the Biblical Aaron, just that they share a common ancestor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The evidence points to Aaron, the brother of Moses. This is known as the cohen genetic marker (Y-chromosomal Aaron) There are lots of articles on the internet about this haplotype.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

From your own link:
"Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste."

The does not mean he would be the most recent common ancestor of everyone, or even of every Jewish person. He is the hypothesized most recent common ancestor of the Jewish priestly caste.
And once again, you have proven that you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[AdamSK]

Well, you certainly won't get any evidence for the claim you've made since nowhere in biology is it said that humans evolved from monkeys.

I would disagree with this. Our most recent common ancestor with modern monkeys would almost certainly, if alive today, be classified as a monkey itself. I think some people are unreasonably critical of the claims that we evolved from apes, monkeys, reptiles, and fish - we really do have direct evolutionary ancestors that would reasonably be classified as each of these things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would disagree with this. Our most recent common ancestor with modern monkeys would almost certainly, if alive today, be classified as a monkey itself. I think some people are unreasonably critical of the claims that we evolved from apes, monkeys, reptiles, and fish - we really do have direct evolutionary ancestors that would reasonably be classified as each of these things.

Not necessarily. It would have been monkey-like, but it wouldn't have been a true monkey. Not to disagree that it would be a primate.
But the way that joshua1 9 was phrasing it, was that evolution claims that humans solely descended from monkeys, which we did not and which no part of evolutionary literature or evidence claims..

 

[AdamSK]

Not necessarily. It would have been monkey-like, but it wouldn't have been a true monkey. Not to disagree that it would be a primate.

No, I believe our common ancestor with monkeys is a true monkey. Monkeys are defined as all the members of the clade that are not also apes, and the LCA would fit that definition.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I believe our common ancestor with monkeys is a true monkey. Monkeys are defined as all the members of the clade that are not also apes, and the LCA would fit that definition.

Well, in all technicality, the most recent common ancestor would have been the mitochondrial EVE.
Although according to this article (Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Would Have Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee) from 2015 posits that, as the title says, the LCA of humans and apes would have... well, it's all in the title.
But I will admit, I'm finding it quite difficult to find any sources for the LCA of humans and monkeys.

 

[AdamSK]

Well, in all technicality, the most recent common ancestor would have been the mitochondrial EVE.

We are talking about the human-monkey LCA, not the LCA for modern humans.

But I will admit, I'm finding it quite difficult to find any sources for the LCA of humans and monkeys.

Look up "primate family tree" and you may find a bit more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Look up "primate family tree" and you may find a bit more.

No, you made the claim. So you should be the one to present the evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Although according to this article (Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Would Have Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee) from 2015 posits that, as the title says, the LCA of humans and apes would have... well, it's all in the title.
But I will admit, I'm finding it quite difficult to find any sources for the LCA of humans and monkeys.

They say man descended from something that did not have a tail
and then they use the vestigial tail as evidence for evolution.

the way that joshua1 9 was phrasing it, was that evolution claims that humans solely descended from monkeys, which we did not

Of course we descended from monkeys.
That was the verdict in the Scopes Monkey Trail.
What more evidence do you need then that?
Your a monkey's uncle, that is all there is to it.

 

[AdamSK]

They say man descended from something that did not have a tail
and then they use the vestigial tail as evidence for evolution.

Our common ancestor with other apes did not have a tail, but our common ancestor with monkeys did. And, yes, the tail that human and other ape fetuses grow in utero is evidence of that.

 

[AdamSK]

No, you made the claim. So you should be the one to present the evidence.

To be honest it's definitional. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys would not have been an ape, and all members of that clade that are not apes are monkeys. If you can be more specific as to what part of the claim you're finding incredible then I will happily try to provide a good source for it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They say man descended from something that did not have a tail
and then they use the vestigial tail as evidence for evolution.

You obviously know nothing about evolution if you say that.

Of course we descended from monkeys. That was the verdict in the Scopes Monkey Trail. What more evidence do you need then that.

And that wasn't what the Scopes Monkey Trial was about. The 'Monkey Trial' name was given as a moniker by the newspaper, when the trial was about getting evolution taught in schools in Tennessee.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To be honest it's definitional. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys would not have been an ape, and all members of that clade that are not apes are monkeys. If you can be more specific as to what part of the claim you're finding incredible then I will happily try to provide a good source for it.

You're the one who has been saying that the LCA of apes (let's just go with that since humans are apes) and monkeys would be classed as a monkey.
You have made the claim, so you should be the one to back it up with evidence.

 

[AirPo]

Biology makes absurd claims, I want to see their evidence.

I'd like to see the absurd claim first.

 

[AdamSK]

You're the one who has been saying that the LCA of apes (let's just go with that since humans are apes) and monkeys would be classed as a monkey.

Yep.

You have made the claim, so you should be the one to back it up with evidence.

I've already made several statements in support of the claim, but haven't provided sources for any of them. Again, please clarify what parts you doubt or don't find credible, and I'll see what I have source-wise.

 

[AirPo]

So evolution is not science then. Just a myth that Darwin made up because he had to much time on his hands.

No, crevolution, the creationist caricature of evlution, is not science, just a myth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've already made several statements in support of the claim, but haven't provided sources for any of them. Again, please clarify what parts you doubt or don't find credible, and I'll see what I have source-wise.

Just evidence, that in modern biological terms, the LCA of apes and monkeys would be classed as a monkey. I'm not doubting that it would be a proto-monkey, but to say that it would be an actual monkey is something I'm finding somewhat hard to accept.

 

[AirPo]

So you admit then that the theory of common descend is a defunct theory and never was nor ever well be true?

No, it's being pointed out that the fantasy that you have presented is not the theory of common decent.