Did you say Evolution doesn't teach man evolved from ape?

[TexasSky]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html

 

[OdwinOddball]

Um, no one on this board has ever said that other than you and your fellow Creationists.


edited to remove quote whic quoted the wrong portion of post.

 

[Army of Juan]

Humans are apes, our ancestors were ape-like. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Baggins]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html

No

Did you?

 

[caravelair]

since we ourselves are apes, our ancestors must have been as well. the distinction is that they we did not evolve from any modern species of ape, which some creationists don't seem to get.

 

[MewtwoX]

I think a picture will make it clear:

 

[rmwilliamsll]

since we ourselves are apes, our ancestors must have been as well. the distinction is that they we did not evolve from any modern species of ape, which some creationists don't seem to get.

the usual YECists cry is that man did not evolve from a chimp or that we are not monkeys. Both of these are wrong, both chimps and monkeys are the leaves at the ends of the twigs of the tree of life.

 

[JohnR7]

both chimps and monkeys are the leaves at the ends of the twigs of the tree of life.

HOW TO READ TEA LEAVES
Take a teaspoon of loose tea leaves and stir them into a light-colored, flat-bottomed teacup filled with hot water. Drink the tea, avoiding as many of the leaves as possible, and leave a small amount behind. Swish the remaining tea in the cup counterclockwise three times while waving your hand over the top and looking generally ominous. Turn the cup over onto the saucer so that the leftover tea drips out. Check out your cup. The leaves left behind will have clumped together into different semi-shapes. Clumps near the bottom of the cup foretell events in the distant future, whereas those near the lip are closer to the present.

Tea-leaf shape/ Psychic Translation
Acorn / financial success
Arrow / bad news for your love life
Bird / good luck
Bear / bad luck
Bottle / possible disease
Flag / danger
Hat / a raise or honor
Kangaroo a trip
Mushroom / a disturbance
Oak tree / health
Rabbit / bravery
Shoe / increased productivity
Sword / warning of arguments
Turtle / criticism
Wagon / hard times Don’t worry if your symbols don’t fall into these categories. Most tea reading is fairly intuitive. If something weird comes up, just go with it. For example, if you see a poodle above a person’s head, that might mean everyone hates you. Now, go crash a bunch of tea parties and blow some minds.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Not for use with Nestea® brand teas. Do not add honey to tea, unless you want to adversely alter the events of the future. Predictions made from tea leaves are legally binding, so watch what you say.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Humans are apes, our ancestors were ape-like. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because some creationists aren't very good at understanding taxonomy?

 

[Edx]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html

Did ducks evolve from birds? Or are they still birds now?

Same thing.

 

[JGG]

Strawmen are fun!

 

[BigToe]

the usual YECists cry is that man did not evolve from a chimp or that we are not monkeys. Both of these are wrong, both chimps and monkeys are the leaves at the ends of the twigs of the tree of life.

Heh, well they are right in one thing, we aren't monkeys. Monkeys and Apes are different in that Monkeys have tails. So if you hear someone say we didn't come from monkeys, you can always tell them that's true

 

[random_guy]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html

Like other people said, humans and chimps evolved from ape ancestors, and we're still apes. Not that hard to understand. Also, you don't go to a news site and expect accurate science information. They often tend to butcher the meaning of words since they're a news site. Even if cnn said, "Evolution discusses the origins of life", that has no effect on evolution any more than the ignorant Creationists that say, "Evolution deals with the creation of stars."

 

[Edx]

Heh, well they are right in one thing, we aren't monkeys. Monkeys and Apes are different in that Monkeys have tails. So if you hear someone say we didn't come from monkeys, you can always tell them that's true

Well, no. Not all monkeys have tails.

"Some characteristics are shared among the groups; most New World monkeys have prehensile tails while Old World monkeys do not"
-taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey


Edit: Oh and a human tail:

More:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=human+tail&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

 

[Edx]

I wonder if one day TexasSky will put aside her strawmen and learn what Evolution really is supposed to be.

 

[michabo]

Heh, well they are right in one thing, we aren't monkeys. Monkeys and Apes are different in that Monkeys have tails. So if you hear someone say we didn't come from monkeys, you can always tell them that's true

Because most humans don't have tails, doesn't mean that we didn't come from animals which did have tails.

And FYI, we are monkeys. We are Haplorhini and, in particular, an Old World Monkeys, Catarrhini. That means we did come from monkes (our parents).

 

[Abongil]

Lets stop the confusion and just say we belong to the primate family.

 

[Dannager]

Hmmmm...no, I don't think we said such a thing.

 

[TexasSky]

Actually,

It was said on this board, many times.
In fact, every time I said I had problems with the idea of man descending from Ape, a LARGE number of evolutionists would scream, "That isn't even PART of the evolution." IN fact, I was flat out MOCKED on this board for saying that was taught. Told I didn't have any idea what WAS taught about evolution if I thought that was.

 

[michabo]

Just a comment from the article:

"It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis," said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard. "My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."

This seems really strange. Is he not familliar with ring species? We know of many instances where we have two distinct species that do not interbreed, but are connected by a smooth and continuous line of interbreeding intermediates.

Thinking of human history, we know that we have exactly this scenario played back in time. That is, a smooth and continuous line of animals who would be happy breeding with the members of their species 100 years ago, but which would probably not breed with members sufficiently far back.

And to quote a professor falling for som esilly creationist-like image of evolution, as if we had homo spouting up from the dirt completely formed. Embarassing.