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

[Edx]

Is it supreme ego that makes some people refuse to believe than we are primates? What is this nonsense? Do superstitious beliefs trump tangible evidence, again?

And you're shocked about this?

 

[Cirbryn]

In a weird way, I like these sort of debates. Or rather, I like that we have them. But also not...

I think it is a good reminder that we tend to act as a group, not out of loyalty or some dogmatic defense of evolution (and everyone that supports it), but because, unlike theology, once you learn about evolution, there really is only one path that you can follow. We show that we can disagree in a civil fashion, that we can support our positions, and that we can (and do) back down gracefully when wrong.

I like that the people that come here have a large range of backgrounds, and they correct others who may not have as much experience.

What I don't like so much is the impression that a debate over terminology may be conflated to be a debate over some fundamental point in evolution, or a debate about evolution itself.

And I also think that debates about names can be really misleading. We as humans like to put names on things, to draw clear boundaries. This is from species A, this is from species B. This is a monkey, this is not. This is a human, this is not.

But life is much more complicated than this. Evolutionary history, and ring species today, show us that species change in a very smooth process. It's only because all of our ancestors have died off that we're able to say we are a clearly distinct species from, say, chimps. Imagine if all of the intermediate ancestors along the way were still alive and we were part of a ring species with chimps! When we put a human beside a chimp, we could see clearly that we were two different species, but as we walk along the ring and see interbreeding couples with barely perceptable differences which only slowly accumulate to end up at us, what then?

Good points all, with the caveat that there is plenty of room for disagreement over evolution’s details.

To make matters worse, taxonomic names like monkey and ape have colloquial meanings as well. Taxonomically we are a fish, but we have no scales and live on land. Taxonomically, whales are artiodactyls, closer related to hippos than hippos are to pigs.

* * *

So when we start fighting over labels, it seems to encourage the belief that species are distinct instead of continuous, and that these labels are fundamental issues when really we just have different ways of talking about the same, commonly understood facts.

Gotta disagree with you here on several particulars, though I do think that, as you say, we just have different ways of talking about the same, commonly understood facts. First off, taxonomically we are not fish, nor are whales artiodactyls. Taxonomically we are in class Mammalia, order Primates; and whales are in class Mammalia, order Cetacea. No fish are in class Mammalia, nor are any artiodactyls in order Cetacea. If you want to claim we are in the fish clade, or that whales are in the artiodactyl clade, then you should say so. At that point you will be discussing phylogenetics, not taxonomy.

And regarding your comments about fighting over labels, consider the drawbacks of not fighting over them. My two year old daughter has a book called “A Dolphin is Not a Fish”. It explains all the differences so that even a two year old can understand – fish have scales, fish have gills – all that stuff. You’re telling people with a tenuous understanding of evolution that if they want to accept evolution as true they’ll have to forget about the most basic biology they know. There’s a message on this thread from an evolutionist who was confused about what was meant by “humans are monkeys”. Imagine the further confusion this kind of thing inspires among creationists and fence sitters.

Additionally, you trivialize the similarities between ourselves and the other great apes when you claim we are apes, monkeys and fish all in one breath. Taxonomically, we are apes. All great apes are in family Hominidae. Members of Hominidae share similarities that are on a par with those shared by members of other families, and that are much greater than the similarities humans share with monkeys and fish. That all gets lost in the wash if you lose track of the difference between our taxonomic status and what clades we might be in.

There’s also the problem of the conflicting messages we give when we tell people that we are monkeys but that it is a strawman to claim a monkey gave birth to a human. If we were monkeys then monkeys would give birth to humans every day. (Too often, in my opinion.) In fact, we are not monkeys, so “a monkey gave birth to a human” remains a strawman.

Finally, there’s the simple value of getting something right, whether you think it’s trivial or not. Humans are apes. Humans are in the monkey clade. Humans are not monkeys. It’s simple, straightforward and correct.

 

[Cirbryn]

We are Old World Monkeys, theres nothing wrong with saying that unless you are using the common mans definition of monkey which is a small little tree climbing animal with a tail and that traditionally likes bananas.

Or unless you are using the universally accepted Linnaean taxonomic system, according to which old world monkeys are in family Cercopithicidae and humans are in family Hominidae.

 

[Cirbryn]

Well, no. Not all monkeys have tails.

The first of the pictures above is of a gibbon, not a monkey. The second looks to me to be a baboon. Baboons have tails, though some of their tails can be very short.

Based on "An Encyclopedia of Mammals" by David MacDonald (copyright 1984, but shouldn't be too out of date for something like this), I'm finding 4 monkey species without tails. All are macaques, the most famous being the Barbary macaque. The other 3 all live in Indonesia on the island of Sulawesi. They are the Moor macaque, the Celebes macaque, and the Tonkean macaque.

 

[KittyPryde]

I think a picture will make it clear:

An explanation of evolution is never complete without this picture.

 

[SLP]

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.

I suspect what you said was that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

Monkeys are not apes.

 

[michabo]

First off, taxonomically we are not fish, nor are whales artiodactyls. Taxonomically we are in class Mammalia, order Primates; and whales are in class Mammalia, order Cetacea. No fish are in class Mammalia, nor are any artiodactyls in order Cetacea. If you want to claim we are in the fish clade, or that whales are in the artiodactyl clade, then you should say so. At that point you will be discussing phylogenetics, not taxonomy.

I'm sorry, I might have not made my points very well. It was a bit off the cuff. My bigger point was that taxonomy is, in large part, about assigning distinct names to things which aren't so distinct. We do call whales cetaceans, but the latest evidence (fossil and molecular) shows they are artiodactyls: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/fob1.asp

Now, will this change any names or taxonomy? Unlikely. Names have historical components which aren't going to change because of this discovery.

I was trying to point out a couple things. That the names we give fossils and living species are an attempt to make them distinct and special, and don't reflect the smooth and continuous nature of their evolution. When looking at whales, this is especially clear, considering that new discoveries showing that cetaceans are artiodactyls (cladistically, if you prefer) isn't changing their naming at all.

So, when we argue and you say that whales are cetaceans and not artiodactyls, while taxonomically accurate, is also obsucuring the fact that whales are, cladistically, artiodactyls. That if we pick any definition of artiodactyl that doesn't explicitly exclude whales, we have to say that whales are artiodactyls.


It reminds me a lot of the debates we're having here about homo and monkeys. Did we have ancestors which were monkeys? I think that we would both agree that, yes, we did. Cladistically speaking, does this mean that we are monkeys? I think we would still agree that we are monkeys. Taxonimically, are we monkeys? Here you are right that, no, we are not classified as monkeys. But when we get into heated arguments with one group saying that we aren't monkeys and another group saying that we are, then this creates the false impression that we are arguing about our origins, whereas we're arguing about our taxonomical naming. Something which doesn't allow us to express the full nuances of our evolutionary past.

You’re telling people with a tenuous understanding of evolution that if they want to accept evolution as true they’ll have to forget about the most basic biology they know.

That's a good point, one which I had not considered. I would rather leave some of these nuanced distinctions out of the way when talking to people that are very new to the discussion.

I can picture getting into a discussion with a friend about whether a cucumber is a fruit (since it has seeds and flowers) or a vegetable (which doesn't have a precise scientific definition) in front of a 6-year old who promptly decides to give up on all of these so-called vegetables and stick with french fries and chocolate bars.

Finally, there’s the simple value of getting something right, whether you think it’s trivial or not. Humans are apes. Humans are in the monkey clade. Humans are not monkeys. It’s simple, straightforward and correct.

I will try to be more precise in my language, too. Thank you.

 

[Cirbryn]

I'm sorry, I might have not made my points very well. It was a bit off the cuff. My bigger point was that taxonomy is, in large part, about assigning distinct names to things which aren't so distinct. We do call whales cetaceans, but the latest evidence (fossil and molecular) shows they are artiodactyls: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/fob1.asp.

Now, will this change any names or taxonomy? Unlikely. Names have historical components which aren't going to change because of this discovery.

I was trying to point out a couple things. That the names we give fossils and living species are an attempt to make them distinct and special, and don't reflect the smooth and continuous nature of their evolution. When looking at whales, this is especially clear, considering that new discoveries showing that cetaceans are artiodactyls (cladistically, if you prefer) isn't changing their naming at all.

So, when we argue and you say that whales are cetaceans and not artiodactyls, while taxonomically accurate, is also obsucuring the fact that whales are, cladistically, artiodactyls. That if we pick any definition of artiodactyl that doesn't explicitly exclude whales, we have to say that whales are artiodactyls.

I don’t see why you think saying “whales are artiodactyls” would reflect the continuous nature of whale evolution better than saying “whales are descended from artiodactyls” or “whales are in the artiodactyl clade.” Whales aren’t artiodactyls. The statement is on its face incorrect, and your cite doesn’t say otherwise. I might assume, based on context, that you meant to say “whales are in the artiodactyl clade”, but most non-biologists are going to presume (and justifiably so) that you meant exactly what you said. Artiodactyls are defined as hoofed mammals with two or four toes (see here, or here, or here). Whales don’t meet that definition, despite the fact that they evolved from animals that did. As for changing the taxonomy, a superorder called Cetartiodactyla has been introduced to include cetaceans and artiodactyls. So if you want to tell folks whales are cetartiodactyls, I’ve got no complaints.

It reminds me a lot of the debates we're having here about homo and monkeys. Did we have ancestors which were monkeys? I think that we would both agree that, yes, we did. Cladistically speaking, does this mean that we are monkeys? I think we would still agree that we are monkeys. Taxonimically, are we monkeys? Here you are right that, no, we are not classified as monkeys. But when we get into heated arguments with one group saying that we aren't monkeys and another group saying that we are, then this creates the false impression that we are arguing about our origins, whereas we're arguing about our taxonomical naming. Something which doesn't allow us to express the full nuances of our evolutionary past.

I agree there may be some danger that arguments such as this would give the wrong impression, which is part of why I’ve stated several times that whales did evolve from artiodactyls. I don’t think that’s a good reason to avoid such arguments completely though, because I think statements like “whales are artiodactyls” are much more likely to give the wrong impression if they remain unchallenged than if they don’t.

I will try to be more precise in my language, too. Thank you.

Likewise. Sorry to be picking on you and Edx in particular when so many people have been arguing on these boards that humans are monkeys, (and the like). I saw the thread several months ago that Aron Ra started up about this topic, but I didn’t have time to respond. I did give it a fair amount of thought since then though, so when you and Edx turned out to be the most vocal supporters of the idea on this thread, I jumped right in. Nothing personal

 

[Edx]

There’s also the problem of the conflicting messages we give when we tell people that we are monkeys but that it is a strawman to claim a monkey gave birth to a human. If we were monkeys then monkeys would give birth to humans every day. (Too often, in my opinion.) In fact, we are not monkeys, so “a monkey gave birth to a human” remains a strawman..

Creationists usually use Ape and Monkey interchangeably, they consider them the same thing. Thats why we dont just get them saying "monkeys giving birth to humans", we see them saying "APES giving birth to humans", and we then have to then point that that evolution doesnt work in 1 step, and that we are still apes now.

I do see your point though.

Ed

 

[Edx]

I saw the thread several months ago that Aron Ra started up about this topic,

If you PM him Im sure he'd enjoy talking to you about it, it would probably be a welcome change from the Creationists he deals with. Be sure to discuss it here though becuase I want to watch

 

[Edx]

Or unless you are using the universally accepted Linnaean taxonomic system, according to which old world monkeys are in family Cercopithicidae and humans are in family Hominidae.

In cladists is it different?

 

[Cirbryn]

In cladists is it different?

As I understand it, cladistics seeks to identify all the species (or genera or whatever) that evolved from a given common ancestor. So if you specified the common ancestor as the first of the old-world monkeys, then all the current old-world monkeys, all the gibbons, and all the great apes (including humans) would be in that clade. The essential difference from the Linnaean system is that you can’t evolve out of a clade, but you can evolve out of a Linnaean taxon. (“Taxon” being any classification level, such as class, order, genus, etc). Taxonomists make an effort to make sure each Linnaean taxon only includes one clade, but there’s no way to make sure each clade only includes one taxon, even if you limited it to a particular kind of taxon like a family. For instance, the old-world monkey clade must have started with one species and one family, but it currently contains three families, and who’s to say that with continued evolution there might not be more some day?

 

[Cirbryn]

If you PM him Im sure he'd enjoy talking to you about it, it would probably be a welcome change from the Creationists he deals with. Be sure to discuss it here though becuase I want to watch

Done. Ollie ollie oxenfree!

 

[Aron-Ra]

Done. Ollie ollie oxenfree!

Fine. Here I am then.

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

BigToe, if a human were born with a tail, (and some have been) they would still be human, would they not?

Adriac, while some of our ancient ancestors were creatures most people would recognize today as monkeys, its not quite accurate to say we come from them because that implies that aren't them anymore. But we are still monkeys right now.

Yes Cirbryn, even by Linnaean thinking, we are monkeys. And not just in the sense that whales and snakes are still tetrapods. Every morphological, physiological, genetic, or developmental character trait indicative of all monkeys collectively -still applies to humans, just as every character trait of primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc, also still apply to us. There are no exceptions. I challenge you to find one. You think it "straightforward and correct" to say that we aren't monkeys. But it doesn't matter whether you're cladist, or whether you still cling to Linnaeus' out-moded system. We can prove that humans are monkeys regardless how "correct" you may claim to be about that now.

For one thing, you're forgetting (as many do) about a second category of Catarrhine monkeys, Propliopithecoidea, a sister clade to Cercopithecids, but which are now entirely extinct, except for apes, which are their sole surviving descendants. Propliopithecids were definitely monkeys, even Old World monkeys, but they weren't Cercopithecids.

You're not really getting the image of cladistics either, because, taxonomically, we are fish. Why? Because you have to have a precise definition of what a fish is. You may be surprised to know that not all the animals commonly classified as such have scales or even gills. I've already stood where you are, and argued your side once upon a time. But I was proven wrong, and so will you be.

It turns out, the word "fish" is not synonymous with any taxonomic classification because there are exceptions to everything. There are even some fish who are warm-blooded! In fact, I challenge you to find a single generic character common to every sort of fish -without exception- that isn't present on tetrapods. Since fish are the umbrella / parent category, then the only way to divide them from tetrapods like us is to find some trait common to every last one of them that isn't present in a single one of us. If you can't do that, then perhaps you can't even define the word, "fish" without describing descendant groups too.

As it happens, phylogeny is the only consistent way to categorize life-forms. That's why the Linnaean system isn't universally-accepted anymore. And it turns out that the only taxonomic parallel which applies to all "fish" consistently in every case -is the clade, Chordata. Cladistically, "chordate" means "fish", and every mammal is a chordate. So yes, there are fish in the mammal clade, because "fish" is not a clade itself. Neither is "reptile", but we can talk about that at another time.

As for cetaceans as artiodactyls, I'm not sure if they are. But they're awfully close. I like the term, Cetartiodactyla myself, and felt a need for something like it. But there's no doubt cetaceans are carnivorous and they were hooved. Genetically, their line may run closer to the hippopotamus than to Andrewsarchus. The only question then is which side was Pakicetus on? Because morphologically, cetaceans may be artiodactyls. Phylogenetics is taxonomy when you're talking about clades. Just as it is with Hominoidea, Artiodactlya is determined by an in-depth character analysis; and whales seem to fit that clade, indicating an ancestry within their ranks, or as close to it as rabbits are to rodents. If they did emerge from within that group, then that is what they are still, and what they will always be. Because its not possible to grow out of your heritage. You will always be whatever your ancestors were, even if you have become something more than they were at the same time. That's cladistic! And we can easily show that to be true too!

Now, I don't mean to trivialize the differences between us and the other great apes. But I'm not even aware of what those difference are. Could you point them out to me? I'll bet you can't. Because Linnaeus himself made that very challenge almost 260 years ago, and no one's managed to answer it yet. That's why he, initially, classified chimpanzees as Homo troglodytes, a subspecies of human.

That's going to be some challenge for you, especially since you already contradicted yourself by talking about the differences between us and the other great apes while admitting that we are all in the same clade. "Hominoidea" means "ape" just Hominid means "great ape." The word, "monkey" may be accurately translated as "Haplorhini". The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey".
That is what we are.

 

[Cirbryn]

Wow, that “ollie ollie” incantation works better than I thought. Summoned up this big scary bounty-hunter looking guy issuing challenges and deriding the foolish mortals still clinging to their outmoded Linnaean system. Hope I drew that pentagram right.

Anyway, umm Mr. Ra, sir, it seems to me that your argument depends on the idea that colloquial terms like “fish” or “monkey” are defined according to whatever characteristics are common to all members, and that if the only such characteristics are also common to non-members then those non-members must really be members after all. But who says all “fish” must share the same unique characteristics? Not even big bounty-hunter guys such as yourself get to make decisions like that. Maybe “fish” refers to a few specific Linnaean classes. Maybe a “fish” must have at least four characteristics from a list of six. Maybe the term is somewhat imprecise, as colloquial terms often are, but still clearly leaves out mammals. Maybe it’s any of these things, depending on whom you ask. You’ll have to rule out all those possibilities before you’re in a position to tell folks that you know better than they what they mean by a colloquial term.

The idea makes more sense when applied to Linnaean taxa, which is odd because you’ve made clear you don’t agree with Linnaean reasoning. At any rate, you haven’t shown any Linnaean taxa that can’t be identified according to shared unique characteristics. You make the claim that “morphologically, cetaceans may be artiodactyls”, but you never compare morphological features. Instead you bring in Pakicetus as if its relationship to artiodactyls would dictate the relationship of all its descendants. That is cladistic thinking, not Linnaean. It is possible, indeed common, for descendants to evolve out of the Linnaean taxa of their ancestors. Your unsupported statement that “you will always be whatever your ancestors were” is simply incorrect under the Linnaean system. To suggest otherwise is to claim a new species can not evolve from an old one.

As for the Linnaean system not being universally accepted, every idea has its detractors. Can we at least agree that taxonomic statements involving Linnaean taxa, such as Artiodactyls and Cetacea, should be assumed to apply to the Linnaean system barring evidence to the contrary?

You’ve claimed “we can prove that humans are monkeys”, but I don’t see any such proof. You’ve mentioned the Propliopithecids as if that mattered. I’m quite curious to see why you think it should.

You’ve also asked me to point out differences between humans and other great apes. Since I’ve consistently claimed humans are apes, I really don’t see the point. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself on this issue - perhaps you could be a little more specific? I did find the bit about Linnaeus’ initial “Homo troglodytes” classification of chimps interesting however. “Pan trogolodytes” always did seem an odd name to me – as if chimps were some kind of Neanderthal faun, complete with the pixie dust wafting gently from the tops of their big wooden clubs. “Homo troglodytes” would have been a species of human, however, not a subspecies.

Regarding the definitions in your final paragraph, haplorrhini is a suborder of primates that includes monkeys, apes and tarsiers. The name means “simple nosed”. Catarrhini is a parvorder (a sub-sub-order) of primates that includes old-world monkeys and apes. The name means “narrow nosed”. Accordingly, we are haplorrhini and catarrhini, but we aren’t monkeys.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Fine. Here I am then.

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

BigToe, if a human were born with a tail, (and some have been) they would still be human, would they not?

Adriac, while some of our ancient ancestors were creatures most people would recognize today as monkeys, its not quite accurate to say we come from them because that implies that aren't them anymore. But we are still monkeys right now.

Yes Cirbryn, even by Linnaean thinking, we are monkeys. And not just in the sense that whales and snakes are still tetrapods. Every morphological, physiological, genetic, or developmental character trait indicative of all monkeys collectively -still applies to humans, just as every character trait of primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc, also still apply to us. There are no exceptions. I challenge you to find one. You think it "straightforward and correct" to say that we aren't monkeys. But it doesn't matter whether you're cladist, or whether you still cling to Linnaeus' out-moded system. We can prove that humans are monkeys regardless how "correct" you may claim to be about that now.

For one thing, you're forgetting (as many do) about a second category of Catarrhine monkeys, Propliopithecoidea, a sister clade to Cercopithecids, but which are now entirely extinct, except for apes, which are their sole surviving descendants. Propliopithecids were definitely monkeys, even Old World monkeys, but they weren't Cercopithecids.

You're not really getting the image of cladistics either, because, taxonomically, we are fish. Why? Because you have to have a precise definition of what a fish is. You may be surprised to know that not all the animals commonly classified as such have scales or even gills. I've already stood where you are, and argued your side once upon a time. But I was proven wrong, and so will you be.

It turns out, the word "fish" is not synonymous with any taxonomic classification because there are exceptions to everything. There are even some fish who are warm-blooded! In fact, I challenge you to find a single generic character common to every sort of fish -without exception- that isn't present on tetrapods. Since fish are the umbrella / parent category, then the only way to divide them from tetrapods like us is to find some trait common to every last one of them that isn't present in a single one of us. If you can't do that, then perhaps you can't even define the word, "fish" without describing descendant groups too.

As it happens, phylogeny is the only consistent way to categorize life-forms. That's why the Linnaean system isn't universally-accepted anymore. And it turns out that the only taxonomic parallel which applies to all "fish" consistently in every case -is the clade, Chordata. Cladistically, "chordate" means "fish", and every mammal is a chordate. So yes, there are fish in the mammal clade, because "fish" is not a clade itself. Neither is "reptile", but we can talk about that at another time.

As for cetaceans as artiodactyls, I'm not sure if they are. But they're awfully close. I like the term, Cetartiodactyla myself, and felt a need for something like it. But there's no doubt cetaceans are carnivorous and they were hooved. Genetically, their line may run closer to the hippopotamus than to Andrewsarchus. The only question then is which side was Pakicetus on? Because morphologically, cetaceans may be artiodactyls. Phylogenetics is taxonomy when you're talking about clades. Just as it is with Hominoidea, Artiodactlya is determined by an in-depth character analysis; and whales seem to fit that clade, indicating an ancestry within their ranks, or as close to it as rabbits are to rodents. If they did emerge from within that group, then that is what they are still, and what they will always be. Because its not possible to grow out of your heritage. You will always be whatever your ancestors were, even if you have become something more than they were at the same time. That's cladistic! And we can easily show that to be true too!

Now, I don't mean to trivialize the differences between us and the other great apes. But I'm not even aware of what those difference are. Could you point them out to me? I'll bet you can't. Because Linnaeus himself made that very challenge almost 260 years ago, and no one's managed to answer it yet. That's why he, initially, classified chimpanzees as Homo troglodytes, a subspecies of human.

That's going to be some challenge for you, especially since you already contradicted yourself by talking about the differences between us and the other great apes while admitting that we are all in the same clade. "Hominoidea" means "ape" just Hominid means "great ape." The word, "monkey" may be accurately translated as "Haplorhini". The word, Catarrhini, (which is the parent clade for all humans and other apes as well as Cercopithecids) means "Old World monkey".
That is what we are.

I don't look like that.
Can you trace your family tree down to this? Can anyone?
Can we breed with these creatures and beget ape-man? Well, the answer is a BIG NO! The DNA of the ape and Human are too different and such a result would have to happen in order for evolutionist to make any claim like you have. Evolution theory is all about sex; and when it boils down to the nearest axiom of logical understanding we see no sexual evidence for such a crazy story.

Even the scientist know this cannot be proven! Its all nothing more than a big quess!

God created my family tree!

Are not fish and monkeys two different species? Are they not still fish and monkeys? Use the common sense that God gave you.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I don't look like that.
Can you trace your family tree down to this? Can anyone?
Can we breed with these creatures and beget ape-man? Well, the answer is a BIG NO! The DNA of the ape and Human are too different and such a result would have to happen in order for evolutionist to make any claim like you have. Evolution theory is all about sex; and when it boils down to the nearest axiom of logical understanding we see no sexual evidence for such a crazy story.

Your entire argument is based on nothing more than your inability to understand the simple point that species is not the only taxonomic classification. We can not interbreed with other apes because they are not the same species, this does not mean they are not the same phylum, family or order.

The result you claim would have to happen in order for evolution to be supported would not have to happen in order for evolution to be supported. Before you make all Christians look foolish by debating a theory you don’t understand in the name of our shared faith could you please do us the courtesy of learning something about it?

Even the scientist know this cannot be proven! Its all nothing more than a big quess!

Of course its not a guess, science does not DO guesses. Theory does not mean guess. Again, every time you make this erroneous claim you do your fellow Christians no justice. It is patently incorrect claims like this that give the rest of the world the impression that we Christians are undereducated.

Are not fish and monkeys two different species? Are they not still fish and monkeys? Use the common sense that God gave you.

Where in his statement does he claim they are the same species? I suggest before you make statements like “use the common sense God gave you” you make certain that the person you are insulting is actually claiming what you claim they are claiming if you make us all look dishonest as well.

Ghost

 

[Goatboy]

Are not fish and monkeys two different species? Are they not still fish and monkeys? Use the common sense that God gave you.

Nope.

Fish and Monkey aren't two different species.

They aren't species at all.

Now if you could try and use the intelligence you believe God gave to you, you may be able to see what Aron was pointing out.

At the point at which fish becomes a meaningful (if not accepted) taxonomic term, monkeys are fish.

 

[Cirbryn]

I don't look like that.
Can you trace your family tree down to this? Can anyone?
Can we breed with these creatures and beget ape-man? Well, the answer is a BIG NO! The DNA of the ape and Human are too different and such a result would have to happen in order for evolutionist to make any claim like you have. Evolution theory is all about sex; and when it boils down to the nearest axiom of logical understanding we see no sexual evidence for such a crazy story.

Even the scientist know this cannot be proven! Its all nothing more than a big quess!

God created my family tree!

Are not fish and monkeys two different species? Are they not still fish and monkeys? Use the common sense that God gave you.

When someone posts a picture of a Japanese macaque and says "this is what you are", the natural implication is that he's saying you're a Japanese macaque. Aron could have made his actual point better by posting pictures of monkeys, apes and humans and saying "this is the clade you belong to", but that wouldn't have had quite the shock value. In short it wouldn't have been as insulting and as easy to misinterpret. I think if Aron were trying he'd have had a hard time coming up with something as likely to put people off the idea of evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

When someone posts a picture of a Japanese macaque and says "this is what you are", the natural implication is that he's saying you're a Japanese macaque.

Except of course that I never mentioned Japanese macaques. I said we were Old World monkeys, meaning that we are in the infraorder, Catarrhini. I showed another, non-ape Catarrhine, one with similarities to our face striking enough to illustrate the point.

Aron could have made his actual point better by posting pictures of monkeys, apes and humans and saying "this is the clade you belong to", but that wouldn't have had quite the shock value. In short it wouldn't have been as insulting and as easy to misinterpret.

Were I as vague as you want me to be, then I would be easy to misinterpret. But I am being as blunt as possible so that I will be less likely misunderstood. But I made no attempt to be insulting and honestly -sincerely- do not understand how one even could be insulted by what I said.

I think if Aron were trying he'd have had a hard time coming up with something as likely to put people off the idea of evolution.

I don't have to seduce anyone with charming apologetics. The facts can be as cold and as hard as they want to be because they are facts.