Humans Aren't Apes

[RickG]

Yes your trolling is. Almost as rediculous as how many people still take you seriously and try to respond to your antics sincerely.

I agree. He has absolutely no intent of discussing anything or even trying to understand the theory of evolution.

 

[Phred]

Humans are indeed apes. It's our classification. You can mess with the words all you wish but...


Humans are apes.

 

[pgp_protector]

Humans are indeed apes. It's our classification. You can mess with the words all you wish but...


Humans are apes.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that the people listed in Luke were decendents of Adam and Eve. Even the Bible says that the Gentiles are not descendants of Adam and Eve. That is why we are adopted into the family. Or we are a wild branch grafted onto the natural tree.

what scripture do you get this info from?

 

[createdtoworship]

I agree. He has absolutely no intent of discussing anything or even trying to understand the theory of evolution.

I understand evolution, it is saying that one genus can interbreed with another genus, which we don't see. Even with billions of years of evolution in the middle.

 

[Gracchus]

I understand evolution, ...

I might believe you except you go on to say, ...

...it is saying that one genus can interbreed with another genus, ...

... and the theory of evolution says nothing of the kind. So you don't understand the theory of evolution. To even hint at the only other possible explanation for posting such a falsehood, would probably get me banned from this forum. (Truth is not a defense.)

... which we don't see. Even with billions of years of evolution in the middle.

That's right. If we did see one genus crossbreeding with another it would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution, and biologists or even non-professuionals would have noticed.

 

[createdtoworship]

I might believe you except you go on to say, ...

... and the theory of evolution says nothing of the kind. So you don't understand the theory of evolution. To even hint at the only other possible explanation for posting such a falsehood, would probably get me banned from this forum. (Truth is not a defense.)

That's right. If we did see one genus crossbreeding with another it would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution, and biologists or even non-professuionals would have noticed.

how can apes and humans have a common ancestor if one genus didn't cross breed with another genus somewhere down the line?

your being silly

 

[pgp_protector]

how can apes and humans have a common ancestor if one genus didn't cross breed with another genus somewhere down the line?

your being silly

I thought you understood the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Gracchus]

how can apes and humans have a common ancestor if one genus didn't cross breed with another genus somewhere down the line?

Humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, most recently with the chimps. Some of the common ancestral species evolved into humans and some evolved into the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. In other words, they quit interbreeding. And now the can't, or at least, they don't.

your being silly

Let's start with the basics. Do you understand the difference between an ancestor and a descendent?

 

[AECellini]

how can apes and humans have a common ancestor if one genus didn't cross breed with another genus somewhere down the line?

your being silly

you're being quite silly.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read up sport.

 

[createdtoworship]

you're being quite silly.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read up sport.

go ahead and tell me in your own words, if you understand your own theory (that is)

 

[createdtoworship]

Humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, most recently with the chimps. Some of the common ancestral species evolved into humans and some evolved into the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. In other words, they quit interbreeding. And now the can't, or at least, they don't.Let's start with the basics. Do you understand the difference between an ancestor and a descendent?

there is no purposeful difference between ancestor and descendent in my opinion, that is a distinction only evolutionists carry to promote their agenda.

secondly, you prove my point thank you.

I mean you confessed that "they quit interbreeding"

so two genuses must have interbred somewhere down the line of things.

even if it took millions of years.

you have no evidence of this whatseover, and this is what is silly.

 

[AECellini]

there is no purposeful difference between ancestor and descendent in my opinion, that is a distinction only evolutionists carry to promote their agenda.

secondly, you prove my point thank you.

I mean you confessed that "they quit interbreeding"

so two genuses must have interbred somewhere down the line of things.

even if it took millions of years.

you have no evidence of this whatseover, and this is what is silly.

to your first point, your opinion doesn't matter because those two words mean two different things whether talking about evolution or not.

they quit interbreeding when they became unable to produce fertile offspring because it has no survival advantage for the species.

and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Gracchus]

there is no purposeful difference between ancestor and descendent in my opinion, that is a distinction only evolutionists carry to promote their agenda.

Oh my!

secondly, you prove my point thank you.
I mean you confessed that "they quit interbreeding"
so two genuses must have interbred somewhere down the line of things.

When they quit interbreeding they were still the same species. At the point in time that they could no longer interbreed, they became different species, but they were still the same genus.

even if it took millions of years.
you have no evidence of this whatseover, and this is what is silly.

Well, there are biochemistry, genetics, embryology, and the fossil record. But if you haven't actually looked at and understood these things, I can see why you might say that.
And if you don't understand that there is a difference between an ancestor and a descendent, I can well believe that you might be confused. Perhaps you could have your mommy or your daughter explain it to you, even if you can't tell them apart.

 

[AECellini]

go ahead and tell me in your own words, if you understand your own theory (that is)

change in the allele frequency of a given biological population through each successive generation.

 

[Tiberius]

there is no purposeful difference between ancestor and descendent in my opinion, that is a distinction only evolutionists carry to promote their agenda.

secondly, you prove my point thank you.

I mean you confessed that "they quit interbreeding"

so two genuses must have interbred somewhere down the line of things.

even if it took millions of years.

you have no evidence of this whatseover, and this is what is silly.

You get to the root of the problem in your first sentence here. In your opinion. The trouble is that your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of evolution.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Why is this thread back up?

Humans are indeed apes. It's our classification. You can mess with the words all you wish but...


Humans are apes.

Did you bother reading the OP?

 

[Tiberius]

Why is this thread back up?


Did you bother reading the OP?

Ape, meaning an animal in the category:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea

I fail to see how anything in the OP shows this to be wrong. Seems that the OP is just trying to use wordplay to disprove the fact that Humans and Chimps are in the same group, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Ape, meaning an animal in the category:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea

I fail to see how anything in the OP shows this to be wrong. Seems that the OP is just trying to use wordplay to disprove the fact that Humans and Chimps are in the same group, whatever you want to call it.

Yeah, yeah we covered this about ten pages and three months ago. OP's point was that it's wrong to call humans apes for the same reason it's wrong to call chimps monkeys. And "Hominoidea" doesn't mean "ape" - it means "human-like". There is no taxonomical term for "ape".

Also, the person I was quoting was John Hawks, the associate professor of anthropology from the University of Wisconsin. I'm pretty sure he's not trying to disprove human evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

Then the OP's point is nothing but immature word play, wouldn't you say?