My great great granfather was not a monkey!!!!!

[Beastt]

How's a monkey to know what a monkey is or even that it is a monkey, if it is not a trained neo-Darwinist monkey theorist who assumes that other people are monkeys too?

Biological classification.

 

[belladonic-haze]

The difference between biblical genealogies of human ancestry and origins, and neo-Darwinist racial theories concerning them, is that in the former our common ancestors were perfectly human, but in the latter, were only early 'species' of African people which neo-Darwinists say originated from non human African apes.

No one knows since it was washed away in the great flood and "the world that was, perished," according to St. Peter.

No one knows for certain.

It is essential for neo-Darwinist race theorists to begin in Africa because they assume that human beings first originated from apes there. That's why they are racially forced to claim that the first 'species' of humans evolved from non-human apes in Africa.

According to the Bible, Noah's family disembarked from the Ark on Mt. Ararat in the Caucasus Mountains of what is now Eastern Turkey.

No one knows, although the Bible says that the origianl nations were all descended from Noah's three sons and their wives.

Three large families descended from Adam and Eve are not "the same thing" as one "little'' African family which neo-Darwinist race theorists claim originated from australopithicine apes at all. How could three distinct racial groups within our species today have evolved from one "little" African family?

No they don't. They just say they do. Neo-Darwinist racial theories of human ancestry and origins in Africa are as religious as any other religious genealogies or family trees.

Noah's son, Ham is the ancestor of several African nations. His son, Cannan, was cursed by God, and was the ancestor of the Cannanites who lived in Cannan. Cain was Adam and Eve's first son who killed Abel.

Well, you are trying to prove you are right, but you forget one thing. No matter if we were humans immediately or that we share a common ancestor with Apes. You have one BIG flaw in your suggestion and that is that humans are perfect....And that is not true, socially, biologically, mentally, physically, theologically or any other ---ally you can come up with. We are far from perfect and pointed out for NOT by many conservative Christians with everything we do.....ALL the time. Having a common ancestor, whether the ancestor was ape-like or human isn't racist. Racist is that we think we are better as...whatever because...whatever. Like thinking that Christians are better then people who worship God in an other way. They are constantly pointed out that they are wrong and that the only "true" path is Christianity. Like white people telling that black people are less intelligent because they have a different skin color. Racism comes from the idea that humans are perfect and instead of looking at your imperfection as merely being human, people look at imperfection as being different race, color or creed....AND THAT my dear friend is not even theologically correct let alone scientifically.

By the way, human ancestry is not a fixed theory. The scientists still disagree about the trees. And if I have to explain to you how three different new species can rise from one species, you did not read the books well, you claim to have read. Read them with an open mind, instead of constantly saying the racial theory this and the racial theory that.

If you say that racial theories can spring from the scientific branch Genetics, I will agree....cause Eugenetics ideal is way way badly abused in the past and the present. Yes, there are some crazy people in the world who even abuse genetics to prove that some races are less then others. But there is only ONE human species and THAT makes us all equal......and still exceptional with those beautiful cultural and phenotypic differences......that makes us unique yet bonded.....

So, yes, YOU are from Africa as well, and Europeans, Africans, Asian people and American Indians and Eskimos are all connected with each other. We are not several different species. If I got a child from a Masai warrior it will be healthy and able to reproduce....which means that we are from one species...or else that would not be possible. And being close relative to Apes has nothing to do with African people. For all I care the ancestor came from the south pole....who cares. I just think it is beautiful that the cradle of life lies in such an intriguing land as Africa. A Land with so many beautiful aspects we forget about because there is so much misery these days....

Nope, you did not convince me. Not because I am open for suggestions and new ideas but because you refuse to look outside the borders of your small box.....

God bless

 

[belladonic-haze]

And people...Apes!!!! Apes...NOT monkeys!!! And we do not decend from Apes...We have a common ancestor...

Will they ever learn

There are more than 350 species of primates, varying in size from the pygmy mouse lemur (weighing about an ounce) to gorillas (males can weigh up to 600 pounds). Most live in the tropics or subtropics, and most depend on forests for their survival. Primates share characteristics—such as five-fingered hands with opposing thumbs, forward-facing eyes, and color vision—but they do vary greatly, especially from prosimian to monkey to ape.


Prosimians

• includes about 50 species; lemurs in Madagascar, lorises in West Africa and Southeast Asia and bushbabies in Africa
• smallest in size
• arms shorter than legs
• strong hind legs for leaping and clinging to tree trunks
• most are nocturnal
• tooth comb
• some have visible tails
• grooming claws
• wet nose and dog-like snout, developed sense of smell
• light-reflecting eyes

Monkeys

• includes more than 200 species, New World in South and Central America, Old World in Africa and Asia, and tarsiers in Southeast Asia
• smaller in size
• arms equal in length to or shorter than legs
• limited shoulder rotation
• diurnal (active during the day)
• chest deeper than broad
• most have visible tails
• nails on all digits (except Callitrichidae—marmosets and tamarins)
• dry nose, lack snout, weak sense of smell (large teeth may extend the snout)

Apes

• includes about 14 species; gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees in Africa, and orangutans and gibbons in Southeast Asia
• larger in size (except for gibbons)
• arms longer than legs
• full shoulder rotation
• diurnal
• broad chest
• no tails
• nails on all digits
• dry nose, lack snout, weak sense of smell
• lack of hair on face

 

[Martinez]

Well, you are trying to prove you are right, but you forget one thing. No matter if we were humans immediately or that we share a common ancestor with Apes. You have one BIG flaw in your suggestion and that is that humans are perfect....And that is not true, socially, biologically, mentally, physically, theologically or any other ---ally you can come up with. We are far from perfect and pointed out for NOT by many conservative Christians with everything we do.....ALL the time. Having a common ancestor, whether the ancestor was ape-like or human isn't racist. Racist is that we think we are better as...whatever because...whatever. Like thinking that Christians are better then people who worship God in an other way. They are constantly pointed out that they are wrong and that the only "true" path is Christianity. Like white people telling that black people are less intelligent because they have a different skin color. Racism comes from the idea that humans are perfect and instead of looking at your imperfection as merely being human, people look at imperfection as being different race, color or creed....AND THAT my dear friend is not even theologically correct let alone scientifically.

By the way, human ancestory is not a fixed theory. The scientists still disagree about the trees. And if I have to explain to you how three different new species can rise from one species, you did not read the books well, you claim to have read. Read them with an open mind, instead of canstantly saying the racial theory this and the racial theory that.

If you say that racial theories can spring from the scientific branche Genetics, I will agree....cause Eugenetics is way way ideal to be abused in the past and the present. Yes, there are some crazy people in the world who even abuse genetics to prove that some races are less then others. But there is only ONE human species and THAT makes us all equal......and still exceptional with those beautiful cultural and phenotypical differences......that makes us unique yet bonded.....

So, yes, YOU are from Africa as well, and Europeans, Africans, asian people and American indians and Eskimos are all connect with each other. We are not several different species. If I got a child from a Masai warrior it will be healthy and able to reproduce....which means that we are from one species...or else that would not be possible. And being close relative to Apes has nothing to do with African people. For all I care the ancestor came from the southpole....who cares. I just think it is beautiful that the craddle of life lies in such an intriging land as Africa. A Land with so many beautiful aspects we forget about because there is so much misery these days....

Nope, you did not convince me. Not because I am open for suggestions and new ideas but because you refuse to look outside the borders of your small box.....

God bless

You tell em Girlfriend!

 

[gluadys]

It simply means that each succeeding generation of a species inherits common traits of that specie's ancestors.

OK. Show me how each succeeding generation, having inherited common traits from its species' ancestors, is then not related to its species' ancestors.

How can you not be related to the person/species whose traits you inherited?

 

[Aron-Ra]

And people...Apes!!!! Apes...NOT monkeys!!! And we do not decend from Apes...We have a common ancestor...

Will they ever learn

People do descend from apes, and are in fact still apes right now. Apes and monkeys are not different categories. "Monkey" is the parent category, and "ape" is specific subset of that. So people are in fact monkeys right now too.

The descriptions you posted for prosimians, monkeys and apes are inaccurate, especially since there are many many more examples in the fossil record which you didn't account for. That would add another 50 species of ape, some of which had equal length arms and legs. Many new world monkeys have much longer arms than they have legs, and some old world monkeys other than apes also lack tails. Not all prosimians have a tooth comb. And of course chimpanzees and orangutans can both grow beards.

There is a critical flaw in how you're looking at all these groups. But that's understandable since even many primatology websites have conflicting errors in them too. So let me explain how it really is.

All primates are classified as Anthropoidea, a taxonomic order of hind-leg dominant Archontids with opposable thumbs, a shortened rostrum, and a large braincase. They have an unfused and highly mobile radius and ulna in the forelimb and tibia and fibula in the hindlimb.

This group includes both prosimians, (Strepsirrhini) and simians, AKA "monkeys", sub-order Haplorhini. Monkeys are primates with binocular vision, a pendulous penis, a well-developed caecum, a large brain, two pectoral mammae, and a tendancy toward bipedalism.

This group includes two major divisions of New World monkeys, (infraorder Platyrrhini) and Old World monkeys, (infraorder, Catarrhini). Compared to parent or sister groups, the Catarrhine subset have elevated intelligence, downturned nostrils, flat fingernails, and are without prehensile tails.

Catarrhini includes two primary subgroups; Cercopithecoidea and Propliopithecoidea. All of the latter group are now extinct except for one surviving subset, Hominoidea, commonly referred to as "apes". Apes are exclusively-tailless Old World monkeys with oversized brains, and individually-distinctive fingerprints on arms with a shoulder arc capable of brachiation and complete rotation.

Hominoidea includes two subgroups, Hylobatidae, the "lesser" apes, and Hominidae, the "great" apes. These have especially large, unusually intelligent brains capable of comprehending language, or of making and using simple tools. Compared to other primates, including lesser apes, Hominids have relatively sparse fur, and they all share a genetic mutation disabling their ability to synthesize vitamin C. As a result, they have to suppliment that in their diet or they'll succumb to scurvy. They are primarily identified by their unique dentition which includes 32 teeth consisting of incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, canines, and molars, the latter of which have four roots, and come to five points interrupted by a Y-shaped crevasse.

Exactly how great apes should be ordered taxonomically has been hotly disputed, and there have been many competing concepts, as illustrated here. But Hominidae has been substantially reclassified in light of recent revelations in molecular phylogeny, such that the genus, Pongo is now limited to Orangutans and their ancient ancestors, Sivapithecus and Gigantopithecus etc. The remaining hominids are divided between Homininae, (which includes knuckle-walking apes) and Hominini (also known as humanoids) which are exclusively bi-pedal great apes.

Hominini typically consists of Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and Homoines (humans) along with some satellite species, like Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus, etc.

There. Does that clear it up for you at all?

 

[john crawford]

And people...Apes!!!! Apes...NOT monkeys!!! And we do not decend from Apes...We have a common ancestor...

The Smithsonian Institute disagrees with you by identifying australopithicine apes as our human ancestors.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The First Humans: The Early Australopiths

[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine (eye) teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--that is the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these earliest human species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short. [/font]
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/encarta/encarta.htm

The phylogenetic tree of human evolution on the Smithsonian website is an obviously intentional attempt to graphically associate and link the first human 'species' in Africa with australopithicine apes.

Do you think the Smithsonian is right to make references to the "First Humans in Africa" or the "earliest human species in Africa" as an "ape-like species?"

How might that not be reasonably considered to be an example of racial bigotry or prejudice on the part of scientists working in a government institution?

 

[john crawford]

OK. Show me how each succeeding generation, having inherited common traits from its species' ancestors, is then not related to its species' ancestors.

We only inherit common traits from our human ancestors because we are biologically descended from them. You seem to be talking in riddles and circles here.

How can you not be related to the person/species whose traits you inherited?

More riddles and tautologies.
http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/1/concept/index.html

 

[john crawford]

People do descend from apes, and are in fact still apes right now. Apes and monkeys are not different categories. "Monkey" is the parent category, and "ape" is specific subset of that. So people are in fact monkeys right now too.
.........
.....
..

Hominini typically consists of Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and Homoines (humans) along with some satellite species, like Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus, etc.

There. Does that clear it up for you at all?

Oh, yeah. We were all clearly confused up till now.

How did australopithicine apes ever get phylogenetically changed into the first human species in Africa though, and how or why do so-called neo-Darwinist "scientists" commonly refer to and identify, the earliest human species in Africa as apes without being aware of the intrinsic racial evolution and racial implications it inherently implies?
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The First Humans: The Early Australopiths

[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine (eye) teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--that is the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these earliest human species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short.[/font]
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/encarta.htm

 

[Aron-Ra]

How did australopithicine apes ever get phylogenetically changed into the first human species in Africa though,

There was no phylogenetic change necessary. Bipedality was one of the last steps here. But regardless what you've read elsewhere, they were humanoids, hut not quite yet human. "Human" is technically reserved for members of the genus, Homo.

and how or why do so-called neo-Darwinist "scientists" commonly refer to and identify, the earliest human species in Africa as apes without being aware of the intrinsic racial evolution and racial implications it inherently implies?

Because those implications are only in your fevered little mind. And I suspect even you know better than the nonsense you say.

 

[gluadys]

We only inherit common traits from our human ancestors because we are biologically descended from them. You seem to be talking in riddles and circles here.

No, I am showing the weakness in your case against similarities. Since people/species do inherit genetically controlled traits from their ancestors, they will share similarities inherited from their common ancestors.

So when those genes and genetically controlled traits are shared among species, they indicate a common ancestor from which both species are biologically derived.

More riddles and tautologies.
http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/1/concept/index.html

Good site. I hope you took particular note of chapters 12 and 40.

 

[john crawford]

There was no phylogenetic change necessary. Bipedality was one of the last steps here. But regardless what you've read elsewhere, they were humanoids, hut not quite yet human. "Human" is technically reserved for members of the genus, Homo.

The Smithsonian Institute refers to australopithicine apes in Africa as both an "early human species" and an "ape-like species" at the same time though. They seem to equate, associate, identify or confuse early African 'species' of humans with extinct species of apes.

By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine (eye) teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--that is the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these earliest human species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/encarta.htm

Don't you think it is wrong for the Smithsonian Institute to racially associate, equate, confuse or identify early African people with an extinct African species of apes?

If not, why does the Smithsonian Institute attempt to humanize species of extinct African apes at the expense of all African people whom they subsequently dehumanize by associating and identifying their ancestors with and as, an extinct species of hairy African apes whose modern day descendents are living chimpanzees.

 

[john crawford]

No, I am showing the weakness in your case against similarities. Since people/species do inherit genetically controlled traits from their ancestors, they will share similarities inherited from their common ancestors.

So when those genes and genetically controlled traits are shared among species, they indicate a common ancestor from which both species are biologically derived.

That's only according to evolutionist theories of the common descent and ancestry of two or more different species based on shared similar traits which in the case of human ancestry cannot be biologically tested, demonstrated or otherwise scientifically proven. Thus, the presumption of human origins from African apes is as religious a proposition as claims for their special creation is.

 

[Valkhorn]

human ancestry cannot be biologically tested, demonstrated or otherwise scientifically proven

What about the number 2 chromosome in humans?

Chimps have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46, so really technically one of the chomosome pairs must have joined, right?

Well 18 months ago, it was proven that they did. Evolution predicted it, it was there. Deal with it.

Monkeys and Humans share common ancestry.

Now if you want to say they don't, quit your yapping and provide some evidence for once.

 

[Valkhorn]

ape-like species

Guess what?

Humans are ape-like.
Humans are mammal like.
Humans are vertebrate like.

Get over it.

 

[gluadys]

That's only according to evolutionist theories of the common descent and ancestry of two or more different species based on shared similar traits which in the case of human ancestry cannot be biologically tested, demonstrated or otherwise scientifically proven. Thus, the presumption of human origins from African apes is as religious a proposition as claims for their special creation is.

Not based on shared similar traits.

Based on inheritance of the same genes, which, not surprisingly, produce similar traits.

 

[john crawford]

Monkeys and Humans share common ancestry.

Now if you want to say they don't, quit your yapping and provide some evidence for once.

Quit your own yapping and provide some real evidence that monkeys and humans both originated from common ancestors in Africa like they do on this national website.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/encarta.htm

 

[john crawford]

Guess what?

Humans are ape-like.
Humans are mammal like.
Humans are vertebrate like.

Get over it.

Guess what?
Those similarities are evidence of original common design, not common origins or evolution.
Get used to it.

 

[john crawford]

Not based on shared similar traits.

Based on inheritance of the same genes, which, not surprisingly, produce similar traits.

The use of the same genes in different species is more evidence of common structural design than of the shared common ancestry of two species which neo-Darwinists theorize.

 

[Timmothy]

The use of the same genes in different species is more evidence of common structural design than of the shared common ancestry of two species which neo-Darwinists theorize.

That is a great point