Evolutionist denials
J McCoy
but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
Dana Tweedy
From: Dana Tweedy (twe...@cvn.net)
Subject: Re: Need Advise View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 2001-12-11 12:55:08 PST
jason potter <j__p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bf4d6cd.01121...@posting.google.com...
> I am having a rational discussion with my Father in Law about Evolution. My
> side is of course the scientifcally proven facts of the orgin of life of
> earth and evolution, his is creationism. Need some points to come back with
> his pithy one liners.
>
> If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today?
1. We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and apes (including us)
evolved from a common ancestor.
2. It's a popular misconception that when one species evolves, it
replaces
the parent species. Monkeys and other apes are not our ancestors,
they are our cousins. We share common ancestory, but humans don't
replace monkeys and other apes.
Message 4 in threadFrom: Larry Taylor (lta...@csubak.edu)
Subject: Re: Monkey's Uncle
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1997/12/12
Larry N Lake wrote:
> <snip>
> Well that's all
> evolution is a fairy story. To think we can from monkey's give me a
> break that is an insult to common sense. Now suppose we did come from
> monkey's by some strange miracle then please explain to me why are there
> still monkeys......hmmmmmm I'm sure there will be an explanation.
You really should learn just a little bit about evolution before you
try
to criticize it. This will keep you from looking foolish. For
example,
did you know that evolutionts do NOT say we evolved from monkeys? Do
you know
the difference between apes and monkeys? Do you know that
evolutionists
say that apes and humans have a common ancestor and that all (many
different
apes today) have evolved considerably from this ancestor?
So you can see your problems were based on ignorance about what
evolution
really says. Why not try to learn some more about it?
Larry Taylor
Message 14 in threadFrom: Bob Casanova (nos...@buzz.off)
Subject: Re: Monkey's Uncle
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1997/12/14
On 13 Dec 1997 17:15:34 -0500, in talk.origins, Larry N Lake
<lnl...@poncacity.net> wrote:
>Heh Heh I thought some of you would find this entertaining, just like
>evolution theory....it is so entertaining. But I'm still waiting can
>anybody explain.....WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEY'S....THINK REAL HARD!
>
"...still" monkeys..."? Apparently, you still fail to understand that
modern monkeys are *not* the same as the common ancestor of apes
(including humans) and monkeys (which no longer exists, as far as
anyone knows). You *really* need to read the t.o FAQs.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Message 15 in threadFrom: Paul Ford (paul...@mail.wdn.nospam.com)
Subject: Re: Monkey's Uncle
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1997/12/14
In article <349307DB...@poncacity.net>,
Larry N Lake <lnl...@poncacity.net> wrote:
>Heh Heh I thought some of you would find this entertaining, just like
>evolution theory....it is so entertaining. But I'm still waiting can
>anybody explain.....WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEY'S....THINK REAL HARD!
WE - DIDN'T - EVOLVE - FROM - MONKEYS.
Loud enough? Humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Still,
even if we *had* evolved from monkeys, your question still wouldn't
make any
sense. That species B branched off from species A does not require
that
species A automatically become extinct. A speciation event does not
result in
the immediate annihilation of the parent species.
Your understanding of evolutionary theory could use some work. The
FAQs at
the talk.origins archive are a good source of material, both
introductory and
advanced.
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is | Want to know what
evolution
Want. Beware them both, and all of their | is really about? See
the
degree, but most of all beware this boy, | talk.origins archive
for on his brow I see that written which |
is Doom..." |
http://www.talkorigins.org
- Dickens, "A Christmas Carol" |
Message 16 in threadFrom: Chris Krolczyk (krol...@MCS.COM)
Subject: Re: Monkey's Uncle
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1997/12/14
Larry N Lake <lnl...@poncacity.net> writes:
>Heh Heh I thought some of you would find this entertaining, just like
>evolution theory....it is so entertaining. But I'm still waiting can
>anybody explain.....WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEY'S....THINK REAL HARD!
*ahem*
Although an explanation has been proferred, I'll repeat it in capital
letters
so that even Larry can can get it:
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS, YOU TWIT; HUMANS AND MONKEYS
ARE
DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. AND YOU SHOULD BE USING THE TERM
"PRIMATES",
TO BOOT.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Message 213 in threadFrom: Adam Cheney (Ad...@RedBox.net)
Subject: Re: Monkey's Uncle
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1997/12/12
Larry N Lake wrote:
Reckon you're trolling, Larry, but here goes anyway...
> <snipped - too many drugs!>
> evolution is a fairy story. To think we can from monkey's give me a
> break that is an insult to common sense. Now suppose we did come from
>
> monkey's by some strange miracle then please explain to me why are
> there
> still monkeys......hmmmmmm I'm sure there will be an explanation.
>
> Larry
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans shared a
common
ancestor, and that was a very long time ago.
Search Result 38From: Clark Dorman (dor...@cochlea.bu.edu)
Subject: Re: CREATIONISM [but by _which_ Creator?] View: Complete
Thread (44 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.pagan, talk.origins
Date: 1995-03-29 08:53:25 PST
In article
<Pine.A32.3.90.950329062...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>
"Cheryl E." <eric...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> writes:
> On 28 Mar 1995, Clark Dorman wrote:
> > (whole bunch deleted)
> >
> > BTW, Cheryl, just in case you were really worried about it, we are much
> > closer to the other primates than to snakes. The reason that everybody
> > quotes the number relating humans and chimps is that that is the number
> > that everybody is interested in.
> >
> > Clark Dorman
> > http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/Dorman.html
> --------
> Hi Clark,
> Not worried at all! Sort of feel sorry for the chimps though! Anyways,
> does this provide evidence that we evolved from chimps or that chimps
> evolved from us? Or does it mean that we all evolved from one specific
> creature?
The evidence indicates that chimps and humans evolved from a common
ancestor, and that gorillas and the chimp-human common ancestor
evolved from a common ancestor. An interesting reference is:
Jorge J. Yunis and Om Prakash. "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal
Pictorial Legacy", in Science, Vol. 215, 19 Mar 1982, p.1525-1530.
that shows the chromosomes of human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan,
and tries to deduce what the order of changes in the chromosomes was,
and hence who split off and in what order. The vast majority of the
chromosomes are identical (indicating common ancestry), but the
changes give us further clues. For example, if chimp and human share a
particular trait that gorillas and orangutans do not have we can
figure that there was split between the chimp-human and
gorilla-orangutan. And there are traits that human-chimp-gorilla's
share that differ from the orangutan, indicating a split there. The
result (and consistent with the picture I drew in the previous pic) is
that there was a common ancestor, that orangutan broke off, then
gorillas, and then chimps and humans split.
J McCoy
JTEM
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from
> monkeys or apes but from a common ancestor.
Who cares?
Seriously. Why do you care?
Is it that you can't be happy with your beliefs so long as
others are happy without them? Is that it?
Do you feel threatened by knowledge, by progress?
Why do you care? Why do you invest any effort at all into
arguing with people who aren't buying your particular
brand of religion and simply aren't in the market anyway?
Why?
boikat
incapable or understanding what waas written? Or is it your characteristic
dishonesty?
Boikat
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com...
Jimmy Clay
today.
The common ancestor that humans and apes most like evolved from were
probably more "primitive" than apes.
--
Thanks,
Jimmy Clay
Read a free ebook,
The Song of the Coyote
http://thesongofthecoyote.tripod.com/
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com...
Chuckk Hubbard
"If God created animals for man's use, why tapeworms, plankton, giant squid,
ostriches, bears, and giant sloths?"
"If baby comes from Mommy and Daddy, how can Mommy and Daddy still be
there?"
"Those monkeys are millions of years old. When they die, monkeys will be
extinct. You'll be in the ground by then :), so I'll stick around and make
sure I'm right for you."
"Oh ho ho! I've got you now, you little wise-acre! Let me get this
straight: Jesus came to save the Jews, the Jews became Christians, and then
other Jews killed Jesus; so, HAHA, if Christians came from Jews, how are
there still Jews born every year????!?!?!?! Not to mention, how are there
still born Jews every year???!?!?!?! Answer THAT, HAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Chuckk
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com...
Rune Børsjø
wrote:
>According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
>but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
Ooof... not a good name for an evolutionist to have, when debating
christians :-)
>Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
>monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
Uh. Well technically we didn't. If we say we did come from monkeys
we're just reinforcing the xian mockery stereotype.
C. Thompson
(snip)
Why don't you pay up your bet with gen2rev?
TCS
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:21:42 +0000 (UTC), mc...@sunset.net (Nameless)
>wrote:
>>According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
>>but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
>Ooof... not a good name for an evolutionist to have, when debating
>christians :-)
>>Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
>>monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
>Uh. Well technically we didn't. If we say we did come from monkeys
>we're just reinforcing the xian mockery stereotype.
Nameless has had that explained to him practically hundreds of times.
He is as unteachable as a buggy eliza clone and far less entertaining.
Frank Reichenbacher
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
<snip>
How is this "snookery", Oh Numbskull One?
> "...still" monkeys..."? Apparently, you still fail to understand that
> modern monkeys are *not* the same as the common ancestor of apes
> (including humans) and monkeys (which no longer exists, as far as
> anyone knows). You *really* need to read the t.o FAQs.
<snip>
>
> WE - DIDN'T - EVOLVE - FROM - MONKEYS.
>
> Loud enough?
<snip>
>
> BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS, YOU TWIT; HUMANS AND MONKEYS
> ARE
> DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. AND YOU SHOULD BE USING THE TERM
> "PRIMATES",
> TO BOOT.
<snip>
> Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans shared a
> common
> ancestor, and that was a very long time ago.
>
<snip>
> The evidence indicates that chimps and humans evolved from a common
> ancestor, and that gorillas and the chimp-human common ancestor
> evolved from a common ancestor. An interesting reference is:
>
<snip>
> The
> result (and consistent with the picture I drew in the previous pic) is
> that there was a common ancestor, that orangutan broke off, then
> gorillas, and then chimps and humans split.
>
The truth shall set you free.
Frank
> J McCoy
>
Ron Okimoto
> Soooo, it's down to arguing symantics or demonstrating that you are
> incapable or understanding what waas written? Or is it your characteristic
> dishonesty?
>
> Boikat
It could be an honest mistake. For all we know McCoy is descended
from his cousins so he doesn't see what difference it makes.
Ron Okimoto
Snip:
Mark K. Bilbo
<piggybacking>
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote
>
>> According to some evolutionists we did not come from
>> monkeys or apes but from a common ancestor.
Some? How about ALL?
That's what the theory has always been. That we (who, by the way, ARE
apes) have a common ancestry with other apes and, more broadly, with other
primates.
Did you just discover this?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
Mark K. Bilbo
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Duora.5754$Jn2....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>> Soooo, it's down to arguing symantics or demonstrating that you are
>> incapable or understanding what waas written? Or is it your characteristic
>> dishonesty?
>>
>> Boikat
>
> It could be an honest mistake. For all we know McCoy is descended
> from his cousins so he doesn't see what difference it makes.
You think he believes having three grandparents is normal?
Dana Tweedy
Snipping the rest.
Apparently I've been embarrassing McCoy often enough that he seem determined
to try to embarrass me, but digging up some old statements I have made. No
matter, it only reinforces his pettiness, and his foolishness.
Needless to say, I'm not in "denial" about my statements. I stand behind
what I said in the above post. Humans didn't evolve from any living species
of ape. Modern humans and other apes are cousins, who evolved from a common
ancestor. If McCoy wants to claim that this common ancestor would also be
called an "ape", I have no problem with that. Humans are still apes, and
our common ancestor, if still alive today, would probably be called and
"ape" too. Modern apes (humans included) didn't evolve from any living
species of monkey either, but the common ancestor of apes and monkeys would
probably be called a "monkey" by laypeople.
It doesn't change anything to realize that it's only a matter of semantics.
Now, McCoy, when are you going to pay your bet you lost?
DJT
Chris Krolczyk
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
(snippage)
Coolness! I made Nameless' enemies list!
Mind you, I made it because of posts I made in 1997.
I wonder when he's actually going to bother answering of
the ones I made *this* year.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> Soooo, it's down to arguing symantics or demonstrating that you are
> incapable or understanding what waas written? Or is it your characteristic
> dishonesty?
You're giving him far too much credit.
I thought he was merely being a twit, as usual.
-Chris Krolczyk
stew dean
> but from a common ancestor.
I think you're getting confused. All mammals share a common ancestor
form my understanding. We are apes. We did not evolve from any
creature alive today.
Clear?
Stew Dean
stew dean
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively.
Who? It is not cowardly to deny we came from monkeys because, quite
simply, we did not according to the subjective evidence we have
(genetic, fossil etc).
I've just reread this post. I'm a bit confused. Everyone is saying the
same thing. We evolved from a common ancestor. We did not evolved from
monkeys (monkeys are a different group of animals that branched off
from the ape family we are in). Chimps are not monkeys for example. We
share the same ancestor with chimps but did not evolve from chimps.
> Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
Snookery?
I'm missing the point. Are you just not understanding this or trying
to make a point?
Stew Dean
John Jones
----------
In article <Duora.5754$Jn2....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>, "boikat"
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Soooo, it's down to arguing symantics or demonstrating that you are
> incapable or understanding what waas written? Or is it your characteristic
> dishonesty?
>
> Boikat
>
>
Arguing "symantics.' What a moron.
Hey, are you 'doing science' at a day-care centre for people who
have been hit over the head with a lead statue of of Charles
Darwin?
John Jones
----------
In article <3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>,
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
>
>
Snip
You put this in very bald terms but I agree with you. The evolutionists
here seem as full of tricks as a zoo full of monkeys. In fact this
group is notorious I am told for the low level of evolutionist
debate.
I think posters like the steaming moron Boycat proves there has been
no evolution. If there had, people like him would not exist.
John Jones
----------
In article <b8mpee$bhse8$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>, "Dana Tweedy"
<twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and apes (including us)
>> evolved from a common ancestor.
>> 2. It's a popular misconception that when one species evolves, it
>> replaces
>> the parent species. Monkeys and other apes are not our ancestors,
>> they are our cousins. We share common ancestory, but humans don't
>> replace monkeys and other apes.
>>
>
> Snipping the rest.
>
>
> Apparently I've been embarrassing McCoy often enough that he seem determined
> to try to embarrass me, but digging up some old statements I have made. No
> matter, it only reinforces his pettiness, and his foolishness.
>
> Needless to say, I'm not in "denial" about my statements. I stand behind
> what I said in the above post. Humans didn't evolve from any living species
> of ape. Modern humans and other apes are cousins, who evolved from a common
> ancestor. If McCoy wants to claim that this common ancestor would also be
> called an "ape", I have no problem with that. Humans are still apes, and
> our common ancestor, if still alive today, would probably be called and
> "ape" too. Modern apes (humans included) didn't evolve from any living
> species of monkey either, but the common ancestor of apes and monkeys would
> probably be called a "monkey" by laypeople.
>
> It doesn't change anything to realize that it's only a matter of semantics.
What evidence is there of a 'common ancestor' or these other links?'
Semantics are a fair weapon against against empty hypothesis.
Because there is an apparent similarity between things does not mean
they are directly related. There is much to suggest in fact that there
is no such direct relationship. And I am not going to tell you those
reasons. Waste of time. Utter complete waste of time.
Dana Tweedy
"John Jones" <joh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3eaf1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
The evidence of a common ancestor comes from the fossil evidence, the
genetic evidence, the anatomical evidence and the evidence from
biogeography. What parts of these multiple lines of evidence do you deny?
>
> Because there is an apparent similarity between things does not mean
> they are directly related.
It's the most reasonable explanation for those similiarities. What other
explanation do you prefer? What other explanation do you have evidence for?
>There is much to suggest in fact that there
> is no such direct relationship. And I am not going to tell you those
> reasons. Waste of time. Utter complete waste of time.
So, basically, you feel we should take your word for it? Sorry, that's not
acceptable to me.
> >
> > Now, McCoy, when are you going to pay your bet you lost?
> >
> >
> > DJT
> >
> >
>
DJT
Budikka
news:<3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively.
That's a fine paraphrase to come from the coward who dare not even
debate this topic with a laymen on the Internet. Or are you still
working on your opening remarks? I didn't see them in my email yet.
Clearly you cannot even make a case, let alone support one, which is
why you hide behind this endless, mindless, clueless negativist
blather. Clearly, you're not the real McCoy.
Budikka
Mark K. Bilbo
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
Snookery? It's what the theory actually *says. We share a common ancestory
with other apes (we are, by the way, apes). What is your problem?
AC
>
>
> ----------
> In article <3f355ee.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
>
>
>> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
>> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
>> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
>> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
>> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
>>
>>
>
> Snip
>
> You put this in very bald terms but I agree with you. The evolutionists
> here seem as full of tricks as a zoo full of monkeys. In fact this
> group is notorious I am told for the low level of evolutionist
> debate.
This from a fellow who calls people "stupid bitches". When exactly did you
contribute anything to the debate?
>
> I think posters like the steaming moron Boycat proves there has been
> no evolution. If there had, people like him would not exist.
More word candy.
--
A. Clausen
OldguyTeck
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0304...@posting.google.com...
LOL! You might consider your selfe an 'ape' But don't think your gonna make
a Uncle's monkey outta me ! LOL
Ed.....................(Oldguyteck)
Frank Reichenbacher
How charming...
I await your next utterance with bated breath.
Frank
>
J McCoy
That's silly. Some guy says, if we evolved from monkeys, why are they
still here, and you answer, we didn't evolve from monkeys.
You don't make any since whatsoever. Recent species of apes or old
species of apes are both apes. Have you taken any logic courses at
all? If you drew a circle around the word ape, you have to put all
apes in there no matter what kind they are.
J McCoy
Seppo Pietikainen
So, you think that empty assertions from an empty head work better?
Seppo P.
<snip>
Michelle Malkin
In that case, you are a typical cowardly theist troll who is
afraid to actually get involved in a debate out of fear of
having your belief system shaken. You aren't the first.
You won't be the last. You may huff and puff, but you
certainly aren't blowing any houses down.
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
atheist/agnostic list ordainer
EAC Bible thumper thumper
BAAWA Knight who says SPONG!
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered as patriots.This is one nation under
God." (George Bush, Sr. August 27,1987 O'Hare Airport as incumbent
Vice President while running for President)
stew dean
> > Apparently I've been embarrassing McCoy often enough that he seem determined
> > to try to embarrass me, but digging up some old statements I have made. No
> > matter, it only reinforces his pettiness, and his foolishness.
> >
> > Needless to say, I'm not in "denial" about my statements. I stand behind
> > what I said in the above post. Humans didn't evolve from any living species
> > of ape.
>
> That's silly. Some guy says, if we evolved from monkeys, why are they
> still here, and you answer, we didn't evolve from monkeys.
John - it's not silly - it's the right answer. Imagine if someone
asked you 'have you stopped beating your wife?' - if you don't have a
wife of have never even thought about abusing here the question is
silly.
> You don't make any since whatsoever. Recent species of apes or old
> species of apes are both apes.
> Have you taken any logic courses at all? If you drew a circle around the word > ape, you have to put all apes in there no matter what kind they are.
Quick test - do you think apes are monkeys? Is that what you're
saying?
Stew Dean
stew dean
Ape - not monkey. Yep we're apes. We're not descended from monkeys
but an earlier primate.
Stew Dean
stew dean
No tricks. We evolved from earlier apes - not monkeys.
Look up the evolutary tree. We do share a common ancestor with monkeys
but they take a different route.
Not sure what you need to coinvince you but it's all freely available
with no doctrine to learn, nothing to sign and nothing to pay (you can
get into the mueseum of natural history free if you really want to).
There is no political agenda for evolutinists only the desire to stand
up against badly educated bigots.
Stew Dean
Dana Tweedy
Yes, we didn't evolve from any of the monkey species that are still here.
We evolved from a species of "monkey" (i.e. primate) that has since gone
extinct. All modern species of monkeys also evolved from that same common
ancestor. Evolution is not a chain, or ladder of progress, it's more like a
spreading bush of diversity.
>
> You don't make any since whatsoever. Recent species of apes or old
> species of apes are both apes.
However apes are not monkeys. Unless you are speaking in very non-technical
language, that refers to any primate as a "monkey". .
> Have you taken any logic courses at
> all? If you drew a circle around the word ape, you have to put all
> apes in there no matter what kind they are.
Fine, all modern humans are apes, therefore the common ancestor of humans,
and other apes, would be be considered an ape.
Again, McCoy ignores the arguments below.
Yarrido
writes:
>It's not where we came from or how we evolved that matters, it's who we are
>today.
I agree, but why are we more primitive today than we were about 40 years ago?
Are we de-evolving?
>
>The common ancestor that humans and apes most like evolved from were
>probably more "primitive" than apes.
>
Hiero5ant
"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:b8n7p1$b2rj7$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "John Jones" <joh...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3eaf1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > In article <b8mpee$bhse8$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>, "Dana Tweedy"
> > <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > What evidence is there of a 'common ancestor' or these other links?'
> > Semantics are a fair weapon against against empty hypothesis.
>
> The evidence of a common ancestor comes from the fossil evidence, the
> genetic evidence, the anatomical evidence and the evidence from
> biogeography. What parts of these multiple lines of evidence do you deny?
Don't forget the behavioral and linguistic evidence.
Ash
> According to some evolutionists we did not come from monkeys or apes
> but from a common ancestor. According to evolutionist George Gaylord
> Simpson, it is cowardly of evolutionists to deny that we came from
> monkeys or apes or both successively. Here are some choice
> talk.origins proponents of the "common ancestor" snookery:
>
So?
--
#1636 again
Ash
> In article <vas72vr...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jimmy Clay" <jim...@ev1.net>
> writes:
>
>
>>It's not where we came from or how we evolved that matters, it's who we are
>>today.
>
>
> I agree, but why are we more primitive today than we were about 40 years ago?
> Are we de-evolving?
>
>
In what way are we now more primitive?
--
#1636 again
Steve
Hmmmmmm...steaming moron? Brilliant logic and rhetoric!
I've been reading through this thread and I cannot delude myself any
longer in believing the anti-evolutionist claque is this
intellectually dense. At least not in any legitimate sense. This
concept cannot possible be that difficult to comprehend. The only
assumption remaining - the anti-evolution gang willfully refuses to
listen to what's been stated in regards to apes, humans, and monkeys
sharing a commoin ancestor from which each of these primate groups
descended. I've taught fourth graders evolution and 10 YEAR OLDS
don't have any trouble grasping it. However, I'll leave an open mind
as to the possibility that some may struggle with congenital mental
defect, or neurological injury but I suspect neither of these
conditions are in play here. In the face of volumes of scientific
data, the anti-e's once again prove - beyond all reasonable doubt -
they are a bunch of intellectual frauds.
Steve the Sauropodman
AC
Was this the extent of your argument, or was this opening blow in a detailed
critique of hominid evolution?
--
A. Clausen
AC
Perhaps we should ask Mr. McCoy for something positive. The words "ape" and
"monkey" are just far too wide in common usage. Why doesn't Mr. McCoy give
us a quick definition of apes and monkeys. Providing it is sufficiently
meaningful and rational, we should be able to get over this nasty little
semantic hump and get to the meat of hominid origins.
So are you willing to along with this, Mr. McCoy? Can we agree upon what an
ape is and what a monkey is, and with that common definition, get on with
debating the evolution of humans?
--
A. Clausen
J McCoy
Well, I don't know about that.
But
You'd expect to find "in situ" photos of Johanson's Lucy specimen in his
popular books, as that's what's convincing to the general populace.
You will not find them because they do not exists.
Photography and film were developed as a means to capture nature.
They are both essential in science and in proving the truth. It is
therefore a shame that although there's a picture of Johanson holding
a bone fragment near a bush while such a photo doesn't exist of
"insitu". Clearly they had a photographer out there. There should
have been some guy with a movie camera too. Which is interesting
because for a couple of hundred dollars I had a sound super 8 camera
that I purchased while doing janitorial work in high school.
Johanson could have bought one himself. And when he or anyone else
found something, they could have gottent the camera out and filmed it
as is, and then continued. But they did not. So what was the purpose
of having a camera out on the field when you are going to take photos
of some significant items in situ?
Also, is there any film of Johanson sneaking out to the modern
cemetary to steal a femur? That should have been used, with plenty of
close-ups. I fail to see why they didn't use the camera for that
thrilling portion of their adventure.
They also could have taken film of the authorities in Ethiopia when
they got angry that he had taken the femur. The authorities asked him
to answer some questions about whether he tried to smuggle some bones
out of the country and ask him why he broke contractual agreement not
to engage in profiteering with the Lucy bones in question. Or as to
why he did other bad things. I just don't understand why there is no
film of this?
Well, I guess we don't need film of the authorities getting mad. But
we do need it for insitu scenes. I mean, they had a camera out there,
but they didn't use it.
J McCoy
>
> Steve the Sauropodman
Roy
Frank Reichenbacher asked:
What's the correct term for denial of a falsehood?
I think "Nailed".
Roy
(resident t.o. anagram expert)