Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Common ancestor between man and ape

65 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
May 5, 2007, 6:00:03 PM5/5/07
to
We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
then would'nt this "common ancestor"
have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
like an ape?

So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
not "evolve" from monkeys?
Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
ancestor" and not a baboon that we
evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
our forefathers were apes.

Ernest Major

unread,
May 5, 2007, 6:17:52 PM5/5/07
to
In message <1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes

>We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>like an ape?

For your information, apes, in modern usage, refers to a group of
*tailless* animals.


>
>So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>not "evolve" from monkeys?
>Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>our forefathers were apes.
>

--
Alias Ernest Major

ironlu...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 5, 2007, 6:47:26 PM5/5/07
to
Apes don't have tails. Most monkeys have tails, no true apes have
tails.
First, get an encyclopedia, and find out about the differences between
apes and monkeys.
Also get a book about prehistoric primates that don't currently
exist. Note the differences between monkeys, apes, and prosimians.

ayer...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2007, 6:50:38 PM5/5/07
to
On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years. any thing
they do come up with is false. Like the monkey lucy that was put
together wrong to make her look like she walked like us ,but thats
what they do, they have to take GOD out to justify their pig
morals,and not be acountable for their sins. It's all good, i hope
they keep trying to push evolution, the more they push the more the
truth comes out. hahahahaha it's funny evolutionist are digging a hole
which theres no getting out of, it leads to hell.

Kevin Wayne Williams

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:00:03 PM5/5/07
to
backspace wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?
Certainly, most English-speaking people, when faced with a picture of
our common ancestor, would call it a "monkey."


> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.
>

Worse than that ... not only were our forefathers apes, so are we.
KWW

Klaus

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:01:05 PM5/5/07
to

The last common ancestor between humans and non-human apes would have
been an ape because humans ARE apes. It would also have been a primate,
mammal, vertebrate, etc.

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:04:52 PM5/5/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Well, if you want to understand, make an effort to get the terminology
right. Chimps, gorillas, ourangs, and gibbons are apes. (So are humans.)
Apes are relatives of monkeys, distinguished from monkeys primarily by
the fact that they don't have tails. They also tend to be somewhat larger
than the typical monkey. A baboon is a particular kind of monkey, though
a very big one. A baboon has a tail.

About 5 million years ago, there was a beast who was the ancestor of both
men and chimps. It almost certainly did not have a tail. Therefore it was
an ape. But not a chimp. And not a man. Chimps and men both evolved from
that common ancestor. Gorilla shares an ancestor with man and chimp about
7 million years ago, and ourang shares an ancestor with us about 15 million
years ago. All these ancestors probably didn't have tails either. Go back
to something like 30 million years ago and you will encounter common ancestors
of man and at least some monkeys, including the baboon. That ancestor probably
did have a tail, so it can be called a monkey. If you want to call all modern
apes monkeys, you can probably get away with it. But you shouldn't call all
modern monkeys apes. That is just the way the words are used. Live with it.

We have ancestors who were apes, older ancestors who were monkeys, and even
earlier ancestors who were fish. You don't have to believe it, but that is
what the evidence indicates. We evolved from an ape, we evolved from a
monkey, and we evolved from a fish. But not from a chimp nor from a baboon,
nor from a large mouth bass. Those are particular apes and monkeys and fish
that are our cousins, not our parents. They have evolved from the common
ancestor just as we have.

No one is trying to obscure anything. But when you use words incorrectly,
people are going to correct you on it.

ij...@email.com

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:28:52 PM5/5/07
to
On May 5, 11:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure

No, "common ancestor" is the the correct word for a single ancestor
that two species share.

It is meant to be clear, not obscure.

> the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

It's not at all ridiculous, considering that we are apes also.

~Iain

Dana Tweedy

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:31:46 PM5/5/07
to

<ayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178405438.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>> like an ape?
>>
>> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>> not "evolve" from monkeys?
>> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>> our forefathers were apes.
>
> they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years.

Nothing, except for thousands of fossils. Also the genetic comparisons, the
biochemical and molecular evidence, biogeograhical evidence, etc, etc...

> any thing
> they do come up with is false.

Where do you get that idea?

> Like the monkey lucy that was put
> together wrong to make her look like she walked like us

"Lucy" was a member of a species called Australopithecus afarensis. What
evidence do you have that she was "put together wrong"?

Please take a look at this
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/lucy_cp_6217656.jpg

Which of these bones was "put together wrong"?

>,but thats
> what they do, they have to take GOD out to justify their pig
> morals,

First, how does the evidence of evolution take God out, and why do you
assume that anyone other than yourself has "pig morals"?

> and not be acountable for their sins. It's all good, i hope
> they keep trying to push evolution, the more they push the more the
> truth comes out. hahahahaha it's funny evolutionist are digging a hole
> which theres no getting out of, it leads to hell.

So does lying.


DJT


Ye Old One

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:46:52 PM5/5/07
to
On 5 May 2007 15:00:03 -0700, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com>

enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>like an ape?

Ok. We (the apes) all share a common ancestor at about 14 million
years ago.

Humans and chimps split about 4 to 6 million years ago. The
human-chimp ancestor split with the gorilla about 8 million years ago
and their ancestor split from the Orangutan about 14 million years
ago.


>
>So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>not "evolve" from monkeys?

Yes, and no. Out line split from the common ancestor we share with
monkeys sometime before that 14 million years ago mark - most experts
put it as far back as about 25 million years.

>Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>evolved from.

Non of the modern monkeys were around back then - they are all
descended from their on common ancestor. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates#Classification_and_evolution for
a fuller explanation of the relationships.

> To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>our forefathers were apes.

We are all still apes.

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

unread,
May 5, 2007, 7:48:40 PM5/5/07
to
On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayer...@hotmail.com enriched this group
when s/he wrote:

>On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>> like an ape?
>>
>> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>> not "evolve" from monkeys?
>> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>> our forefathers were apes.
>
>they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years. any thing
>they do come up with is false. Like the monkey lucy that was put
>together wrong to make her look like she walked like us

Cite?

> ,but thats
>what they do, they have to take GOD out to justify their pig
>morals,and not be acountable for their sins. It's all good, i hope
>they keep trying to push evolution, the more they push the more the
>truth comes out. hahahahaha it's funny evolutionist are digging a hole
>which theres no getting out of, it leads to hell.

Hellwould be anywhere near an idiot like you.

--
Bob.

Frank J

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:03:10 PM5/5/07
to

Are you Apobetics?

Frank J

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:00:53 PM5/5/07
to
On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm. Which way to go with this? If you are honestly interested in
learning what the evidence actually says, you will check the
Talk.Origins archive and at some point you will come back with a big
"wow, was I misinformed!"

In the meantime, if you truly find it hard to believe that our
"forefathers" were "apes", "baboons" or "monkeys," please tell us what
you think our "forefathers" looked like, and how and when do you think
our lineage began.

Lorentz

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:29:23 PM5/5/07
to
>To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.
The word "common ancestor" is just clever word play to obscure
the well established fact that we (human beings) are still apes in
terms of anatomy. From an anatomical standpoint, and this was clear
long before Darwin, there are no anatomical differences that clearly
distinguish human beings as a class separate from apes.

There are many kinds of apes. We do human beings generally do not
apply the word ape to our own species, but in terms of anatomy we
should. I think that the following list of nonhuman apes is close to
complete: bononos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangatangs, and gibbons. In
terms of anatomy, human beings closely resemble these animals. In
terms of anatomy, a bonobo resembles a human being more than the
bonobo resembles a gibbon. I think that applies to some of the other
nonhuman apes too.
The word common ancestor is not trying to hide the fact that we
are descendent of apes. It is clarifying the fact that the common
ancestor of modern day apes and human beings did not belong to any
extant species. The common ancestor of chimpanzees and human beings
would not have been anatomically exactly like a chimpanzee nor
anatomically exactly like a human being. The common ancestor of
chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings would have had significant
anatomical differences from all three.
A biologist called Haekel actually believed that human beings had
ancestors that were identical to extant species of apes. He thought
that white men came from chimpanzees, black men from gorillas, and
orientals from orangatangs. Saying "common ancestor" sort of avoids
getting into Haekelian concepts.

Cemtech

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:34:01 PM5/5/07
to
In article <1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...

> We are told that we had a "common ancestor".

We are already classed as apes so you messed up before you started the
body of this text.

> But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?

Wow, you don't know the difference between us and apes, nor apes and
monkeys do you?

Btw, humans are sometimes born with tails. Don't panic, the doctor will
cut it off. =/



> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?

Of course you're confused. You don't know the difference between
humans, apes and monkeys.


> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from.

Can you go back and make this a coherent statement? Is English your
first language?

> To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

First, you need to learn to count. "common ancestor" is two words, not
one.
Second, we are classed as apes. Humans, gorillas, chimps and orangutans
are apes. Now try again.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

Ray Martinez

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:39:28 PM5/5/07
to


You are absolutely correct.

Darwinists MUST employ euphemisms because the claim is so ridiculous.
But the Atheist has no choice but to believe the ridiculous since God
is not an option - it is a necessity belief of reverse
Fundamentalists.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,
May 5, 2007, 8:43:12 PM5/5/07
to
On May 5, 4:00 pm, Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.niho...@verizon.nut>
wrote:

Kook, lunatic, moron, atheist, racist, confused, enraged, etc.etc. All
or any one is self-evidently true.

Ray


mel turner

unread,
May 5, 2007, 9:03:21 PM5/5/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor".

With apes? Sure. We have a relatively recent common ancestor with
chimpanzees, and a slightly earlier one with gorillas, and an earlier
one still with orangutans. Each of these common ancestors would of
course be an "ape" of sorts. We also had common ancestors with the
two groups of "monkeys", with dogs and cats, with kangaroos, with
birds and lizards and snakes and turtles, with frogs and salamanders,
with lungfish, with trout and mackerel and sharks, with lampreys and
sea squirts and starfishes and flatworms and jellyfish and sponges
and the various groups of "protozoa" and plants and fungi, and an
extremely early common ancestor with modern bacteria.

>But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?

The other, nonhuman, apes have no more of a tail than humans do.
They do have longer canine teeth, which is something that changed
within the human line since our last common ancestor with
chimpanzees.

The earlier common ancestor of all apes and Old World monkeys [and
the earlier one shared with New World monkeys] would indeed have
had a long tail, and fit the folk definition of a "monkey" [any
small, tailed anthropoid primate].

> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?

That depends on how we choose to define the nonscientific word
"monkey", but sure, I'd agree that we "apes" did indeed evolve from
"monkeys", and in fact are just one particular group of large,
tailless "monkeys". The scientific name for the equivalent group to
"monkeys" is "Anthropoidea". We are also Hominidae ["great apes"]
and we are also primates and mammals and vertebrates and chordates and
metazoan animals and eukaryotes,and a form of life-on-earth. Do you
imagine there's some problem or inconsistency with any of this?

> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from.

The most recent common ancestor of humans and any non-human primate
is that we share with chimpanzees and bonobos. Our most recent
ancestor shared with baboons was much earlier, and was shared with
all the Old World monkeys.

>To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

Not "clever word play", just more precise language. It obscures
nothing of the sort. Not only were our ancestors "apes" [Hominidae or
Hominoidea] and "monkeys" [Catarrhini and Anthropoidea], we humans
still _are_ "apes" and "monkeys", just as we're still primates, and
still mammals and still vertebrates. And how can any scientific fact
be "ridiculous"? Is it just that you'd much prefer some very old
story about people being magically manufactured directly out of
dustbunnies or mudpies or something by some supernatural stage
magician in the sky? If that's not what you'd consider "ridiculous",
you might do well to reconsider the word.

cheers


Ken Rode

unread,
May 5, 2007, 9:09:10 PM5/5/07
to

Where's that quote from Ray? ... <searches> ... Oh, yes, here it is:

"This enraged tactic is pure ad hom = inability to refute = why it is
employed."

Oh, I forgot. Ray's Rules (TM) don't apply to Ray.

> Ray


Cemtech

unread,
May 5, 2007, 9:18:41 PM5/5/07
to
In article <1178405438.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
ayer...@hotmail.com says...

> On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> > then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> > have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> > like an ape?
> >
> > So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> > not "evolve" from monkeys?
> > Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> > ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> > evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> > play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> > our forefathers were apes.
>
> they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years.

Approx 20 species with around 100+ fossils.

Here's 150 years of nothing, liar.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Paleoanthropology.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html

Tip of an iceberg.

Richard Clayton

unread,
May 5, 2007, 9:28:18 PM5/5/07
to

Another argument by assertion? Man, you aren't even TRYING any more.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon

Cemtech

unread,
May 5, 2007, 9:33:56 PM5/5/07
to
In article <1178411968.8...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
pyram...@yahoo.com says...

And what does a non-Christian like yourself believe?
>

--
And Dishonest Ray is always right!
"Dr. Scott is never, I repeat, never wrong about anything. However,
there was one thing he was wrong about, ..." - Ray Martinez

Dana Tweedy

unread,
May 5, 2007, 10:09:03 PM5/5/07
to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178412192.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
snip


>>
>> Worse than that ... not only were our forefathers apes, so are we.
>> KWW
>
> Kook, lunatic, moron, atheist, racist, confused, enraged, etc.etc.

Why would any of these labels apply, Ray?

>All
> or any one is self-evidently true.

The evidence from our genes, our molecules, our bones, our physiology, our
behavior, etc.. all indicate that humans are apes. Why would you think
it's strage to conclude humans are apes?

DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
May 5, 2007, 10:14:03 PM5/5/07
to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178411968.8...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> On May 5, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>> like an ape?
>>
>> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>> not "evolve" from monkeys?
>> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>> our forefathers were apes.
>
>
> You are absolutely correct.

He's "correct" that it our forefathers are apes. But so are we.

>
> Darwinists MUST employ euphemisms because the claim is so ridiculous.

Ray, why do you feel the claim is ridiculous? Humans are apes, according
to our genes, our bodies, our physiology, our behavior, etc.

> But the Atheist has no choice but to believe the ridiculous since God
> is not an option

Not only atheists accept the common ancestory of humans with other apes.
Atheists could believe a great many things, but the evidence shows that
humans are apes. Why would it be impossible for God to make humans from
ape stock?

>- it is a necessity belief of reverse
> Fundamentalists.

Ray, an atheist could, I suppose believe that humans are descended from
frogs, from birds, or perhaps that humans always existed. The reason why
most atheists, and the majority of religionists believe that humans are
descended from apes, is because that's what the evidence says. You ignore
the evidence at your own peril.

DJT


Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
May 5, 2007, 11:16:05 PM5/5/07
to
On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayer...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]

>they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years.
[snip]

Here is a page of links that may be of help to you:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/ORIGINS_links.html>

>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Harry K

unread,
May 5, 2007, 11:28:25 PM5/5/07
to
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is hope yet. Your rants are getting shorter so you must be
spending more time on finishing that paper. To point out the obvious,
it is now May, Ray.

Harry K

wf3h

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:07:41 AM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 5:50 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:

> they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years. any thing
> they do come up with is false. Like the monkey lucy that was put
> together wrong to make her look like she walked like us ,but thats
> what they do, they have to take GOD out to justify their pig
> morals,and not be acountable for their sins. It's all good, i hope
> they keep trying to push evolution, the more they push the more the
> truth comes out. hahahahaha it's funny evolutionist are digging a hole
> which theres no getting out of, it leads to hell.

and this is what creationists call deep thinking...


wf3h

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:09:53 AM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 7:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Darwinists MUST employ euphemisms because the claim is so ridiculous.

and yet this statement makes sense only to the american religious
right. no scientists in the world agree with it. apparently, ray's
argument is that, if he says it, it's true.

> But the Atheist has no choice but to believe the ridiculous

ray knows less about atheism than he does about science. it generally
seems the case that right wing christian americans froth at the mouth
at the very idea of atheism...

since God
> is not an option - it is a necessity belief of reverse
> Fundamentalists.

you're a fundie. what would you know?
>
> Ray


Ken Shackleton

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:24:51 AM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 4:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?

I would think that if intelligent aliens from another planet vistied
earth, they would see us as barely distinquishable from the other apes
that share our planet.

>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?

Yes, but not from modern monkeys.....pick any animal you like....it is
your cousin, you share a common ancestor with it. The more distant the
relation, the more ancient the common ancestor. It's that simple.

> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from.

Baboons are modern creatures, the common ancestor that we share with
baboons lived many million of years ago. No modern species existed at
that time.

> To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

It's not word play.....it's just that you fail to understand what it
means.


Shane

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:28:30 AM5/6/07
to

Indeed, but the big question is why Ray chooses to stay that way.

Steven J.

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:40:04 AM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 5:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor".
>
You should have been told that you have a long string of "common
ancestors." You have a "last common ancestor" with chimpanzees and
bonobos, for example. A million or two years before that, you had a
"last common ancestor" with gorillas (this ancestor, of course, was
also a common ancestor -- but not that *last* common ancestor -- of
you and a chimpanzee). Millions of years before that, you had a last
common ancestor of great apes and old-world monkeys. Go far enough
back, and you have a last common ancestor you share with a cow or a
whale, and before that, the last common ancestor you share with
kangaroos, and so forth. The last common ancestor of you and a
kangaroo, of course, was also an ancestor of opossums, lions, zebras,
and all other marsupials and placental mammals.

>
> But to an observer back then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
"Ape," in English, refers to Catarhine primates that don't have
tails. You last common ancestor with an orangutan, for example, would
be an ape and would not have a tail. But if you go back to your last
common ancestor with, say, a baboon, then that ancestor would have a
tail.

>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?
>
If you saw the last common ancestor you share with a baboon, you would
call it a "monkey." But it would not belong to any monkey species
that exists today (you do understand that, e.g. macaques and langurs
and green monkeys and assorted other species) are all different
species from each other: they are not simply members of some
undifferentiated species "monkey?"). Indeed, if you went even further
back, and saw that last common ancestor you share with a spider or
howler monkey (these are New World monkeys less closely related to you
than are the Old World monkeys) you would probably call it a "monkey"
also (and, again, it would be a different species from either any
living monkey or from the last common ancestor of you and Old World
monkeys).

>
> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.
>
George Gaylord Simpson had the same complaint: he thought that the
"we're not descended from monkeys; we just share common ancestors with
them" was just a weasel-worded attempt to minimize offense to
creationists. But again, there is no reason to suppose that any
living monkey species was our ancestor; species change over time.
Baboons (of which there are several species of differing size and
appearance) have various specializations that are not shared by other
primates and which make them rather unlikely to be the common ancestor
of all Old World monkeys and apes.

When you speak of the "ridiculous fact" that our forefathers were apes
(from a cladistic standpoint, we ourselves are apes), do you mean to
emphasize that this is a fact (albeit, to some, ridiculous), or that
it is ridiculous (and therefore unlikely to be a fact)? There is
abundant evidence, from fossil hominids that straddle the boundaries
between humans and nonhuman apes, to shared pseudogenes and endogenous
retroviruses in our DNA and that of other primates, to indicate that
humans have ancestors in common with nonhuman primates.

-- Steven J.

Steven J.

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:44:53 AM5/6/07
to
You append a rather long list of self-descriptions to your signature,
considering that you make no response to Kevin"s post.

-- Steven J.

Ernest Major

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:38:02 AM5/6/07
to
In message <1178405438.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
ayer...@hotmail.com writes

>On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
>> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
>> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
>> like an ape?
>>
>> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
>> not "evolve" from monkeys?
>> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
>> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
>> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>> our forefathers were apes.
>
>they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years. any thing
>they do come up with is false. Like the monkey lucy that was put
>together wrong to make her look like she walked like us ,but thats
>what they do, they have to take GOD out to justify their pig
>morals,and not be acountable for their sins. It's all good, i hope
>they keep trying to push evolution, the more they push the more the
>truth comes out. hahahahaha it's funny evolutionist are digging a hole
>which theres no getting out of, it leads to hell.
>
As I understand orthodox Christian doctrine, acceptance of the
factuality of common descent with modification by the agency of natural
selection and other processes is not incompatible with salvation.
Holding heretical views, however, has often been considered cause for
damnation.

You might also like to consider whether you would be better advised to
keep the Ten Commandments.
--
alias Ernest Major

JTEM

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:46:54 AM5/6/07
to
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an
> observer back then would'nt this "common ancestor" have
> long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have
> looked like an ape?

Two issues. The second is that, back then, in the days before
humans & apes, no observer would have any idea what an
ape looks like.

I'm not going to bother with the first issue, and will instead
assume a number of people pointed out the problem
already....

> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing.

Duh.

Rolf

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:17:15 AM5/6/07
to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1178412192.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Hello Ray, nice to hear from you again, a day is not complete without a word
from you.
I also note that your language and writing skills are improving all the
time. I think you now have realized your full potential.
It reflects beautfully the spirit dwelling in you. St. Paul wold be proud of
you. What a wonderful place this world would be with more people like you, a
true Christian!


> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>


Rolf

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:24:38 AM5/6/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?
> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.
>

All animals, like dinosaurs, cats - and humans, are descended from fish. So
why don't we look more like fish?


backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:58:59 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 3:18 am, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <1178405438.447787.261...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> ayers...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> > > then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> > > have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> > > like an ape?
>
> > > So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> > > not "evolve" from monkeys?
> > > Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> > > ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> > > evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> > > play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> > > our forefathers were apes.
>
> > they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years.
>
> Approx 20 species with around 100+ fossils.
>
> Here's 150 years of nothing, liar.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoanthropologyhttp://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Paleoanthropology.htmlhttp://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htmhttp://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html

>
> Tip of an iceberg.
>
> --
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

I was not clear in my previous post and forgot a critical part and
thus I will reformulate my question:

We are told that we evolved from a "common ancestor" and emphatically
told that we did not evolve from any sort of primate either
ape,monkey,gorilla or
anything else that climbs trees. But to an observer back then
would'nt this "common ancestor" not have long teeth and a tail - in
other words would it not have looked like a primate? So I am


confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we not

"evolve" from primates? Who has formally established, published where
that we had a "common ancestor" and not a primate that we evolved
from. In which journal was this published. To me this "common


ancestor" thing is just clever word play to obscure the ridiculous

fact that our forefathers were primates.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:59:14 AM5/6/07
to
On 5 May 2007 17:43:12 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

Ray's autobiography...

>Kook, lunatic, moron, atheist, racist, confused, enraged, etc.etc. All
>or any one is self-evidently true.

Yes, they are, but I didn't realize you now self-identify as
an atheist. When did that happen?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Ye Old One

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:03:12 AM5/6/07
to
On 5 May 2007 17:43:12 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com>

Of you - sure you are, as well as a dishonest liar.
>
>Ray

--
Bob.

backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:35:27 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 5:16 am, "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Here is a page of links that may be of help to you:
> <http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/ORIGINS_links.html>
And from that link we get:
Biological Evolution is: "The change in allelic frequencies with time.
An allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a
particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism.
The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number
of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that
allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of
any allele is called biological evolution."

I want to know who is the person that has formally established this
and where did he publish his falsifiable finding on allele frequency
changing means evolution.
Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?


Rolf

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:31:56 AM5/6/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1178402403.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing.

Your confusion may be because you just refer to some 'common ancestor'.

WRT our particular kinship with the other great apes, it is about our last
common ancestor, commonly abbreviated LCA.

That would be the last species that both gorillas, chimpanzees and humans
are descended from. If that is difficult to understand, just look at your
own family tree. For example, your grandparents will be the last common
ancestor(s) of all their descendants. Sometime in the future, more or less
distant relatives may meet and produce offspring, just as it is possible
that your grandfather and grandmother may share a common forefather/mother.
So in real life, relationships may become very tangled!

Farther back in time, all of life, including plants as well as animals of
course also share a common ancestry.

[snip]


DJT

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:32:10 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 4:58 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip

> I was not clear in my previous post and forgot a critical part and
> thus I will reformulate my question:
>
> We are told that we evolved from a "common ancestor" and emphatically
> told that we did not evolve from any sort of primate either
> ape,monkey,gorilla or
> anything else that climbs trees.

Excuse me, but who told you this? The "common ancestor" was a
primate, as are modern humans. The point of referring to the common
ancestor is that humans did not evolve from any currently living
species of ape, or monkey. The common ancestor of chimps and humans
probably looked very much like a modern chimp. The common ancestor of
humans, chimps and gorillas, was probably a ape that lived some 15
million years ago. The common ancestor of apes and monkeys probably
lived about 25-30 million years ago.

Yes, human ancestors climbed trees, and for that matter, modern
humans are known to climb trees now and then.

> But to an observer back then
> would'nt this "common ancestor" not have long teeth and a tail

That depends on the common ancestor. The last common ancestor of
humans and chimps most likely didn't have a tail, but did have
relatively larger canine teeth than modern humans do. One primitive
hominid trait is reduced canine tooth size. The common ancestor of
apes and monkeys probably did have a tail. It's not known exactly
when the apes lost their tails.

> - in
> other words would it not have looked like a primate?

Yes, it would have looked like a primate, and it was a primate.

> So I am
> confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we not
> "evolve" from primates?

Yes, we did evovle from primates, and we are still primates.

> Who has formally established, published where
> that we had a "common ancestor" and not a primate that we evolved
> from.

Does not apply, as it's a false premise.

> In which journal was this published.

The classification of humans as apes predates scientific journals.
Linneaus placed humans within the apes in his classification system.

> To me this "common
> ancestor" thing is just clever word play to obscure the ridiculous
> fact that our forefathers were primates.

Our "forefathers" were primates, and we, their descendants continue to
be primates. What do you feel is ridiculous about that?

DJT

backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 8:04:19 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 1:32 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On May 6, 4:58 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Who has formally established, published where
> > that we had a "common ancestor" and not a primate that we evolved
> > from.
>
> Does not apply, as it's a false premise.

What is a false premise? Lets try and make this simple. Where was it
formally established that we evolved from an ape,gorilla, primate or
anything else that you would want to call it - common ancestor ,
whatever. I just want to know where was it formally established that
we evolved from whatever it is that you people would like to
call a monkey - common ancestor, ape, non-ape, tailless ape .... etc.
Don't tell me Origin of Species, I have the it on my PC, quote me the
specific passage where
Darwin formally established that we evolved from whatever it is you
would like to call a baboon. Lets just stop this semantic games, you
know what I mean.


Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:00:44 AM5/6/07
to

So without wanting to spend a minute on actual study of biology, you
want an answer? I'll leave you grandiose ingorance on simian biology
alone for now and just answer that Darwin postulated a common ancestor
for all life in "The Origin of Species", from that, you can infer that
apes and hominids have a common ancestor, too.

> Lets just stop this semantic games, you know what I mean.

The "semantic games" are quite important, since it's by semantics that
you can explain something to someone. You demonstrate a lack of
knowledge that is truly spectacular, people are just trying to help
you get onto the right track by pointing out the differences between
Gorillas (ape) and Babboon (monkey) are _very_ different. Much more so
than Chimps and Humans, who actually share quite a lot.

Harry K

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:27:40 AM5/6/07
to

You have made it abundantly clear that you will accept no answer that
conflicts with your ignorant beliefs. It has already been pointed out
to you that the classification of man as a primate was done long
before Darwin even came on the scene. Darwin is the one who explained
_how_ all life evolved from prior life right back to the most
primitive one back in the mists of time.


Harry K

Ron O

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:36:26 AM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 5:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back

> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?

>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?

> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word

> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

It sounds like you should throw away your creationist bull pucky
literature and actually look up some real science texts on the issue.

You will not find a scientific article in a real science journal
denying that the common ancestor of apes and humans was a primate.
The common ancestor of chimps and humans obviously was a primate
because we already know that it would have been placed among, not just
the apes, but the great apes (Humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangs).
We have already ruled out that it was something that would have been
more closely related to a gibbon. Primate is a designation of a
mammalian order that includes prosimians, monkeys and apes (humans
would be grouped with the apes). So humans are definitely primates and
our immediate ancestors would have been primates. It would be the
common ancestor of primates and other mammals that would not have been
a primate.

Apes do not have tails and it would be very unlikely that the common
ancestor of chimps and humans would have had a tail. We would likely
have to go back to our monkey-ape ancestor to find tails in our
lineage.

Starting from the present it would go something like this. All extant
humans had a human ancestor, we all share a common ancestor with a
certain lineage of great apes (chimps), further back we share a common
ancestor with all apes, further back with monkeys, further back with
prosimians, further back with all primates, further back with all
mammals, further back with terrestrial vertebtrates, etc.

So we are metazoans (multicellular animals), chordates, vertebrates,
terrestrial vertebrates, mammals, primates, simians (monkeys), and
apes. You have to be specific on which evolutionary step you are
talking about.

Ron Okimoto

Kevin Wayne Williams

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:37:23 AM5/6/07
to
Actually, I don't. You've been told several times that our common
ancestor with all other primates was a primate. It looked like something
you would call an animal, probably more like a lemur than a monkey or
ape. Your common ancestor with monkeys looked like a monkey, and your
common ancestor with the other apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and
orangutans) looked like an ape. No one in this forum is playing a
semantic game on that.

If you are arguing that people have told you that people didn't evolve
from baboons, that's perfectly true. People did not evolve from baboons.
Baboons evolved from an earlier form of monkey, and so did people.

If you want to read about common ancestry with chimpanzees and gorillas,
this is a good bet:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?AJHG002454PDF


For baboons, because you seem obsessed with them:
http://www.biology.lsa.umich.edu/courses/bio390/pag01.pdf

For all primates:
http://homopan.wayne.edu/Publications/2005/TiG_Goodman_2005.pdf

KWW

John Wilkins

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:39:49 AM5/6/07
to
He's playing this coy game where he wants to hold evolution to a
standard higher than any other science, by asking "show me where it is
formally established"... although at no point has he ever said what the
hell that means, or what would count as "formal establishment" of any
scientific claim at all. For instance, if we say "it [for any 'it'] has
been observed", he will just reply "that is not formally establishing
it". It we say "it has been shown to work in a model" he will say "that
is not formally establishing it. And so on. For any historical claim he
will *always* reply that it is not formally established, even if someone
*was* there to see it.

There's no point in responding to someone who won't say what they mean.
If he gives a set standard for formally establishing something in
science, then we are able to say either *how* that was satisfied, or
discuss whether in fact that is actually what happens in science. Since
he won't specify what *else* might meet this mythical standard of his,
he is always able to claim that we fail and not he.

So I say to backspace: tell us what "formal establishment" is, and give
a *single example* in a science that is comparable to what you are
asking about in evolutionary biology, before anyone will take you
seriously. If it is about historical claims in biology, give a
historical example in another science, say, geology, where this is
satisfied, so we can compare. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air.

John Harshman

unread,
May 6, 2007, 9:48:15 AM5/6/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On May 6, 5:16 am, "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Here is a page of links that may be of help to you:
>><http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/ORIGINS_links.html>
>
> And from that link we get:
> Biological Evolution is: "The change in allelic frequencies with time.
> An allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a
> particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism.
> The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number
> of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that
> allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of
> any allele is called biological evolution."

> I want to know who is the person that has formally established this
> and where did he publish his falsifiable finding on allele frequency
> changing means evolution.

You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).

You can check out both genomes, and compare them to each other, right here:
http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html

> Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
> same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?

It was established in hundreds of scientific publications over the past
150 years or so. The references on this page will give you a start:

http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

DJT

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:00:09 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 8:04 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 1:32 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 4:58 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Who has formally established, published where
> > > that we had a "common ancestor" and not a primate that we evolved
> > > from.
>
> > Does not apply, as it's a false premise.
>
> What is a false premise?

That the common ancestor was not a primate. Who told you that it was
not?

> Lets try and make this simple. Where was it
> formally established that we evolved from an ape,gorilla, primate or
> anything else that you would want to call it - common ancestor ,
> whatever.

It was establsihed by genetics, by comparitive anatomy, by physiology,
the fossil record, etc. It wasn't just a single work, published in
one source.

> I just want to know where was it formally established that
> we evolved from whatever it is that you people would like to
> call a monkey - common ancestor, ape, non-ape, tailless ape .... etc.

It was "formally established" that humans are apes long before there
was a theory to explain how this came to be. As I mentioned before,
Linneaus had categorized humans as being among the apes when he
published his classification system, which all scientists use today
(with some modification, of course).


> Don't tell me Origin of Species, I have the it on my PC, quote me the
> specific passage where
> Darwin formally established that we evolved from whatever it is you
> would like to call a baboon.

Baboons are a modern branch of monkeys, and our common ancestor with
them diverged some 25-30 million years ago. The ancestor of both
humans and baboons would not resemble a baboon.

> Lets just stop this semantic games, you
> know what I mean.

Please understand that just because a concept is clear to you, it does
not mean that others understand what you mean.

That humans are primates was established long before there were any
scientific journals, or even science itself. Just plain observation
of the similarity between humans and other apes shows that we are
primates. This was confirmed by later findings in anatomy,
physiology, genetics, fossils, behavior, etc.

I can't point you to just one paper that orignially stated 'humans are
primates'. It's been known as long as it was known that dogs are
wolves, lions are cats, or tucans are birds .

DJT

Ken Shackleton

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:10:28 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 12:46 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an
> > observer back then would'nt this "common ancestor" have
> > long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have
> > looked like an ape?
>
> Two issues. The second is that, back then, in the days before
> humans & apes, no observer would have any idea what an
> ape looks like.

I think it is the general rule that when people speak of "an observer
back then", they are speaking of a hypothetical human observer from
the present who is able to peer into the past. I do not believe that
it is ever the case that the reference is to the actual creatures that
existed at that time "observing" other creatures....'cause that would
be just silly.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:14:20 AM5/6/07
to

Any two living creatures have a common ancestor. For you and your
sibling, it's your parents; for you and your first cousin, your
grandparents. For humans and chimps, it's a primate. For humans and
monkeys, a monkey-like creature. For humans and rose bushes it is
something else entirely. We're all just one big family.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Ken Shackleton

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:13:41 AM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 2:58 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 3:18 am, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1178405438.447787.261...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > ayers...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> > > > then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> > > > have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> > > > like an ape?
>
> > > > So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> > > > not "evolve" from monkeys?
> > > > Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> > > > ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> > > > evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> > > > play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> > > > our forefathers were apes.
>
> > > they say apes, but have come up with nothing in 150 years.
>
> > Approx 20 species with around 100+ fossils.
>
> > Here's 150 years of nothing, liar.
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia....

>
> > Tip of an iceberg.
>
> > --
> > Steve "Chris" Price
> > Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> > Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> > University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
>
> I was not clear in my previous post and forgot a critical part and
> thus I will reformulate my question:
>
> We are told that we evolved from a "common ancestor" and emphatically
> told that we did not evolve from any sort of primate either
> ape,monkey,gorilla or anything else that climbs trees.

When your pastor told you this, he was lying to you.

You evolved from a primate, you share a common ancestor with all
primates, you *are* a primate.

gregwrld

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:39:50 AM5/6/07
to


It's obvious, isn't it, that this is the nub of creationist objections
to the
TOE? Nothing seems to get the True Creationist more upset. And yet,
what does it actually have to do with being a christian? Any
reasonable
person looking at the fossil record gets the implications, but those
implications
scare the hell out of Ray, ayers, backspace and all those fools whose
arguments
rely on the garbage found on creationist websites.

Their faith is very weak and their concept of god is very shallow.

What a sorry lot.

gregwrld

Ken Shackleton

unread,
May 6, 2007, 11:01:17 AM5/6/07
to

I agree completely....yet they accuse science to placing humanity
above all else when it is clear that it is the creationist that sees
himself above all other nature. They are the ones who get upset when
it is pointed out to them that humans are just another form of life on
this planet.

> And yet,
> what does it actually have to do with being a christian? Any
> reasonable
> person looking at the fossil record gets the implications, but those
> implications
> scare the hell out of Ray, ayers, backspace and all those fools whose
> arguments
> rely on the garbage found on creationist websites.
>
> Their faith is very weak and their concept of god is very shallow.
>
> What a sorry lot.
>

> gregwrld- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:23:06 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 3:27 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
1) > pointed out to you that the classification of man as a primate

was done long before Darwin even came on the scene.
2) Darwin is the one who explained _how_ all life evolved from prior

life right back to the most primitive one back in the mists of time.

You make two points I wish to address.
1) Where and by whom was man formally classified as being a primate
before Darwin came along?
2) Where exactly on which page of Origin of Species you can download
from Gutenbergpress did Darwin formally establish that life evolved?
For those of you who don't know from what angle I am coming read this
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"What Naturaled and who did the Selecting?" where I adressed the
semantics of this whole debate.


backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:43:53 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 3:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> backspace wrote:

> You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
> definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
> allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
> chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
> we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
> differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
> species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
> in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).

This is your theory. You must tell me how this theory of yours has
been formally established in the same way that Kepler established the
laws of planetary motion.
Lets take the word "Mutation". What on earth do we mean by this? What
did Darwin mean by it and what does Lee Spetner mean by it? Spetner
relates "mutation"
to copying errors in genes. But in Darwin's time genes had not yet
been discovered. Why was this word "mutation" used in relation with
genes? With genes we
deal with language concepts such as grammar, redundancy, Kolmogrov
Complexity(refereing to Berlinski's description of it in Black
Mischief), palindromes etc.

> You can check out both genomes, and compare them to each other, right here:http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html

Nope, sorry I won't. In the same way that you can't tell me to read
the entire treatise from Maxwell's lines of force and electromagnetic
theory. The people who
deal with Maxwells equations can show the interested people exactly
where Maxwell established his equations. I don't have to do any
research. I just have to ask
your for the actually conclusion that everybody in evolutionary
science formally accepts as the conclusion and exactly where is this
conclusion formally published. In the same way that everybody in
physics accepts Fourier transforms - there are'nt endelss debates
concerning it.

> > Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
> > same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?
> It was established in hundreds of scientific publications over the past
> 150 years or so. The references on this page will give you a start:
> http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

Nope, wrong again. I don't have to research this. You people do the
research, not dump a stack of books on my table using undefined terms
such as "evolve" and
"natural selection". I am simply looking for the formal conclusion,
not the actually way you reached your conclusion.

Ernest Major

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:48:42 PM5/6/07
to
In message <1178468586.7...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes

>On May 6, 3:27 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>1) > pointed out to you that the classification of man as a primate
>was done long before Darwin even came on the scene.
>2) Darwin is the one who explained _how_ all life evolved from prior
>life right back to the most primitive one back in the mists of time.
>
>You make two points I wish to address.
>1) Where and by whom was man formally classified as being a primate
>before Darwin came along?

No doubt there were several biologists who did so, but the most famous
is Carolus Linnaeus aka Carl von Linne.

>2) Where exactly on which page of Origin of Species you can download
>from Gutenbergpress did Darwin formally establish that life evolved?
>For those of you who don't know from what angle I am coming read this
>thread:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9
>a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
>"What Naturaled and who did the Selecting?" where I adressed the
>semantics of this whole debate.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 6, 2007, 12:57:18 PM5/6/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178469833.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

"You keep using that word ['formal' or 'formally']. I do not think it means
what you think it means". -- Inigo Montoya.

backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:02:10 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 3:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> backspace wrote:

> You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
> definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
> allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
> chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
> we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
> differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
> species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
> in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).

This is your theory. You must tell me how this theory of yours has
been formally established in the same way that Kepler established the
laws of planetary motion.
Lets take the word "Mutation". What on earth do we mean by this? What
did Darwin mean by it and what does Lee Spetner mean by it? Spetner
relates "mutation"
to copying errors in genes. But in Darwin's time genes had not yet
been discovered. Why was this word "mutation" used in relation with
genes? With genes we
deal with language concepts such as grammar, redundancy, Kolmogrov
Complexity(refereing to Berlinski's description of it in Black
Mischief), palindromes etc.

> You can check out both genomes, and compare them to each other, right here:http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html


Nope, sorry I won't. In the same way that you can't tell me to read
the entire treatise from Maxwell's lines of force and electromagnetic
theory. The people who
deal with Maxwells equations can show the interested people exactly
where Maxwell established his equations. I don't have to do any
research. I just have to ask
your for the actually conclusion that everybody in evolutionary
science formally accepts as the conclusion and exactly where is this
conclusion formally published. In the same way that everybody in
physics accepts Fourier transforms - there are'nt endelss debates
concerning it.

> > Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the


> > same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?
> It was established in hundreds of scientific publications over the past
> 150 years or so. The references on this page will give you a start:
> http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

Nope, wrong again. I don't have to research this. You people do the

Tony Raymonds

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:01:27 PM5/6/07
to
In article <1178425491.2...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ken
Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> writes
>I would think that if intelligent aliens from another planet vistied
>earth, they would see us as barely distinquishable from the other apes
>that share our planet.

The apes living in the forests would probably ignore the visitors but
the aliens might notice that the tall pink ones either lob nukes at them
or invite them to chat shows.
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com

Woland

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:33:06 PM5/6/07
to

It's not our job to teach you. Spend a weekend at the library, it
won't hurt, I promise.

Tiktaalik

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:36:37 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 1:39 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 5, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> > then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> > have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> > like an ape?
>
> > So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> > not "evolve" from monkeys?
> > Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> > ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> > evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> > play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> > our forefathers were apes.
>
> You are absolutely correct.
>
> Darwinists MUST employ euphemisms because the claim is so ridiculous.
> But the Atheist has no choice but to believe the ridiculous since God
> is not an option - it is a necessity belief of reverse
> Fundamentalists.

Is a reverse Fundamentalist a creationist who talks through his arse?

> Ray

"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).

Tiktaalik

unread,
May 6, 2007, 1:39:38 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 1:43 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 4:00 pm, Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.niho...@verizon.nut>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> > > then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> > > have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> > > like an ape?
>
> > > So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> > > not "evolve" from monkeys?
>
> > Certainly, most English-speaking people, when faced with a picture of
> > our common ancestor, would call it a "monkey."
>
> > > Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> > > ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> > > evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> > > play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> > > our forefathers were apes.
>
> > Worse than that ... not only were our forefathers apes, so are we.
> > KWW
>
> Kook, lunatic, moron, atheist, racist, confused, enraged, etc.etc. All
> or any one is self-evidently true.

I had no idea you were an atheist. Anyway, congratulations on a
brilliant piece of self-analysis

> Ray- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the

Message has been deleted

baker...@gmail.com

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:37:00 PM5/6/07
to
Ever hear of the "Aquatic Ape Theory?"

http://www.aquaticape.org/

On May 5, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?

Slimebot McGoo

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:40:24 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 05:04:19 -0700, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>... Lets try and make this simple. Where was it


>formally established that we evolved from an ape,gorilla, primate or
>anything else that you would want to call it - common ancestor ,
>whatever.

You mean let's make this simpleminded. You want to know where and
when our primatehood was "formally established" like the Bible
"formally established" our creationhood. You want to see the
certificate. LOL.

You're a moron. But don't be offended; that's just another word for
creationist.

McGoo

John Harshman

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:57:59 PM5/6/07
to
Ernest Major wrote:

> In message <1178468586.7...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>On May 6, 3:27 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>1) > pointed out to you that the classification of man as a primate
>>was done long before Darwin even came on the scene.
>>2) Darwin is the one who explained _how_ all life evolved from prior
>>life right back to the most primitive one back in the mists of time.
>>
>>You make two points I wish to address.
>>1) Where and by whom was man formally classified as being a primate
>>before Darwin came along?
>
>
> No doubt there were several biologists who did so, but the most famous
> is Carolus Linnaeus aka Carl von Linne.

And it should be pointed out that Linneaus is officially considered (by
the ICZN) to be the beginning of all formal classification, so in fact
humans were considered primates from the very first moment they could
have been.

[snip]

Slimebot McGoo

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:57:56 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 11:37:00 -0700, "baker...@gmail.com"
<baker...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ever hear of the "Aquatic Ape Theory?"

Why are you spamming this newsgroup under different identities? Did
you learn dishonesty in church?

McGoo

Slimebot McGoo

unread,
May 6, 2007, 2:58:14 PM5/6/07
to

Steven J.

unread,
May 6, 2007, 3:02:53 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 11:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 3:27 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) > pointed out to you that the classification of man as a primate
> was done long before Darwin even came on the scene.
> 2) Darwin is the one who explained _how_ all life evolved from prior
> life right back to the most primitive one back in the mists of time.
>
> You make two points I wish to address.
> 1) Where and by whom was man formally classified as being a primate
> before Darwin came along?
>
Humans were first described as the species _Homo sapiens_, and classed
in the order Primates, by Karl (von) Linne, in Sweden, in the 18th
century. It had, of course, been noted long before then that humans
shared many anatomical features with monkeys and apes; the Greek
physician Galen had described human anatomy based mainly on his
dissections of monkeys.

>
> 2) Where exactly on which page of Origin of Species you can download
> from Gutenbergpress did Darwin formally establish that life evolved?
>
Darwin described the book as "one long argument" for the propositions
of common descent and modification by natural selection. If he'd been
able to "formally establish" those propositions on one page, he'd have
foregone the lengthy book and just put out a handbill on the subject.
The principle arguments that Darwin adduced for common descent were
the consistent nested hierarchy of life (pointed out by the above-
mentioned Karl Linne), along with biogeography (the tendency of
species to resemble other species that live nearby, rather than, e.g.
species that live in similar environments far away), and the problems
(noted by comparative anatomists like Richard Owen) of homology
(detailed similarity in structures beyond that required by similarity
in function), and analogy (similar functions being served by disparate
structures, as though the solution to some problem had needed to be
"invented" separately many times, rather than simply copied).

>
> For those of you who don't know from what angle I am coming read this
> thread:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df...

> "What Naturaled and who did the Selecting?" where I adressed the
> semantics of this whole debate.
>
Come at the problem from a different angle.

-- Steven J.


baker...@gmail.com

unread,
May 6, 2007, 3:11:42 PM5/6/07
to
As a matter of fact, yes. But that was an honest mistake as evidenced
by its correction. Thanks for noticing. Have anything to say about the
evolution of humanity?

On May 6, 11:57 am, Slimebot McGoo <oldert...@youth.inc> wrote:
> On 6 May 2007 11:37:00 -0700, "bakerjo...@gmail.com"

John Harshman

unread,
May 6, 2007, 3:13:05 PM5/6/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On May 6, 3:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>backspace wrote:
>
>
>>You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
>>definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
>>allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
>>chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
>>we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
>>differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
>>species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
>>in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).
>
> This is your theory. You must tell me how this theory of yours has
> been formally established in the same way that Kepler established the
> laws of planetary motion.

We still don't know what you mean by "formally established". Kepler
didn't "formally establish" anything as far as I know. He determined
that his laws explained the existing observations more simply and
accurately than previous theories. Is that "formally established"?

Same thing for mutations.

> Lets take the word "Mutation". What on earth do we mean by this? What
> did Darwin mean by it and what does Lee Spetner mean by it? Spetner
> relates "mutation" to copying errors in genes. But in Darwin's time
> genes had not yet been discovered. Why was this word "mutation" used
> in relation with genes? With genes we deal with language concepts
> such as grammar, redundancy, Kolmogrov Complexity(refereing to
> Berlinski's description of it in Black Mischief), palindromes etc.

First thing, you have to stop reading only creationist sources. They are
almost always seriously garbled in ways I can only begin to address.
Second, who cares what Darwin meant by "mutation"? I don't recall that
he used the word at all. He knew nothing of genes, much less DNA. We
have advanced since Darwin. However, Spetner is partially right. Many
mutations are copying errors. Others happen outside of DNA replication.
But they are all "mistakes". We use the word for historical reasons, but
the concept certainly applies, despite any gibberish you may have about
grammar, palindromes, etc.

>>
>>You can check out both genomes, and compare them to each other, right here:http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html
>
> Nope, sorry I won't. In the same way that you can't tell me to read
> the entire treatise from Maxwell's lines of force and electromagnetic
> theory. The people who deal with Maxwells equations can show the
> interested people exactly where Maxwell established his equations. I
> don't have to do any research. I just have to ask your for the
> actually conclusion that everybody in evolutionary science formally
> accepts as the conclusion and exactly where is this conclusion
> formally published. In the same way that everybody in physics accepts
> Fourier transforms - there are'nt endelss debates concerning it.

Still don't know what you mean by "establish". Maxwell's equations are
accepted because they describe diverse phenomena simply. Evolutionary
biology is not contained entirely in one publication. You have to read
the literature. My initial advice would be to read an undergraduate text
in molecular genetics or molecular evolution. The citations in either
one of those would be a good place to start in your search for evidence
on mutation.

>>>Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
>>>same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?
>>
>>It was established in hundreds of scientific publications over the past
>>150 years or so. The references on this page will give you a start:
>>http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963
>
> Nope, wrong again. I don't have to research this. You people do the
> research, not dump a stack of books on my table using undefined terms
> such as "evolve" and "natural selection". I am simply looking for
> the formal conclusion, not the actually way you reached your
> conclusion.

Still no idea what a "formal conclusion" is. You don't want evidence,
you don't want the data, you don't want anything to read. I'm at a loss
to determine what you want. Just in case, here is a very simply
explained bit of reasoning from the evidence showing that humans and
other African apes form a clear group:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html

Cemtech

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:17:48 PM5/6/07
to
In article <1178462390.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
GCze...@msn.com says...

I wouldn't even call what they do, faith. And very much spot on with
their idea of god being so shallow.

> What a sorry lot.

Indeed. =/

Lorentz

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:18:32 PM5/6/07
to
>To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.
Thanks to you, I will change the way I use the phrase "common
ancestor." You are partly right. The phrase "common ancestor of apes
and man" is not precise. From now on, I will use the phrase, "common
ancestor of chimpanzees and man" or "common ancestor of man and other
extant apes." To make the phrase "common ancestor" precise, one has to
specify two distinct groups of animals. Since man is in some
definitions an ape, the "common ancestor" phrase does obscure the
meaning of what is discussed. I disagree as to the original
motivation for making the phrase obscure, but there it is. As to the
particular nonhuman ape, I am tempted to use bonobo. However, not many
people know what a bonobo is. And bonobos are sometimes referred to as
"pygmy chimpanzee." So I will stick to chimpanzee.
"Common ancestor of man and chimpanzee" will be my phrase.
I make no committment as to how close to man or how close to
chimpanzee the anatomy of this creature is. It didn't have a tail, as
neither human beings or chimpanzees have a tail. I am neutral as to
whether this creature had fangs (your "long teeth"), as adult
chimpanzees can be said to have fangs.


Cemtech

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:19:58 PM5/6/07
to
In article <1178463677.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
ken.sha...@shaw.ca says...

I forgot who said, but it's pretty accurate.

When science said the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe, alot
of people got upset. But, over time, they came to accept it.
Now they are upset that humans aren't at the center of the universe.

JTEM

unread,
May 6, 2007, 4:22:07 PM5/6/07
to
Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I think it is the general rule that when people speak of
> "an observer back then", they are speaking of a
> hypothetical human observer from the present who is
> able to peer into the past. I do not believe that it is
> ever the case that the reference is to the actual
> creatures that existed at that time "observing" other
> creatures....'cause that would be just silly.

Yes, that's it, "Silly." You know, like apes with tails.

You've got to admit, "Just silly" is a rather apt description
of everything the poster wrote.

backspace

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:05:44 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 4:00 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That humans are primates was established long before there were any
> scientific journals, or even science itself. Just plain observation
> of the similarity between humans and other apes shows that we are
> primates. This was confirmed by later findings in anatomy,
> physiology, genetics, fossils, behavior, etc.
Established by whom. Where in genetics, fossils,physiology was it
established? Which Journal, what paper, which evolutionist: Dawkins,
Haldane, Gould?
Where gentlemen where is this evidence that we had a "common
ancestor".

> I can't point you to just one paper that orignially stated 'humans are
> primates'.
Ofcourse not, because it does'nt exist. Nobody has established that we
had a common ancestor. The "common ancestor" is just weasel words to
obscure that you believe your dad was an ape/primate/bonobo/goriall/
monkey/chimp/any-version-of-ape who went "boggum", beared its teeth
and scratched for flees. This makes you look silly which ofcourse it
does. So what evolutionists do is simply confuse the language like
they have done with the word "Selection" a perfectly normal word that
Darwin made undefined in 1859.

Kevin Wayne Williams

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:13:20 PM5/6/07
to
Steven J. wrote:

> On May 5, 5:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word
>> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
>> our forefathers were apes.
>>

> George Gaylord Simpson had the same complaint: he thought that the
> "we're not descended from monkeys; we just share common ancestors with
> them" was just a weasel-worded attempt to minimize offense to
> creationists.
George Gaylord Simpson was a very astute fellow.


> But again, there is no reason to suppose that any
> living monkey species was our ancestor; species change over time.
> Baboons (of which there are several species of differing size and
> appearance) have various specializations that are not shared by other
> primates and which make them rather unlikely to be the common ancestor
> of all Old World monkeys and apes.

Genuine curiosity here: is there any place that catalogs these
"specializations" for the various primates? I really don't know how sure
we are that all of the various primates in existence are readily
distinguished from the common ancestors of each of their groups, and
that no living species has strongly conserved the features of its
ancestor. Is there really strong evidence to suggest that our common
ancestor isn't, for example, a tarsier?

KWW

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:22:00 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 03:35:27 -0700, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On May 6, 5:16 am, "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Here is a page of links that may be of help to you:
>> <http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/ORIGINS_links.html>
>And from that link we get:
>Biological Evolution is: "The change in allelic frequencies with time.
>An allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a
>particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism.
>The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number
>of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that
>allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of
>any allele is called biological evolution."
>
>I want to know who is the person that has formally established this
>and where did he publish his falsifiable finding on allele frequency
>changing means evolution.

You seem to be asking about basic logic or algebra:
A=B and B=A therefore A and B are equal.
A change in the frequency of any allele = biological evolution; and
biological evolution = a change in the frequency of any allele;
therefore "a change in the frequency of any allele" and "biological
evolution" are equal. This very basic logic was known to the
ancients.

>Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
>same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?

The answer to this question is that the fact that humans are apes was
established by an examination of the evidence. If you wish to know
the names of the *first* people to examine the evidence, then you
should crack a history book. But if you wish to know the name of
*anyone* who has examined the evidence, then you should examine the
evidence yourself. Then you could just use your own name to answer
your question.

>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Woland

unread,
May 6, 2007, 5:35:14 PM5/6/07
to

I won't speak for everyone but I have no problem picturing my
ancestors sitting around naked, picking fleas from each other, ripping
raw meat off of bones, throwing feces etc. You are the kind of person
that this bothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Kevin Wayne Williams

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:07:01 PM5/6/07
to
backspace wrote:
> On May 6, 4:00 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> That humans are primates was established long before there were any
>> scientific journals, or even science itself. Just plain observation
>> of the similarity between humans and other apes shows that we are
>> primates. This was confirmed by later findings in anatomy,
>> physiology, genetics, fossils, behavior, etc.
> Established by whom. Where in genetics, fossils,physiology was it
> established? Which Journal, what paper, which evolutionist: Dawkins,
> Haldane, Gould?
> Where gentlemen where is this evidence that we had a "common
> ancestor".
>
>> I can't point you to just one paper that orignially stated 'humans are
>> primates'.
> Ofcourse not, because it does'nt exist.
I want to make sure that you understand that you are just plain lying
now. You have been told multiple times in this thread that the original
classification of humans as primates was by Linnaeus. If you want to
read the work, it is in the "Systema Naturae", located at
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/linnaeus-link/documents/bibliography/bibliography.html
. It predates Darwin by 125 years.

> Nobody has established that we had a common ancestor. The "common
> ancestor" is just weasel words to obscure that you believe your dad
> was an ape/primate/bonobo/goriall/ monkey/chimp/any-version-of-ape
> who went "boggum", beared its teeth and scratched for flees.

I don't know if it went "boggum", but no one is attempting to obscure a
belief. It is an accurate phrase, but probably was chosen to reduce some
people's negative reactions.
KWW

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:06:02 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 03:35:27 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:

>On May 6, 5:16 am, "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2007 15:50:38 -0700, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Here is a page of links that may be of help to you:
>> <http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/ORIGINS_links.html>
>And from that link we get:
>Biological Evolution is: "The change in allelic frequencies with time.
>An allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a
>particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism.
>The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number
>of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that
>allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of
>any allele is called biological evolution."
>
>I want to know who is the person that has formally established this

Since apparently you have no idea how science works, perhaps
it would enhance communications if you defined exactly what
you mean by this, since no one person usually "formally
establishes" anything in science.

>and where did he publish his falsifiable finding on allele frequency
>changing means evolution.

Ummm...it's a *definition*; definitions don't require
testing, only acceptance as useful by others in the same
field. Would you assert that the definition of any term
requires testing, rather than acceptance by the
professionals using the term, before being accepted? Seems a
bit cumbersome to me...

>Many of the posters who replied tell me that humans and apes are the
>same thing. I want to know where was this formally established?

Many places, by many scientists, using many tests and data
analyses. But the main items of evidence that humans are
apes are genetic and morphological.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:19:24 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 10:02:10 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:

>On May 6, 3:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>


>wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>
>> You can't publish falsifiable findings about a definition. It's true by
>> definition. Perhaps you want to know how we determined that changes in
>> allele frequencies can result in the differences between humans and
>> chimps. That's pretty simple. We have the sequences of both genomes and
>> we can see all the ways in which they differ. It happens that all these
>> differences are the same sort that make up individual variation within
>> species (just more of them) and that arise through mutations we can see
>> in the laboratory (just accumulated over time).

>This is your theory.

No, that is measurement, observation and analysis; the
theory rests on such measurements, observations and
analyses, but they don't constitute the theory. Your
statement, in combination with the rest of your post(s),
makes your scientific illiteracy painfully obvious.

>You must tell me

No, no one "must" tell you anything at all. If you wish to
educate yourself you're free to do so, but telling those
more knowledgeable than yourself that they "must" spoon-feed
you information they spent years acquiring, and doing so in
an argumentative manner while showing clearly by your words
how little you understand the process of science, smacks of
both arrogance and petulance, neither of which is
particularly attractive in a ten-year-old, much less in a
supposed adult.

HTH; HANL

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:22:39 PM5/6/07
to
On 6 May 2007 03:35:27 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

>I want to know who is the person that has formally established this

<snip all except strikingly familiar attitude>

Did you previously post under the alias "Throwback"? If so,
do you still think any of the non-human ancestors of humans
still exist?

DJT

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:22:29 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 5:05 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 4:00 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:> That humans are primates was established long before there were any
> > scientific journals, or even science itself. Just plain observation
> > of the similarity between humans and other apes shows that we are
> > primates. This was confirmed by later findings in anatomy,
> > physiology, genetics, fossils, behavior, etc.
>
> Established by whom.

By the people who observed the similarity between humans and other
apes.

> Where in genetics, fossils,physiology was it
> established?

In genetics, it was established by the near identical genetic match
between humans and other apes. Again, this is not one single paper,
but hundreds of them, all of which confirm the relationship. In
fossils, it was confirmed by DuBois, Dart, Broom, Leakey (all of
them), Johanson, and all the other paleoanthropologists. Behavioral
studies include the work of Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey, and others.
You can do you own search for scientists involved in physiology.

> Which Journal, what paper, which evolutionist: Dawkins,
> Haldane, Gould?

All of those, and more. Again, there are hundreds of journals, and
thousands of scientists who's work goes into this.

> Where gentlemen where is this evidence that we had a "common
> ancestor".

It's found in books, papers, journal articles, etc. There isn't just
one paper, there are thousands.

>
> > I can't point you to just one paper that orignially stated 'humans are
> > primates'.
>
> Ofcourse not, because it does'nt exist.

It's because humans are classifed as primates. Carl Von Linne is
probably the most well known person to put this into writing. His
binomial classification system is still used today.

> Nobody has established that we
> had a common ancestor.

Why would anyone have to "establish" this? It's a plain inference
from the evidence. All life evolves by splitting off from ancestrial
populations. Everything living today has a common ancestor with
anything else.

> The "common ancestor" is just weasel words to
> obscure that you believe your dad was an ape/primate/bonobo/goriall/
> monkey/chimp/any-version-of-ape who went "boggum", beared its teeth
> and scratched for flees.

I have no problem with admitting that my Dad was an primate, and an
ape. He wasn't a bonobo, or a gorilla, as they are different ape
species. He may have "scratched for flees [sic]" as many of the
stray cats we had for pets over the years had fleas. He was also a
human being, college graduate, and an ordained minister. I have
pictures of him baring his teeth (called a smile).

Why do you think I'd have any probelm admitting to any of this?
Human ancestors were primates, and yes, they probably were infested
with parasites (as are many humans are today). Human ancestors
probably did live, at least some of the time, in trees, and they did
probably engage in threat displays, as do modern apes.

None of this makes modern humans any more or less special.


> This makes you look silly which ofcourse it
> does.

I'm not the one who is trying to deny our ancestory. Humans are
apes, and remain apes.

> So what evolutionists do is simply confuse the language like
> they have done with the word "Selection" a perfectly normal word that
> Darwin made undefined in 1859.

You are making assumptions that are not in evidence. You seem to be
the one who is confusing the language. Common ancestor just means
that humans share a recent ancestor with other apes. We aren't
descended from any modern species of ape, but that doesn't mean that
there is anything to be ashamed of.

DJT


Codebreaker

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:51:45 PM5/6/07
to
On May 5, 6:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?
> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word

> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

You got it... This is how evolution sneaks into school curriculum

Steven J.

unread,
May 6, 2007, 6:58:24 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 4:13 pm, Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.niho...@verizon.nut>
wrote:
Presumably there are sources that do catalogue the various
specializations of various primate taxa, but I'm not the best person
to ask for such a source. One thing I think should be kept in mind
about evolution is Darwin's mockingbirds. Less famous than his
variously-adapted finches, the mockingbirds were three similar but
distinct species on different Galapagos islands. AFAIK there is no
adaptive explanation for their splitting into three species; it's just
something evolution does. By analogy, while humans may very well have
had an ancestral species, or a succession of ancestral species, that
would not look out of place among the tarsier species in a museum or
zoo, it would be very surprising if any living tarsier species was
unchanged since its last common ancestor with us. I don't know of any
definite evidence that this could not be the case, but I would bet
heavily against it.

-- Steven J.
>
> KWW


J.J. O'Shea

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:17:08 PM5/6/07
to
On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:07:01 -0400, Kevin Wayne Williams wrote
(in article <133skcf...@news.supernews.com>):

> backspace wrote:
>> On May 6, 4:00 pm, DJT <mousede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> That humans are primates was established long before there were any
>>> scientific journals, or even science itself. Just plain observation
>>> of the similarity between humans and other apes shows that we are
>>> primates. This was confirmed by later findings in anatomy,
>>> physiology, genetics, fossils, behavior, etc.
>> Established by whom. Where in genetics, fossils,physiology was it
>> established? Which Journal, what paper, which evolutionist: Dawkins,
>> Haldane, Gould?
>> Where gentlemen where is this evidence that we had a "common
>> ancestor".
>>
>>> I can't point you to just one paper that orignially stated 'humans are
>>> primates'.
>> Ofcourse not, because it does'nt exist.
> I want to make sure that you understand that you are just plain lying
> now. You have been told multiple times in this thread that the original
> classification of humans as primates was by Linnaeus. If you want to
> read the work, it is in the "Systema Naturae", located at
>
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/linnaeus-
link/documents/biblio
> graphy/bibliography.html
> . It predates Darwin by 125 years.

Two things need to be made clear:

1 When Linnaeus established the modern biological classification system in
the work noted above, he placed humans and chimps in the same genus: Homo. It
was abundantly obvious to him, over 200 years ago, that chimps and humans
were closely related. Later on chimps were moved to a different genus, Pan.

2 Linnaeus was not a Darwinist, as Darwin wasn't even born when he put
together the Systema Naturae.

>
>> Nobody has established that we had a common ancestor. The "common
>> ancestor" is just weasel words to obscure that you believe your dad
>> was an ape/primate/bonobo/goriall/ monkey/chimp/any-version-of-ape
>> who went "boggum", beared its teeth and scratched for flees.

Why is it that creationists are so upset at being related to the rest of
nature in general and to the other apes in particular?

>
> I don't know if it went "boggum", but no one is attempting to obscure a
> belief. It is an accurate phrase, but probably was chosen to reduce some
> people's negative reactions.
> KWW
>

Exactly.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:32:44 PM5/6/07
to
On 2007-05-05, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are told that we had a "common ancestor". But to an observer back
> then would'nt this "common ancestor"
> have long teeth and a tail - in other words would it not have looked
> like an ape?
>
> So I am confused on this whole common ancestor thing. Did we or did we
> not "evolve" from monkeys?
> Who has formally established, published where that we had a "common
> ancestor" and not a baboon that we
> evolved from. To me this "common ancestor" thing is just clever word

> play to obscure the ridiculous fact that
> our forefathers were apes.

Yes, that is ridiculous.

All humans are apes.

Mark

John Wilkins

unread,
May 6, 2007, 7:57:40 PM5/6/07
to
In fact the very *term* primate means the first class in Linnaeus'
Systema Naturae, as he begins with humans (nosce te ipsum) and then
moves to apes, then monkeys, and so forth...

John Wilkins

unread,
May 6, 2007, 8:00:41 PM5/6/07
to
Cemtech wrote:
...

> When science said the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe, alot
> of people got upset. But, over time, they came to accept it.
> Now they are upset that humans aren't at the center of the universe.

I think it is worth noting that being at the centre of the universe in
the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian sense was not an exalted position - it was
being part of the corruptible world (unlike the eternal heavens). In
short, it meant we were in the universe's rubbish dump.

Objections to the heliocentric hypothesis were due in part to our being
made of the same stuff as the heavens.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:17:52 PM5/6/07
to
John Wilkins wrote:

Funny, but we ARE made of the same stuff. Made IN the heavens. And
that seems to make some people unhappy now. Go figure. I guess the
real problem is that the heavens are really made of the same stuff as
the Earth. Bother.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

John Wilkins

unread,
May 6, 2007, 10:32:37 PM5/6/07
to
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>> Cemtech wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> When science said the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe,
>>> alot of people got upset. But, over time, they came to accept it.
>>> Now they are upset that humans aren't at the center of the universe.
>>
>>
>> I think it is worth noting that being at the centre of the universe in
>> the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian sense was not an exalted position - it was
>> being part of the corruptible world (unlike the eternal heavens). In
>> short, it meant we were in the universe's rubbish dump.
>>
>> Objections to the heliocentric hypothesis were due in part to our being
>> made of the same stuff as the heavens.
>
> Funny, but we ARE made of the same stuff. Made IN the heavens. And
> that seems to make some people unhappy now. Go figure. I guess the
> real problem is that the heavens are really made of the same stuff as
> the Earth. Bother.

Yes, I should have been a bit more forthcoming.

Under Ptolemaic cosmology, the heavens were made of eternal
"quintessence", which had a natural motion that was eternal (i.e.,
circular) and which never changed. Everything above the lunar sphere was
incorruptible (i.,e., never changed its constitution or motion).

The sublunary sphere (as Donne put it, "dull sublunary lovers' love,
whose soul is sense") was the corruptible and ephemeral. The heavens
were the ideal state, and the closest to true eternality. The sublunary
terrestrial sphere was not the goal of anything, but a state to be avoided.

Heliocentrism implied that the way the earth went was the same as the
way other (non-solar) bodies went, which implied that the whole
Aristotelian physics was false. There was no quintessence, and natural
motion was something that all bodies, heavenly or not, shared. Tycho
tried to save this with his odd system, but it failed once heliocentrism
was adopted widely with Galileo's new physics of impetus and acceleration.

So the trope that we were removed from the center of the universe and
demoted is historically wrong. We were *promoted* to the same level as
the heavens, and this caused people chagrin (Donne's line, "All
cohaerence gone").

baker...@gmail.com

unread,
May 6, 2007, 11:25:01 PM5/6/07
to
On May 6, 4:32 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:

Apes have a way to go become human.

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:11:37 AM5/7/07
to
On 6 May 2007 20:25:01 -0700, "baker...@gmail.com"
<baker...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nonetheless, all humans are apes. However, you may take some comfort
from the fact that not all apes are humans.

Greg Guarino

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:35:23 AM5/7/07
to
On 6 May 2007 09:43:53 -0700, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> In the same way that everybody in
>physics accepts Fourier transforms - there are'nt endelss debates
>concerning it.

Are you suggesting there is more disagreement among biologists than
among pysicists? I think that might be a hard position to support. But
in any case, it's irrelevant. What disagreement there is in either
field is not to be found among the core group of robust ideas.

There certainly are not "endless debates" about the validity of
evolutionary biology, at least not among biologists.

Greg Guarino

baker...@gmail.com

unread,
May 7, 2007, 12:45:42 AM5/7/07
to
And all apes are mammals. And all mammals are animals. And all animals
are evolved from biochemical reactions in deep space. And therefore
all humans are biochemical reactions in deep space. Yet I see nothing
in deep space quite like humanity. There is no problem with saying we
evolve from apes but to equate humanity with apes is to miss the point
of progress I think.


On May 6, 9:11 pm, "Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6 May 2007 20:25:01 -0700, "bakerjo...@gmail.com"

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 7, 2007, 2:43:20 AM5/7/07
to

Most humans have a way to go to become human.

But all humans are apes.

Some apes are humans.

Mark

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 7, 2007, 2:46:33 AM5/7/07
to
On 2007-05-07, baker...@gmail.com <baker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And all apes are mammals. And all mammals are animals. And all animals
> are evolved from biochemical reactions in deep space. And therefore
> all humans are biochemical reactions in deep space. Yet I see nothing
> in deep space quite like humanity.

Most of the time, even humanity isn't quite like humanity.

> There is no problem with saying we evolve from apes but to equate
> humanity with apes is to miss the point of progress I think.

It is an important and popular fact that things are not always
what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had
always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins
because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and
so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in
the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had
always believed that they were far more intelligent than man --
for precisely the same reasons.

-- Douglas Adams

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages