How Best To Explain "Why Are There STILL Monkeys" ?
Luminoso
still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
attention wander.
So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
have evolved in lockstep.
Jim Willemin
@news.east.earthlink.net:
Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why are
there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
snex
if protestants came from catholics, why are there still catholics?
CreateThis
wrote:
Why are there so many different kinds of monkeys and apes? We're just
the hairless, stupid ones who believe in gods.
CT
r norman
Or, perhaps more to their liking, if we are all sons of Noah, then why
are there Hamites, Semites, and Japhethites (supposedly corresponding
to Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans)?
JTEM
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why
> there are still monkeys/apes today instead of them all
> becoming humans ?
Yes. Lots of people... far too many people to list here,
or in a good sized phonebook.
> Yes, it's possible to explain,
Oh, it's beyond that. Fact is, it doesn't need an explanation.
An explanation is only required if the data is counter
intuitive... or in some way conflicts with the Theory of Evolution.
It's not.
I'll give you an example:
Nobody believes that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Nobody
believes that one species of dinosaurs evolved into birds.
What people believe is that a population of dinosaurs
evolved into birds.
Isolation is the engine of evolution. If a single species exists
from the tropics to the frozen tundra -- and there is plenty of
gene flow between all groups -- then there's just as much
pressure for the species to adapt to the frozen tundra as to
the tropics. Isolate a population of that species within the
frozen tundra though -- so there's no gene flow with other
groups -- and all the presure will be on adapting to the
frozen tundra.
This DOES NOT mean that any of the other groups had to
evolve in the least.
Dr.GH
My personal favorite is a counter example, "If you decended from your
grandparents, why do you have cousins?"
skyeyes
> Why are there so many different kinds of monkeys and apes? We're just
> the hairless, stupid ones who believe in gods.
Love it! I'm *definitely* usin' this one next time the topic comes up
in conversation. (And it will.)
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
CreateThis
I don't believe you even have to isolate a population from all others.
The subpopulations at either end of your strung out masterpopulation
may be effectively genetically isolated from one another even though
they're not genetically isolated from other subpopulations nearer to
them (a "ring" species).
CT
Greg G.
If humans are made from dirt, why is there still dirt?
--
Greg G.
Is it a bigger crime to rob a bank or to open one?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
I was never fond of the "Why are there still Europeans?"
analogy; I like this one much better, and they might even be
able to grasp it. Note that, unfortunately, "grasp" does not
equal "accept".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
loua...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why are
> there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
The wording I like is "my mom and dad told me my ancestors came from
England. But that can't be true, I've been there and _there are still
Englishmen_."
Louann
jessica....@gmail.com
share a common ancestor, just like your cousins share a common
gradnparent.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
> @news.east.earthlink.net:
You are, I suggest, seriously underestimating the density of
creationists. Consider:
- Well so what, they're all still people, there's been NO
evolution!!!
I suggest the more direct approach:
Six million years ago a group of apes split into two groups.
One group went on to become modern chimpanzees, the other went
on to become humans.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Bobby Bryant
lumi...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) writes:
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
Sure: It was before we had the No Primate Left Behind Act.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> writes:
> Why are there so many different kinds of monkeys and apes? We're
> just the hairless, stupid ones who believe in gods.
But which of those three are cause, and which effect?
Ye Old One
>Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
Why are there still black people? Because they are best suited to the
places where they have lived for many thousands of years.
>Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
>to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>attention wander.
Ok, try "why are there still wolves?" all the wide veriaty of domestic
dogs in the world come from original wolf ancestors.
The reason is that wolves still have a place.
>
>So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
>The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>have evolved in lockstep.
True, but we know that is not how it works.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Many of us don't.
>
>CT
--
Bob.
Richard Clayton
My usual answer: "If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are
there still Europeans?"
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Lorentz
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.
argument. The evolutionist minded obviously don't believe the
"somehow" transferred mechanism. There is no evidence of a "somehow"
transferred mechanism, and none that any creationist that I know of
would propose. Therefore, let me give you an explanation by refuting
your obviously erroneous argument.
The reason that there are still nonhuman monkeys and apes is
that the mutations that finally produced human beings did not
"somehow" transfer to EVERY individual, so that not all the primates
lived under the same conditions and faced exactly the same challenges.
Because your assumption is not at all true, proto-monkeys and hominids
did not evolve in lockstep.
Lexington Victoria-Rice
Strict immigration laws.
Not enough boats.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Ross Langerak
"Luminoso" <lumi...@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:46290031...@news.east.earthlink.net...
why are there still humans?
CreateThis
Including me. Many of us also aren't so hairless, yet we're still the
hairless apes.
CT
John Wilkins
They're not True Englishmen. You can't get the wood, you know...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
CreateThis
wrote:
>In article <fo5i23135gt71o7vh...@4ax.com>,
> CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> writes:
>
>> Why are there so many different kinds of monkeys and apes? We're
>> just the hairless, stupid ones who believe in gods.
>
>But which of those three are cause, and which effect?
I think all three are effect and the causes are youth and old age.
CT
JTEM
> I don't believe you even have to isolate a population from all
> others. The subpopulations at either end of your strung out
> masterpopulation may be effectively genetically isolated
> from one another even though they're not genetically
> isolated from other subpopulations nearer to them (a "ring"
> species).
Well, sure, "Isolation" can mean a lot of things, and it doesn't
have to be absolute. A few drops of food coloring in a bucket
can make a big difference, but in a lake will go unnoticed.
ayer...@hotmail.com
<notphalennotwebnotcontent...@oohay.com> wrote:
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
yes we still have monkeys/apes ,and the answer is because there is no
answer for a myth.If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
apes left. there is no reson to evolve then split again. You will go
spend the rest of your life trying to find an answer, but will find
non,because it is a myth. sorry do not pass go,and keep trying. God
(JESUS CHRIST) bless you.
Steven J.
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
attempt to do this, fall and hit their heads, and stop asking the
question, or they will note that they cannot do this. Well, there's a
living to be made in the ecology hanging from tree limbs (for that
matter, there's a living to be made being a tree). If we can't do it,
then there are advantages to some populations in not being us.
>
> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
ladder" that every lineage is busy climbing. One poster here once
suggested that you tell them that, in fact, when the (nonhuman) apes
became humans, the monkeys became apes, the lemurs became monkeys, and
so forth, as each species moved up one rung on the ladder and new
unicellular prokaryotes spontaneously generated. But it would
probably be better not to encourage even further confusion over what
"Darwinism" proposes.
Rather, point out that there is no universal tendency for things to
evolve towards humanity, or even towards higher intelligence, greater
complexity, or whatever they think of as "higher." Monkeys do fine as
monkeys, occupying niches that don't compete with us, and if a
population of monkeys or nonhuman apes did start to compete for our
own ecological niche, they'd presumably be worse at it at first -- and
they'd never have a chance to get past "at first" as long as we're
still occupying our present niche.
>
> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.
>
If they believe that, I'm not sure (other than the proposed "if
Protestants came from Catholics, why are there still Catholics"
argument) how you'd get through to them. You could, though, point out
how different breeds of dogs and cattle were derived from a common
ancestor, and yet they are not all alike: if poodles came from wolves,
why are there still wolves, or, for that matter, German shepherds,
Newfoundlands, or chihuahuas?
-- Steven J.
Jim Willemin
news:1177129898.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 20, 10:24 pm, Lexington Victoria-Rice
> <notphalennotwebnotcontent...@oohay.com> wrote:
>> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
>> > @news.east.earthlink.net:
>>
>> >> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> >> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
<snip>
>
> yes we still have monkeys/apes ,and the answer is because there is no
> answer for a myth.If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
> apes left. there is no reson to evolve then split again. You will go
> spend the rest of your life trying to find an answer, but will find
> non,because it is a myth. sorry do not pass go,and keep trying. God
> (JESUS CHRIST) bless you.
Um, what you seem to be missing here is that I DO have an answer, one that
seems to be correct by every test I can give it, one that makes sense with
everything else I know, and is eminently satisfactory and satisfying - it
is just an answer that you, in your blind arrogance and false humility,
fail to see or accept. In truth, I pity you: your world is so small, so
petty, so limited to mere human conception and scale compared to the depth,
richness, and overwhelming awe and surpassing wonder that God has granted
to me every time I look at any part of nature that I simply cannot
comprehend how you function in reality, let alone find a satisfactory place
in it.
Lucifer
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.
The best way is to say "why don't you try living in the trees for a
bit swinging from branch to branch"
Lucifer
And the fact that some of us wouldn't leave Europe even if repeatedly
threatened with a cricket bat :p
Martin Hutton
On 20-Apr-2007, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> loua...@yahoo.com <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 2:26 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why
> > > are
> > > there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
> >
> > The wording I like is "my mom and dad told me my ancestors came from
> > England. But that can't be true, I've been there and _there are still
> > Englishmen_."
>
> They're not True Englishmen. You can't get the wood, you know...
I certainly can! Like an oak...and without blue pills.
--
Martin Hutton
TomS
<46290031...@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>
>Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
"That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
I suspect that the reason for this question is a misunderstanding of
evolution as a "climbing of the Great Chain of Being". In that case,
the "explanation" is this: because as monkeys are turning into
people, the animals on the next rung below monkeys are turning
into monkeys, to replace them - shrews are turning into monkeys,
lizards are turning into shrews, fish are turning into lizards, worms
are turning into fish, ... and, at the bottom, rocks are turning into
bacteria. Of course, the question is then, "How come there are
still rocks?"
There was an old "B.C." cartoon (yes, B.C.!) in which one
character replied something like, "Because some monkeys had
a choice."
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Steve O
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
Just tell them , "If man was made out of dust, how come there is still dust
around my house?"
Even the most die-hard fundie nut can usually get their heads around that
one.
Inez
> "On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
>
> >Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> >still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
> Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
> "That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
I prefer "if English evolved from Latin, why are there also French and
Spanish?"
Tom McDonald
We are built to be able to brachiate, like gorillas and chimps.
But like gorillas and chimps, we have evolved a terrestrial
habit, and are not very good at swinging from branches for very
long, or for a major portion of our livelihood.
It would be kind of cool to train up a kid to be a
fully-functional brachiator. I'm afraid grownups are probably too
bottom-heavy, even with extreme upper body strengthening, to be
happy in the canopy.
CreateThis
>... If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
>apes left.
Can you describe the evolutionary answer to this (the one you disagree
with)? I'll bet you can't.
You're disagreeing with something you don't even understand.
CT
Von R. Smith
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.
One tactic that I've used that is both enlightening to those who are
actually interested in discussion, and frustrating to those who just
want to argue, is to play dumb and put the question back to them:
"Why *wouldn't* there still be monkeys?" Well, if all the monkeys
turned into- "*All* of them?! Who said anything about *all* of them?
etc."
If your interlocutor actually wants to learn something, (s)he will
think about the question, and might see that perhaps it isn't really
an obvious thing to expect at all. If vancomycin-resistant bacteria
evolved from susecptible ones, how come there's still susceptible
bacteria. If Faroese is descended from Icelandic, if penguins evolved
from flying birds, etc.
Frank J
> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
> attention wander.
>
> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> have evolved in lockstep.
I see enough replies that you probably heard this already, but before
you even get into mutations and selection, the person - who does not
need to be a creationist to fall for the "monkey" sound bite - is
probably thinking "ladder" not "tree." So the 1st pithy sound bit they
need to hear is "it's a tree, not a ladder." Then make sure they are
clear that *today's* "monkeys" (10 to 1 they are thinking "chimp" not
"monkey") are just as far evolved from the common ancestor as we are;
the only diffrerence being that their lineages did not acquire the
same mutations (& possibly not the selective pressure, though without
the mutations that's moot) as ours did.
Tiny Bulcher
My answer would be (if speaking to a creatidiot) that monkeys are God's
backup. Once H. sapiens has destroyed itself, God gives a big sigh and tries
again, letting another bunch of monkeys have a go.
Ot possibly squid.
Tiny Bulcher
To which the response would be "English didn't evolve from Latin". (See the
two words preceding 'Inez' in this post).
Frank J
> "On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
>
> >Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
> >still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
> Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
> "That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
Did you ask *how* it was different? That shoud either stump them, or
cause the slicker ones to Gish gallop to another sound bite.
>
> I suspect that the reason for this question is a misunderstanding of
> evolution as a "climbing of the Great Chain of Being". In that case,
> the "explanation" is this: because as monkeys are turning into
> people, the animals on the next rung below monkeys are turning
> into monkeys, to replace them - shrews are turning into monkeys,
> lizards are turning into shrews, fish are turning into lizards, worms
> are turning into fish, ... and, at the bottom, rocks are turning into
> bacteria. Of course, the question is then, "How come there are
> still rocks?"
Amazingly, I skimmed most of the replies, and so far only yours even
hints at what I told Luminoso, that most people give it so little
thought (aside from the catchy sound bites, that is) that they think
"ladder," not "tree."
Friar Broccoli
>> Strict immigration laws.
>> Not enough boats.
Actually there is a reason to split again. The environment is
constantly changing, so species need to adapt to those changes.
In addition species often spread to the edge of their ranges.
Those that move into new ranges (or switch to a new food source
etc) will evolve to be better adapted for that change.
> You will go spend the rest of your life trying to find an
> answer, but will find non,because it is a myth. sorry do not
> pass go,and keep trying. God (JESUS CHRIST) bless you.
God used evolution to create us. You are seeing a conflict
where none exists.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Von R. Smith
Well, English didn't evolve from Latin, so don't use that line of
argument on a linguist. :p
Lexington Victoria-Rice
How about a cricket bat that has been drilled out to cut down on
resistance? Never mind, I will come over with a baseball bat.
Lexington Victoria-Rice
Here I was all excited because I thought that someone was responding to
one of my posts.
(heavy sigh)
Lucifer
But surely that would make it harder to place where you hit me :p
Luminoso
>lumi...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
>@news.east.earthlink.net:
>
>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
>> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>> attention wander.
>>
>> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>>
>> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>> have evolved in lockstep.
>>
>>
>
>Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why are
>there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
Imperfect, since being an "American" is merely political wheras
that european/african/asian "look" is bred in the bone. You might
do better to pick a "melting pot" area like Turkey, Iraq or Iran
as an example and ask "Why doesn't everyone look 'Turkish' ?".
Luminoso
>On Apr 20, 12:15 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
>> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>> attention wander.
>>
>> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>>
>> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>> have evolved in lockstep.
>
>My personal favorite is a counter example, "If you decended from your
>grandparents, why do you have cousins?"
Not bad ...
May not have quite the impact in "certain areas" where your
grandparents ARE your cousins :-)
John Wilkins
> flus cwæ› Inez:
English is the result of several hybridisation events - Angle and Saxon,
that and Norman, and Norman was itself a descendant of Latin, but with
introgression from other languages and incuding some of the pre-French
local dialects.
Somebody once noted here that English doesn't just borrow from other
languages, it follows them down an alley, beats them senseless and
rifles through their pockets.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 20, 3:26 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
>wrote:
>> lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
>> @news.east.earthlink.net:
>
>>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans
>>> ? Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever
>>> tried to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or
>>> relies on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have
>>> to say is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more
>>> than ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>>> attention wander.
>
>>> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way to
>>> explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>>> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>>> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
>>> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>>> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and they
>>> all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly the same
>>> challenges. If that were true then there indeed would be no
>>> more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would have evolved
>>> in lockstep.
>
>> Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or
>> Asians. Why are there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
>
> You are, I suggest, seriously underestimating the density of
> creationists. Consider:
>
> - Well so what, they're all still people, there's been NO
> evolution!!!
>
>
> I suggest the more direct approach:
>
> Six million years ago a group of apes split into two groups.
> One group went on to become modern chimpanzees, the other went
> on to become humans.
And as recently as 150 years ago, the human group split
again. One group remained human and the other group lost
1000cc of cranial capacity and became fundamentalists.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by ayer...@hotmail.com:
<snip>
>If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
>apes left.
*Fascinating* display of both stupidity and ignorance. Keep
them coming!
<snip>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Lucifer <wyrd...@hotmail.com>:
<snip>
>And the fact that some of us wouldn't leave Europe even if repeatedly
>threatened with a cricket bat :p
Well, there are the evolved and then there are the
non-evolved... ;-)
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
>"On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
><46290031...@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>>
>>Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>>still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>[...snip...]
>
>Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
>Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
>"That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
You should take lessons from my wife. Whenever I buy a new
fly rod and she wants a new sewing machine I give her the
same answer. *She* never lacks a rejoinder, but I've
survived so far.
>I suspect that the reason for this question is a misunderstanding of
>evolution as a "climbing of the Great Chain of Being". In that case,
>the "explanation" is this: because as monkeys are turning into
>people, the animals on the next rung below monkeys are turning
>into monkeys, to replace them - shrews are turning into monkeys,
>lizards are turning into shrews, fish are turning into lizards, worms
>are turning into fish, ... and, at the bottom, rocks are turning into
>bacteria. Of course, the question is then, "How come there are
>still rocks?"
>
>There was an old "B.C." cartoon (yes, B.C.!) in which one
>character replied something like, "Because some monkeys had
>a choice."
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by CreateThis
<Creat...@yippee.con>:
And this differs from any other time he comments...how?
AC
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 12:38:09 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
>
>>On Apr 20, 2:15 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>>> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>>> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>>> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>>> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>>> attention wander.
>>>
>>> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>>> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>>> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>>> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>>>
>>> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>>> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>>> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>>> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>>> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>>> have evolved in lockstep.
>>
>
> I was never fond of the "Why are there still Europeans?"
> analogy; I like this one much better, and they might even be
> able to grasp it. Note that, unfortunately, "grasp" does not
> equal "accept".
How about "If there are Afrikaners, how come there are still Dutchmen?"
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dana Tweedy
"AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf2q6jl.2l0....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
snip
> How about "If there are Afrikaners, how come there are still Dutchmen?"
Oh no! You used "Afrikaners" and "Dutchmen" in the same sentence.... you
must be racist...
DJT
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by AC <mightym...@gmail.com>:
It works, but no better than the "Europeans" one. I like the
"Catholics/Protestants" one because to a fundie it's an
improvement with the "less advanced original" still around,
just as they consider humans an improvement over apes.
There's no intrinsic "better" in the nationalities analogy.
(Yes, I know there's no intrinsic "better" in either, but to
fundies it seems to be self-evident.)
Ernest Major
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes
>Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> ?us cwæ› Inez:
>> > On Apr 21, 5:33 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> "On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
>> >> <46290031.6082...@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>> >>
>> >>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> >>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> >>
>> >> [...snip...]
>> >>
>> >> Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
>> >> Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
>> >> "That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
>> >
>> > I prefer "if English evolved from Latin, why are there also French and
>> > Spanish?"
>>
>> To which the response would be "English didn't evolve from Latin". (See the
>> two words preceding 'Inez' in this post).
>
>English is the result of several hybridisation events - Angle and Saxon,
>that and Norman, and Norman was itself a descendant of Latin, but with
>introgression from other languages and incuding some of the pre-French
>local dialects.
>
>Somebody once noted here that English doesn't just borrow from other
>languages, it follows them down an alley, beats them senseless and
>rifles through their pockets.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll
--
alias Ernest Major
Tiny Bulcher
> In message <1hwyub3.hh32nb1poch1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins
> <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes
>> Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 5:33 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> "On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
>>>>> <46290031.6082...@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>>>>>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [...snip...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are
>>>>> still Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance,
>>>>> he replied, "That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer "if English evolved from Latin, why are there also French
>>>> and Spanish?"
>>>
>>> To which the response would be "English didn't evolve from Latin".
>>> (See the two words preceding 'Inez' in this post).
>>
>> English is the result of several hybridisation events - Angle and
>> Saxon, that and Norman, and Norman was itself a descendant of Latin,
>> but with introgression from other languages and incuding some of the
>> pre-French local dialects.
>>
>> Somebody once noted here that English doesn't just borrow from other
>> languages, it follows them down an alley, beats them senseless and
>> rifles through their pockets.
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll
That doesn't mean English evolved from Latin, though. Modern English
certainly borrowed a lot of vocabulary from Norman French, (and later on a
lot of posh words derived from Latin or Greek and sometimes both) but the
basic structure of the language remains resolutely Germanic. The chief
influence of the Normans on our tongue was to simplify the grammar, on
account of how they couldn't be arsed to learn English properly. Modern
English stands in relation to Old English rather as 'Fella belong England,
speakee English one-time, savvy?' does to Modern English. (And if Mr.
Wilkins can identify specific Angle or Saxon elements in Old English,
philologists will fall gratefully at his feet).
John Wilkins
> flus cwæ› Ernest Major:
> > In message <1hwyub3.hh32nb1poch1N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins
> > <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes
> >> Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ?us cwÜ╺ Inez:
You are joking, surely. Philologists would leap upon and rapdily devour
anyone, whether of their own kind or not, who attempted to do such a
thing. Aren't the Angli just a member of the Saxons anyway?
Tiny Bulcher
> > > <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> writes
Depends on the philologist, whether they eat you or not. The truth is
that the roots of Old English are to a great extent unknowable; it is
impossible to say what the difference was between Old Anglic and Old
Saxon (if any) as neither tongue was recorded, both peoples being pre-
literate. Some philologists and linguistic historians claim to be able
to identify elements in the Old English dialects that are 'Anglian' or
'Saxon' (i.e. they point to similarities between the East Anglian and
Mercian dialects on the one hand and the Wessex and Essex on the
other, and claim the similarities are due to an Anglian or Saxon
substrate), but others (the majority view) say this is a load of old
dingo's kidneys.
And never, ever, get them started on the Jutes. Somebody has to clean
the blood off the walls afterward.
Inez
Luckily I wear licorice flavored shoes for just this sort of
occasion.
AC
> On Apr 20, 10:24 pm, Lexington Victoria-Rice
><notphalennotwebnotcontent...@oohay.com> wrote:
>> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:46290031.6082531
>> > @news.east.earthlink.net:
>>
>> >> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> >> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>> >> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>> >> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>> >> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>> >> attention wander.
>>
>> >> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>> >> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>> >> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>> >> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>>
>> >> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>> >> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>> >> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>> >> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>> >> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>> >> have evolved in lockstep.
>>
>> > there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
>>
>>
>> Not enough boats.
>>
>> "Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
>>
>> Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
>
> yes we still have monkeys/apes ,and the answer is because there is no
> answer for a myth.If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
> apes left. there is no reson to evolve then split again. You will go
> spend the rest of your life trying to find an answer, but will find
> non,because it is a myth. sorry do not pass go,and keep trying. God
> (JESUS CHRIST) bless you.
So why do I have cousins?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by AC <mightym...@gmail.com>:
>On 20 Apr 2007 21:31:38 -0700,
>ayer...@hotmail.com <ayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> yes we still have monkeys/apes ,and the answer is because there is no
>> answer for a myth.If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
>> apes left. there is no reson to evolve then split again. You will go
>> spend the rest of your life trying to find an answer, but will find
>> non,because it is a myth. sorry do not pass go,and keep trying. God
>> (JESUS CHRIST) bless you.
>So why do I have cousins?
Ignore him; his post (assuming he was serious) shows he's
mentally incapable of understanding analogy, and that he
thinks that there is one population each of generic monkeys,
generic apes and generic humans, and always has been.
AC
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Tiny Bulcher <RSGD...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Apr 21, 5:33 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> "On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
>> >> <46290031.6082...@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>> >>
>> >>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> >>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> >>
>> >> [...snip...]
>> >>
>> >> Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
>> >> Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
>> >> "That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.
>> >
>> > I prefer "if English evolved from Latin, why are there also French and
>> > Spanish?"
>>
>> To which the response would be "English didn't evolve from Latin". (See the
>> two words preceding 'Inez' in this post).
>
> English is the result of several hybridisation events - Angle and Saxon,
> that and Norman, and Norman was itself a descendant of Latin, but with
> introgression from other languages and incuding some of the pre-French
> local dialects.
I think linguists and philologists would probably disagree with you on
this one. While it has adopted a very large number of words from Greek
and Latin sources via Norman French, vocabulary is only a part of language,
and structurally, English is still very much a Germanic language. The most
common words spoken in English are still of Germanic origin. I don't think
borrowing words counts as hybridization. I would think that you would need
to add a great deal of syntactical mixing for it to be a proper hybrid.
The biggest change in syntax from West Germanic to modern English has been,
by and large, its loss of inflection. I'm no expert, but I don't think
that most linguists hypothesize that this was due to injections of foreign
words.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com