Are Apes descendant of man?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 5-5-2008 @ 12:40 PM by dave420
reply to post by cutbothways



That's ridiculous. What are you trying to demonstrate there? We don't know where "monkey" comes from, so trying to say it means anything other than "monkey" is ridiculous. Same for "ape".


reply posted on 5-5-2008 @ 01:06 PM by cutbothways
reply to post by dave420



No wonder your depressed.

You have a very narrow view. Just cause some scientist says its so, doesn't make it a fact.

I would suggest, people have spent great deals of time studying the roots of words, and how it affects the meaning of that word. Look at the study of Latin, for example.

So, the meaning of a word of the name of a species, should hold some importance to the scientific community, otherwise, I imagine, they would
all be pretty depressed.



reply posted on 5-5-2008 @ 01:46 PM by cutbothways
reply to post by ShiftTrio



Sorry, didn't know you were the forum police.

For science to prove what they call a fact, like evolution, it is required that they view all the evidence for every conceivable angle.

Show me one study or ounce of research proving that apes DID NOT descend (evolve) FROM man.

Otherwise, ya'll got sum research ta do. Hyuck.


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 03:46 AM by mdiinican
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
No thats not the way evolution works.

Unless youre suggesting for some reason that apes would be better suited to survival in some situation than humans.

You also stated something about genetic interference by higher powers. This would be genetic engineering, not evolution.

Either way, I dont think its a realistic idea that apes descended from man.


No, that's not how evolution works either. Apes ARE better suited to survival than man in some situations. But now that we've got organized societies going with technology and language and such; we're so much more successful, we're driving them to extinction, while our population grows exponentially.


Anyway, the order of endogenous retroviruses show that we share a recent common ancestor with chimps and bonobos, and have progressively less recent common ancestry with all other apes and monkeys. They are not descended from us; if they were, they'd share the same endogenous retroviruses that we do, and could only add different ones acquired afterward.

The timeframe for the acquisition of endogenous retroviruses into the genome is far too long to have occurred only after civilization occurred.

Originally posted by cutbothways
Originally posted by dave420
reply to
post by cutbothways



Humans are apes.


Then Apes are Humans, by your logic.

Thanks for making my point.


What the heck? Nobody is that dense. That's like saying since apples are delicious, delicious is apples. Categories are rarely the same as their subcategories; in fact, this is never true except in the trivial case.

Humans are apes because we fit every taxonomic criteria for being an ape. Ergo, we are apes by the definition of apes. The only way we'd not be apes is for someone to amend the definition of apes to include "Except humans" at the end.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 8 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 9 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags