Darwinism is evil, isn't it?

[ChristineM]

No.

Yes.

That chart you presented does not imply we evolved from monkeys, nut that both monkeys and apes evolved from some unnamed primate. As i said, but with names

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

That chart you presented does not imply we evolved from monkeys, nut that both monkeys and apes evolved from some unnamed primate. As i said, but with names

Not if you read it correctly. The split between New World and Old World monkeys occurred before apes split off of Old World monkeys. So just before then there were only Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys.

 

[ChristineM]

Not if you read it correctly. The split between New World and Old World monkeys occurred before apes split off of Old World monkeys. So just before then there were only Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys.

If that's how you read it, fair enough.

Here is a more detailed chart.

 

[LuisDantas]

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. Matthew 6:5

Perhaps my favorite Bible verse.

 

[Balthazzar]

What kindness and understanding can be expected from people who know that monkeys gave birth to them through a common ancestor?

Umm, what does kindness have to do with it? Understanding? Well, I guess that may be valid, and obviously so, given the last several centuries of debate, hostilities, and contentions over the issue.

Since when has any species in the animal kingdom shown nothing but kindness and understanding anyway? I'm pretty sure it's a hostile type existence here on . It can be great too, but we get both sides of the equation just lby iving here.

 

[ppp]

It is called the "how many cannon balls fit into the box conjecture". And it is proven not by theoretical methods, but by Supercomputer.

Nope. So much for that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The difference between ape and monkey I think is a prehensile tail. (But that may only be S. American ones).

That's one difference. It's been noted that at least a small percentage of monkey species are tailless, but all apes are. There are other differences. Apes are larger, have bigger brains and thus are better tool users, have more robust bodies with larger chests, spend more time standing on two legs when on the ground, often knuckle walk when ambulating, and tend to brachiate through the trees rather than walk on all fours on the tops of branches. Also, only apes have appendices.

That chart you presented does not imply we evolved from monkeys, but that both monkeys and apes evolved from some unnamed primate.

I said the same a week or two ago, but @Subduction Zone convinced me that I have monkey ancestors then. How can that not be the case if there were once monkeys but no apes? And I agree with you that we have prosimian ancestors for the same reason: once there were prosimians but no monkeys.

He is my friend, and I am not talking to him about my religious veiws. We both are great scientists and mathematicians. So, as long I am not speaking directly about religions, he thinks, that I am his friend.

So, when you and Sagan converse, you're friends because you're both great scientists and mathematicians, and because you avoid discussing religion with him? Earlier you told another poster, an atheist, that, "Albert Einstein and Sir Newton are not on your side of the fence?" presumably because you consider them both theists.

Isaac and I are great friends because we're both great fans of the Grateful Dead and great contract bridge enthusiasts. As long as he and I don't talk about alchemy, he thinks that I'm his friend. He's easy to fool because he doesn't get out much. I might be his only friend, but Halley has been over for a visit.

What do you think about that comment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Admitting that we are apes and even monkeys is no different than admitting that we are mammals. They are larger and larger groups that we belong to. Too many people think that when we say that we are descended from monkeys that means modern monkeys. That is not the case. But if you saw the ancient ancestor that we share with modern day monkey you would look at that and say "Oh! Look at the monkey".

And once again, other languages do not have this "apes vs monkey" problem. Many languages tend to link all apes and monkeys together as a group. They do not have nonscientific terms that describe them differently. In Spanish both a Gibbon and a Capuchin monkey have the general name of "Mono"

 

[ChristineM]

Admitting that we are apes and even monkeys is no different than admitting that we are mammals. They are larger and larger groups that we belong to. Too many people think that when we say that we are descended from monkeys that means modern monkeys. That is not the case. But if you saw the ancient ancestor that we share with modern day monkey you would look at that and say "Oh! Look at the monkey".

And once again, other languages do not have this "apes vs monkey" problem. Many languages tend to link all apes and monkeys together as a group. They do not have nonscientific terms that describe them differently. In Spanish both a Gibbon and a Capuchin monkey have the general name of "Mono"

I still prefer primate

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still prefer primate

Primate is an even bigger group. Lemurs are primates, but they are not monkeys. Both apes (which includes humans) and Old World Monkeys are members of Catarrhini or catarrhines. New World Monkeys are members of Platyrrhini or platyrrhines. And if you want the next group up that includes all of them that would be Simiiformes or simians. Oh! There it is. If you don not like "monkeys" simians works. But monkeys as a group that excludes apes is not monophyletic. By cladistics it is an improper category.

In the same way "fish" is not monophyletic. The common way to avoid that is to not use the term "fish" without a qualifier and to use the term vertebrates. But we are in the clade of lobe finned fishes.

 

[Ali Winters]

What kindness and understanding can be expected from people who know that monkeys gave birth to them through a common ancestor?

A simple way to know the answer to this question is to get to know someone who believes in the science of evolution. You will find that we are a kind bunch, with hopes and dreams and feelings, and are often misunderstood and ridiculed out of ignorance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When it comes to others misunderstanding an example that one tries to make clear is not the case : Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. It was not here, but I had to go so far as to explain to the moderators. They finally understood but the moderators generally reflect the intelligence of a forum. If the moderators are not all that bright you can guarantee that most of the posters are not all that bright either.

I often wonder if one of the hidden costs of more online interactions rather than direct ones is the loss of subtlety.

Even with intelligent people, it can be hard to discern tone in a post. Non-verbal cues, intonation, even props can be very important to conveying a message. Instead we replace it with increased literalness.

 

[Tiberius]

What kindness and understanding can be expected from people who know that monkeys gave birth to them through a common ancestor?

Why do you believe that a person's kindness depends on their view of evolution?

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who gets told what you see is humans science observation. Natural first.

Aren't humans correct?

I then am told someone looking back as the human thinking now says once the monkey ape life now was different body types in the past. Back then.

Then he says and so were humans.

Okay so you say human in your sentence. Once a human looked different. Says a human.

Yes he says.

So you say we looked like monkeys?

Yes says a human.

Humans looked like monkeys.. but topic is a human.

As using human words now alive you can't say a human is a monkey?

Yes says the thinking human.

And no matter what status you claim civilisation gives you. First you're just a human thinking.

Truth position is a review itself.

So if microbes living in oxygenated waters is the body surrounding bio life. Is within bio life. Separated bio life. Your mind says the state that separates a monkey now and the human now is a living microbe mass?

Yes.

Exact I'm using advised advice about life now.

So you claim. In the past that living oxygenated microbe life in mass must not have existed.

To not be the type body monkey ape bio is now... or

To not be the type of body human bio terms are now.

Is what the claim is.

As when not a dinosaur you weren't a human either.

Dinosaur life exact. No evolution exists when you discuss just dinosaurs.

And you aren't a dinosaur talking as a human.

Is what my consciousness human advised me.

Are you missing some feedback advice in your mind?

 

[Colt]

What kindness and understanding can be expected from people who know that monkeys gave birth to them through a common ancestor?

Darwin was one of many who noticed that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Humans did as well. As a believer I just see it as Gods technique for creation on our world. Like a large-scale education regime.

 

[ppp]

What kindness and understanding can be expected from people who know that monkeys gave birth to them through a common ancestor?

All of the kindness and understanding that there is.