Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So why aren't apes still evolving into people?

Why would apes be evolving into people?

Where else would filthy liberals come from?

All humans are apes. See, if you had paid attention in 6th grade, you would have known that. How embarrassing.

 

[Syriusly]

We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet. Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation. We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures. These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths. Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. .

Except of course- that no science backs up the Bible in regards to the creation of earth, the creation of life, the creation of man, plants or animals.


Except for that.

Tell us more about what 'Creation Science says'

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

So why aren't apes still evolving into people?

Everything is still evolving.

 

[abu afak]

posting problem - delete



`

 

[abu afak]

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Wrong.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.....

[......]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[......]

​

 

[james bond]

We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet. Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation. We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures. These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths. Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

Ha ha. It not reality, but theory. That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater. Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes. Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012. And I compared the two. The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you​

Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.

Thank you for your answer. I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner. My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path. In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect. It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright. The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.

Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright | Science | Smithsonian

I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different. Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important? Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time. We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development. I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule. The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization. Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans. In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

 

[Syriusly]

We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet. Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation. We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures. These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths. Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

Why shouldn't apes still walk on all fours? The fallacy is in your question.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a list of evolution that we have seen. The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.

But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet. Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation. We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures. These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths. Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

Why shouldn't apes still walk on all fours? The fallacy is in your question.

And, in reality, our backs and pelvises are still not very well suited to walking upright.

 

[Syriusly]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

So why aren't apes still evolving into people?

Their theory doesn't work. With a banana, we see that it has evolved through artificial selection.

So bananas were developed by man from the wild species into the domestic varieties....like so many other cultivated plants.

 

[james bond]

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Wrong.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.....

[......]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[......]

​

Stupid. I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument. How can they have evolved into humans?

 

[Syriusly]

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

Ha ha. It not reality, but theory. That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater. Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes. Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012. And I compared the two. The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you​

Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.

Why on earth would an animal want to remain outdoors in all sorts of weather when it could build a house and move north.

Exactly- why don't Moose build lodges like beavers do?

 

[miketx]

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Wrong.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.....

[......]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[......]

​

Stupid. I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument. How can they have evolved into humans?

They evolved into shit sling libwits.

 

[Syriusly]

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

Ha ha. It not reality, but theory. That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater. Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes. Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012. And I compared the two. The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you​

Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.

Thank you for your answer. I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner. My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path. In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect. It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright. The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.

Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright | Science | Smithsonian

I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different. Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important? Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time. We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development. I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule. The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization. Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans. In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

Hmmmm I am pretty sure humans are still walking around like we did 25 years ago too.

Why would walking upright result in chimpanzees, for example, successfully having more surviving chimpanzees?

Fascinating fantasy you have about human ape sex but that is only your fantasy. It isn't even in your big book of tales.

We do have evidence that homo sapiens did successfully cross with two other homo species- DNA evidence that they did.

And your 'ape-humans'? I don't know what you are talking about other than your weird fantasy. Humans are descended from a distant common ancestor with other apes.

And mules only happen because of human intervention.

 

[Syriusly]

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Wrong.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.....

[......]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[......]

​

Stupid. I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument. How can they have evolved into humans?

They evolved into shit sling libwits.

Ah poor Mikey- he can't understand what evolution is- so he just throws shit like a monkey in the zoo.

 

[Syriusly]

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

Ha ha. It not reality, but theory. That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater. Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes. Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012. And I compared the two. The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you​

Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.

. The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others..

LOL 'creation scientists'

That is like saying that parts of the Big Bang Theory have been replaced due to criticism from chiropractors.

 

[LittleNipper]

So why aren't apes still evolving into people?

Why would apes be evolving into people?

Where else would filthy liberals come from?

All humans are apes. See, if you had paid attention in 6th grade, you would have known that. How embarrassing.

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school. Apes were animals and Humans were human -- though they did say that we were a form of mammal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school

Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.

 

[LittleNipper]

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school

Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.

I'm a lot older than you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school

Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.

I'm a lot older than you.

Oh, okay, that makes more sense.