Did apes descend from us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideline said:
The 2001 census had the following choices in religion:

Catholic
Protestant
Christian Orthodox
Christian not included elsewhere
Muslim
Jewish
Buddhist
Hindu
Sikh
Eastern religions
Other religions
No religious affiliation
Click to expand...
Oops, slight mistake in that list. Those were the most common answers given. (They do not include religions that listed less than 1% of the time.) The question on the census read:
What is this person’s religion?
Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if
this person is not currently a practising member of
that group.
For example, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic,
United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek
Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Its more correct to say we Ascend from a common ancestor. We are obviously better in sooo many aspects. As evolution has clearly shown/done. Species evolve not just change. However if there are no objective values then man is just different. Not better or worse than an ape. Subjective preferences are overall meaningless. Does that mean if you reject objective values you reject evolution and believe in only pointless change?
 
hecd2 said:
Naw, it doesn’t prove anything other than that your scenario (if apes had never existed and never had then we would have descended from some other bizarrely groip) is meaningless. It’s like saying if felines did not and had never existed then we would have to posit that tigers descended from orca whales.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Tigers and orca whales? Not exactly descended from each other. 🙂

According to basic evolutionary concepts, tigers and orca whales could have descended from a common ancestor. Possibly a researcher could have designed a phylogenetic starburst.

Regardless, if previous posts 100 and 102 are an acceptable portrait of evolutionary theory, then tigers and orca whales would have a common ancestor just as humans, reptiles, and wolves would have a common ancestor without the necessity of apes. If posts 100 & 102 are not acceptable, please say why. If apes are an absolute necessity, please explain why. Thank you.
 
CosmicActor said:
Its more correct to say we Ascend from a common ancestor. We are obviously better in sooo many aspects. As evolution has clearly shown/done. Species evolve not just change. However if there are no objective values then man is just different. Not better or worse than an ape. Subjective preferences are overall meaningless. Does that mean if you reject objective values you reject evolution and believe in only pointless change?
Click to expand...
Humans as ascending from a common ancestor says it all. Thanks.

My only inquiry concerns the use of objective values which in this context is applicable. Should differences between man and our cousin chilly chimp also be viewed as objective differences to the point that the human species is different in kind, i.e., a totally different species from the rest of the animal kingdom?
 
grannymh said:
Tigers and orca whales? Not exactly descended from each other. 🙂
Click to expand...
Exactly.
According to basic evolutionary concepts, tigers and orca whales could have descended from a common ancestor. Possibly a researcher could have designed a phylogenetic starburst.
Click to expand...
Not quite. According to basic evolutionary theory, tigers and orca whales *have *descended from a common ancestor, just as humans and wolves *have *descended from a common ancestor. That’s what common descent means.
Regardless, if previous posts 100 and 102 are an acceptable portrait of evolutionary theory, then tigers and orca whales would have a common ancestor just as humans, reptiles, and wolves would have a common ancestor without the necessity of apes. If posts 100 & 102 are not acceptable, please say why. If apes are an absolute necessity, please explain why. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Because it is exactly as absurd to say that if apes did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that humans were descended from wolves as it is to say that if no other felines did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that tigers had descended from orca whales.

The grade of apes includes Miocene apes which are the common ancestors of humans and extant great apes; if human ancestors had not existed then neither could we. The grade of felines excluding tigers include the feline ancestors of tigers, so if they had never existed, then neither would tigers.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
Because it is exactly as absurd to say that if apes did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that humans were descended from wolves as it is to say that if no other felines did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that tigers had descended from orca whales.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Please excuse my stubbornness, it is hereditary. 😉 It does not appear to me that your reply is addressing the main evolutionary issue which I brought up. Perhaps, we should approach this evolutionary issue (which is naturally based on a materialistic view point) in another way.
 
hecd2 said:
Because it is exactly as absurd to say that if apes did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that humans were descended from wolves as it is to say that if no other felines did not and had never existed then scientists would posit that tigers had descended from orca whales.

The grade of apes includes Miocene apes which are the common ancestors of humans and extant great apes; if human ancestors had not existed then neither could we. The grade of felines excluding tigers include the feline ancestors of tigers, so if they had never existed, then neither would tigers.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Please excuse my stubbornness, it is hereditary. 😉 It does not appear to me that your reply is addressing the main evolutionary issues which were brought up in posts 100 & 102. Perhaps, we should approach the theory of evolution (which is naturally based on a materialistic view point) in another materialistic way.
 
grannymh said:
Please excuse my stubbornness, it is hereditary. 😉 It does not appear to me that your reply is addressing the main evolutionary issues which were brought up in posts 100 & 102. Perhaps, we should approach the theory of evolution (which is naturally based on a materialistic view point) in another materialistic way.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what more to say. I have pointed out that according to every criterion, molecular, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and so on, humans are in the same clade as apes. I have also pointed out that if there were no extant apes, then the closest living human relatives would be the Old World monkeys. There is absolutely no basis on which to include humans in the clade of canines. What more can I say?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
I have no idea what more to say. I have pointed out that according to every criterion, molecular, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and so on, humans are in the same clade as apes. I have also pointed out that if there were no extant apes, then the closest living human relatives would be the Old World monkeys. There is absolutely no basis on which to include humans in the clade of canines. What more can I say?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
While, in my humble opinion, my posts are valid as written, I would like to approach this issue from the view point of assumptions. It is my understanding that assumptions are used in ways that are different in science from how I would use them in my granny-type life. Logically, assumptions would need to be used in any kind of empirical endeavors. But I am finding out that within general science itself, assumptions can be used for a variety of purposes. My original search about assumptions was due to a post on another thread. However, I see it applying here.

Thank you for your honesty. I am sure you will have more to say once my right brain tackles assumptions.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top