Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.3%	[ 1138 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 489 ]
Catholic	14.1%	[ 407 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 412 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2895 ]

[Maze1125]

gigacannon

Humans are apes and we had to evolve from monkeys or lemurs. Of course, there probably aren't any of the exact same species around today, but they most likely evolved from rats.

If an animal is 'ape-like' more so than it is like any other type of animal, it is likely to get classified as an ape. A monkey-like ancestor of humans is most likely a monkey. Why quibble about the semantics? Apes and monkeys are both primates; the main difference between the two groups is that apes universally have no tails, and apes are typically larger.

Anti-creationists have been saying "We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a ape-like ancestor" for so long that they haven't noticed that the taxonomy has changed.

Apes are ape-like are they not. Infact I would claim they are the things most like an ape.

[Evil_Shogun]

Bailey_bob

the bibles a story book, created from ppls imaginations.
jesus did exsist but him n his 12 diciples were con artests
for example wen he cured the lepper, he paid som e man to go into th enext town n tell a great story of how he had leppers and jesus cam along and cured it and how he was goin to arive in that ton in a few days.

thats my opinion smile

Besides the horrible spelling, I agree, and you said he can't prove it. Can you prove the Bible?

Oh, and I believe in adapting and evolving from lesser beings rather than "POOF! You are here. WORSHIP ME!"

[Flamecheetah]

This is my basis on things. The man above, I, in a way, agree with. How would we just "poof" here. I belive orginaly religion was made to keep empires together and bring up moral. That's what I belive it was orginaly used for, and it is still to this day. It makes people happy, even when there life down right sucks.

But still, nigther evolution nor beliving in a god or whatnot can be proved. Untill then, arguments will continue.

[TrueSacredRahXephon]

Flamecheetah

This is my basis on things. The man above, I, in a way, agree with. How would we just "poof" here. I belive orginaly religion was made to keep empires together and bring up moral. That's what I belive it was orginaly used for, and it is still to this day. It makes people happy, even when there life down right sucks.

But still, nigther evolution nor beliving in a god or whatnot can be proved. Untill then, arguments will continue.

This is an automatic message about evolution. If your post has been quoted with this as a reply, it means you are WRONG about evolution. Please review the following links to educate yourself about what you’re talking about. In the future, please do not attempt to make a statement about something you do not understand.

Proof:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Misconceptions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Direct observation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

[gigacannon]

Maze1125

Apes are ape-like are they not. Infact I would claim they are the things most like an ape.

That's really a matter of semantics. One might argue that apes are not ape-like; they are apes. I would argue that 'ape-like' implies having some of the characteristics of an ape; an ape does not have some of these characteristics, but all of them. Although, that is largely irrelevant; humans are apes, so the question is less what humans evolved from, but what apes evolved from. It's pretty clear that apes evolved from monkeys or lemurs; probably monkeys evolved from lemurs.

[i am the snail]

I belive in evolution, but I also belive in some type of "God". I belive in evolution, because as Plate Tectonics may point out, (Another thing I belive in, I mean HELLO! Look at all that evidence!) the earth can evolve, so why not monkeys?

[Inu-papa]

gigacannon

If an animal is 'ape-like' more so than it is like any other type of animal, it is likely to get classified as an ape. A monkey-like ancestor of humans is most likely a monkey. Why quibble about the semantics?

Because they're not the same thing. A wooly mammoth might have been elephant-like, but would you just shrug and call it an elephant, and write the rest off as semantics?

The whole concept of evolution means that there were species a long time ago that don't exist now. What we're saying is that these ancient ancestors have no modern species category that they fall into, but for ease of explanation, we say they were similar to apes. However, they were not apes exactly in the modern sense. Just as a mammoth was not an elephant, but was similar to one.

[Maze1125]

gigacannon

Maze1125

Apes are ape-like are they not. Infact I would claim they are the things most like an ape.

That's really a matter of semantics. One might argue that apes are not ape-like; they are apes. I would argue that 'ape-like' implies having some of the characteristics of an ape; an ape does not have some of these characteristics, but all of them. Although, that is largely irrelevant; humans are apes, so the question is less what humans evolved from, but what apes evolved from. It's pretty clear that apes evolved from monkeys or lemurs; probably monkeys evolved from lemurs.

Something that contains all characteristics of an ape must also contain some of the characteristics of an ape.

[Saigio]

I am a pagan and I belive that we evolved from one ancestor. I also belive that the bible is a colection of stories and nothing more but based on actual events.

[Slivilina]

Maze1125

gigacannon

Maze1125

Apes are ape-like are they not. Infact I would claim they are the things most like an ape.

That's really a matter of semantics. One might argue that apes are not ape-like; they are apes. I would argue that 'ape-like' implies having some of the characteristics of an ape; an ape does not have some of these characteristics, but all of them. Although, that is largely irrelevant; humans are apes, so the question is less what humans evolved from, but what apes evolved from. It's pretty clear that apes evolved from monkeys or lemurs; probably monkeys evolved from lemurs.

Something that contains all characteristics of an ape must also contain some of the characteristics of an ape.

i think the problem here is that by saying ape as an ancestor, some people will think it is the present-day ape

that being where the ape taboo comes from

[Axioma]

Saigio

I am a pagan and I belive that we evolved from one ancestor. I also belive that the bible is a colection of stories and nothing more but based on actual events.

Congratulations, sir, would you like a cookie?

[rock_mychem]

you know whats weird? In the bible they talk about Adam and Eve, and the bible said they were human. How can they come before the iceman,and the cave man,and the other different kinds of people?
i don't get it.

[Angra-Mainyu]

Axioma

Saigio

I am a pagan and I belive that we evolved from one ancestor. I also belive that the bible is a colection of stories and nothing more but based on actual events.

Congratulations, sir, would you like a cookie?

May I have a cookie? sad

I can rape logic as well. 3nodding

[Maze1125]

Angra-Mainyu

Axioma

Saigio

I am a pagan and I belive that we evolved from one ancestor. I also belive that the bible is a colection of stories and nothing more but based on actual events.

Congratulations, sir, would you like a cookie?

May I have a cookie? sad

I can rape logic as well. 3nodding

It's not rape. It wanted it.

[TrueSacredRahXephon]

rock_mychem

you know whats weird? In the bible they talk about Adam and Eve, and the bible said they were human. How can they come before the iceman,and the cave man,and the other different kinds of people?
i don't get it.

Because "human" is not a scientific term. If they said "Homo sapiens" then it would screw things up. But "human" could mean A. afarensis or Homo antecessor.