Ape to Man or Common Ancestor

Won't object to what? Most evolutionary biologists are busy doing work, not personally involving themselves in the public understanding of science. Those that are involved, officially or informally, in discussing evolutionary biology with the public do generally object to the image because of its power to develop misconceptions akin to the Aristotlean 'Great Chain of Being'. Depends which God we're talking about. Amen-Re created man from his tears (accidentally I think). Marduk creates man by amassing blood and creating bones. How do you know that El did it as opposed to Amen-Re or Marduk? I ask because you don't phrase it as a belief but as a statement of fact. What does 'dust' have to do with yeast?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

They are not not personally involving themselves in the public understanding of science.???????????? What cave are you in?????Good day gentlemen, I cannot sit here all day and bow to your semantic demands. We are not sharing the same rule book.

How many evolutionary biologists can you even name off of the top of your head?No, they are not personally involving themselves in the public understanding of science. They probably spend their time in the lab, working, and involving themselves in the scientific understanding of science. pussy

I'm very close friends with several evolutionary biologists (I see three of the people listed on this page several times a week). They spend 12 hours a day in labs sequencing proteins and then publishing the results for their peers (ie., not the public). I am not friends with a single evolutionary biologist involved in the public understanding of science: they are the minority. Scientists mostly do science as a job. Occasionally, a scientist will come along and is able to sell books, draw in public audiences etc. Sometimes it will be a biologist. They are the ones that reporters inevitably ask about developments in the field.Sometimes they will teach students about science (people paying to become scientists are not really the 'public'.).So in reality, there are few scientists that publish books for the lay public, a few that work in museums and for/with other media like television and then 100s of thousands of hard working anonymous people grinding through boring days of lab work.Do you honestly think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science?

Re: "Do you honestly think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science? "Define "Honestly"

Don't be a pedantic prick.Do you think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science?

I'm asked to define dust and no one is bothered.I ask for definition and I am a prick.Define "Honestly"

Definitions of honestly on the Web:(used as intensives reflecting the speaker's attitude) it is sincerely the case that; "honestly, I don't believe it"; "candidly, I think she doesn't ...define:honestly - Google Search

Further, my thoughts cannot be tested or proven, so why would science be interested in something that cannot be put to a test?

Which thoughts exactly? I dare say "science" is deeply uninterested in your thoughts.
However this is a debate forum so if you want to express your views and debate their validity or worth with others then you are in the right place.
If you do not.... well then I am not sure what you are doing here?

I'd like to request that those wishing to discuss matters not in some way related to this thread's topic area stop posting here.Edited by Admin, : Change author.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sounds like you are conceding the point by default. Since we should be able to agree that there isn't a very large conspiracy of scientists whose only concern is trying to produce adverts/PR for Darwinism I refer back to the original point: Linear images of apes transmogrifying into humans might be an appealing mental shortcut to laypeople, it has probably lead to more misconceptions than it has crushed.Hopefully though, your questions in the OP have been answered to your satisfaction? 'Ape' is an imprecisely defined term which is the reason there appears to be different 'camps' on the issue. The reality is that all modern Great Apes and Hominids share a common ancestor. I think most people would call said ancestral species, 'apes'

I do not concede any point to you.I am simply walking away.I am not in here to fight.So I am walking away.I get called pussy and prick.You asked: "Do you honestly think that all evolutionary biologists are personally involved in trying to increase the public understanding of science? "Did you want me to pick apart your question as you do mine and insist that you rephrase the question using terms more pleasing to me before I answer them? You know that I would not say "ALL" and do you think that I would respond "DISHONESTLY"?But that is what you do when I ask a question; "dust" is the term the Bible uses, so how am I to define "dust" - I am using terms given.It is exhausting to discuss someone who at every angle is trying to find how they can disagree.I asked a simple question: Don't you think that Creationist and evolutionist share common ground on the point of common ancestor?Thank you for explanation of the ape camps.

What question did I pick apart? You became somewhat hostile with me when you accused me of living in a cave after I suggested that most evolutionary biologists do not involve themselves directly with the public understanding of science. I could not believe you'd think contrary, so my question was designed to express my incredulity at this possibility.It is a side issue, but should you indicate there is disagreement with us on this subject it might make for a new thread in its own right. I don't remember asking for a definition of dust. I just asked what does dust have to do with yeast? According to creationists the creeping things, flying things, and other animals were created separately usually around 6-10k years ago. They do not share common ancestry, they share a common creator. Creationists now argue that the various species today share a common ancestral baramin or 'kind', but that they are not related to other baramin except in the identity of their creators.Other than the fact that both camps accept the existence of ancestors...what common ground do you think there is?

There really any reason to pursue this conversation; it's futile for both of us.