Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 20 of 27 (584910)
10-04-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jeff Davis
10-04-2010 12:09 PM


Monkeys and Manuscripts
Hi Jeff,
You have a lot on your plate already, so I thought I would just address a couple of points. I hope Bluejay doesn't mind my cutting in.
Hawley writes:
Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
Bluejay writes:
No, it doesn’t. But, the evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.
Jeff Davis writes:
Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
A number of people have mentioned this already, but you don't seem to want to hear the fact that Hawley is wrong here. We are evolved from monkeys, or at least, from creatures very like monkeys.
We are not evolved from chimps. Chimps and humans diverged long after (chimps+humans+other apes) diverged from monkeys.
We are not evolved from modern monkeys. Modern monkeys and apes do share common ancestry though. That common ancestor would not be any species of monkey living today. It would though, have been a small, tailed primate very much like a modern monkey. In short, it seems reasonable to call such a creature a monkey. It was a small, tailed primate; not a lemur. That pretty much makes it a monkey. It would certainly have looked enough like a monkey that no layman could hope to tell it apart from one.
If we could summon up the last common ancestor of modern humans, apes and monkeys and put it in a zoo, it would belong in the monkey house. All the evidence - fossil, genetic, whatever - confirms this view.
Your Mr Hawley has got the wrong end of the stick.
Jeff writes:
I will make one quick comment, Darwin never used the word "evolution" in his first four editions and only in his last edition did he use the word "evolved".
You are wrong. The following text is from the 1859 First Edition of Origin;
Charles Darwin writes:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
That's the 1859 edition remember. If you doubt me, you can look it up right here;
http://darwin-online.org.uk/..._PC-Virginia-Francis-F373.pdf
Now this strikes me as a fairly trivial point. Nonetheless, you seem to be very stubborn about it. You're wrong mate. Hawley was wrong. Accept it. Get over it.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : For want of a comma...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jeff Davis, posted 10-04-2010 12:09 PM Jeff Davis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024