"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

And we may always be missing her, particularly if she never left the forest.As if there was any chance at all of the individual Mommy Of Us All being fossilized anyway, of course. We seem to be getting closer to the population she belonged to with each new dig in East and South Africa, but ther's a lot of Miocene/Pliocene rock in those areas.

I didn't think it was flip. Short, yes.The other thing I'd maybe do is show them this ... ... and say: this is the diagram that Darwin drew when he first thought of evolution. The branching of species is what it's always been all about. Otherwise since all species have a common ancestor there would only be one species.But I agree with PaulK. It is necessary to go quite slowly and find out the specific misconceptions of the questioner and address them. Of course, it is possible, perhaps probable, that the questioner has not bothered to form any misconceptions, and has just learned to recite: "Why are there still monkeys?" as a Soooper-Dooper Knock-Down Creationist Argument. In that case it might be necessary to encourage him to formulate some misconceptions by asking him to give a good reason why there shouldn't be.---Tangle's answer, I think, may well miss the mark completely. For the underlying misconception is most likely that evolution is normally linear rather than radiative, and that humans, which are "higher" than apes, should have entirely replaced them like the integrated circuit replaced the vacuum tube. Now Tangle presents a picture of this not happening, but doesn't explain why it did not in fact happen.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Unfortunately, this illustration would never stand a chance with a creationist. He'll just tell you that the human line is going to consist only of humans back to the day of creation, and the chimp line is also going to consist of chimps and chimps only likewise to the day of creation. No common ancestor.Maybe you could make some use of this explanation of direct and indirect ancestry which I posted as Message 915 in the never-to-be-forgotten Why are there no human apes alive today? thread:

quote:

---

Let's assume that you have a sister. You both have a common ancestor: your mother. Now let's say that you also have a cousin, whose mother is your mother's sister. You and your cousin also have a common ancestor: your grandmother on your mother's side. Everyone is related, but you have to go back two generations to find the common ancestor that you share with your cousin, but only one generation to find the one you share with your sister.

​

Good so far?

​

Now let's shoot forward in time a hundred years, three more generations down the line. Your great-granddaughter is unquestionably related to all three of you - yourself, your sister, and your cousin. She is directly related to you, and indirectly related to your sister and your cousin. She is more closely related to your sister than she is to your cousin, but she's still related nonetheless.

​

So if a paleontologist says that Ardi (or any other extinct hominid) may or may not be a direct ancestor to human beings, that isn't at all the same thing as saying that we're not related. In the example above, H. sapiens is your great-granddaughter. Ardi might be you, or he might be your cousin. Ardi might not be a direct ancestor, but he's still related. Our common ancestor is just further back in the lineage.

​

And there's the answer your primary assertion that the fact that there are no other hominids alive today proves that there never were any. Just because your sister didn't leave any children, that doesn't mean she never existed.

---

You are making a bad assumption at the start - that any amount of "answering" will overcome the Creationist mindset.This, unfortunately, is not true.We're talking about Religious Conservatives who have a VERY strong affinity for "simple" answers. It doesn't really matter to them if the answer is right or wrong, so long as it is simple.Any amount of "correcting", "explaining" or "answering" that contains more words than the original statement simply isn't going to work."If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is fundamentally not different than "If CO2 is so bad for global warming, why do plants need it to survive?"To them, they've exposed an obvious gaping hole in the reasoning on the other side and the fact that their question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the topic is irrelevant. They are DONE thinking.ANY response you give them apart from laughing in their face is just "spin" or "book smarts".Better to just write these people off, hand them mops, pat them on the head and spend our time and resources on people who can actually make some sort of difference in the world.

quote:

---

You are making a bad assumption at the start - that any amount of "answering" will overcome the Creationist mindset.

​

This, unfortunately, is not true.

---

Sheesh, you guys are Vietnmam vets that have been in the jungle too long, 'the only good gook is a dead gook'. Too much time arguing against the odds with properly deluded fundies I suppose.Not all people who ask this question are dyed-in-the-wool, no hope, fanatics; those that come to sites like this to argue the toss are extremists of both kinds - I'm the atheist kind - but the vast majority aren't and some are interested in the answers because they haven't heard them before.As it happens, it looks like I've picked the wrong story; science doesn't yet have the chimp line story sorted out at all. No intermediates between chimp and the common ancestor and no bloody common ancestor to hold hands with. Pity.Edited by Tangle, : spelling - grrr

Hi Tangle. You are a Creationist in disguise? Why? Just come out and say it and debate these points as a creationist, why hide? That's the first sign you think it's a good argument. That's the second sign you still think it's a good argument. That's you saying the evolutionists explanations are mind games they play with us.The rest of these quotes of yours just proves you're a Creationist in hiding. Trying to befriend the evolutionist into an "ah ha" moment. The only way you will get any diologue out of these guys like you are is to be one of them. You've done a good job so far but to no avail if you claim to be an atheist.Just say you disagree with the argument and say why. It would be nice to have other Creationists here. Why hide? Who cares? See, this is you saying there isn't a proper answer. Just say so, as a Creationist. Tell them you disagree with their answers and then tell them why. Goodness. Oh Snap! I can't believe these guys didn't see thru you. That, is disappointing. (on their behalf). Great. We know. Come clean already. You're not an atheist. You're one of us. It's obvious. I guess that was your admission that you really are a creationist. Now what? You're leaving? That's it? You joined this site just for that?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That's the first sign you think it's a good argument.

---

So a good argument is one that the ignorant keep using, despite the fact that it is easily seen to be nonsense.A pretty clear admission that you don't care about the truth.

quote:

---

That's the second sign you still think it's a good argument.

---

Because it is repeated by a lot of ignorant people who can't see how stupid it is... That's not what I would call a good argument (it's what I would call a very bad one, but then I'm an honest person interested in the truth - not someone who wants to fool the ignorant).

quote:

---

That's you saying the evolutionists explanations are mind games they play with us.

---

No, it's him saying that he wants to lead the reader through an imaginative exercise. As anybody who reads the quote in context can easily see.Well thanks for admitting that creationism is all about deceiving the ignorant. I think that you're the first creationist here to admit that.

What are you talking about?I don't think it's a good argument. Are you reading comprehension illiterate?Try to read my post in context. It's not to hard there PaulK. Try man, try.Im saying he's a creationist in disguise. It's my opinion from his comments. How in the world you interpret all of what you said from my post is anoynes guess. You seem very disabled intellectually. Im sorry your so ignorant.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think it's a good argument. Are you reading comprehension illiterate?

---

True, but you argued that Tangle thought that it was a good argument.I think that it is safe to infer that that assessment is based on your idea of what constitutes a good argument.

Im saying I believe HE secretly believes it's a good argument and won't admit he's a creationst. Why is this so hard?

quote:

---

Im saying I believe HE secretly believes it's a good argument and won't admit he's a creationst. Why is this so hard?

---

So you say that he believes that it is a good argument because it fools the ignorant. That's not hard at all.

Holy cow. Im at a loss for words here that you are failing to see what im saying. Im actually astounded.I...Chuck...77...am saying...that this man...Tangle, is undercover and a creationist posing as an atheist and thinks it's a good argument from the comments he is in fact making. He is trying to fool everyone that he is AN atheist but really thinks this argument is a good one.Me, on the other hand, being as ASTUTE as I am, simply happened to notice this strategy playing out.I...Chuck...77...am not in favor of the "why are there still apes around if..." argument. And I ceretainly wasn't implying that I was by my ASTUTE observation.IIm not saying it fools the ignorant im simply asking him to come clean as a creationist and just admit HE thinks it's a good argument if that's what HE believes.Tired tonight PaulK?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I've been an atheist since the age of 14 and am now - well, a lot older. I have a BSC in Zoology which is as lapsed as my Catholicism.I am now trying to renew my acquaintance with evolution theory and I came here for help in doing that when I found myself unable to satisfactorily answer some questions from a Jewish friend.I'm impressed by your rabid paranoia though - you're not descended from McCarthy are you?

No need to be so rude, just because you don't get my point.Tangle said that the argument was easily seen through by the informed, but was still popular.You claimed that this was a sign that he thought that it was a good argument.I simply took your statement at face value.

No, im italian Come on man. With all of your comments to everyone as not being accepetable answers as to why there are still apes it's suspicious...what about this: Im sorry but that doesn't seem like something an evolutionist or an atheist would say at all.It seems to me you are arguing against evolution here. Are you not?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.