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

Chuck, why do you persist in posting really stupid things?We have already witnessed far too much stupidity to know that creationists claim really stupid stuff. Why couldn't you take the time to post some not-so-stupid-creationist-crap? Instead of creationist crap that's even more stupid than what has been posted before.We already know all too well that creationists only have really stupid crap. Why don't you ever try to surprise us with something that actually took some kind of thought?

quote:

---

Are you saying that within the TOE common ancestory has always been taught?

---

Common descent is a major part of the theory of evolution, and has been ever since Darwin. (Although the idea that humans ARE apes goes back at least as far as Linnaeus)

Who is your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather?If you descended from him then how come you don't know who he is?

I find it hilariously ironic that in a thread begun to demonstrate and explain the idiocy apparent in the question which is the title of the thread, we are subjected to the following nonsense. If you had engaged your brain before your fingers, the answer would have come to you in a flash. Panda has given you a great example of why your question is dumb, in fact it's even dumber than the original question. By your reasoning, if you can't tell us all about your great x 7 grandfather then he didn't exist. So spill, tell us about him, because he obviously did exist. If you can't tell us anything are we to assume that he didn't and therefore that YOU don't exist either?Honestly, Chuckieboy, you're gonna have to raise your game a bit. It's one thing to make a statement against evolution and have that statement rebutted, it's another thing entirely to make a statement that makes you look like an utter idiot, which, if correct, proves you don't exist.I have to assume that much of this post is going to sail right over your head and go "plop" on the wall behind you, since the idiocy of your question demonstrates a complete lack of higher thought processes. Maybe not all of us share a common ancestor with othe apes - on the evidence I'd say some share a close common ancestor with turnips.

Hi Chuck77, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=tex...
Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [1st edition]

quote:

---

[page] 193 CHAP. VI. TRANSITIONS OF ORGANS.
The electric organs offer another and even more serious difficulty; for they occur in only about a dozen fishes, of which several are widely remote in their affinities. Generally when the same organ appears in several members of the same class, especially if in members having very different habits of life, we may attribute its presence to inheritance from a common ancestor; and its absence in some of the members to its loss through disuse or natural selection. But if the electric organs had been inherited from one ancient progenitor thus provided, we might have expected that all electric fishes would have been specially related to each other. Nor does geology at all lead to the belief that formerly most fishes had electric organs, which most of their modified descendants have lost. ...

​

[page] 282 IMPERFECTION OF THE CHAP. IX
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

---

bold addedNot only is descent of varieties from common ancestors and the inheritance of homologous traits already taken as a given process by Darwin in 1859, but he discusses cases of convergent evolution of analogous traits in different species, and he extends the descent from common ancestors to the larger taxonomic classes: species, genera, families, etc.Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Homologies and Analogies

​

Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characterscharacters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that featureso the presence of four limbs is a homology.

​

​

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

​

Bird and bat wings are analogousthat is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution.

---

Everytime a speciation event results in two or more daughter populations becoming independently evolving species we have a point where we have descent from a common ancestor population. This is what macroevolution is according to biologists: the division of species and the increase in diversity of life.Enjoy

Disappointing, Chuck. Very disappointing to witness your decline from promising new member into fantasy and irrationalityUnless you're trying to introduce humorous interludes, which are by no means unwelcome, it would be better if you could argue positions that are supported by evidence.--Percy

Common ancestry was in Darwin's book on evolution, On the Origin of Species.What impulse caused you to post before making sure that what you were saying had any basis in fact? We all get weird notions that pop into our heads from time to time, but what is it about creationists that causes them to skip any fact checking and just post their unvetted ideas willy-nilly on discussion boards? Creationists who remain here for any length of time hear this over and over again, but I'll say it once more: if evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up.Anyway, it's not like the correct information is hard to find, it's in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Common Descent: Darwin believed that all modern life descended from one or a few original forms. Today we believe that there was widespread gene sharing amongst the earliest forms of life, so it would be more accurate today to say that life descended from amongst gene sharing populations.--Percy

I never did see any of the promise you did. I don't think many of us did. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on your part that there may exist a rational creationist.

You do understand that we are still primates, apes, don't you?Do you understand what a "common ancestor" means?Do you understand that saying we evolved from an earlier ape like primate is not mutually exclusive with saying that we have a common ancestor with all other living forms including even plants?

Before you read this, please note that I missed the dates before I answered so this is a few days late but I still feel the need to post it.I have to jump on the bandwagon on this one...

quote:

---

Really? Wow! I had no idea that creationists had waved the white flag

---

I wish. Then there would be no more people spinning lies to the uneducated about at least this one thing. Hallelujah!

quote:

---

Well thanks for letting me know that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (as you put it) is a proven FACT... the theory is a fact. Got it

---

If we can call any theory a fact, evolution would be one. It has withstood 150 years of rigorous testing over a wide range of disciplines, has demonstrated predictive ability and continues to be supported by new evidence.Of course, if anyone had real evidence to disprove it, they would be winning the nobel prize. Guaranteed. We keep hearing about all of this evidence but nobody ever sees it. I came to this forum to see what the creationists had to offer other than ICR and CMI webvomit and so far haven't seen jack shit. Don't whine about it, prove it.

quote:

---

And even the worlds leading religions have given up on the idea of divine creation being the reason for the diversity of species? Incredible! Congratulations on your victory! Oh by the way if you could reference a few of those records showing that the theory of evolution has been accepted as strictly fact by our overwhelmingly christian nation, that would be nothing short of a miracle since there are no such records.

---

Here's what I mean by backing it up...Charts on wiki - stats by religion (in the US) and also by countryNot to mention actual scientific opinionAlthough the US is statistically more ignorant on this topic than almost the whole developed world, the creationists are still a minority.

quote:

---

I just thought it was a cruel thing to do.

---

A cruel thing to do? You've got to be kidding. This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read.How is it cruel to teach someone something that they express a wish to learn more about? What, exactly has she lost by learning about our understanding of the world? Do you suggest that willful ignorance is what the world needs? This was not an attack on her faith. She didn't need the crutch of YEC fables for her faith, so it just isn't relevant.Spreading ignorance and lies is all that I've seen creationists do. Trust me, I've looked hard for any shred of evidence that this is not so but I haven't found it. If being taught the truth about our understanding of the world is cruelty, then I live in hope that I never see another drop of kindness as long as I live.Edited by Warthog, : clarification

Huh! Chimps are just as likely to have evolved from a human like ancestor as humans are to have evolved from a chimp like ancestor. Therefore, the human chain would gradually become shorter ending with a chimpanzee and the chimp chain would gradually become taller ending with a human.A Paradox!?! You decide.Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

But chimpanzees did not evolve from a human-like ancestor. No.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Ok if you still think that after reading the article, I've not explained something properly. Both lines of humans and chimps go backwards in time until they meet at a common ape ancestor. So they both evolved from the same ancestor then went their own ways. Is that not clear?

If we came from dirt, how come there's still dirt around?

Hi Big Al,I'm not sure exactly what Tangle was trying to say way back in October, but both humans and chimps are hypothesized to have descended from a common ape ancestor. We don't know what this common ancestor looked like. It's not impossible for it to have looked somewhat like a modern chimp, but more likely it was different from both modern humans and chimps.It's unlikely to have looked much like us because fossil finds of ancient human relatives that post-date the split with the chimp line are already significantly different from us, for example, Ardipithicus, which dates back to around 4 million years ago. The chimp/human split is hypothesized to have taken place around 7 million years ago.But if you understand that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, then you already understand why there are still apes here, so I don't understand why you're posting to this thread.--Percy