Re: Three evolutionists have said, bats are their ancestors.
Three of your fellow evolutionists say bats were the ancestors of primates (Humans),...
This isn't true, and since you're ignoring the many people informing you that it isn't true, and you're ignoring the record of the thread itself, I am stepping in now. Please drop this claim or face a short suspension. Also, see my Message 572 in the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.
The topic of this thread is whether evolution is a racist doctrine. Please discuss the topic.
First they say primates came from bats, then tree shrews
No one said primates came from bats or tree shrews. As I said when I suspended you previously, I will suspend you each time you make significant misstatements of what people have said. This time I'm suspending you for 48 hours.
quote:Treeshrews might not be part of Primates, but they do share anatomical characters (in the skeleton and in numerous organ systems) with primates as well as with the so-called flying lemurs (Dermoptera). The idea that they’re part of the placental group Euarchonta is therefore universally accepted… more or less (read on). Some molecular studies suggest an especially close relationship between treeshrews and flying lemurs (Murphy et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2005, Springer et al. 2007, Prasad et al. 2008, Asher et al. 2009). This hypothesis has become quite popular and the clade that contains the two has been termed Sundatheria (Olson et al. 2005) or Paraprimates (Springer et al. 2007). ‘Sundatheria’ refers to the idea that these mammals are strongly associated with Sundaland, the biogeographical region that incorporates Borneo, Sumatra, peninsula Malaysia and the adjacent continental shelf region that would have been exposed during times of low sea level.
To my reading it is representing it as a diagram of classification. Davidjay noted that this paragraph says that tree shrews are part of Euarchonta, then saw in the diagram (he thought) that primates are descended from Euarchonta, and so concluded that primates are descended from tree shrews. I don't claim to have it right, deciphering Davidjay is challenging, but that's how I was looking at it.
Maybe I can state it another way. Here's the diagram:
Davidjay interpreted it as saying that primates are descended from Euarchonta, rather than that they're a member of Euarchonta. Then, not understanding that Scandentia, shown in the diagram as also members of Euarchonta, are tree shrews he read that tree shrews are part of Euarchonta and concluded that primates are descended from tree shrews. That's my interpretation of how Davidjay reached his conclusions.
If I understand what you mean when you explain that it's a diagram of "phylogenetic classification", it says our ancestor species were also members of Euarchonta.