Simplify Evolution

[Minimalist]

We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

I don't know why jesus freaks can't understand that but over and over again they demonstrate that the concept is beyond them.

But their fictional sky-daddy playing in the dirt? That they buy.

Asswipes.

[catfish]

Naked apes...
.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Incorrect. We did evolve from apes.

The common ancester of modern humans and modern apes was itself an animal that fit all the scientific cladisitic definition of an ape. It doesn't matter that particular type of ape is extinct. It was still an ape. So we evolved quite literally from apes.

Furthermore, a human in fact still fit all the scientific cladistic definition of an ape. So we humans are still apes.

So we evolved from apes, and we still are apes.

Cute but ... Creationists are the ones who use the evolved from apes phrasing to mean modern apes. One has to address the invented misstatements not encourage them.

[popeyespappy]

[raises hand] question:

How is she open to the idea that there is no god, but NOT open to the idea of evolution?

[pocaracas]

Not apes, man... primates.

[Darwinian]

Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

[pocaracas]

So, mammals -> primates -> apes -> great apes -> humans?

Why is it that people like to compare humans with apes, as if it's a negative thing to be?
What happens when we compare humans with mammals? mice, pigs, lemurs, tigers, lions, zebra....

[Anomalocaris]

Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

"great ape" is a monophyletic group within primates.

This means the most recent common ancester of all great apes species, living or dead, was itself also fully a great ape.

[Napoléon]

We didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Incorrect. We did evolve from apes.

The common ancester of modern humans and modern apes was itself an animal that fit all the scientific cladisitic definition of an ape. It doesn't matter that particular type of ape is extinct. It was still an ape. So we evolved quite literally from apes.

Furthermore, a human in fact still fit all the scientific cladistic definition of an ape. So we humans are still apes.

So we evolved from apes, and we still are apes.

I think the point he was making was that we didn't evolve from creatures that are around today, which I personally think is a poignant thing to say.

The most common misconception that people in opposition to evolution seem to have, is that we somehow evolved from chimpanzees. Well ofcourse we didn't, and I think that was the original point he was making, just worded it wrong.

[Anomalocaris]

Incorrect. We did evolve from apes.

The common ancester of modern humans and modern apes was itself an animal that fit all the scientific cladisitic definition of an ape. It doesn't matter that particular type of ape is extinct. It was still an ape. So we evolved quite literally from apes.

Furthermore, a human in fact still fit all the scientific cladistic definition of an ape. So we humans are still apes.

So we evolved from apes, and we still are apes.

Cute but ... Creationists are the ones who use the evolved from apes phrasing to mean modern apes. One has to address the invented misstatements not encourage them.

This is not just cute. It puts the question into meaningful context.

Fundamentally, even all but the most obtuse creationist must recognize that in principled it doesnn't matter whether the ape is modern. What matters in principle is "what is an ape".

There can be little scientific meaning in arbitrarily naming some characteristics as defining traits for determining what is an ape, and say if something had this but not that then it's an ape. Instead scientific system of classification traces and classifies according to the origin of derived traits in different species. You classify something by how they are related as revealed what sort of traits the animals in question has that clearly had common recent origins.

As it turns out, both modern anatomical evidence and fossil evidence shos that humans and modern ape belong to the same monophyletic group. That is to say any group which is defined by all the shared derived traits between modern apes and humans must also include the first animal in which these same share derived traits first arose.

If humans and apes evolved from a common ancester, but that ancester did not have all the traits which apes and humans share, them humans and apes would belong to a polyphyletic group. Fossils evidence suggests this is not the case.

So it is not just semantics. It goes to the nature of "what is an great ape".