| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Church of The Painful Truth" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2004 09:47:42 PM |
| Object: |
ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?
Sometimes it is appropriate to refer to atheists as "descendants of the
apes." I'm sure all of them are highly honored by that title since they are
the ones who claim that apes are their noble ancestors.
This explains why atheists have devised the animalistic and heathenistic
philosophy of atheism. It is because that is the best philosophy the ape's
descendants can come up with. That is as high as they can rise in their
thinking. There has never been an ape during the history of apes that
achieved the ability to perceive the existence of God and to worship Him.
And so, it is not surprising that descendants of the apes are void of that
ability as well.
This also explains the awful heathen and abominable fruit descendants of
apes produce in the society - why they are so lawless. It must have been a
terrible group of apes they descended from, because when you observe apes
that exist today, all of them do exactly what apes are suppose to do. But
atheists cannot do anything right. Apes today are more civilized than
atheists.
True Christians have a far more noble fountain from whence they descended.
We were originally created by the Almighty God - created in His image. We
did not have to evolve to a higher state, but from the beginning, were
created by God as perfect as humans can be. Even though we fell from our
created state of perfection in the first man Adam, our Maker brings us back
by His uplifting grace. But atheists, as descendants of the apes, have never
and will never reached the level of perfection in which God originally
created all mankind.
If atheists were human, and weren't descendants of the apes, they might be
able to perceive the beauty of the existence of God, and might have a chance
at receiving God's grace. But alas, animals don't have that ability and God
has no intention on saving animals.
.
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
16 Feb 2004 05:14:22 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:B3XXb.54$pM3.113334@news.uswest.net...
ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?
Sometimes it is appropriate to refer to atheists as "descendants of the
apes." I'm sure all of them are highly honored by that title since they
are
the ones who claim that apes are their noble ancestors.
This explains why atheists have devised the animalistic and heathenistic
philosophy of atheism. It is because that is the best philosophy the ape's
descendants can come up with. That is as high as they can rise in their
thinking. There has never been an ape during the history of apes that
achieved the ability to perceive the existence of God and to worship Him.
And so, it is not surprising that descendants of the apes are void of that
ability as well.
This also explains the awful heathen and abominable fruit descendants of
apes produce in the society - why they are so lawless. It must have been a
terrible group of apes they descended from, because when you observe apes
that exist today, all of them do exactly what apes are suppose to do. But
atheists cannot do anything right. Apes today are more civilized than
atheists.
hehehe keep on dreaming, the dark ages showed the world how civilized
christianity really is.
Brutal murderers when they get there hand on power, power is all they seek
anyhow.
GREED is the christian, they cant even live knowing they die and end, so
they make up life after dead.
Then sinically play with how the life after death would be to people.
Kind of sounds like a group of boy scouts trying to scare people.
What where those civilized things the jezus worshippers did?
-public stoning! always helps getting the comunnity involved, then nobody
will have to feel guilty.
-a large piramid shaped object where so called *Sinners* will have to sit on
with there rectum or female with there genetals and slowly be pushed down to
make a huge stretch damageing the person and hurting them terribly.
-Pin people to a wheel then make a clean cut in the abdomen and slowely pull
out the organs letting the tied up person die slowly while seeing how his
organs are removed.
-Burning people alive in public, al though if they ask for mercy they might
get killed before they get burned. also placing people above a oven thus
they burn up very slowly was a punishment.
-Cutting off tounges of people or shubbing a red hot piece of metal in there
mouths.
The civilized worshiper looks to me like a very barbaric uncivilized person.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
| User: "DOC" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 11:55:42 AM |
|
|
In article <40314bf9$0$563$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
says this most vehemently...
Brutal murderers when they get there hand on power, power is all they seek
anyhow.
Not ALL Christians are guilty of what you're accusing.
--
==================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~JESUS is the ROCK!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God doesn't call the qualified;
He qualifies the called!
==================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 11:32:06 AM |
|
|
"DOC" <DOC@idunno.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9c1199bb0e8f8e989bf6@corp.supernews.com...
In article <40314bf9$0$563$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
says this most vehemently...
Brutal murderers when they get there hand on power, power is all they
seek
anyhow.
Not ALL Christians are guilty of what you're accusing.
--
Many of them are simply naive. That doesnt stop them from aligning with the
rest of the religious sheep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DOC" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 06:02:41 PM |
|
|
In article <40324d52$0$564$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
says this most vehemently...
Many of them are simply naive. That doesnt stop them from aligning with the
rest of the religious sheep.
Well, I would far rather align myself as one of the sheep than one of the
disbelievers.
--
==================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~JESUS is the ROCK!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God doesn't call the qualified;
He qualifies the called!
==================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 05:36:44 PM |
|
|
"DOC" <DOC@idunno.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9c6799d8cdcb22989c05@corp.supernews.com...
In article <40324d52$0$564$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
says this most vehemently...
Many of them are simply naive. That doesnt stop them from aligning with
the
rest of the religious sheep.
Well, I would far rather align myself as one of the sheep than one of the
disbelievers.
Thats your choice, sheep, i am happy that im one of the disbelievers(tm).
I doubt you really understand what the poverbial disbelievers are besides
what indoctrinine tells you.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 07:52:39 AM |
|
|
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God. To do so would
force us to wait forever, since we do not yet even begin to really
understand our own bodies, which are with us all everyday.
We who follow Jesus Christ know that God is, and that He made all
things. We know this because He's proven Himself true in every other
way -- and also because His Holy Spirit is now inside of us, bearing
witness to reality and truth. We no longer walk in darkness, as does
the rest of the world, relying only on our few physical senses or on
the faltering weaknesses of human reason and logic.
But the question still remains: Is there any scientific evidence for
God at all? Is there anything in earth's record, or in our commonly
agreed upon understanding of the physical universe to support a belief
in God?
Are Bible-believing Christians the only ones who think that God
created the universe?
Take a look for yourself---
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.second-law-of-thermodynamics.com/
Charles Darwin
http://www.charles-darwin.net/
Age of the Earth
http://www.age-of-the-earth.com/
DNA Double Helix
http://www.dna-double-helix.net/
Proof of God
http://www.proof-of-god.com/
Human Evolution
http://www.human--evolution.com/
Dinosaur Fossils
http://www.dinosaur-fossil.com/
Intelligent Design
http://www.intelligent--design.com/
Dragon History??
http://www.dragon-history.com/
Origin of Life
http://www.origin-of-life.net/
Geologic Time Scale
http://www.geologic-time-scale.com/
Age of the Earth Revisited
http://www.age-of-earth.com/
Origin of Species
http://www.origin-of-species.com/
Catastrophism
http://www.catastrophism.net/
Creation vs. Evolution
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com/
Uniformitarianism
http://www.uniformitarianism.net/
Evidence for Evolution
http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/
What About The Flood?
http://www.the-flood.net/
Evolution vs. Creation
http://www.evolution-vs-creation.com/
Origin of the Universe
http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/
Age of the Earth (Part 2)
http://www.age-of-the-earth.net/
Christian Science
http://www.christian--science.com/
Radiometric Dating
http://www.radiometric-dating.com/
Dinosaur Extinction
http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
Big Bang Theory
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Creation Evidences
http://www.creation-evidence.com/
Just How Old is the Earth, Anyway?
http://www.how-old-is-the-earth.com/
Creation vs. Evolution (Part 2)
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.net/
Carbon Dating
http://www.carbon-dating.net/
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Piltdown Man
http://www.piltdown-man.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 10:46:22 AM |
|
|
We who follow Jesus Christ know that God is, and that He made all
things. We know this because He's proven Himself true in every other
way -- and also because His Holy Spirit is now inside of us
Thanks for explaining your paranoid world view and deluded mind.
-Stranger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
17 Feb 2004 09:30:55 AM |
|
|
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>, [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
But why should that fact be any threat at all to your believing
in a God and in Christianity? A great many people seem to see
no such conflict.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ad30b67a.0401311635.2b1c0000@posting.google.com>
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
http://www.faithreason.org
<http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religious_orga_1_26_2001.asp>
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/main_sci.html
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
To do so would
force us to wait forever, since we do not yet even begin to really
understand our own bodies, which are with us all everyday.
We who follow Jesus Christ know that God is, and that He made all
things.
Your favorite sacred texts don't exactly spell out in detail _how_ he
made all things, now do they? Why couldn't He make them all using
those same "natural" methods that science has been discovering so much
evidence for?
We know this because He's proven Himself true in every other
way -- and also because His Holy Spirit is now inside of us, bearing
witness to reality and truth. We no longer walk in darkness, as does
the rest of the world, relying only on our few physical senses or on
the faltering weaknesses of human reason and logic.
But the question still remains: Is there any scientific evidence for
God at all?
Why do you need there to be any?
Is there anything in earth's record, or in our commonly
agreed upon understanding of the physical universe to support a belief
in God?
And if there isn't any such evidence, why should that bother you?
Why couldn't you believe in a God who often works subtly, through
natural processes? Do you get upset with the weather forecasters
when they only mention natural, scientific reasons for the weather,
and never cite it as due to divine intervention?
Are Bible-believing Christians the only ones who think that God
created the universe?
Take a look for yourself---
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.second-law-of-thermodynamics.com/
Yeesh.
Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
[More of the usual wacky propaganda snipped]
Sorry, but it seems you've been lied to. Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
19 Feb 2004 03:51:32 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
("some") theorists say we are descendant from the same origin as the ape and
that is highly argued against by knowledgeable evolutionists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
19 Feb 2004 05:32:26 PM |
|
|
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
("some") theorists say we are descendant from the same origin as the ape
There is no "the ape". There are several different living species of
apes, some of which are much closer kin to humans than to other
non-human "apes". Chimps and bonobos are closer to humans than to
gorillas or orangutans. In fact, some recent molecular studies go so
far as to put chimps and bonobos in the same genus _Homo_ as humans,
instead of in a separate genus _Pan_:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/110498/opinion/110498line.html
http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/taxonomy.html
<http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=96hprk%24a2j%241%40news.duke.edu>
and
that is highly argued against by knowledgeable evolutionists.
Not so. There are no such "knowledgeable evolutionists" who'd deny
that humans evolved from early hominoid primates [= "apes"] , or
from nonhuman Hominidae [= "great apes"]. There is no phylogenetic
grouping including all "apes" that does not also include humans.
The modern "apes" of course are our "cousins", not our ancestors, but
our most recent common ancestors with any other living species would
indeed be early "great apes" [= family Hominidae]. If we define "ape"
as the members of the group defined by the last common ancestor of
chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and all of its
descendants [i.e., the hominoid primates], then not only were our
common ancestors with any ape an "ape", but we modern humans should
also still be considered a species of "ape". [Basically, the
non-scientific term "ape" traditionally just meant "any hominoid
primate, other than humans".]
Our last common ancestor would also easily fit the folk morphological
concept of "ape" [= a relatively large, hairy. tailess, anthropoid
primate].
Further, the last common ancestor of humans or any other "ape" and
any "monkeys" would also fit the concept of "monkey" [= any relatively
small, tailed, anthropoid primate]. There is no phylogenetic grouping
including all "monkeys" that does not also include "apes" and humans.
Some links [pardon the expression]:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae.html
http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/courses/121/taxonomy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
19 Feb 2004 09:50:58 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
They are / were not classed as apes.
Get an education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
19 Feb 2004 10:57:22 PM |
|
|
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human "scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
They are / were not classed as apes.
Get an education.
My daughter (age 9) happens to have a book out of her school library,
"Gorilla, Monkey, Ape" by Ian Radmond, Eyewitness Books, (c) 1995.
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Get an education.
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time
to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years,
but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable
to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed
knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better
to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the
evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so
strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to
waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
20 Feb 2004 02:30:58 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:xsgZb.10686$o52.7293@fed1read02...
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>,
[Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human
"scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the
apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
They are / were not classed as apes.
Get an education.
My daughter (age 9) happens to have a book out of her school library,
"Gorilla, Monkey, Ape" by Ian Radmond, Eyewitness Books, (c) 1995.
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Get an education.
When your daughter is nine she should be old enough to not believe in Santa
Claus.
Many writers talk down to their uneducated readers or use simplistic terms
for the simplistic mind.
BTW Asimov was a great fiction writer.
There are a lot of really stupid Anthro Professors as in any teaching
profession.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
20 Feb 2004 07:48:16 AM |
|
|
Iconoclast wrote:
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:xsgZb.10686$o52.7293@fed1read02...
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>,
[Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim]
wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human
"scientific
achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the
apes.
No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
They are / were not classed as apes.
Get an education.
My daughter (age 9) happens to have a book out of her school library,
"Gorilla, Monkey, Ape" by Ian Radmond, Eyewitness Books, (c) 1995.
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Get an education.
When your daughter is nine she should be old enough to not believe in Santa
Claus.
Many writers talk down to their uneducated readers or use simplistic terms
for the simplistic mind.
I'd say she has a better grasp on the ideas than you do.
BTW Asimov was a great fiction writer.
Azimov was not a "fiction writer". He was an author who read and
researched many topics, and then wrote both fiction and non-fiction.
Once again, you show your stupidity. You research *nothing*, then spout
off as if you knew something.
*Folklore and Legends of the Universe (©1996)*
Asimov: A Memoir
*Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments (©1992)*
*Beginnings: The Story of Origins, of Mankind, Life, the Earth, the
Universe (©1995)*
Fantasy Art Techniques (©1996) 127 pp.
Fantastic Reading: Stories and Activities for Grade 5-8 (©1984)
How Did We Find Out About Lasers? (©1990)
How Did We Find Out About Microwaves? (©1989)
How Did We Find Out About Superconductivity? (©1988)
Book Series : Isaac Asimov's New Library of the Universe
Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare (©1997) 1536 pp.
A Double Planet?: Pluto and Charon (©1996)
Astronomy Projects (©1996) 32 pp.
Discovering Comets and Meteors (©1996)
Astronomy in Ancient Times (©1995)
A Distant Puzzle: The Planet Uranus (©1994)
Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery (©1994) 800 pp.
Cosmic Debris: The Asteroids (©1994)
Death From Space: What Killed the Dinosaurs (©1994)
Atom: Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos (©1992)
*Asimov's Chronology of the World: The History of the World from the Big
Bang to (©1991)*
The 21st Century in Space (©1966)
There are a lot of really stupid Anthro Professors as in any teaching
profession.
And lots of stupid people posting on usenet. You are one. You make
sweeping claims about lots of knowledgable people in the field who
support your position, but name none.
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder."
--Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
20 Feb 2004 11:01:42 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02...
Your ignorance is profound.
Asimov was a fiction writer, even when "attempting" (quite entertainingly
and sufficient) to document the various steps of science.
Man is not of the "ape" family, unless one considers ape, horse, and
alligator to be of the same family.
What are you going to do when your daughter learns the truth and finds her
father inadequate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
20 Feb 2004 07:58:02 PM |
|
|
Iconoclast wrote:
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02...
Your ignorance is profound.
Asimov was a fiction writer, even when "attempting" (quite entertainingly
and sufficient) to document the various steps of science.
Man is not of the "ape" family, unless one considers ape, horse, and
alligator to be of the same family.
What are you going to do when your daughter learns the truth and finds her
father inadequate?
Certain to happen some time. My goal is for her to learn more than I
know, do more than I did, same as my parents goals.
Doesn't change the fact that you are as fucking idiot who has cited not
a single reputable source to back his claims, while claiming that all
reputable scientists agree with his claims.
You are a fucking idiot.
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time
to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years,
but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable
to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed
knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better
to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the
evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so
strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to
waste my time."
-- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
20 Feb 2004 09:00:50 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
Iconoclast wrote:
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02...
Your ignorance is profound.
Asimov was a fiction writer, even when "attempting" (quite entertainingly
and sufficient) to document the various steps of science.
Man is not of the "ape" family, unless one considers ape, horse, and
alligator to be of the same family.
What are you going to do when your daughter learns the truth and finds
her
father inadequate?
Certain to happen some time. My goal is for her to learn more than I
know, do more than I did, same as my parents goals.
Doesn't change the fact that you are as fucking idiot who has cited not
a single reputable source to back his claims, while claiming that all
reputable scientists agree with his claims.
You are a fucking idiot.
Addendum: Do some research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm
Scientists from the Wayne State University, School of Medicine, Detroit,
US, examined key genes in humans and several ape species and found our
"life code" to be 99.4% the same as chimps.
They propose moving common chimps and another very closely related ape,
bonobos, into the genus, Homo, the taxonomic grouping researchers use to
classify people in the animal kingdom.
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"There seems to be a terrible misunderstanding on the
part of a great many people to the effect that when
you cease to believe you may cease to behave."
--Louis Kronenberger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
21 Feb 2004 06:47:19 PM |
|
|
In article <Z1rZb.14781$o52.6948@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02...
Your ignorance is profound.
But he's right about this, so your ignorance must be even
profounder.
Asimov was a fiction writer, even when "attempting" (quite entertainingly
and sufficient) to document the various steps of science.
Wrong. He also wrote plenty of popular-science nonfiction texts, and
had an advanced degree in chemistry, IIRC.
Man is not of the "ape" family, unless one considers ape, horse, and
alligator to be of the same family.
That's just being silly, sorry.
Humans are indeed members of the family Hominidae, which also includes
chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and sometimes gibbons [but
most often gibbons are separated as the family Hylobatidae]. In older
classifications, the nonhuman great apes were artificially separated
as a family "Pongidae", but that's completely outmoded. Systematists
know full well that the traditional "Pongidae" just included "all
great apes, except for humans". The last common ancestor of humans and
any "ape" would indeed have been a "great ape" [= nonhuman member of
family Hominidae], and indeed, we humans are really just another
funny-looking species of "ape".
Horses are related to us, but only as placental mammals, and
alligators only as members of the Amniota. The modern apes are
much closer, being members of the same family.
What are you going to do when your daughter learns the truth and finds her
father inadequate?
Why "inadequate"? He's right, you're simply wrong.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
21 Feb 2004 07:08:21 PM |
|
|
Asimov was a fiction writer, even
when "attempting" (quite entertainingly
and sufficient) to document the various steps of science.
Wrong. He also wrote plenty of popular-science nonfiction texts, and
had an advanced degree in chemistry, IIRC.
Asimov had a BA, MS and PhD from Columbia in chemistry and taught biochemistry
at the Boston University School of Medicine for twenty years. Not exactly
shabby academic credentials. He is also credited with creating the term
"robotics."
Although Asimov was a sci-fi writer the majority of his body of work was
non-fiction, to include scientific textbooks.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 11:36:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:01:42 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com>
wrote:
Man is not of the "ape" family, unless one considers ape, horse, and
alligator to be of the same family.
Well, I guess that settles that. You're an idiot.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
21 Feb 2004 06:45:49 PM |
|
|
Piggybacking. "Iconoclast's" second post hasn't appeared here yet.
In article <feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02>, [Enkidu]
wrote...
Iconoclast wrote:
"Enkidu" < > wrote in message
news:xsgZb.10686$o52.7293@fed1read02...
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>,
[Iconoclast] wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim] wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human
"scientific achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the
apes. No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
No, actually I'm correct. You're mistaken.
They are / were not classed as apes.
Yes, they were and are.
Get an education.
I've got one, thanks.
My daughter (age 9) happens to have a book out of her school library,
"Gorilla, Monkey, Ape" by Ian Radmond, Eyewitness Books, (c) 1995.
Good for her.
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
Get an education.
You first. Why don't you try to learn a bit more about what you've
been making these wildly incorrect assertions about?
When your daughter is nine she should be old enough to not believe in Santa
Claus.
Many writers talk down to their uneducated readers or use simplistic terms
for the simplistic mind.
Such as the ones you've read?
I'd say she has a better grasp on the ideas than you do.
BTW Asimov was a great fiction writer.
Azimov was not a "fiction writer". He was an author who read and
researched many topics, and then wrote both fiction and non-fiction.
Once again, you show your stupidity. You research *nothing*, then spout
off as if you knew something.
[snip of Asimov titles]
There are a lot of really stupid Anthro Professors as in any teaching
profession.
And why are they so "stupid"? Just because they disagree with you?
And lots of stupid people posting on usenet. You are one. You make
sweeping claims about lots of knowledgable people in the field who
support your position, but name none.
Because there are none to name.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 02:09:31 AM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c18u3t$9g6$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
Piggybacking. "Iconoclast's" second post hasn't appeared here yet.
In article <feoZb.14113$o52.11779@fed1read02>,
[Enkidu]
wrote...
Iconoclast wrote:
"Enkidu" < > wrote in message
news:xsgZb.10686$o52.7293@fed1read02...
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c13h2a$ofc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <HbaZb.7748$o52.3830@fed1read02>,
[Iconoclast] wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c0tc3f$4q7$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <bb4dcba0.0402170552.6de7b45@posting.google.com>,
jim@goodwordusa.org [Jim] wrote...
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ will not rely on human
"scientific achievement" to tell us whether or not God is God.
And how is that relevant to "ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES?"?
I'm an ape-descendant, and so are you. We all are.
Only the completely uneducated would say we are descendants of the
apes. No Christian, no atheist, no creationist, no evolutionist.
You're mistaken. A great many evolutionists [whether theists or
atheists] will agree that our ancestors were indeed "apes".
TOTALLY WRONG
No, actually I'm correct. You're mistaken.
They are / were not classed as apes.
Yes, they were and are.
Get an education.
I've got one, thanks.
My daughter (age 9) happens to have a book out of her school library,
"Gorilla, Monkey, Ape" by Ian Radmond, Eyewitness Books, (c) 1995.
Good for her.
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans".
Pure ***** OR as I stated , a term used by the less educated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 03:57:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1rZZb.23739$o52.10579@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c18u3t$9g6$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[snip]
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called the
hominoids."
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans".
Pure ***** OR as I stated , a term used by the less educated.
Well, the problem is partly that you're right, it's not a
scientific term, but is just a colloquial English word.
So, if we just drop "ape" and substitute the closest equivalent
scientific terms there's bound to be much less confusion:
"Humans are indeed descendants of early hominoid primates.
We are also descendants of early nonhuman members of the family
Hominidae."
Fair enough? It's not saying anything different, but is
saying it differently.
For that matter, "we hominoid primates are all descended from
early nonhominoid members of Anthropoidea".
"Hey! Who're you calling a monkey?"
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 08:48:07 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c1b8jv$c1p$5@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <1rZZb.23739$o52.10579@fed1read02>,
[Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c18u3t$9g6$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[snip]
"Great Apes and Humans belong to the same group of primates called
the
hominoids."
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans".
Pure ***** OR as I stated , a term used by the less educated.
Well, the problem is partly that you're right, it's not a
scientific term, but is just a colloquial English word.
So, if we just drop "ape" and substitute the closest equivalent
scientific terms there's bound to be much less confusion:
"Humans are indeed descendants of early hominoid primates.
We are also descendants of early nonhuman members of the family
Hominidae."
Fair enough? It's not saying anything different, but is
saying it differently.
For that matter, "we hominoid primates are all descended from
early nonhominoid members of Anthropoidea".
"Hey! Who're you calling a monkey?"
cheers
Now you're talking.
An independent question is that of "evolution", not apes.
Within the realm of evolution, there are fights going on every day just as
in creationism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 11:36:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:45:49 +0000 (UTC),
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
It is great (but not surprising) to have someone truly knowledgeable
on this thread. Can you answer a couple questions?
What was the approximate years when 'Pongidae' was abandoned?
Interesting that it happened with little notice in the popular press.
What is the difference between bonobos and chimps? I have sometimes
heard of bonobos being a subset of chimps. I assume they are closer
to chimps than to us.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 01:11:16 PM |
|
|
In article <pojh30tcmmihs4a92f6mh51l6m3lja0ed6@4ax.com>,
RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org [satyr] wrote...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:45:49 +0000 (UTC),
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
It is great (but not surprising) to have someone truly knowledgeable
on this thread. Can you answer a couple questions?
What was the approximate years when 'Pongidae' was abandoned?
Interesting that it happened with little notice in the popular press.
What is the difference between bonobos and chimps? I have sometimes
heard of bonobos being a subset of chimps. I assume they are closer
to chimps than to us.
Right. Bonobos are the so-called "pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_.
They're really not all that much smaller than common chimps,
_Pan troglodytes_. IIRC, they were recognized as being a fully
separate species relatively late in the 20th century. They've
recently gotten some notoriety for being unusually "sexy" apes
that reportedly engage in various sexual activities as part of
their normal social behaviors.
some background:
<http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/primates/primates.pongidae.pan.html>
[Walker's still uses the old "Pongidae" classification]
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hominidae.html>
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobo-info.html
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html
The two species are understood to be one another's closest relatives
[i.e., their last common ancestor split into two lineages well after
their line split from the ancestral line shared with _Homo sapiens_.
Still, all three are close enough genetically that some who looked
only at the molecular data say that they really should all be put in
the same genus _Homo_ [which then would also have to include the
fossil australopithecines as well. The data don't really require such
a name change, but the authors were doing it in an attempt to be
consistent in classifying strictly in terms of the relative recency of
common ancestry. Apparently, they found there are older splits within
the gibbon genus than the one between humans and chimpanzees. The same
papers that lumped _Homo_ and _Pan_ as two subgenera of one genus _Homo_
also split the gibbon genus _Hylobates_ into 2 different genera.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=96hprk%24a2j%241%40news.duke.edu
links to my earlier comments on these recent papers.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/110498/opinion/110498line.html
is a news report on the same studies.
http://www.skarstein.no/frode/phyl.html shows a similarly
molecular data-based phylogeny for all living primates
[humans and (other) apes way down at the bottom]
similar phylogenies for both living and fossil species:
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
<http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Prima
tes/Hominoidea/hominidae.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/010712/010712-14.html
offers some discussion of fragmentary fossils from close
to the time of human/chimp common ancestry.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate
are worthwhile reviews of the primate/hominid fossil record. The
latter is brief and a bit dated now, but the first is kept up-to-date
but focusses on the human origin side of things.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 02:15:19 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c1ausj$c1p$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <pojh30tcmmihs4a92f6mh51l6m3lja0ed6@4ax.com>,
RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org [satyr] wrote...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:45:49 +0000 (UTC),
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if
chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
It is great (but not surprising) to have someone truly knowledgeable
on this thread. Can you answer a couple questions?
What was the approximate years when 'Pongidae' was abandoned?
Interesting that it happened with little notice in the popular press.
What is the difference between bonobos and chimps? I have sometimes
heard of bonobos being a subset of chimps. I assume they are closer
to chimps than to us.
Right. Bonobos are the so-called "pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_.
They're really not all that much smaller than common chimps,
_Pan troglodytes_. IIRC, they were recognized as being a fully
separate species relatively late in the 20th century. They've
recently gotten some notoriety for being unusually "sexy" apes
that reportedly engage in various sexual activities as part of
their normal social behaviors.
And that is your primary (primate) reason for studying them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 03:07:03 PM |
|
|
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c1ausj$c1p$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <pojh30tcmmihs4a92f6mh51l6m3lja0ed6@4ax.com>,
RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org [satyr] wrote...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:45:49 +0000 (UTC),
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if
chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
It is great (but not surprising) to have someone truly knowledgeable
on this thread. Can you answer a couple questions?
What was the approximate years when 'Pongidae' was abandoned?
Interesting that it happened with little notice in the popular press.
What is the difference between bonobos and chimps? I have sometimes
heard of bonobos being a subset of chimps. I assume they are closer
to chimps than to us.
Right. Bonobos are the so-called "pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_.
They're really not all that much smaller than common chimps,
_Pan troglodytes_. IIRC, they were recognized as being a fully
separate species relatively late in the 20th century. They've
recently gotten some notoriety for being unusually "sexy" apes
that reportedly engage in various sexual activities as part of
their normal social behaviors.
And that is your primary (primate) reason for studying them?
Give up arguing your lost cause?
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"There once was a time when all people believed in God
and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages."
-- Richard Lederer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 08:50:31 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:WR8_b.24249$o52.5011@fed1read02...
Iconoclast wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c1ausj$c1p$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
In article <pojh30tcmmihs4a92f6mh51l6m3lja0ed6@4ax.com>,
RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org [satyr] wrote...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:45:49 +0000 (UTC),
mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
As I'd said. "Apes" traditionally just means "any and all hominoid
primates, other than humans". We're very much a part of the same
biological group, but arbitrarily excluded ourselves from the term
"ape" [probably due to vanity, and the same reasons why creationists
are so afraid of being descended from "apes"]. The formerly recognized
'ape' family Pongidae similarly was just an artificial grouping of
"all great apes, other than humans". They're now all included in the
same family Hominidae as modern humans.
Not as specific as my physical anthro professor who said we if
chimps,
gorillas and orangs were apes, we were apes as well.
Indeed, chimpanzees are in fact closer kin [in terms of recency of
common ancestry] to humans than they are to gorillas, and gorillas
are closer to humans [and chimps and bonobos] than they are to
orangutans. Orangutans in turn are closer to humans [and gorillas
and chimps and bonobos] than they are to gibbons.
It is great (but not surprising) to have someone truly knowledgeable
on this thread. Can you answer a couple questions?
What was the approximate years when 'Pongidae' was abandoned?
Interesting that it happened with little notice in the popular press.
What is the difference between bonobos and chimps? I have sometimes
heard of bonobos being a subset of chimps. I assume they are closer
to chimps than to us.
Right. Bonobos are the so-called "pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_.
They're really not all that much smaller than common chimps,
_Pan troglodytes_. IIRC, they were recognized as being a fully
separate species relatively late in the 20th century. They've
recently gotten some notoriety for being unusually "sexy" apes
that reportedly engage in various sexual activities as part of
their normal social behaviors.
And that is your primary (primate) reason for studying them?
Give up arguing your lost cause?
I don't have any problem with evolution. I do have a problem with
inaccuracy for or against.
You are too dense to even see what I have said and a little humor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A DESCENDANT OF THE APES? |
22 Feb 2004 03:58:40 PM |
|
|
In article <u38_b.24199$o52.9612@fed1read02>, [Iconoclast]
wrote...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:c1ausj$c1p$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[snip]
Right. Bonobos are the so-called "pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_.
They're really not all that much smaller than common chimps,
_Pan troglodytes_. IIRC, they were recognized as being a fully
separate species relatively late in the 20th century. They've
recently gotten some notoriety for being unusually "sexy" apes
that reportedly engage in various sexual activities as part of
their normal social behaviors.
And that is your primary (primate) reason for studying them?
Naah, I actually study some much kinkier organisms: ferns.
But bonobos have indeed received considerable press for
claims about their "make love, not war" propensities.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
