I'm 'debating' with a number of individuals on a bible
forum, and here is my draft response... and I wanted to
check if it were accurate and if I missed anything.
[quote]Quote: from JohnR on 3:26 pm on Dec. 29, 2003[br]
Does this mean men came from monkeys?[/quote]
Well yes and no.
Yes since we can actually see how closely related we are to our cousins, and
no since it could be argued we are tailless monkeys... because its difficult
to separate us enough biologically speaking to make that distinction.
This concept isn't helped by the definition of words that are and were
arbitrarily defined by popular culture and prevailing biological literacy.
For example, here are the pertinent definitions for the words ape and monkey
from dictionary.com:
ape
1a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family
Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
1b. A monkey.
monkey
1. Any of various long-tailed, medium-sized members of the order Primates,
including the macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, and tamarins
and excluding the anthropoid apes and the prosimians.
So to recap, ape excludes human for no scientific reason since by definition
we are tailless primates; not only that but we can trace our ancestry
through the fossil record to ancestors we have in common with other apes.
Monkey excludes (humanlike) apes, whereas ape includes monkeys; but then
again apes (including us) did come from monkeys. (this is proven through DNA
testing which can trace the 'family tree' all the way back to sponges and
even simpler lifeforms) So technically I could say we came from sponges...
but it would require a significant appreciation of the biological field, not
the Biblical field.
However to say monkeys and even simpler, apes is more convenient given its a
no brainer considering the DNA, fossil and physical evidence.
.
|
