Re: In the News: 'Expelled' Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters

On Dec 1, 3:54 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I see the problem. The ancestor of all living species of apes, humans,
and monkeys was a monkey. But the common ancestor of all the apes,
humans, and monkeys that have ever lived was a "pre-monkey." Most of
the contributors to this thread mean "currently living" apes, humans and
monkeys when they make their claims. However, Armstrong is taking the
other meaning.

Sorry, but I think this is silly. The common ancestor of all the apes,
humans, and monkeys that have ever lived was a monkey, the first monkey
in fact. Now if you want to make the point that the common ancestor of a
group can't be a member of that group, this is logical quibbling that's
contrary to modern taxonomic practice. If that's really what Armstrong
meant, which I doubt, he was being silly too.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b72c8b73fceb1130/621295b02a9784c3#621295b02a9784c3
But in this thread post.52 you told JTEM:
"...But their objection is not to the words used; it's to the fact
itself.
Whether you say humans are descended from apes, or apes and humans are
descended from a common ancestor, or whatever, it doesn't matter to
them. What matters is that humans are not related by descent to
anything
else. Note, by the way, that the idiot who began this thread was not
complaining about humans being called apes, but about what he
considers
to be weasel words trying to disguise such an idea....."

And thus your intent or pragmatics with "common ancestor" is your
belief that you are a baboon(vernacular). But this intent is not the
same intent most evolutionists have with CA. It is the intent with CA
that is of importance and what specific intent each communicates with
CA.
The general intent that people understand with mankind evolving from a
common ancestor is that mankind is distinctly not an ape species.

And the "idiot" you are refering to would of course be me. My
understanding with CA was that humans are distinctly different from
apes and that CA confuses the intent that apes turned into humans. It
came as a surprise to me that your intent with CA is to view yourself
as an ape. This of yours contradicts Darwin's intent with CA. His
intent was the slow, gradual transformation of an ape species into the
human species. This is how Wilberforce understood Darwin. Are you
saying Wilberforce was confused?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In the News: Expelled Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters
    ... If we are monkeys, ... We are apes, so we can't turn into apes. ... portion of our common ancestor with any other species has turned into us ... human relatives evolved into humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Resources
    ... gradistically, as monkeys. ... This is pretty much the same situation as with apes and humans. ... "Humans are sister to Chimps and cousin to Gorillas and second cousin ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Resources
    ... gradistically, as monkeys. ... This is pretty much the same situation as with apes and humans. ... I can only think of gibbons. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Resources
    ... gradistically, as monkeys. ... This is pretty much the same situation as with apes and humans. ... I can only think of gibbons. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Resources
    ... gradistically, as monkeys. ... I'd rather say it's paraphyletic rather than having no real meaning. ... This is pretty much the same situation as with apes and humans. ...
    (talk.origins)