Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[loveofourlord]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

And let me guess, we have no sin nature ... right?

 

[loveofourlord]

And let me guess, we have no sin nature ... right?

Sin is actions not something from the past that some how connects to you still.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sin is actions not something from the past that some how connects to you still.

As a verb, yes.

But I'm talking about the sin nature we're born with.

 

[loveofourlord]

As a verb, yes.

But I'm talking about the sin nature we're born with.

and I'm saying I don't thin thats right, it's wrong to treat children as already sinners, sin is something you do, not something you inherit.

 

[SkyWriting]

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys which would make our ancestors monkeys.

I'm not sure how you sketched all this out
but I would at least give us credit for
rising up out of that group a long as your
trying to make your story entertaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a verb, yes.

But I'm talking about the sin nature we're born with.

You need to define "sin". If you mean the mythical Adam and Eve nature of "sin" then the answer is no. You do realize that that version of "sin" makes the God that made it extremely immoral, don't you? If your God is not immoral then the Adam and Eve story is a myth for you too.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I guess maybe some of us might have evolved from monkeys.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess maybe some of us might have evolved from monkeys.

Ya think?

I once saw a shirt that said:

SCIENTISTS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO MAKE MONKEYS OUT OF THEMSELVES.

 

[AdamSK]

I'm not sure how you sketched all this out
but I would at least give us credit for
rising up out of that group a long as your
trying to make your story entertaining.

The societal accomplishments of human beings are unrivaled in evolutionary history, and we're certainly the smartest animal on the planet. So we are "up" from the other primates in that sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and we're certainly the smartest animal on the planet.

Is that why we engage in biomimicry?

 

[AdamSK]

Is that why we engage in biomimicry?

Yep.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep.

Why is it then, if we're animals, that educated people scratch their heads and wonder why some people act like them?

Remember Klebold & Harris?

Weren't they just responding naturally to environmental pressure?

And I love asking this question:

Which one wore the shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION?

 

[AdamSK]

Why is it then, if we're animals, that educated people scratch their heads and wonder why some people act like them?

What do you mean, some people? We all act like animals; we are animals.

Remember Klebold & Harris?
Weren't they just responding naturally to environmental pressure?

Columbine, yes? I don't mind the idea that they were acting "naturally". Squatting down and taking a dump in public would be "natural" behavior, too. We have thousands of years of civilization around teaching people not to act on raw emotion or base urges when that nature is not what is best for us as individuals and as a society. After all, nature is "red in tooth and claw," but we would rather not live that way.

"Natural" behavior, whether the urge to kill others or to steal or to rape, does not excuse any evil in the behavior. Harm is still harm.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have thousands of years of civilization around teaching people not to act on raw emotion or base urges when that nature is not what is best for us as individuals and as a society.

And everyone is expected to comply with those teachings, I take it?

I just can't understand why educated people scratch their heads in wonderment at two animals that didn't buy into everything they were taught.

Do you buy into everything you're taught?

 

[AdamSK]

And everyone is expected to comply with those teachings, I take it?

If they want to function in society, yes. If not we lock them up or send them away.

I just can't understand why educated people scratch their heads in wonderment at two animals that didn't buy into everything they were taught.
Do you buy into everything you're taught?

You don't have to "buy into" it. You have to behave according to society's rules or accept society's consequences.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they want to function in society, yes. If not we lock them up or send them away.

To a zoo?

Then we could charge people to see the animals in the "Feral Park."

You don't have to "buy into" it. You have to behave according to society's rules or accept society's consequences.

That's all fine and dandy.

I just don't understand educated people who scratch their heads and wonder, "What went wrong?"

Nothing went wrong.

You congregate around certain animals, you get bit.

 

[Papias]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

Yes, as an evolution supporter, I agree. Our common ancestor with monkey looked a lot like a monkey, and if seen today, even if not exactly classified as a monkey, most regular folks would look at it and, if asked what it was, say "a monkey".

Maybe it would be good for those who say "we didn't evolve from monkeys!" were clear that they are objecting to the idea that we evolved from ancient monkey-like creatures (which is correct), not that they are objecting to the idea that we evolved from today's monkeys (which is incorrect).

regardless, however, I agree with the OP.

Also - why all the derailing? It's common courtesy to stick to the topic and not hijack threads with things like "sin nature" and feral parks.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

In colloquial language, we did evolve from monkeys. In scientific terms, there are no monkeys, either living or dead. To further cloud the issue, scientists often move freely from colloquial to scientific descriptions. However, if we stuck just to the scientific taxons, then not one of them would be called "monkey".

The real confusion springs from the fact that the colloquial terms predate the theory of evolution and do not reflect the tools that scientists currently use, namely cladistics. "Monkey" is a paraphyletic term, which is a big no-no in cladistics. Terms need to be monophyletic which means that the common ancestor and ALL descendants must be described by the same name. If we do stick with monkey, then humans are still monkeys according to cladistics.

Just to be clear, the same problem exists for other very common names such as reptile, mammal, and ape. These are also paraphyletic groups. I guess it all comes down to how much of a cladistics-Nazi you want to be.

 

[loveofourlord]

In colloquial language, we did evolve from monkeys. In scientific terms, there are no monkeys, either living or dead. To further cloud the issue, scientists often move freely from colloquial to scientific descriptions. However, if we stuck just to the scientific taxons, then not one of them would be called "monkey".

The real confusion springs from the fact that the colloquial terms predate the theory of evolution and do not reflect the tools that scientists currently use, namely cladistics. "Monkey" is a paraphyletic term, which is a big no-no in cladistics. Terms need to be monophyletic which means that the common ancestor and ALL descendants must be described by the same name. If we do stick with monkey, then humans are still monkeys according to cladistics.

Just to be clear, the same problem exists for other very common names such as reptile, mammal, and ape. These are also paraphyletic groups. I guess it all comes down to how much of a cladistics-Nazi you want to be.

hmmmm on reptiles, I think that one actually is fair to say were not reptiles, could be wrong, but the one evolutionary tree I saw had humans splitting off from reptiles, before they became reptiles, as in they were still more amphibian end of the spectrum or such.

and yeah, I do think we still are monkeys it's like you said how you use labels, there is some push to dislike using the term monkey. I'm just saying if old world and new world monkeys are both monkeys so are we :> Least claditisticly speaking. Just as birds are still dinosaurs.