Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   It's actually it's wronger than that. According to cladistics(*) humans
> did not "evolve from monkeys". Instead, humans and monkeys have a common
> ancestor species. This ancestor species probably looked more like a monkey
> than a human, but was still relatively different from either.
>
>   (Also, apes are more closely related to humans than monkeys. It seems that
> creationists and other people who want to mock the theory of evolution
> deliberately use the more distantly related monkeys more as a mockery than
> anything else. According to cladistics humans and apes have a common ancestor
> species, which in turn has a common ancestor species with monkeys.)

Please find attached a simplified cladogram.

Now, if C was the most recent common ancestor of all the apes, then how could C
not be an ape?

If C was an ape, then how can humans not be apes?

We were just getting comfortable with that conclusion, and then some
troublemakers pointed out...

If A was the most recent common ancestor of Old World monkeys and New World
monkeys, then how could A not be a monkey?

If A was a monkey, then how could B not be a monkey?

If B was a monkey, then how could C not be a monkey?

If C was a monkey, then how can apes not be a monkeys (which they *are*,
according to dictionaries)?

If apes are monkeys, then how can humans not be monkeys?

Just accept it.  Screw the creationists' fragile egos.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'monkeys.png' (57 KB)

Preview of image 'monkeys.png'