Would you agree, that if we were to go back 5 million years, to see that common ancestor, that to our naked eye, it would appear to you and I as a "monkey" like animal.
Would you also agree, that argueing about a monkey or an ape or a common ancestor, is pretty much a waste of time, espeically if the two people agree that the Origin of the Species was through the mechanism of Evolution and Natural Selection.
In other words, STFU with saying to another evolutionist - no it was a common ancestor.
2006-10-06 02:54:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The point isn't to say that the common ancestor of humans and the Chimp family wouldn't look monkeyish, it's that it forces someone who asks the ubiquitous and false question "why are there still monkeys?" to hopefully realize that their premise is false and they don't understand the concept of speciation and , if not particularly of specifics in this case.specialized evolution.
It's a meanfingful distinction of concepts.
2006-10-06 02:59:56 · answer #1 · answered by rorgg 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why should facts be ignored-if we have a common ancestor with primates which obviously we do how can there be a problem with exploring the implications that raises for evolution and our understanding of the processes involved? Evolution is about biology not subjective opinions and I want to learn biological facts.
2006-10-06 02:57:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
People have the misconception that we evolved from modern apes. That is the only reason we consistently cite a common ancestor. Of course it was monkey like or ape like. Your argument is simply absurd Jim... I expect better from you.
2006-10-06 03:07:05 · answer #3 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All that common ancestor business is really a long drawn out soap opera. It is mass speculation of could have, should have, would have and the like. there is no actual observable proof to it and only interpetation of a time when no human was around. People take a few bones or pieces of them and build a world with characters and personalities and motives. They should become soap opera writers since they have the right kind of creativeness.
2006-10-06 03:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by Ernesto 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
monkeys is plural monkey's is singular possessive monkeys' is plural possessive Monkees is a band What does this could do with evolution, or the shortcoming thereof? it quite is of course a grammar question.
2016-10-15 21:49:06 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with rorgg. Perhaps the alleged animal was a monkey like creature, but it wasn't the monkey we know of today.
2006-10-06 03:04:32 · answer #6 · answered by Miss Vicki 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A monkey like being to be sure.
2006-10-06 02:57:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
whats all this monkey business here.... i have seen people argue over this for weeks now.... if thats the speed at which you are going to figure out the universe... you will never reach anywhere......
2006-10-06 03:02:40 · answer #8 · answered by Siddhartha 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋