Is it time to clear up the creationists "man from monkey" problem again..?

Question

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

There is now NO REASON for you to make this ignorant statement EVER AGAIN..!
But will you..??

Answer 1

I've seen you post this before. Well written and concise. I can't imagine why anyone would make the mistake of thinking men "came from monkeys" after reading this.

Answer 2

it states that both have a common ancestor. A common ancestor is about all you can say. What does that mean (be specific scientifically). Are you saying--there were no human species--and all the sudden there was--no mutants--perfect humans with all human qualities from a common ancestry. All you have stated here today is the verbiage is wrong. You have done nothing other than correct grammar.
Why is that species(common ancestor) not available to examine today? Did their DNA disappear? Why? Everything has been explained by DNA--except the garbage cells that science can't explain yet! right!!! Everything I have mentioned is scientifically answered through investigation. Or will in be put with creationism So these facts of evolution takes it out of Theory and places it into facts? I don't think so.

Answer 3

This argument will never be over until Christ comes back. You may disagree with me that's up to you. I do find it interesting that as evolutionist try harder and harder to prove they are right they seem to be proving more and more that there wrong. Example I read a yahoo article that says that almost all of the Dinosaur fossils they find are in the same position. Head rared back and tail up towards head. They found that they had suffocated. They said of course it had to be ash. I say it was The Flood. There are others but i don't want to get into all of that. Good luck getting an answer that suits you on this.

Answer 4

Monkey Mya

Answer 5

Errrr... The Common Ancestor may WELL Be A Monkey; And Later VERY MUCH WERE APE CAs (MRCAs). Note that we had 2 separate MRCAs with monkeys... ( <<<< n )

Note that *all* of humanity is related, plus we’re all related to apes, monkeys, elephants, broccoli, amoebas, etc., right back to the Origin of Life some 3,900,000,000 years ago, maybe a bit longer. And we know much about humanity’s development, and the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for most splits back through time. And the amount of time is critical when viewing a biblical ~6,000 years -- a date discarded by science since Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in 1830 - a close friend of Darwin’s, BTW. (Note that this post relates to *more* than just species evolution, as does creationism and its' making of the planet.)

The extraordinarily strong evidence for this - locking it down to fact - is that we're *all* carbon-based life and even more significantly, we all use DNA as a controlling agent. To have something as beautifully complex, intricate, well-tuned and versatile as DNA ubiquitously in *all* life but *not* be related would make no logical sense at all - I can't possibly see DNA arising twice, especially on the same planet at roughly the same time – it’s simply a No-Go!

The planet took some 500,000 years to accrete from star stuff and rubble, completing some 4,550,000,000 years ago, and life took hold within the first billion years. Here’s a basic reverse timeline of life-related events (see Source):
- Y-Chromosome “Adam” (patrilineal MRCA) – 59,000 ya
- Mitochondrial “Eve” (matrilineal MRCA) – 143,000 ya
- H. sapiens sapiens (Modern Human) – 130,000 ya
- H. sapiens (Archaic: H. heidelbergensis) – 800,000 ya
- Early Genus H*m*: H. habilis, et al. – 2.5 mya
- Australopithicines (many species) – 4.5 mya
- Hominids & Chimps/bonobos (MRCA) – 5.5 mya <<<<<<<
- Above & Gorillas (MRCA) – 7.0 mya
- Above & OrangUtans (MRCA) – 14 mya
- Above & Gibbons (MRCA) – 18 mya
- Above & Old World Monkeys (MRCA) – 25 mya <<<< 1
- Above & New World Monkeys (MRCA) – 40 mya <<<< 2
- Above & Bushbabies, Lemurs (MRCA) – 63 mya
- Above & Colugos, Tree Shrews (MRCA) – 70 mya
- Above & Rodents and Rabbitkind (MRCA) – 75 mya
- Above & bears, weasels, cats, +… (MRCA) – 85 mya
- Above & rest of Placental Mammals (MRCA) – 105 mya
- Above & Mammal-like Reptiles (MRCA) – 130 mya
- Above & Reptiles (Incl. birds) (MRCA) – 310 mya
- Above & Amphibians (MRCA) – 340 mya
- Above & Lungfish (MRCA) – 417 mya
- Above & Ray-finned Fish (MRCA) – 440 mya
(The book below gets increasingly technical as other MRCAs join other life-forms, including, in order: worms, insects, barnacles, Chengjiang & Burgess Shale creatures (including early vertebrates at ~520 mya), jellyfish, coral, sponges, fungi, amoebozoans, plants, archaea, eubacteria, ribosomes, and somewhere around 4.0 bya, the Origin of Life by abiogenesis.)

Answer 6

Hey! You're trying to ruin the Atheist Drinking Game! That's not cool!

Answer 7

Hey! That monkey question is what is keeping me gill deep in red wine. Keep 'em coming!

Answer 8

No matter how well-written your argument is (and I've seen you post this before).. they just keep coming with the monkey question.. *sigh*

Answer 9

The two minds will never meet. Give it a rest.

Answer 10

If evolutionists are so smart, how come there's still creationists???

Sorry, had to ask.