259 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

well I see the evolution naysayers haven't even read the article at the beginning of this thread

[knite]

Not trying to be underhanded. It just seems strange to me that evolution can't be proved one way of the other with some kind of DNA test of something. BTW I'm not trying to say that I believe it has to be Evolution or Creationism. Maybe it's neither one if there's not absolute proof.

There is no such thing as absolute proof. However, there is an awful lot of evidence for evolution. The evidence for a sentient creator, however, is a little on the (infinitely) thin side.

[subjunk]

Um, your last sentence... "In fact, the opposite is true". No. It isn't. What that sentence says is that 'evolution doesn't disprove God, but evolution does prove God.' No. no it doesn't.

Evolution proves nothing really. It is really just a theoretical description of how things work based on observations of things working. The subjective conclusions we reach from that theory are precisely that, subjective.

The level of sophistication involved in the evolution of life forms tells me there is a Creator behind the process. This is a very substantial piece of evidence I can't logically deny.

I don't see any sophistication. Here it is:

Random genetic mutation occurs -->
1) It is beneficial to spawning, so that lifeform is more likely to pass on the mutation than those without it.
2) It is non-beneficial to spawning, so that lifeform is less likely to pass on the mutation than those without it.
3) It is of little consequence at all, so it either stays or goes, likelihood changed depending on other mutations.

That's evolution.

Seems like common sense to me.

[subjunk]

well I see the evolution naysayers haven't even read the article at the beginning of this thread

They aren't known for their reading skills.

[william7]

But if the Father doesn't move, those that don't know God here will
regard such posts as crazy stories.

But you do believe God could use posts such as we make to move the hearts of unbelievers? Wouldn't it be nice if God turned a bunch of the atheists and agnostics that participate in these forums into believers? Aegist and others might, at least, arrive at a new understanding like professor Antony Flew did.

I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but it isn't the Father's will
to save everyone.

But doesn't 2 Peter 3:9 say the Lord doesn't want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance?

[Aegist]

LOL.
A contradiction? In the Bible? Never!

BTW Elijah, I suggest you give up bragging about the odd scientist who gave up his logic and gave in to his fears and became a christian. Much more interesting IMO is the stats of the number of top scientists who are christian vs the number who are atheist. And the stats for christian vs atheists in Mensa. And the christian vs atheists in all well educated fields. And just as interesting is the stats for christian vs atheists in prison populations.

Those STATS, the general expression of how things actually are (as opposed to the rare cases) are much more revealing

[william7]

The level of sophistication is a simple logical consequence of the way the universe works. The sophistication that you see, the complexity of biology, is the consequence of incredible simplicity. Replication, error and selection. Your God spends all of his time 'controlling' something which doesn't need to be controlled!!!

I don't know how else have you understand the simplicity that is evolution, which results in the vast amounts of apparent complexity.... A + B + C = evolution. Such simple rules, such abundant results. No god required.

If you still disagree, please tell me exactly what it is that God does with this equation to fulfill his role as 'creator and oversee of life'.

If life could of arose from dead matter of its own accord, it likely would have died out or remained the same without change. It took an intelligent force (God) with a purpose or plan in mind to design and shape the various life forms. They just didn't happen by blind chance. It totally defies logic and reason to believe so.

You cannot prove in a logical fashion that some nonintelligent force or natural law created and shaped the various life forms to their present degree of sophistication and complexity. You only believe this happened.

I cannot describe to you the way in which God created matter - inorganic or organic. The mechanics by which He did this would, I'm sure, be way too difficult for me to comprehend. Fortunately, God does not desire that we learn this. Instead, He wants us to learn the wisdom He gave to His prophets and His Son so we can live in a righteous way that will bring a long, healthy, and happy life.

Is this statement trying to say that your God sits there changing things in the evolutionary process? You actually think God actively controls insignificant chemical reactions? Wow. I thought he was all powerful. I thought he could create things at will. but no, apparently your God hides in the shadows slightly altering things so that they don't show up on the 'against the laws of the universe-o-meter' just incase someone catches him!

You have such a narrow perception of the powers of this God you supposedly believe in.

No, I don't believe He activily controls each and every insignificant chemical reaction. I suspect He has programmed these things to operate in the way He desires. I also suspect that there are laws that limit God in how He creates and controls things. How this system works, however, is way beyond me.

Wow. State the blatently obvious award nomination coming up!

Scientists didn't start evolution? LOL.

I stated this only for your benefit.

it is pointless talking to you about evolution, abiogenesis and biology when you clearly lack any knowledge of the subject. try finding out how evolution works, and then assert that it is wishful thinking that "the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature". Not only is evolution a seperate theory from biogenesis, but there is nothing wishful about it. Frustratingly I have given you case after case which shows you how it is possible (A + B + C = evolution, the application of that theory to pixels to create a picture, and the 3 examples of CURRENT evolution, just apply those principles to 3 BILLION YEARS).

Hey! I've studied some biology and anthropology in my youth. And, abiogenesis is only working hypothesis, not even a scientific theory yet, as Wikipedia points out. See http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenisis. I turned from studying these irrelevant matters when I discovered the more important knowledge and wisdom of the Bible.

[william7]

And just to add to the very first post in this thread, the 15 responses to the rubbish that creationists come up with, check this out:

http://www.talkorigi...dexcc/list.html

A complete list with all the things creationists have said, and why they are wrong, erroneous, based on faulty thinking, or show a deep misunderstanding of biology.

well I see the evolution naysayers haven't even read the article at the beginning of this thread

I don't deny that a number of so-called Christians preach a lot of error and untruth. That's been going on for the longest. Notice below what one knowledgeable source said about this practice:

These teachers appeared to represent Christ at a time when the masses of humanity lacked any significant education. To the unschooled believers of that time, their teachings probably seemed reasonable; they sounded right. Yet these teachers were really instruments of deception in Satan's hands, used to lead others astray. Many may not have even realized their own errors and misguided motives.

http://www.gnmagazin...gottenroots.htm

True scientists and true Christians are suppose to be seeking truth and attempting to correct error. Remember, the history of science shows that science has made many mistakes and has misused its knowledge for dishonest and misguided purposes the same as false Christianity under Satan's control has done. Science wears no halo in history.

[william7]

LOL.
A contradiction? In the Bible? Never!

It only appears to be a contradiction.

BTW Elijah, I suggest you give up bragging about the odd scientist who gave up his logic and gave in to his fears and became a christian. Much more interesting IMO is the stats of the number of top scientists who are christian vs the number who are atheist. And the stats for christian vs atheists in Mensa. And the christian vs atheists in all well educated fields. And just as interesting is the stats for christian vs atheists in prison populations.

Those STATS, the general expression of how things actually are (as opposed to the rare cases) are much more revealing

Statistics can be very misleading as I'm sure you've already heard. How many scientists might keep their religious faith secret for fear of ridicule and ostracism from their peers. The same goes for Christians who have become atheists, but wish to remain in their country club churches. People change their beliefs, but still wish to keep their social positions unchanged.

[biknut]

I lean toward evolution because when you look around that's what looks like a good bet. However there are some questions. The article at the beginning of this thread mentions some questions about evolution but then brushes them off without addressing them.

One thing I question is the seemingly resent appearance of modern humans. I'm 53 now and when I was in elementary school we were taught modern humans dated to about 30,000 years ago. Now that date has been pushed back a little to 130,000 years. It seems like a rather sudden change considering that the other humans had been around for millions of years.

Another question is, there are lots of different kinds of monkeys that have evolved over millions of years. There were many kinds of humans too. Why did all the other humans die out while most of the monkeys didn't?

It does seem like changes can happen quickly rather than in millions of years. Why? It makes me wonder if something happens to cause changes, like a cosmic ray event. For instance if the center of the Galaxy explodes periodically and causes changes every so often. Anyone witnessing such an event might think about God or OMG. [:o]

[william7]

And the christian vs atheists in all well educated fields.

That all comes down to what you call real education or true knowledge and wisdom. Those people in the well educated fields maybe lacking in character that comes from true knowledge and wisdom found only in the Bible. People with college degrees in secular subjects possess know moral superiority over the common people who have no such degrees. In fact, I see the reverse to be the case. People in big business, government, and the media are doing a lot of dirt these days.

And just as interesting is the stats for christian vs atheists in prison populations.

Again, statistics can be very misleading. From my observations, many prisoners are practicing religion as a part of being a member of a prison gang. Being a part of a religious gang in a hostile prison environment is often nothing but a survival strategy. Being involved in religion in prison can also bring special privileges and other opportunities.

This is not to say there are no serious Christians in prison. Distinguishing between the true and the false is not an easy thing to do - especially in a prison.

[Aegist]

If life could of arose from dead matter of its own accord, it likely would have died out or remained the same without change. It took an intelligent force (God) with a purpose or plan in mind to design and shape the various life forms. They just didn't happen by blind chance. It totally defies logic and reason to believe so.

Great. Assume the answer you want, then assert the facts meet your assumption.

Lucky for the rest of us, the world doesn't work that way. I don't know how life started, and I never pretended to. I have my theories, but they are loose un-defined concepts without any real basis other than a general understanding of molecular biology. I do however know how evolution works, and the fact is that life does change, and thus life does evolve. Not because I assert it as true, but because it has ben observed, measured, explored and understood.

it is as factual as the earth orbits the sun. It is time you let go of your dogmatic beliefs in this regard, and pay attention to the observable undeniable facts, and when you come to see them, then maybe you can start to tackle the 'complex' concept of evolution...

You cannot prove in a logical fashion that some nonintelligent force or natural law created and shaped the various life forms to their present degree of sophistication and complexity. You only believe this happened.

While I cannot 'prove' (anything) that the process of evolution did in fact craft all life, I know that it could, and I know that all of the information we have matches that theory extraordinarily well, and I know that the way life works matches the mathematical concept...In fact, everything points directly and very very loudly screams "Evolution did it".

But sure, 'its just a belief'. Whatever you want to spin it as.

I cannot describe to you the way in which God created matter - inorganic or organic. The mechanics by which He did this would, I'm sure, be way too difficult for me to comprehend. Fortunately, God does not desire that we learn this. Instead, He wants us to learn the wisdom He gave to His prophets and His Son so we can live in a righteous way that will bring a long, healthy, and happy life.

Brilliant. Not on'y don't you know, but you can't know. I'm glad you are around, helping people come to terms with the fact that we really shouldn't be trying to understand things... knowledge is the work of the devil!

No, I don't believe He activily controls each and every insignificant chemical reaction. I suspect He has programmed these things to operate in the way He desires. I also suspect that there are laws that limit God in how He creates and controls things. How this system works, however, is way beyond me.

Well I can't argue with that. Maybe a God did create the laws of the universe how it wanted them.... I'm just describing those laws. Evolution being the consequence of those laws....Blindly working away without external assistance, because it works so beautifully by itself.

As for laws of the universe limiting God...once again you stun me by how small your God is. If i was to believe in God, I would expect him to be able to do anything, not piddly little human-limitation style things.

Hey! I've studied some biology and anthropology in my youth. And, abiogenesis is only working hypothesis, not even a scientific theory yet, as Wikipedia points out. See http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenisis. I turned from studying these irrelevant matters when I discovered the more important knowledge and wisdom of the Bible.

Thank God for the Bible! you almost became another victim of knowledge! The biggest killer of them all.

[Aegist]

And just to add to the very first post in this thread, the 15 responses to the rubbish that creationists come up with, check this out:

http://www.talkorigi...dexcc/list.html

A complete list with all the things creationists have said, and why they are wrong, erroneous, based on faulty thinking, or show a deep misunderstanding of biology.

well I see the evolution naysayers haven't even read the article at the beginning of this thread

I don't deny that a number of so-called Christians preach a lot of error and untruth. That's been going on for the longest. Notice below what one knowledgeable source said about this practice:


http://www.gnmagazin...gottenroots.htm

True scientists and true Christians are suppose to be seeking truth and attempting to correct error. Remember, the history of science shows that science has made many mistakes and has misused its knowledge for dishonest and misguided purposes the same as false Christianity under Satan's control has done. Science wears no halo in history.

So have you read either the article at the beginning of this thread, or any of that TalkOrigins Index?

[Aegist]

LOL.
A contradiction? In the Bible? Never!

It only appears to be a contradiction.

BTW Elijah, I suggest you give up bragging about the odd scientist who gave up his logic and gave in to his fears and became a christian. Much more interesting IMO is the stats of the number of top scientists who are christian vs the number who are atheist. And the stats for christian vs atheists in Mensa. And the christian vs atheists in all well educated fields. And just as interesting is the stats for christian vs atheists in prison populations.

Those STATS, the general expression of how things actually are (as opposed to the rare cases) are much more revealing

Statistics can be very misleading as I'm sure you've already heard. How many scientists might keep their religious faith secret for fear of ridicule and ostracism from their peers. The same goes for Christians who have become atheists, but wish to remain in their country club churches. People change their beliefs, but still wish to keep their social positions unchanged.

These stats are pretty clear cut. besides, in USA, more people keep their atheism secret for fear of rejection from their incredible narrow minded religious families and societies.

Atheists don't tend to much care what religion you are. but ever noticed what happens when christians and muslims mix?
Atheists are also one of the most discriminated against sub-populations in the US. It's ridiculous.

They commit less crimes, they are much more represented amongst the intellectuals, and they are hated with a passion by the religious as if they are evil incarnate.

[Aegist]

I lean toward evolution because when you look around that's what looks like a good bet. However there are some questions. The article at the beginning of this thread mentions some questions about evolution but then brushes them off without addressing them.

One thing I question is the seemingly resent appearance of modern humans. I'm 53 now and when I was in elementary school we were taught modern humans dated to about 30,000 years ago. Now that date has been pushed back a little to 130,000 years. It seems like a rather sudden change considering that the other humans had been around for millions of years.

Another question is, there are lots of different kinds of monkeys that have evolved over millions of years. There were many kinds of humans too. Why did all the other humans die out while most of the monkeys didn't?

Do you actually know how many monkey's did die out?

More accurately, why are you seperating us from the monkeys? An equally accurate question would be: Why did all of the gorilla ancestors die out to leave just gorillas, while most of the other monkeys didn't?

The question is erroneous in both circumstances because you bunch 'monkeys' as one group, and 'humans' as another (or gorillas vs monkey) but the truth is we are all equally 'Great Ape', or 'Hominid' if you want the larger group. Many ancestors which lead to our sepcific species (homo sapiens) died out, but I have no doubt that many of the ancestors which lead to the specific species chimpanzee died out too. You ahve to keep your groupings equal before you start to compare those groupings.

It does seem like changes can happen quickly rather than in millions of years. Why? It makes me wonder if something happens to cause changes, like a cosmic ray event. For instance if the center of the Galaxy explodes periodically and causes changes every so often. Anyone witnessing such an event might think about God or OMG.  [:o]

Not likely. Generally, big change is caused by massive success. When a species is extremely successful, it multiples rapidly, and with that multiplication comes massive variety. With massive variety also comes greater variation (look at humans today. Look at our height variation, our skin variation, our hairyness variation. Some people can bend over backwards, some have virtually no flexibility. etc etc huge range, many numbers). Also with massive multiplication in numbers of a species population comes massive competition, because inevitably we are all trying to make the same living, in the same way, at the same time. We compete with each other. And thus we have a strong selective pressure....

Lots of variation + strong selective pressure = rapid change. (rapid being (maybe) hundreds of generations instead of thousands of generations, which is still a very long time)

[Aegist]

And the christian vs atheists in all well educated fields.

That all comes down to what you call real education or true knowledge and wisdom. Those people in the well educated fields maybe lacking in character that comes from true knowledge and wisdom found only in the Bible. People with college degrees in secular subjects possess know moral superiority over the common people who have no such degrees. In fact, I see the reverse to be the case. People in big business, government, and the media are doing a lot of dirt these days.

You relaly need to get off you moral superiority high horse. The bible is not the exclusive owner of morality. In fact, it is quite possibly the worst source for moral guidance. Have you not read the damn book? The book is full of genocide, rape, murder, extreme capital punishment for insignificant crimes, slavery, female submission etc etc etc. This book you believe is the sole source of moral guidance in our world, is the ultimate story of the worst of humanity.

And don't even try to say that they are the sins of evil people disobeying Gods word. God is the one doing half of it, and the rest of it is Gods law. This is what God tells us to do. The only reason you can take 'positive morals' out of the Bible is because humans are naturally moral: its in our nature to know, on a basic level, right and wrong. So when you read the bible you read it through this filter of "well that is wrong, so I wonder what God really means by that" and you automatically blank out all of the evil shit that God does, and just remember the 'nice' things that he does.

God is the WORST moral compass in the history of mankind.

Better ethics come from moral philosophy. Forget that, better morality comes from 5 year olds than you get out of the Bible. At least they are innocent in their actions, and not 'vengeful' by nature.

Again, statistics can be very misleading. From my observations, many prisoners are practicing religion as a part of being a member of a prison gang. Being a part of a religious gang in a hostile prison environment is often nothing but a survival strategy. Being involved in religion in prison can also bring special privileges and other opportunities.

This is not to say there are no serious Christians in prison. Distinguishing between the true and the false is not an easy thing to do - especially in a prison.

And thats a nice cop out again.
Oh the bad christians...they aren't real christians. Another great filter which allows you to claim that all christians are prefect representations of morality.

"Any person who does bad things, isn't a real christian." *Collect stats* "Hey look, according to our stats, all christians fall within the morally superior segment of society. This proves christianity is right"

Whatever spin you want to make on it, the stats show that in the USA there is something like only 7% of the population who says they are atheist, and only 1-2% of the prison population is atheist, a much smaller percentage than they should represent.

[Aegist]

http://atheistempire...tats/index.html

BUt of course, this thread is supposed to be about how ridiculous creationism is, not how atheism actually performs morally better in society than christianity...

[Live Forever]

Wow, Aegist.

I am impressed.

I haven't seen a smack down like that since Tyson fought that one white dude in the mid-90s and knocked him out in the first minute of the first round.

Good work.

Knowledge and critical thinking is the enemy of religious dogma.

[biknut]

[ Do you actually know how many monkey's did die out?

More accurately, why are you seperating us from the monkeys? An equally accurate question would be: Why did all of the gorilla ancestors die out to leave just gorillas, while most of the other monkeys didn't?

The question is erroneous in both circumstances because you bunch 'monkeys' as one group, and 'humans' as another (or gorillas vs monkey) but the truth is we are all equally 'Great Ape', or 'Hominid' if you want the larger group. Many ancestors which lead to our sepcific species (homo sapiens) died out, but I have no doubt that many of the ancestors which lead to the specific species chimpanzee died out too. You ahve to keep your groupings equal before you start to compare those groupings.

First of all, thanks for the explanation.

I was thinking probably a lot of monkeys did die out. It's just that there's still many different kinds of monkey species around. I don't question that at some point millions of years ago humans and monkeys or apes had a common ancestor. After that point though, it seems that many kinds of monkeys evolved and different kinds of hominids evolved too. All of the different hominids died out. but many of the different monkeys didn't. That's a little curious, don't you think?

Not likely. Generally, big change is caused by massive success. When a species is extremely successful, it multiples rapidly, and with that  multiplication comes massive variety. With massive variety also comes greater variation (look at humans today. Look at our height variation, our skin variation, our hairyness variation. Some people can bend over backwards, some have virtually no flexibility. etc etc huge range, many numbers). Also with massive multiplication in numbers of a species population comes massive competition, because inevitably we are all trying to make the same living, in the same way, at the same time. We compete with each other. And thus we have a strong selective pressure....

Lots of variation + strong selective pressure = rapid change. (rapid being (maybe) hundreds of generations instead of thousands of generations, which is still a very long time)

Comparing people, the difference between the way any two people on the earth look isn't the same as talking about the difference between a chimpanzee and a baboon, I'm sure know that. There still are both chimpanzees and baboons, but all the homo erectus, and Australopithecus are gone.

This is another question that comes to mind. If modern humans as a species originated only 130,000 years ago, how does this time frame compare to other species of animals? If there are other species that are younger than 130,000 years then nothing must be unusual about us, but if all the other species are millions of years old except us that's kind of curious.

[Live Forever]

biknut, why are you questioning things that die out? Did you know that 99.99% of all species that ever lived have become extinct? It is not curious at all to say that similar ancestors died out, in fact it is the norm.

[subjunk]

[ Do you actually know how many monkey's did die out?

More accurately, why are you seperating us from the monkeys? An equally accurate question would be: Why did all of the gorilla ancestors die out to leave just gorillas, while most of the other monkeys didn't?

The question is erroneous in both circumstances because you bunch 'monkeys' as one group, and 'humans' as another (or gorillas vs monkey) but the truth is we are all equally 'Great Ape', or 'Hominid' if you want the larger group. Many ancestors which lead to our sepcific species (homo sapiens) died out, but I have no doubt that many of the ancestors which lead to the specific species chimpanzee died out too. You ahve to keep your groupings equal before you start to compare those groupings.

First of all, thanks for the explanation.

I was thinking probably a lot of monkeys did die out. It's just that there's still many different kinds of monkey species around. I don't question that at some point millions of years ago humans and monkeys or apes had a common ancestor. After that point though, it seems that many kinds of monkeys evolved and different kinds of hominids evolved too. All of the different hominids died out. but many of the different monkeys didn't. That's a little curious, don't you think?

Not so much, considering hominid's habit of killing eachother

[biknut]

biknut, why are you questioning things that die out? Did you know that 99.99% of all species that ever lived have become extinct? It is not curious at all to say that similar ancestors died out, in fact it is the norm.

I don't think I'd say that when there are hundreds of species of monkeys, birds, lizards, cats and all kinds of other species still thriving, but all of the other hominids died out except us. Why didn't all the apes die except baboons? It's just a curiosity of mine.

Is there any other family of animals with only one specie left alive besides us?

[biknut]

Not so much, considering hominid's habit of killing eachother

Man that's mean, but.... [huh]

I guess all the women were ugly too.

[Live Forever]

biknut, why are you questioning things that die out? Did you know that 99.99% of all species that ever lived have become extinct? It is not curious at all to say that similar ancestors died out, in fact it is the norm.

I don't think I'd say that when there are hundreds of species of monkeys, birds, lizards, cats and all kinds of other species still thriving, but all of the other hominids died out except us. Why didn't all the apes die except baboons? It's just a curiosity of mine.

Is there any other family of animals with only one specie left alive besides us?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Humans are closer to apes (genically) than, say feline housecats are to tigers or lions or whatever, and yet I am sure you would consider them all "cats". If humans had been separated for longer, then you would see more differentiation (already see different races, but are they different enough to be considered different species? No, but how far apart do you have to grow to be considered different in your mind?)

If you are using the human model, then yes there are hundreds of different "families" (as you put it) of animals where only one species is left. (using your terminology here) Housecats, dogs, sheep, goats, horses, cows, etc. etc. (I could go on and on) Yes, there is differentiation among the animals (black horses, brown horses, big horses, little horses, etc.) but there are different races and ethnicities of people too.

[biknut]

biknut, why are you questioning things that die out? Did you know that 99.99% of all species that ever lived have become extinct? It is not curious at all to say that similar ancestors died out, in fact it is the norm.

I don't think I'd say that when there are hundreds of species of monkeys, birds, lizards, cats and all kinds of other species still thriving, but all of the other hominids died out except us. Why didn't all the apes die except baboons? It's just a curiosity of mine.

Is there any other family of animals with only one specie left alive besides us?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Humans are closer to apes (genically) than, say feline housecats are to tigers or lions or whatever, and yet I am sure you would consider them all "cats". If humans had been separated for longer, then you would see more differentiation (already see different races, but are they different enough to be considered different species? No, but how far apart do you have to grow to be considered different in your mind?)

If you are using the human model, then yes there are hundreds of different "families" (as you put it) of animals where only one species is left. (using your terminology here) Housecats, dogs, sheep, goats, horses, cows, etc. etc. (I could go on and on) Yes, there is differentiation among the animals (black horses, brown horses, big horses, little horses, etc.) but there are different races and ethnicities of people too.

Humm, I'm not sure you understand the difference in what a specie is. (I'm no rocket scientist myself)

You may be right about horses and dogs. All of them may be one specie, I'm not sure. Cats on the other hand have many different species. Lions and Tigers for instance. Many different species of monkeys. Several species of Elephants, but all the humans on the earth are just one specie.

I think it's possible dogs may be a younger specie than us.

[eternaltraveler]

humans, monkeys and apes are all primates. Just like Lions, tigers, and house cats are all cats.

[eternaltraveler]

Is there any other family of animals with only one specie left alive besides us?

first off humans do not fall in that classification. Humans are one among many primates. And you want to subdivide primates further there are lemurs, monkey's and apes, humans being an ape.

secondly

http://www.edgeofexi...ce.org/home.asp

[biknut]

humans, monkeys and apes are all primates.  Just like Lions, tigers, and house cats are all cats.

This I do understand. What I'm pointing out is, monkeys, apes, cats, elephants or snakes, there's many different species of, but humans, there's only one specie. Homo sapiens. Why did all the others die out when that didn't happen to other species of animals.

Maybe subjunk is right, we killed them all.

[eternaltraveler]

Maybe subjunk is right, we killed them all.

No we didn't.

there is yet a further subclassification of apes (which as I mentioned, includes humans).

Hylobatidae, which includes gibbons, and hominids, whose living members includes, humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

[Aegist]

humans, monkeys and apes are all primates.  Just like Lions, tigers, and house cats are all cats.

This I do understand. What I'm pointing out is, monkeys, apes, cats, elephants or snakes, there's many different species of, but humans, there's only one specie. Homo sapiens. Why did all the others die out when that didn't happen to other species of animals.

Maybe subjunk is right, we killed them all.

LOL biknut, I explained this in my first response to you, and elrond just put it abaout as simply as I can imagine it being put, but you aren't getting it...

Humans ARE apes. The human species, the chimapnzee species and the gorilla species all fit together as this family of apes.

If you ask why there is only one 'homo sapiens species', it is because homo sapiens is a species, and any other species wouldn't be homo sapiens, because homo sapiens is already filled by us.
Similarly why is there only one species of chimpanzee?

I don't think I am being very clear. Elrond really put it very well. Actually, just looking back up at what elrond said, that could be confusing because he is saying 'Humans, monkeys and apes' as if those three categories are all on the same level. They aren't.

So lets get schematic:
http://whozoo.org/ma...tephylogeny.htm

Humans are a species, Chimpanzee are a species, Gorillas are a species and Bonobos are a species, and all exist in the 'Hominidae' family (Great Apes).

So we have negro, caucasion and asian varieties of the human species, which is one of the species (gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo) which makes up the Hominidae family, which in turn is one of the families in "primate" (includes old world monkeys, lemurs, flat nose etc (see diagram)


Conclusion: The ancestral species which lead to humans died out, and without doubt the ancestral species which lad to modern day gorilla, and modern day chimpanzee also died out.