A good summary of so called human evolution.

Davidjay can't figure out how his cousins can be his relatives while not being his ancestors.

We came from a common ancestor shared with chimps as supported by the fossil record and genetics. You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor?

That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that. Perhaps your ancestors were cousins, but mine were not. In my family, my grandparents are my ancestors. My cousins are not. My cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents, but my cousins are not my grandparents.Do you seriously not understand this?

The original statement meant relativies as in cousins.

The posters meant cousins when they used the word relatives. What matters is what the posters were trying to communicate, not what you can twist their words to mean. Our position is that bats are our cousins, not our ancestors.If all you have is semantics, then you lose.

False. Euarchonta includes primates, scandentia, and their common ancestor. Any clade includes all of the living species (which are cousins), any extinct side branches, and the common ancestors of those cousins. Primates and Scandentia ARE Euarochonta, just as humans are still primates. It isn't an artistic conception. It is an objective phylogeny based on morphological and genetic data. Primates ARE Euarochonta. You keep getting this wrong. Primates are Euarochonta in the same way that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. However, this doesn't mean that Chihuahuas are ancestral to Great Danes just because they are both dogs.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No, it doesn't. It clearly states that humans ARE Euarochonta just as humans are still primates and Chihuahuas are still dogs. Primates are labeled as being on the Euarochonta branch, which means they are still Euarochonta. Where did I say that? Quote me, I dare you.

It shows that primates ARE Euarchonta. They are on the Euarchonta branch which makes them Euarchonta. Primates are just a group within Euarchonta in the same way that apes are a group within primates.You need to learn how phylogenies and clades work before embarrassing yourself like this. Are you saying that Danes and Chihuahuas are not dogs?

Humans ARE Euarchonta because we are on the Euarchonta branch. This is the same as saying primates are a group of mammals, but not all mammals are primates. Apes are a group of primates, but not all primates are apes. Hominids are a group of apes, but not all apes are hominids. All modern humans are hominids, but not all hominids are anatomically modern humans.My word, man, this is basic biology. Were you never taught how taxonomy or cladistics works? Do you really think that Chihuahuas stopped being dogs when they started looking different from other dogs? Did birds stop being vertebrates when they grew feathers? You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were plus modifications. Humans are still hominids, still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. We never stopped being those things.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Did you think your ancestors were immortal? I don't remember any of saying that organisms are immortal. You would be guessing wrong. Pity that you can't even discuss the topics of threads that you start. False. Evolutionists say that primates ARE Euarchonta.

Haven't you been taught where babies come from? Why don't you quote their actual words? You don't come from a branch. You are ON a branch.

Why do we have to state who our ancestors were? We already have genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes and other primates. We can't know for sure if any fossil has living descendants because those fossils don't carry DNA. However, that doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away.We don't need to name anything since we already have the evidence.

You can call it "mountains of genetic evidence supporting common ancestry". We have pinpointed ancestry through genetic evidence.

That's not what RAZD said, nor is it what the scientists are saying. What they are saying is that they aren't sure which of those other branches are more closely related to us. All scientists agree that we share a common ancestor with other mammal species. Nothing you are pointing to casts doubt on that. The only disagreement is the precise details of which branches branched first. There is no doubt that the mammal branches join together at one time in the past. The only thing we disagree with is your misrepresentation of how the branching works. You continually make the mistake of taking the species at the tips of the branches and putting them where the branches meet. That's not how it works.