"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

Tangle writes:it's an infuriating question because once you understand the answer it's obvious and simple but it's a perennial - it just won't go away.

Tangle writes:The reason it won't is because evolution is not understood by most people and ignorant religionists repeat this supposedly slam dunk question over and over.

Tangle writes:Instead have a go at this mind game.

Tangle writes:I'm trying to pull together a more complete explanation so that someone for whom the idea is both new and difficult can understand. There are plenty of people that are entirely puzzled by it but are prepared to try.One obvious thing you'd see straight away as you walked down the human line would be the height and age of the mothers - they would get progressively shorter and younger wouldn't they?On the chimp line, nothing much would change except over millennium.Anyone know off-hand where the parallel lines meet - pan prior? - what it would look like and where it would live?

Tangle writes:Hmm - that's interesting and a little disappointing :-)Could it be that those involved in the battle were warriors and therefore larger? I really don't want to believe that all those medieval buildings had doorways too small for the people living in them!Is there any evidence that modern man gets taller with improved nutrition? Are Asians in fast developing countries like India and China getting taller?

Tangle writes:Ah, but you've grown cynical and case hardened; I'm new here and haven't had to give the same answer a thousand times yet ;-)I've also seen the genuine puzzlement and and also interest when they're presented with the argument for the first time. Some of them have never heard the other side of this at all or even given it a thought before.And, bless 'em, a lot aren't very bright or used to thinking about ideas and concepts. They deserve a proper answer.

Tangle writes:Yeh, that's disappointing. It leaves my argument a little naked. Then I hit the imaginary Pan prior and I have to explain a bloody 'missing link'.

Tangle writes:The two final offspring holding the hands of the same mother where the two parallel lines cross is, of course, the punchline. But I'm missing the actual mother....

Tangle writes:Not all people who ask this question are died-in-the-wool, no hope, fanatics; those that come to sites like this to argue the toss are extremists of both kinds - I'm the atheist kind - but the vast majority aren't and some are interested in the answers because they haven't heard them before.

Tangle writes:As it happens, it looks like I've picked the wrong story; science doesn't yet have the chimp line story sorted out at all. No intermediates between chimp and the common ancestor and no bloody common ancestor to hold hands with. Pity.

I'm impressed by your rabid paranoia though - you're not descended from McCarthy are you?

Tangle writes:As it happens, it looks like I've picked the wrong story; science doesn't yet have the chimp line story sorted out at all. No intermediates between chimp and the common ancestor and no bloody common ancestor to hold hands with. Pity.

Tangle writes:I am now trying to renew my acquaintance with evolution theory and I came here for help in doing that when I found myself unable to satisfactorily answer some questions from a Jewish friend.

Many creationists today, sadly, demonstrate their lack of understanding of the evolutionists’ position when they ask this question.Here is how their misguided thinking goes: If evolution were true, then modern humans descended from apes. (After all, we’ve seen many scientific charts showing apes as man’s ancestors.) So, since apes still exist, they didn’t turn into humans, and evolutionists are being silly when they say apes evolved into humans. Case closed! People who think this way (and I have met many, but not within Answers in Genesis ministries) sincerely believe that the present-day existence of apes discredits evolution.Well then, why don’t we ask the obvious question: If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist today? If they evolved into humans, the apes should naturally be gone . . . right?Well, no, not really.This argument shows a misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe about human evolution. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.According to the evolutionary worldview, several million years ago there existed a group of creatures that would ultimately give rise to both modern apes and modern humans. At some point, a small group of creatures became reproductively isolated from the main group. These two groups then followed different evolutionary pathways, resulting in the modern apes and modern humans. So, in reality, there is nothing about the existence of modern apes that would trouble an evolutionist. In fact, raising this issue only shows a lack of understanding on the part of those believing that the existence of modern apes is a stumbling block for evolution. This argument also seems to imply that creationists are deliberately committing a straw-man fallacy (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position), but in reality, creationists who use this argument simply misunderstand what evolutionists believe.This is another argument the Christian should not use.

"The Evolution Ape Man Chart And Humans And The Nebraska Man"It was difficult finding any fossils that appeared to be \'ape-men\' to fill in the Evolution ape man chart during the first few decades of the theory. By the year 1925 there had been two or three of these. The Piltdown man was being used as an example of human evolution (which was later exposed as a hoax) in addition to Java Man (which was later shown to be the combination of two bones from different species).
Evolutionists desired to put evolution into the schools but were finding it very difficult. They decided to put on a ‘circus' type event in order to get attention to the theory. This event was called the ‘Scopes Trial' but was eventually referred to as The Monkey Trial.It was more of a spectacle than a real trial. With all of the national attention that this event received, it was important that the evolutionists "made a splash". They certainly did that with a new \'ape-man\' dubbed The Nebraska Man.This \'ape-man\' was drawn with artistic license from one single tooth. The creationists felt like this was \'foul play\' because they were presented with this creature without having any chance for research.The evolutionists alleged that the anti-evolutionists simply could not accept any new evidence that contradicted their ideas.After the ‘smoke had cleared', the Darwinists walked away with an outright victory (technically they lost the ‘trial' but won the national approval by many). The huge amount of publicity had worked. This so called \'ape-man\' was very instrumental in putting Darwinism on the map and into the schools.Weeks later it was discovered that this tooth that had been used to draw The Nebraska Man had actually come from an extinct pig.But the damage was done. The amount of attention that this eventual discovery (that the tooth was actually from an extinct pig) received was just a fraction of the publicity that the trial had received.The Nebraska Man, The Piltdown Man and the Java Man were the ‘ape-men' that had given credence to the idea of human evolution for the first few decades of the theory. By the early 1950\'s they had all been exposed as horrendous science or outright frauds. But by that time the theory had gotten a foothold into the education of America.Today, the evolution ape man chart for Darwinism is no better than it was those 5 or 6 decades ago. Though we have been taught (and our schools are still teaching today) that the human evolution chart is based on fact, reality is the exact opposite.Besides having to remove ‘ancestors' like the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, other flaws also exist with this chart. Every one of the \'ape-men\' have now turned out to be either one hundred percent ape or one hundred percent human. Even the fossils labeled as Australopithicene (including \'Lucy\') are entirely ape (extinct). And Neanderthals have been determined to be 100% human. There are no known fossils that tie apes to humans.The \'human evolution\' chart,if it was truly accurate should consist of nothing but 100% apes and 100% humans with just a very large blank spot between them. I.e. No evolution has ever occurred between any apes and humans and the so called \'evolution ape man chart\' ought to be completely discarded.

the fact that people once mistakenly believed in phlogiston does nothing to stop me from understanding valence.

Nuggin writes:These are simple minded people who pride themselves in their lack of education and unwillingness to consider anything in depth. "Book smarts" is, to them, the worst insult you can hurl at someone.

caffeine writes:If your link means the picture posted above when it talks about the 'Evolution Ape Man chart',