Evolution from monkeys

[Blind groper]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... keys-apes/

And the Scientific American reference above indicates the finding of two fossils that are also very close to the common ancestor of apes and monkeys. That common ancestor is, guess what, a monkey.

[Blind groper]

http://www.nature.com/news/fossils-indi ... ps-1.12997

From Nature mag, evidence that the lineages of old world monkeys and apes split about 25 million years ago. In other words, the oldest ape-like primates were 25 million years plus or minus a bit. But old world monkeys have a lineage that goes back approximately 40 million years.

Since the 25 million year old fossils show ape and old world characteristics, and old world monkeys go back further, but apes do not, it is strong evidence that apes evolved from earlier old world monkeys.

Again, apes evolved from monkeys.

I can keep digging up more and more scientific references to support the argument that apes evolved from monkeys. My debate opponents cannot. Why not? Because they are wrong, wrong wrong!!! Scientific references to support bullshit do not exist.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

[Blind groper]

"Genetic analysis combined with fossil evidence indicates that hominoids diverged from the Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago, near the Oligocene-Miocene boundary."

Yes, I note the lack of data coming from Xamonas.

The quote above is what Wiki says (from its article on apes).

My earlier quote from Palomar University ("Apes evolved from monkeys") is unambiguous and 100% correct. They are the real experts.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The world is a much calmer place with Blind Groper on my foe list. I urge everyone to try it. It's not as if I actually have to read any of his posts to know what bilge is in them.

[Blind groper]

Read Xamonas posts, though. They are a study in psychology. The psychology of the lousy loser.

Xamonas has woken up to the fact that he has lost the argument. His first response to this loss was obscenity. Next came idiotic icons. Now he is reduced to inane comments. As Mr. Spock would say - "Fascinating."

[pErvinalia]

To Xamonas

My degree is in zoology. Yes, it included studies of primate evolution.

To Mistermack

Feel free to add the words "or ape" to definitions of simiiforme or simion. The only reason I did not was keeping it simple. That addition does not alter the argument.

I have still to see a single argument against the idea that apes and humans had monkey ancestors, that is actually valid. Lots of bullshit, but nothing of any scientific merit.

You claimed that "monkey" isn't a scientific term. You defeated your own bloody argument.

[Blind groper]

Revo.

There is absolutely nothing to stop me, or anyone else, describing evolution in simple terms. In fact, relying heavily on jargon is often a way of disguising bullshit.

[pErvinalia]

But in this case you've elucidated nothing. Whether we evolved from "apes" or "monkeys" or whatever, is a moot point to a creationist. They don't think we evolved from anything.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But in this case you've elucidated nothing. Whether we evolved from "apes" or "monkeys" or whatever, is a moot point to a creationist. They don't think we evolved from anything.

Wrong! They think we evolved from dust, ribs, breath and the word. Don't you read your bible, boy?

[Blind groper]

Well, rEvo, on this forum I am not trying to convince creationists. Of course you are right. But it is hard enough to convince atheists of scientific correctness.

[pErvinalia]

Ur OP was about religionists.

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

I will grant you that point. We did rather rapidly descend from religico's to me trying to pound a little scientific sense into atheists, though.

[pErvinalia]

Man, stop talking yourself up and actually read what you are writing. You by DEFINITION didn't talk any "scientific" sense. You are using a non-scientific term. How much more simple can I make this for you??

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

There is nothing wrong with using plain English when discussing science.