AronRa reveals a controversial new taxonomy stating that humans and other apes not only evolved directly from monkeys, but that we are in fact still monkeys right now.
Turns out we DID come from monkeys!
In an earlier video, AronRa listed many of the taxonomic traits identifying humans as primates. In another video, he also explained why we are more specifically classified as a species of apes. But he deliberately omitted an intermediate stage between those two apparent levels, because its one that evokes so much resistance it really requires separate discussion just for that one grade alone.
No-one argues whether were vertebrates or placental mammals, even though that also means were animals. The fact that were apes can now be verified just as easily. For a while, most people thought the word, ape referred only to extant non-human pongids also known as great apes. There was no consideration given to lesser apes, nor to any of the many ancient apes we kept finding fossils for. Mainstream science sources are just now starting to realize that the word, ape means a lot more than just chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, and that it includes a few extinct hominids that are more humanoid than any of these.
So there was a problem with our old method of classification, and it had to be fixed. Over the last two hundred and fifty years, weve kept patching up the original seven-layer system by adding a suborder, infraorder, superfamily, subgenus, and so on - til we cant even tell how to rank the labels anymore. Thats when we figured out that there are no ranks! So we dropped the labels and found a new system, one that isnt so arbitrary. See, the problem with Linnaean taxonomy is that some of it is subjective. Its usually based on morphological similarity, and sometimes on opinion, and loathsome opinions at that. There's often no way to prove whether Linnaean classification was even correct because he didn't rely on the rigid sort of rules that phylogenetics does.
We used to say that men didnt evolve from apes, but that men and apes shared a common ancestor. Now we have a better understanding of what an ape is, and that our common ancestor actually would have been classified as such, and so should we be. This rule of monophyletic hierarchy should apply to everything including the race of cat-people from the science fiction comedy, Red Dwarf.
Creationists try to ridicule evolution through the implication that we came from monkeys, and those who know the difference are quick to point out that apes are not monkeys. For one thing, apes dont have tails. But theres more to it than that. For example, we can tell that a Barbary ape isnt really an ape, its a tailless monkey; the same way we can tell that a glass snake isnt really a snake; its a legless lizard. There are so many distinctions that even if we found a snake that had legs, (and we have) wed still know it was a snake.
But snakes are a subset of the order, Squamata; That means lizard. If snakes evolved from lizards, do they stop being lizards at the moment they become snakes? And when exactly is that moment? It turns out this is another confusing convention in Linnaean taxonomy which is corrected by cladistics. Paraphyletic groups shouldnt exist in phylogenetics, nor would systematic classification permit the emergence of new species to add another equivalent category. Instead existing branches split into successive subsets that are each monophyletic, sharing a common line of descent from which they can diverge but never detach. This means snakes will always be a subset of lizards and apes would still be monkeys.
This post was modified from its original form on 28 Nov, 4:24
This is simply beautiful!
This BBC Horizon (49 mins) video was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100GMT on Thursday, 26 January 2006 which examines the idea of Intelligent Design (Creationism) that rejects Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Witness how religious organizations are on the rise and plan to take over educational classrooms with such unscientific and delusional ideas. Major players on both sides was interviewed, and features brief appearances, to name a few, British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and popular science writer, Dr. Richard Dawkins, broadcaster and naturalist, Sir David Attenborough and a Christian Evolution Defender, biology Professor Kenneth Miller who strongly expressed his concern that losing genuine scientific studies due to the Intelligent Design movement would be a great tragedy. Also, includes an interview with an astronomer, former Director of the Vatican Observatory, an astrophysicist and the head of the observatorys research group, Jesuit priest George Coyne who expresses that the Intelligent Design is a movement that has used every opportunity they can to manipulate people with its anti-scientific nonsense. He also says that Intelligent Design is a movement on behalf of religion and it's going to destroy, not just Science, but religion, itself.
You may be wondering why some of these representatives of religion and biblicism is supporting evolution and science for what it is. Well, these people may still believe that god is the answer to who started the evolution process in the first place and provided the gift of science to mankind, including some virtues and some other supernatural beliefs, of course this still takes JUST faith to come up with such conclusions and it's not all science or a properly experimented and tested scientific discovery, perhaps, not yet, if at all there is such a thing, but nevertheless, it's a good start and a far better progress compared to the people in the Intelligent Design movement who are totally blind and lost in their own cause. People like Ken Miller and George Coyne may be able to leave what science and faith for what they are without trying to connect it together and make sense out of it. This is something the Intelligent Design movement could learn and take examples from, at least in the initial stage to have some hope of recovering from their seriously delusional pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical and pseudoarchaeological claims and ideas.
Resistance to Scientific Explanations By Children and Adults
Evolution Defended as Fact by Christian Scientist, Professor Kenneth Raymond Miller
Google Video Link:
A War on Science
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. ~ Hippocrates, Law Greek physician (460 BC - 377 BC)
Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part II
Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part IIIWhy Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part IV Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part V
Yes, that is Carl Sagan's voice!
7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Nov, 6:12
That also belongs here too:
In this Interview we have Ann Coulter pointing out her views on Darwin. Dale have you watched all of this?
Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman
Ann describes Darwinism as the Liberal Creations myth.
Then Ann goes on to say even more on the subjects claiming that she is a critic of darwin and why.
Why Intelligent Design is WRONG
Why Intelligent Design is WRONG Part II
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG, Part II
How wrong are Young Earth Creationists?
South Park-Theory of Evolution
Why Intelligent Design is NOT Wrong
(I'm including that last vidio so you can see how Creationists may attempt to answer their critics. Not very well, IMO.)