Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

In summary, there are three common uses of the term "ape": non-biologists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", or may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid, whereas biologists traditionally used the term "ape" for all non-human hominoids as shown above.


In recent years biologists have generally preferred to use only monophyletic groups in classifications;[SUP][11][/SUP] that is, only groups which include all the descendants of a common ancestor.[SUP][12][/SUP] The superfamily Hominoidea is one such group (or "clade"). Some then use the term "ape" to mean all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea. For example, in a 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans".[SUP][6][/SUP] The group traditionally called "apes" by biologists is then called the "non-human apes".
Click to expand...

anyway...
 
Superfreak said:
anyway...
Click to expand...

The part you quote is not really well sourced and a rather vague statement. It has been understood that humans are properly apes for some time. Thomas Huxley showed it in "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature." It certainly has been disputed and still is by theists. Their influence may have inhibited a proper definition, but it does not really change the facts. The DNA evidence, which has sort of sealed the argument in respected circles (especially since the full sequencing of the chimpanzee genome in 2005) has shown since the 1960s our close relation to chimpanzees.

The word apes has been used less precisely to mean tailless primates and included some species that are no longer considered apes, but what I intended was that we are closely related to the proper apes and great apes.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2931/2931-h/2931-h.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_26
 
PostmodernProphet said:
unless you graduated in 2004 or earlier.....
Click to expand...

Bullshit! It's been argued since Darwin. The science deniers like you and sf have tried to suppress it, but the evidence has been very compelling since at least the 60s. Honestly, Huxley did pretty good job of proving it without the DNA.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Bullshit! It's been argued since Darwin. The science deniers like you and sf have tried to suppress it, but the evidence has been very compelling since at least the 60s. Honestly, Huxley did pretty good job of proving it without the DNA.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you LYING yet again? Not once have I tried to suppress anything, nor have I denied science. You again make the accusation, will you again run like a coward from providing an example to back your assertion?

Well, COWARD... will you run again?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... you LYING yet again? Not once have I tried to suppress anything, nor have I denied science. You again make the accusation, will you again run like a coward from providing an example to back your assertion?

Well, COWARD... will you run again?
Click to expand...

I did not say YOU or pmp suppressed anything. I said those like you. Dumbass.

You are a science denier and, again, my examples are your arguments in this thread. You and I started based on your assertion that a belief based on the best available science was arrogant.

You are an enabler and your misguided approach of foot dragging (which is shared with numerous others) is responsible for resistance to humans being classed as apes. You demand that any challenge to the unsupported but long established views of idiots, like pmp, meet an absurdly high burden. Again, it was well known that we were apes before 2005. Huxley proved it based on anatomy and geographical distribution. The work of Wilson and Sarich showed it in 1966. It only became undeniable in 2005 when the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome was completed.

You are exactly the sort of moron that Russell targeted with his teapot analogy.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Bullshit! It's been argued since Darwin. The science deniers like you and sf have tried to suppress it, but the evidence has been very compelling since at least the 60s. Honestly, Huxley did pretty good job of proving it without the DNA.
Click to expand...

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I did not say YOU or pmp suppressed anything. I said those like you. Dumbass.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... keep spinning you cowardly LIAR.

You are a science denier and, again, my examples are your arguments in this thread. You and I started based on your assertion that a belief based on the best available science was arrogant.
Click to expand...

Again... you are a LIAR... and a coward. Which is why you refuse to actually quote anything from me that supposedly backs your false accusation.

Saying that a definitive stance on the existence or lack of existence of GOD(s) is arrogant is NOT denying science. There is NO SCIENCE... NONE... that proves or disproves Gods existence or lack of existence. Thus, there is no science involved AT ALL to deny. You are a fucking liar and a cowardly hack.

Or perhaps you would like to show us the SCIENCE that shows God does or does not exist?

Show us what SCIENCE I am denying... or run again like the coward you are.

The remainder of your post was nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert from your LIES yet again. you simply make more false accusations... because you are a coward and a liar.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... keep spinning you cowardly LIAR.



Again... you are a LIAR... and a coward. Which is why you refuse to actually quote anything from me that supposedly backs your false accusation.

Saying that a definitive stance on the existence or lack of existence of GOD(s) is arrogant is NOT denying science. There is NO SCIENCE... NONE... that proves or disproves Gods existence or lack of existence. Thus, there is no science involved AT ALL to deny. You are a fucking liar and a cowardly hack.

Or perhaps you would like to show us the SCIENCE that shows God does or does not exist?

Show us what SCIENCE I am denying... or run again like the coward you are.

The remainder of your post was nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert from your LIES yet again. you simply make more false accusations... because you are a coward and a liar.
Click to expand...

Nothing but redundant crap.

Anyway, you have been proven wrong, AGAIN, in your claim that it is only recently that humans have been classed as apes.
 
Serious question...why is this thread constantly falling into a mindless argument over semantics and definition of terms? Fact is evolution and common descent for humans is the overwhelming consensus of science drawing from multiple branches of evidence. Republicans are denying this...or at least a large number of them. Does anyone have anything interesting to say about this, such as how this will affect educational policy, or how Republican voters views on science are actually going to impact future elections?
 
Superfreak said:
Saying that a definitive stance on the existence or lack of existence of GOD(s) is arrogant is NOT denying science.
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
It is also incredibly arrogant to think we are the most powerful beings in the universe.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not arrogant to form a belief based on the best available science. To claim that implies a claim of certainty about the existence of God (which was not even part of your point) makes you a dishonest coward and adds to the point that you are a science denier.
 
1966stang said:
Serious question...why is this thread constantly falling into a mindless argument over semantics and definition of terms? Fact is evolution and common descent for humans is the overwhelming consensus of science drawing from multiple branches of evidence. Republicans are denying this...or at least a large number of them. Does anyone have anything interesting to say about this, such as how this will affect educational policy, or how Republican voters views on science are actually going to impact future elections?
Click to expand...

Since there are two basic ideas....evolution vs creationism, I think evolution and intelligent design should both be taught and let the students decide. Sounds fair.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Again, it is not arrogant to form a belief based on the best available science. To claim that implies a claim of certainty about the existence of God (which was not even part of your point) makes you a dishonest coward and adds to the point that you are a science denier.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with believing in a creator. This is America.
 
Look guys, evolution to me is like woodworking, which I enjoy as a hobby. I can have lots of religious reverence for trees, be it from a Buddhist viewpoint or a Christian viewpoint or whatever. My band saw could care less. Woodworking books and biology textbooks could care less about your metaphysical views on life, they are interested about what happens in the workshop or the laboratory. It is intellectually dishonest to say that either my table saw or my microscope have a religious bias...all they care about is verifiable, falsifyable, relevant, cold hard facts.
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
Since there are two basic ideas....evolution vs creationism, I think evolution and intelligent design should both be taught and let the students decide. Sounds fair.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that. It would be an excellent teachable moment. A biology teacher could give an excellent example of what is science "Theory of Biological Evolution" and what is psuedoscience "Intelligent Design Creationism". That's about the only thing a science teacher can do with Intelligent Design Creationism as it is patently impossible to teach it as science.
 
1966stang said:
Serious question...why is this thread constantly falling into a mindless argument over semantics and definition of terms? Fact is evolution and common descent for humans is the overwhelming consensus of science drawing from multiple branches of evidence. Republicans are denying this...or at least a large number of them. Does anyone have anything interesting to say about this, such as how this will affect educational policy, or how Republican voters views on science are actually going to impact future elections?
Click to expand...
Many people I know with science backgrounds who consistantly voted Republican in the past have switched to voting for Democrats due to the GOP's attempts to undermine sound science education and public policy of which Biological Evolution is only one example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top