If we had an Ape as an ancestor, then who was he, what name have you given him now?

Question

It seems to me that every time an Ape is found with the least malformation from the last, it is put in a new slot and renamed, yet they are still all Apes, and no link to humanity.

Answer 1

You do not think that an ever increasing brain capacity is a link to humanity? ( we are rather known among animals for our fat heads )

I think you are incapable of thinking!

Answer 2

Ed is right.  We are in fact the last in a very long line of bipedal apes.  Any distinctions are purely arbitrary since we make the classification system.  If you knew about apes, especially chimps, you would be surprised to learn how human they are unless your definition of humaninty is rediculously narrow.  It is true that paleontology has often made mistakes pre-maturely naming a find as a human ancestor.  This is done typically to increase the value of the find.  It certainly doesn't indicate we didn't evolved from apes.  There is always someone that says we didn't evolve from apes that we evolved from a common ancestor.  That is so rediculous.  We evolved from a common ancestor thta was an ape, just not a currently living one.

Answer 3

There is no humanity, just read the news.

Answer 4

Hi Jingles.  I've been asking these type of questions for over 40 years now and all the evolutionists can come up with is that all the evidence is there, that all you have to do is 'plough through absolute MOUNTAINS of ambiguous information' that tells you absolutely nothing, except that the "theory of evolution" is really the "facts of evolution", because THEY keep on saying it is.  But when you ask, for specific unequivocal evidence, as you do here, they cannot give a straight answer, because they just don't have one.  They just spout off about how wrong the creationists are, as if THAT supports THEIR theory, go into raptures about the (very controvercial) DNA proof of evolution, totally ignoring the process of 'adaption', point you to a multitude of websites that would take a life time to study, leaving you as brainwashed as themselves, as they mutter on about the theory of gravity and quantum physics as examples of proof for evolution (eh?), and then they try to redicule you for daring to ask such fundemental questions.

A couple of years ago, one senior biologist/evolutionist, who seemed a lot less 'cultish' than the other followers of the 'evolution faith', did try to be more specific in answering my queries of "fossil proof of evolution", and his "very best" answer, i.e. the most convincing actual "hands on evidence available", was "THE COMMON ANCESTOR", between man and ape. The snag was, and still is, of course, that no-one can produce a scrap of evidence, let alone a description of it (e.g. was it an ape, a human, or a bit of both, or neither?) or even a name for it.  Needless to say, no-one mentions the "common ancestor" anymore and it's a shame, because that (provocative "MISSING LINK") is the most crucial and vital evidence needed to prove the validity of the whole 'theory of evoltion'.

So you're not going to get a sensible, truthful answer, I'm fraustratedly afraid.  If one of them COULD come up with (or tell us precisely where to look for) absolute, unequivocal mediatory fossil evidence that proves, without doubt of an "unbiased" person, once and for all, that the origin of man (human) did occur through the process of evoltion (i.e. "goo to you"), then we would ALL believe that their now 'fanatical religious ravings' are indeed facts.  And "ALL" includes a very large number of eminent, anti-evolution biologists (Evolutionist's quote : "A vast majority of leading biologists believe in evolution".  Out of the hundreds of thousands of biologists, the minority that isn't included in the "vast majority" runs into thousands.  If 'evolution' was SO FACTUAL, why is it not accepted as so by EVERYONE?

Now watch all the 'thumbs down' I get for stating the truth!

Good luck mate!

EDIT

The poor chap above me (jonmcn49), who thinks that you are incapable of thinking, states that, "(we (humans) are rather known among animals for our fat heads)" ??  So the animals are talking about us behind our backs eh?

So animals have inteligent conversations and you, a human, are incapable of thinking?  He's the only fat-headed human the animals are talking about.  Poor sod.  No wonder he's a top contributor, he's a top spouter of anything about nothing.

Answer 5

will gorillas be like us 1 day? they could be are slaves when are even more clever.

Answer 6

We aren't directly descended from apes.Apes and humans are similar,the same as giraffes and okapi are related,but not the same.The 2% DNA difference between us and Bonobo chimpanzees,might as well be the difference between a whale and an elephant.

Sorry if this has come across as an awkward explanation.

Answer 7

we are who we are. but  there is some monkey business some where

Answer 8

The Apes name would of course be my ex wifes.

Answer 9

To start with, modern humans are bipedal apes. We just don't call them that because the creationists would have heart palpitations.  Science collects information upon which to make informed decisions, creationists have a dogma that can never be changed, regardless of what evidence implies. Sometimes science has limited evidence & wrong conclusions are drawn from this evidence, but the view changes when new evidence is found.

Many bipedal apes did indeed wind up as evolutionary dead ends, just as did many quadra pedal apes & many did not deserve the prefix Homo therefore they are given descriptive names in Latin.  This is probably a mistake, because creationists don't even understand English... much less Latin.

Jingles: they already have names as I indicated... chuckle, however they are Latin names!

Answer 10

MY MATE JUST MADE ME LAUGH ,HE SAID THE FIRST APE WAS CALLED ADAM,THE FIRST TROLL WAS CALLED EVE.