Why do people say "we didn't decend from apes, we share a common ancestor with..."

Soft_member
Soft_member

Why do people say "we didn't decend from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes"?
Clearly the common ancestor we share with apes would've also been an ape.

Attached: ape-tree.jpg (97 KB, 635x600)

All urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimp
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chimp
dictionary.com/browse/chimp?s=t

happy_sad
happy_sad

What is an ape?

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

My cousin and I have a common ancestor, surely my grandfather was my cousin.

Snarelure
Snarelure

We don't share a common ancestor with chickens, the common ancestor must obviously been a chicken.

Dogs don't share a common ancestor with giant sequoia trees. The common ancestor was obviously a giant sequoia tree too.

Emberburn
Emberburn

None of these analogies work.

Emberfire
Emberfire

Brainlet. Humans *are* apes, so your analogy is retarded and faulty unless you're also your own cousin.

Attached: ape.png (386 KB, 566x577)

Flameblow
Flameblow

Why is that? Because they show you why you're incorrect?

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

No, probably more like he correctly noticed they don't work and then posted about it.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Humans are apes.

Depends on what classification system you use, I guess. I would split them off from apes, but it's a close call.

In any case, the idea that X and Y have a common ancestor so that ancestor must also be Y is fallacious.

DeathDog
DeathDog

because they have a fit and think that by 'apes' you mean extant non-human apes. we really don't descend from chimps or gorillas or orangs.

but it's worse than that. the current forced meme of ape vs. monkey was introduced into the English language in the early 20th century, mostly to emphasize the higher status of apes over monkeys. the current pretense that these words mean different things in a language of a rainy island that never in human history had the monkey diversity required to crystallize such a distinction. fact is, apes are a subclass of monkeys, despite current 'definitions' which would rather see monkeys as a paraphiletic group than simply call apes 'humanoid monkeys' like other languages do.

and not only would the common ancestor be a monkey, we are also monkeys.
the designation of 'ape' is somewhat arbitrary, though, just like any other named grouping in evolution, but if chimps and gorillas are apes then us and our common ancestor would also be/have been an ape.

TechHater
TechHater

he

You're fooling nobody.

eGremlin
eGremlin

In any case, the idea that X and Y have a common ancestor so that ancestor must also be Y is fallacious.
paraphiletic groups are heresy, the argument always stands. we are fish.

FastChef
FastChef

and not only would the common ancestor be a monkey, we are also monkeys.

So you are openly saying that negroes are monkeys.

JunkTop
JunkTop

All living organisms have a common ancestor depending on how far back you go. At one point a species of life diverted and eventually you got a chicken from one branch and a giant sequoia from another. The root node; however, isn't exactly like any of the extant species because each one experiences variations of evolutionary change.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

I'm not OP (assuming the person you were arguing with is even OP). I just think these retarded analogies need to stop. We already know the answer is that the common ancestor was in fact another ape, just not an ape that's alive today.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

We share a common ancestor with chicken. We and chicken are vertebrates. Our common ancestor must've been a vertebrate.

Dogs share a common ancestor with giant sequoia trees. Dogs sequoia trees are eukaryotic lifeforms. The common ancestor must've been an eukaryotic lifeform.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

We are fishes from a cladistic viewpoint. But libtards and SJWs will never accept that.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

However, a taxonomic classification that is true for two different lifeforms must also be true for their last common ancestor, unless you're gonna claim that they developed these traits independently from one another.
See

MPmaster
MPmaster

sure. whites too.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

We're primates.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Yes, but they usually don't get triggered when we call them monkeys, so it's not funny.

5mileys
5mileys

In any case, the idea that X and Y have a common ancestor so that ancestor must also be Y is fallacious.
that's an idea nobody floated. the idea actually floated here is that if X and Y belong to the same clade, then their common ancestor belongs to the same clade too.

takes2long
takes2long

we are doing science here. having fun is anathema.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

libtards and SJWs will never accept that
of course.
evo psych is baaad.
races are exactly the same, human evolution stopped at a convenient past point in time.
etc.
of course they cannot accept that. the convergence of religious fundamentalist and sjws is a frightening sight. the list of parallels in attitudes, reasonings, tactics and suchlike would take dozens of pages. even postmodernism has its parallel in religious thought, just check contemporary theology turning the existence of god into a by definition unfalsifiable claim, wrapped in word salad.

RavySnake
RavySnake

and primates aren't apes?

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

primates are high officials of the catholic and anglican churches.

TechHater
TechHater

All apes are primates, not all primates are apes.

Inmate
Inmate

pic
1 skull = science fact

I hate popsci so fucking much.

idontknow
idontknow

Because there is both the great ape species and the class group we belong to, the ape. Our ancestor was an ape but not a great ape. By clarifying we share an ancestor with apes, you can prevent the confusion people have with the extant species of ape that someone more green to the phylogenic tree might have by simply stating humans and apes share a common ancestor. Instead of being an unbearable autist that needs to nitpick

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

We are apes

Emberfire
Emberfire

If that were true then clades would cease to have any meaning because by definition the first member of a new clade could never exist.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Wrong. Clades can be nested in other clades.

eGremlin
eGremlin

Present the evidence that our common ancestor with the rest of the modern apes around today wasn't also an ape.

Illusionz
Illusionz

If that were true then clades would cease to have any meaning because by definition the first member of a new clade could never exist.
I don't follow this at all. EVERY successful ancestor starts a new clade embedded in earlier clades and containing future ones, we just don't name the overwhelming majority of them (and those we do, according to the KPCOFGS hierarchy, are selected arbitrarily).

Soft_member
Soft_member

Does the clade containing all other clades contain itself?

massdebater
massdebater

fuck yourself. if you want to pick at people, go to your nearby ghetto. we are trying to have a discussion here.

RavySnake
RavySnake

Why are you so mad?

JunkTop
JunkTop

All mammals have 10 fingers, 10 toes, two eyes, a nose, a jaw, two arms and two feet.

A human is equally relateable to a chimp as a tiger is.

Evolutionists are brainlets who don't know what false equivalence is.

I hope you're all aware that I want nothing less than for you to not be alive.
With ever tear, with every smile, with every laugh or with every cry, my whole being is consumed with accomplishing the successful prevention of you continuing to exist as a species.
Every time you opened your mouth or wrote a word, i had to hear it and i had to read it. Every time, you never had anything important to say. You are annoying. You are a nuisance. You exist for no real reason, and sooner kill each other than figure out why you exist.
Cut out the middleman. Cut out you.
Cut yourself out of the equation. You're not here to live forever. You're just here to let yourself die. The intelligence rating of you is best described as negative pressure. You literally live to die, when you could have just as easily never been born at all. Your dad could have cum in your moms ass and (You) wouldn't have ever needed to exist. You could better yet figure time travel so you could go back in time and kill your own fathers, undoing you.

You could do so much, instead you just wait around to die, and attack any entity who attempts to extend your miserable existence, while further attacking any entity who takes your miserable existence away and gives it the pointed end you refuse to assign yourselves.

You're garbage. You're confident you're not garbage, but you're not confident enough to send yourself to heaven by committing suicide. Really, you're not confident at all. You're just one coward of billions of cowards. Your existence is meaningless.

Illusionz
Illusionz

Fuck off SJW retard. Go back to tumblr.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Or you could accept the common sense truth that "fish" isn't a formal group for this reason.

Claiming we're all fishes because cladistics is about as valid as saying all vertebrates are invertebrates.

5mileys
5mileys

SJW truly has become a meaningless term

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

u oughta watch ur mouth around here fucking cunt
don't wna get stabbed now

Illusionz
Illusionz

logical fallacy rebuttal

Fuck off, popsci shitter. Don't post worthless shit next time.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Humans are apes. By taxonomic definition, we are apes.

MPmaster
MPmaster

what if apes evolved from humans?

Soft_member
Soft_member

tfw we are technically monkeys

w8t4u
w8t4u

We are by definition not monkeys since monkeys are a paraphyletic group defined to exclude apes. But we share a common ancestor with monkeys that was a monkey. Similarly we have a fish ancestor yet we are not fish and a reptilian ancestor yet we are not reptiles.

massdebater
massdebater

Is the next step space sex with an alien species?

Inmate
Inmate

ok we're definitely chimps but my bio prof said we're monkeys

Playboyize
Playboyize

No, we are definitely not chimps, or monkeys. A chimpanzee is a specific genus of ape which we are not a part of.

The only way we would be considered monkeys is if we ignore the paraphyly of the term, which is fine since it's simply an arbitrary choice to exclude apes from the monkeys. But it's not the standard meaning of the term.

Methshot
Methshot

chimp not chimpanzee, chimp as in all the small apes that are closely related
bonobos, chimpanzees, humans, maybe some others
like lemurs wouldn't be in there
and then we're also monkeys

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

chimp not chimpanzee, chimp as in all the small apes that are closely related
Chimp is just chimpanzee for short. There is literally no other usage.

And again, monkeys are a paraphyletic group excluding the apes, so we aren't monkeys either.

Evilember
Evilember

Chimp is just chimpanzee for short. There is literally no other usage.
Wrong.
And again, monkeys are a paraphyletic group excluding the apes, so we aren't monkeys either.
Idk about that.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimp
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chimp
dictionary.com/browse/chimp?s=t

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

the internet is your source
never heard of credibility?

StonedTime
StonedTime

Ever heard of a dictionary?

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

dictionary definitions are not precise

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

They are. Your definitions are not precise.

eGremlin
eGremlin

Chimp is a biological term.
The internet is full of trash you should know this.
The second thing they teach you in science right after the scientific method is to be skeptical of your sources. Just because something is more available or popular doesn't mean it's actually good.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

that's why there are things like medical dictionaries and law dictionaries

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Chimp is a biological term.
Uh not really, it's an informal term for chimpanzee, which also should be avoided since it can be confused with "common chimpanzee." The formal term for the genus is Pan.

Anyway, you have presented no evidence of this term being used as you have, so your baseless attacks on my sources don't even merit a response.

FastChef
FastChef

OK, so show me any dictionary that supports your usage of chimp.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

Whatever my prof (who studies old world monkeys) said "chimp" a lot.

I am monkeyman.
A lot of important nuances get dredged under with the popularization of science. That's why the real scientific community is relatively exclusive.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Ape isn't a species. We are apes, as we are primates, as we are great apes.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Apes descended from humans.

Supergrass
Supergrass

Niggers*

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

the common ancestor we share with apes would've also been an ape

No. You can't at the same time be apes and have been apes.

TreeEater
TreeEater

We are fishes, since Sarcopterygii are fishes.

Snarelure
Snarelure

We share a common ancestor with the apes currently inhabiting this planet. Our common ancestor was an ape too, but is extinct now.

It is worded that way to clear up the misconception that we evolved from Chimpanzees or other apes still alive today

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit