nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 123:
Line 123: + + + + + + + +
→Hominids vs apes: My comments
::::: Show me where any creationist has denied that humans descended from ancient hominids. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Show me where any creationist has denied that humans descended from ancient hominids. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm siding with RSchlafly on this one, although I'm not 100% happy with that section of the article even without JohnSmith's changes. But to answer a number of points that were raised:
* I agree that the wording "ancient apes" ''could'' be misleading, but I also take RSchlafly's point that it does say "''ancient'' apes", which should be enough qualification. Incidentally, I've heard it said that although evolutionists believe that both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, that hypothetical ancestor, if found, would probably be described as an ape anyway!
* Saying that the quote from the teacher is in the context of the other statement by the author of the article ''may'' be true, but is a bit of a stretch, so perhaps is not safe to go with.
* I don't see the problem with referring to the 1999 Kansas issue. It is simply using that as evidence of how the term "evolution" is used.
* RSchlafly is essentially correct about creationists accepting that humans "descended" from hominids. I say "essentially" because it's unclear exactly what that word means. The definitions that I've found refer to it being humans and their immediate human-like ancestors. This would tend to suggest that it excludes anything that creationists would consider to be other than human, but on the other hand, evolutionists might lump into this category things that creationists would not consider human. In summary, I think that the word is simply too ambiguous to safely use in this context, so should be avoided.
* It should also be noted that (a) creationists accept that speciation occurs (so JohnSmith's edits were misleading at best, and wrong at worst), and (b) "species" is a man-made definition which is actually based on interfertility, which is generally impossible to define for fossils anyway, so claims of different "species" of fossil humans is somewhat problematic.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)