[valkyry1]

Maybe she did not express her words just as you would like but she had two good articles there to back up her ideas.

While you have nothing here but your claim about being ‘a relative’ and channeling Dawkins with your creationist strawman.

The evolutionists have been all over the place with their origin of man from baboons, the chimpanzee, the orang-utang, or the gorilla, and more lately some mythical pre-ape creature.

the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.

And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane."

[allmendream]

The articled did nothing to substantiate the inane idea that some sort of inter-species cross is needed for evolutionary descent. But typical that you are unable to grasp that.

Evolutionary biology has never postulated descent of man from the orangutan or the gorilla; but has always postulated the same thing, that humans descended via common descent from other apes, and that our most recent common ancestor is shared, among living apes, with the chimpanzee.

Talk about a strawman. Why do you feel you have to invent untruths about evolutionary biology?

Perhaps you time would be better served actually LEARNING something about it rather than inventing untruths about it.

But if you wanted to learn something, instead of proudly insisting you already know, you wouldn't be a creationist.

[Alkhin]

Excuse me but I have a degree in anthropology from the 80s and NEVER ONCE did ANY of my profs constantly change the origins/relationship between humans and non-human apes. NEVER ONCE was I taught that humans came from 'monkeys'. I DID learn about the Linnean Classification system, which is something that creationists willfully ignore when they talk about biology and natural science. But you commit an even broader 'sin' in your statement by making blanket accusations of scientists who would not diminish their own research by constantly changing the focus of origins.

NOT once did an anthropologist EVER say man came from monkeys. I suggest you read scientific journals that are more current than the Scopes trial and get it through your head that frauds like Piltdown are used as a teaching tool for what NOT to do with the scientific method. Not that creationists have any kind familiarity with or competent understanding of the scientific method...but someone like you might benefit from a basic study of the Linnaean Classification system.