• bleistift2@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even non-Christian-nutjobs get this wrong, so let me spell it out: Humans didn’t evolve from apes. Humans evolved with apes from a common ancestor.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Humans are apes. We evolved from them and we are still them.

      Edit: I think you mean to say chimps, not apes. We came from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. We were never chimps.

      • bleistift2@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Hominidae, whose members are known as the great apes are a taxonomic family of primates that includes […] orangutan[s]; Gorilla[s …]; […] the chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, of which only modern humans (Homo sapiens) remain.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

        Apes [are] collectively [called] Hominoidea […] There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons […]; and the [great apes …]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

        You’re right in that humans are apes taxonomically. What I was trying to contradict was the misconception according to which the type of apes we see today got somehow “frozen” evolutionary some time ago, but that some of their descendents evolved to become human.

        • Chunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          These pedantic Lemmy nerd fights remind me of how I learned so much on early reddit reading similar arguments.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not to mention that the rib thing was a deliberate rewording in later translations, if memory serves it was originally “made from half of Adam” or whatever his original name was.

      The “from his rib” thing was put there as a way of basically saying “from creation women were lesser.” So basically politics of the time affecting the message.

      I’ll have to see if I can find a source later.

      Edit: Source

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of the Bible was edited for political reasons. I’m sure Jesus totally told everyone to follow the law of the land and to give Caesar his taxes without a fuss

        • Chunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a History of the Byzantines podcast and it talks about the political maneuvering in the empire and church. They had political parties and each party had separate religious beliefs and that was important for how church doctrine evolved.

          It’s so incredibly political it’s unbelievable. It’s like “I want to be emperor so I will agree to whatever those guys say so I can gain their political support”. And now hundreds of millions of people think that’s the word of God when really it’s the back alley dealings of Justinian.

  • GVasco@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Everyone is discussing semantics, and no one is mentioning that the bible creation of the woman was mistranslated and the word that was translated into “rib” actually means something closer to “appendage”, and the only bone that is missing in men is actually the phallic bone when compared to other mammals, men and women have the same number of ribs.

    Edit: PS: I don’t actually take the bible’s story seriously but think it’s an interesting and funny fact.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The fucked up thing about that is it was an intentional mistranslation for the sake of mysogyny. In the original bible, Eve was created from Adam’s equal half but some cracker decided nah lets just use an outdated definition so that she came from a small fraction of Adam instead.

    It’s like how King James censored everything even remotely approaching critique of monarchy for his funny little hotel bible.

  • rotopenguin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Those two aren’t exclusive.

    She in particular looks like she came from a monkey’s rib.

  • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Makes perfect sense. Obviously god is a scientist who created Eve by cloning from cells that he took from Adam’s rib, right?

  • Gorvin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I didn’t came from a monkey or a rib. I came from millions of years of evolution from the time the first cell was developed and reproduced itself enough times to turn into different species and through natural selection for one of them to be humans first official ancestor.

            • Portosian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol, this is also wrong. Replace ape with primate and you’ve got something more accurate. If you actually care about maintaining phyletic groups then apes ( and thus humans) are old world monkeys.

            • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I can’t image that to be correct honestly. Apes have much further developed brains than monkeys, so I would assume it logical that apes evolved from monkeys and not the other way around.

              This graphic seems to support my assumption if I am not mistaken:

              • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That chart just shows that apes and monkeys evolved from a shared ancestor, not that that shared ancestor is a monkey. Granted, it doesn’t support my position either. Nevertheless.

                May I have a source for that image please? Maybe it can provide more information.


                Edit: I did some more research:

                The cladogram shown here shows that simians (infraorder Simiiformes) branched off into Catarrhini and New World Monkeys (parvorder platyrrhini). Then, the Catarrhini branched off into apes (superfamily Hominoidia) and Old World Monkeys (superfamily Cercopithecoidea.

                In short, all monkeys have a shared ancestry with apes, but are not evolved from apes.

      • Gorvin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but they’re not our main ancestors. A distant relative is. That relative was created by millions of years of natural selection.

        • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Monkeys are a group of animals. Our ancestors come from that group. They are classified as monkeys. All of us had monkey ancestors.

          I think you’re confusing that with the specific species of monkey that are alive today. Those are distant relatives of ours, not ancestors.