Arguing evolution with Jack Chick

[Cuddles]

2003

http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid...ed+from+apes"&sig=NrhcVUeHEQKOna4lkuPQrb-IF5w

This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors. When a scientist says "humans evolved from apes rather than, say, lizards", he is actually saying "humans evolved from something like an ape rather than, say, something like a lizard".

So, yes, technically scientists do say we evolved from apes. What they don't say is that we evolved from modern apes, which is what the creationists assume is meant. The problem comes from interpretation of words, where one group uses a specific meaning that is used as a more general word by another group. Now I think about it, the scientists are more at fault in this case, since they use the term "ape" to apply to species that aren't around now and so technically aren't apes. Unless ape is used to refer to a much wider group in which case we didn't need to evolve from apes because we still are apes.

 

[Ladewig]

Anyway...yeah, you're probably hellbound, but it's really not that bad. The company'll be great. Me and a bunch of other pitiful sinners are all chipping in to get a time share on the Lake of Fire...not much, you know. Just a little cabin we can put our feet up in during the rainy season.

I expect to end up there as well. If you get there before me, I'll meet you all under the big clock on the corner of Greed Blvd. and Swaggart Ave. (just up the street from Pat Robertson Square)

 

[Ladewig]

This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors.

That sounds a bit hinky to me; are you certain of that claim?

 

[sphenisc]

This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about. Clearly, nothing alive today evolved from anything else alive today, related creatures evolved from common ancestors. When a scientist says "humans evolved from apes rather than, say, lizards", he is actually saying "humans evolved from something like an ape rather than, say, something like a lizard".

I'm not sure who you think is misunderstanding. There's nothing in the Chick comic, the commentary on it, my comment on the commentary, or the excerpt from Simon Conway Morris's book which suggests anyone is misunderstanding things in this way.

So, yes, technically scientists do say we evolved from apes.

Which was the point I was making.

What they don't say is that we evolved from modern apes, which is what the creationists assume is meant.

There's nothing in the Chick comic which suggests that. It's a strawhominid argument.

The problem comes from interpretation of words, where one group uses a specific meaning that is used as a more general word by another group. Now I think about it, the scientists are more at fault in this case, since they use the term "ape" to apply to species that aren't around now and so technically aren't apes.

It's not really a matter of interpretation. Or at least any differences in interpretation aren't relevant to the point I was making.

If
a) Chick says " Scientists claim X".
b) Then Nihilanth says "A scientist would never, ever, ever, claim X."
c) And a scientist claims "X".
d) And then you say "When the scientist claimed "X", what he really meant was "Y"".

then I conclude that a) and c) are compatible. b) and c) are not compatible, and d) is irrelevant since a) is about what scientists claim, not what they mean.

Basically,depending on your interpretation of 'apes' either Morris is right or he's wrong. Either way Chick is right in saying that he's made a such a claim. It's equivocation to start claiming you know that Morris and Chick really meant different things. Unless of course there's other evidence within those pieces which indicate a real difference - I don't think there is.

Unless ape is used to refer to a much wider group in which case we didn't need to evolve from apes because we still are apes.

If you're going to get all cladist on me, then yeah, if dolphins are still fish.

 

[Nihilanth]

Naw, see...Chick is saying that evolutionists claim we came from MONKEYS, not apes. MONKEYS. Like, the kind that throw walnuts at you in video games. And I'm relatively sure nobody claimed we came from monkeys. I mean, apes I can see. But, like, saying we descended from something like a Rhesus monkey? That's borderlined retarded.

Sphenisc is kind of right, though. I should have made that more clear.

 

[Nihilanth]

JESUS, I go off on one panel just to find out that people are talking about the one above it.

No, Sphenisc is right. We did kind of come from apes. I'm sure Chick means modern apes, though, which is dumb, but I guess it's not really fair to put words in the guy's mouth so I can make fun of him. The words that are already there do a good enough job.

 

[cassis]

uh, humans are not apes....humans along with apes, monkeys, and prosimians are primates. Within that order are several families of which ours (hominidae or hominids) contains the great apes and humans (gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans) both the fossil and the modern forms. The hominids are further subdivided into various genera including the aforementioned gorillas (gorilla), human (homo), chimps (pan), and orangutans (pongo). Our most recent split (i.e. our most recent common ancestor) appears to have been about 5 million years ago. Of course you don't have to take my word for it...there is lots of information from reputable sources (in this case: University of Michigan's Zoology Dept).

Sorry for the taxonomy refresher but my main point is that it is inaccurate to call ourselves apes.

 

[Nihilanth]

Well, yeah, I understand that. I think the main point was that we were using apes as a term to cover all primates. Although, I guess that's kind of a stupid thing to do...

Wait, wait...does this mean that the Chick commentary thing about apes still works? RIGHT ON.

 

[I'll_buy_that]

Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?

"...I can have a cousin who's a mouth-breathing abomination that spends all day banging his retarded flippers against his Speak-N-Spell in a misguided attempt to communicate."

 

[Nihilanth]

Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?

"...I can have a cousin who's a mouth-breathing abomination that spends all day banging his retarded flippers against his Speak-N-Spell in a misguided attempt to communicate."

Oh, heavens no! Perish the thought! I don't believe Jack Chick has the cognitive abilities necessary to successfully navigate a Speak-n-Spell.

 

[chance]

Are you saying Jack Chick might be your cousin?

And would that be on his fathers or mothers side?

 

[Cuddles]

That sounds a bit hinky to me; are you certain of that claim?

Technically I evolved from my parents. Anything else alive today cannot have been my ancestor, because they weren't alive long enough ago. Obviously some trees can live for thousands of years, but I'm sure you see my point.

I'm not sure who you think is misunderstanding. There's nothing in the Chick comic, the commentary on it, my comment on the commentary, or the excerpt from Simon Conway Morris's book which suggests anyone is misunderstanding things in this way.



Which was the point I was making.



There's nothing in the Chick comic which suggests that. It's a strawhominid argument.




It's not really a matter of interpretation. Or at least any differences in interpretation aren't relevant to the point I was making.

If
a) Chick says " Scientists claim X".
b) Then Nihilanth says "A scientist would never, ever, ever, claim X."
c) And a scientist claims "X".
d) And then you say "When the scientist claimed "X", what he really meant was "Y"".

then I conclude that a) and c) are compatible. b) and c) are not compatible, and d) is irrelevant since a) is about what scientists claim, not what they mean.

Basically,depending on your interpretation of 'apes' either Morris is right or he's wrong. Either way Chick is right in saying that he's made a such a claim. It's equivocation to start claiming you know that Morris and Chick really meant different things. Unless of course there's other evidence within those pieces which indicate a real difference - I don't think there is.


If you're going to get all cladist on me, then yeah, if dolphins are still fish.

I was speaking more generally about the scientific and creationist communities. While I can't speak specifically for anyone other than myself, I don't know of any scientist that would claim humans evolved from modern apes, when they say we evolved from apes they mean primates that looked more like modern apes than us, and "ape" is a useful identifier. Most creationists (and I have heard this from some) assume that this use of the word "ape" is used to mean "modern ape" and then make the claim (correctly) that we have not evolved from them. While I don't know the thoughts of the authors involved, the context implies that they were both thinking along these lines. Hence my statement that this is a misunderstanding, meaning a misunderstanding (possibly deliberate) on Chick's part in his interpretation of Morris' words.