You were on that page too! And your fallacies are discussed by Tangled on that page or the previous one.<quoted text>With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.
What is wrong, was the changing goal-post.
So crea never developed a solid reference system.
When i try to explain that concestor (in the swedish study and the other one) are a term meaning that we were then alike, but groups moving away from each other change in slightly different ways, so that after some time they become quite distinct.
Fossils are too wide spaced to really envision it.
The point is that you can also reason that simians and other bipedals (a term as Tangled introduced to prevent confusion) derived from us.
Merely for the reason that we are slightly faster in duplication.
After our last split from the simians we really went ahead full spead.
The puzzle for me is still homo erectus. That held on way longer than we did sofar, but nevertheless seems to have been concestor with us. And seems to have a link with early homo sapiens.
So 'retro-mating'(wrong term, but since mating was still possible and bringing forth descendants)and thus making the tree more like a bush with loops seems to have happened too.
What is wrong is that