'Darwin may have been descended from a monkey, but I'm

[bobbieinok]

certainly not.'

Often heard in the 50s in OK.

Familiar to anyone else?

[WildClarySage]

1. my stepmom

still says that. ugh.

[stevedeshazer]

2. Heard it many times

Oregon in the '60s.

[MissB]

3. Sure. I earned my Civil Engineering degree in 1996

A small group of classmates used to wear the "I didn't decend from monkeys" t-shirts.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Did the T-shirt had the spelling error too? ("decend")

:evilgrin:

[MissB]

16. Yes

They weren't the best spellers, either. :silly:

[MercutioATC]

4. I spent four days in a hammock in Costa Rica reading "Origin of Species"

Anybody who dismisses Darwin in such an offhand manner obviously hasn't read him.

[WildClarySage]

7. The one that cracks me up is

when a classmate made the comment in paleobiology class that on his deathbed, Darwin rescinded his entire life's work by denying evolution.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. I think that's a canard

In other words, a story decended from a duck.

This one has been going around for a long, long time. It's a favorite of anti-Evolution religious "leaders." But Darwin never recanted evolution, on his deathbed or anywhere else.

His ideas have certainly undergone modification, but you'd expect that for ideas being developed in a scientific field. Meanwhile, the Creationists are now proposing that Satan created a geologically consistent fossil record to deceive sinful Mankind.

Actually, I think Satan created Creationism to deceive a god-struck Mankind.

--bkl

[WildClarySage]

11. This was the person

who liked to clog my email with crappy repug litanies of GoreBashing. I had my doubts. She was a very gullable soul. Well, I suppose she still is.

[yellowcanine]

17. Funny thing about that urban creationist legend

Is that the best response to that would be "so what?" Even if it were true, why would it matter if Darwin recanted? The truth of his theory does not depend on whether or not he might have later had second thoughts. The truth of Darwin's anaysis has been verified by the data collected over the years that continues to authenticate predictions made using evolutionary and natural selection theory. After all, Galileo was forced to recant the Copernican theory of a heliocentric solar system but that didn't make it untrue - nor would it have if old Copernicus himself had recanted it. The fact that creationists would even fall for such a canard only demonstrates how desperate they are for anything-however trivial, that might detract from Darwin's theory.

[annak110]

9. When I went to College in Oklahoma (Southwestern State College)

we had a great library science instructor and she told the story of a young man who, at the end of a semester, rushed breathlessly into her office and begged her to help him with a report. The book he had to report on he said was "Oranges and Peaches". He had searched every shelf in the library and had been unable to find the book. A couple of questions from the librarian of course brought out the fact that he was actually looking for "Origin of the Species".

[Djinn]

5. Best to explain to them that they're correct

we didn't descend from monkeys - both monkeys and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither monkey or man as we know it today.

It's funny really - all these people who adamantly disagree with something yet don't actually know what they're disagreeing with

[annak110]

6. Did you see or hear the report that Georgia will change the

word "evolution" in its school textbooks to the phrase,
"biological change over time". Seemingly it has been a change for the worse.

About the Oklahoma thing, I did hear that as I am an Okie. My daughter was down home recently and heard people arguing about some of the population using Spanish rather than English. A man said, "If English was good enough for Jesus its good enough for me!"

Then there's the recent report written by a man who, presumably still works for the park service. The book attests to the man's belief that the grand canyon was formed 4000 years ago, probably in the flood. Shades of the dimwitted bishop who first made that nutty statement about the earth's origin! This nonsense was in our local paper recently.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Actually, aren't we descendants from marmosets?

Apes and humans share a common ancester, but our evolutionary lines separated at some point to become our specific species. At least, I thought they separated until pictures of Bush began hitting the net.

[salinen]

13. I am very proud to be

a descendant of the Great Ape.

[ThoughtCriminal]

14. It gets real fun when you get into the "Rib" thing

Many fundies think that women have one more rib than men since God used one of Adam's to make Eve. Disproof with X-rays and skeletons doesn't have much affect on them, so I ask:

If I lose a finger in an accident, does that mean all my descendants will also be missing that appendage?

[smirkymonkey]

15. Well, at least our pResident isn't descended from a monkey....

He IS a monkey! Evolution apparently gave the Bush Family a pass.

On second thought, since * has neither the intellect nor the charm of most chimps, he is probably a notch or two below the simians on the evolutionary scale.

My apologies to all monkeys, chimps, apes, marmosets, etc. for the insult.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. The best reply comes from the 1860s

The (apocryphal) reply in a debate, by Thomas Huxley, to Bishop Wilberforce's rather rude "was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey?" was:
"He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth."

http://www.uta.edu/english/danahay/debate.html

[Loonman]

19. Dumbass creationist catchphrase

Darwin never said anyone descended from a monkey.

No evolutionist ever said that, either.

What it is, is that far, far in the past, apes and humans probably shared a common ancester.

Creationists and fundies just like to revel in their ignorance.