Creation vs Theory of Evolution
-
Did the Bible claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? How did you arrive at that figure?Originally posted by fandango:Remember, by tracing to chronology based on the Bible, the earth is only 6000 years old. -
How does evolution defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics?Originally posted by fandango:In a sense, evolution totally defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics. -
Aiyah .. he staunch supporter of Bishop Ussher mah .. hahaOriginally posted by nukewatch:Did the Bible claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? How did you arrive at that figure? -
The ratio of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere does affect the accuracy of carbon dating. Calibration is carried out to correct this. This is done by comparing the results with other indicators (eg. tree rings). Of course, this will raise the question about the accuracy of tree rings method.Originally posted by fandango:I am sure you are aware that Carbon, and all other radioactive, dating methods are made with a lot of assumptions. One major assumption is that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
The half-life of C14 is about 5730 years. After 10 half-lives, the amount of C14 gets very small. So for samples more than 50000 years old, other radiometric methods are used. These methods also use the principle of decay of radioactive isotopes. It is true that these dating methods depend on constant rate of decay. To prove that the rate of decay is constant. We would have to travel back in time to observe the rate of decay. The scientists do this by observing supernovae. These events may happened millions of years ago but we are observing them now because they occur so far away that the light takes millions of years to reach us. By observing the radioactive decay of supernovae light, the evidence points to a constant rate of decay. Then of course, we are assuming that Einstein is right that the speed of light is constant. While we know that our scientific knowledge is not perfect, it is the best approximate we have.
The alternative is to use the Bible, which I do not consider as a good alternative. First of all, the Bible did not explicitly state the age of the Earth. Any implications on the age of the Earth are subjected to intepretations. More importantly, the Bible was not written as a scientific book. But just because it is not scientific, does not mean that it is not the truth. The Bible was written to communicate spiritual information, not scientific information. The point Genesis writer wish to make is that God created the world, and as His creation, we are accountable to Him. That is the main point of Creation.
Evolution is a different subject. It is possible for Christians to accomodate parts of evolution theory without compromising our faith. The line should be drawn where evolution suggests that the world exist naturally (without God). This implies either that there is no God or that this world does not belongs to Him since He did not created it. This further implies that we are not accountable to Him. That is where the danger lies. Because, when we feel that we are not accountable to God, we will do whatever we wish. This is also why many people do not wish to believe in God even when they are persuaded that He exists, for they do not wish to be accountable to Him. -
Originally posted by fandango:I think there are evidence of human existing with dinosaurs. Human footprints have been found walking alongside dinosaur footprint.
[/img] -
speed of light had never been observed not to be constant. In fact the speed of light is use to define the meaning of metres and seconds. Tat is why the speed of light is abosulute (in metres and second), with no decimal point like PI.
The alternative is to use the Bible, which I do not consider as a good alternative. First of all, the Bible did not explicitly state the age of the Earth. Any implications on the age of the Earth are subjected to intepretations. More importantly, the Bible was not written as a scientific book. But just because it is not scientific, does not mean that it is not the truth. The Bible was written to communicate spiritual information, not scientific information. The point Genesis writer wish to make is that God created the world, and as His creation, we are accountable to Him. That is the main point of Creation.
But the bible do try to take up tis role by attempting to explain certain phenomonon isn't it ? Tat is why to see if the bible is the truth or not, we need to see if things r wat he claim it is. If it is not wat he claims, then it is not true. Simple logic.Evolution is a different subject. It is possible for Christians to accomodate parts of evolution theory without compromising our faith. The line should be drawn where evolution suggests that the world exist naturally (without God). This implies either that there is no God or that this world does not belongs to Him since He did not created it. This further implies that we are not accountable to Him. That is where the danger lies. Because, when we feel that we are not accountable to God, we will do whatever we wish. This is also why many people do not wish to believe in God even when they are persuaded that He exists, for they do not wish to be accountable to Him.
Generally speaking people do not believe in god is because they do not believe it exists. Why pray or submit to beings tat do not exists ? -
About the dinosaur thingy, I have said before tat the footprint found r declared dinosaur tracks... it is just tat the 3 fingers do not sink in when it walk. Tat is why along the same path, sometimes the 3 digits of fingers appears on the footprint. Also the print is too big for human or humonids. Even the person claiming tis find has retracted his findings.
-
so what is the purpose of evolution to you? why does it happen? why does a single cell want to evolve?
adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, or? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
To our best knowledge, that is correct. The speed of light in vacuum is constant relative to all observers. That is a building block of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Until someone observes otherwise, that is going to stay in our textbook.
speed of light had never been observed not to be constant.But the bible do try to take up tis role by attempting to explain certain phenomonon isn't it ? Tat is why to see if the bible is the truth or not, we need to see if things r wat he claim it is. If it is not wat he claims, then it is not true. Simple logic.
The Bible was not written to explain phenomenons. To use it so, is an error that many past and present believers make. Did they contribute to your unbelief?
As for logic, it has its limitation. It cannot judge love. Sacrificial love defies logic. Likewise for faith, not that believers should be illogical, but that the step of faith requires more than logic.Generally speaking people do not believe in god is because they do not believe it exists. Why pray or submit to beings tat do not exists ? [/b]
The are a few groups, people who:
1) do not believe God exists
2) believe God exists, but does not recognise His authority
3) recognise His authority, but are pissed off by believers
4) others???
Which group do you belong to? -
so what is the purpose of evolution to you? why does it happen? why does a single cell want to evolve?
The reason for evolution is survival of the fittest. There is cell A and B. B is different than A as it can survive longer or reproduce faster. After many years, which cell do u think will remains ? -
The Bible was not written to explain phenomenons. To use it so, is an error that many past and present believers make. Did they contribute to your unbelief?
Wat do u mean ? they explain the origin of men, explain how the world is formed isn't it ? Isn't tat explaining phenomenons ?
If u don't believe tat the book meant as such, then why do u believe in it at all ? The whole religion is based on the book u know. If the book is wrong, the whole religion is wrong.As for logic, it has its limitation. It cannot judge love. Sacrificial love defies logic. Likewise for faith, not that believers should be illogical, but that the step of faith requires more than logic
Why not ? I said before, the purpose of life is to be happpy. Loves one and worries plays a large part in your happiness. If your loves ones r happy, it will generate your happiness. If u help out other people, u feel a sense of satisfaction and thus translate to happiness.
Faith is irrational... believing in faith = throwing away your logic and reasonings. In short it is dumb to do it...
I do not believe in God extisting if u want to know. -
Who created the world and how the world was created are 2 different questions. I believe that Genesis account was written to address the former.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wat do u mean ? they explain the origin of men, explain how the world is formed isn't it ? Isn't tat explaining phenomenons ?
If u don't believe tat the book meant as such, then why do u believe in it at all ? The whole religion is based on the book u know. If the book is wrong, the whole religion is wrong.Faith is irrational... believing in faith = throwing away your logic and reasonings. In short it is dumb to do it...
When someone lays down his life for others, that runs contrary to the logic of self-preservation. A believer is no more illogical than a lover. -
ok. so how to explain the variety of species that still exists? if one evolves to another, shouldn't the older species die out?Originally posted by stupidissmart:The reason for evolution is survival of the fittest. There is cell A and B. B is different than A as it can survive longer or reproduce faster. After many years, which cell do u think will remains ?
and why did the human 'species' evolved to so many races? is there a need to evolve to so many races for survival? -
ok. so how to explain the variety of species that still exists? if one evolves to another, shouldn't the older species die out?
Simple. When one being evoled, it doesn't necessary means the other species will die out too. As given int he above example, B is a better survivor, but it doesn't means A is going to extinct. A has the possibility of evolving to C. If A is capable enough, it may not evolved and maiantain as And why did the human 'species' evolved to so many races? is there a need to evolve to so many races for survival?
Evolution is constantly taking place. The problem of human is they got seperated geologically. Due to tis speration, they start to evolve into slightly different beings. -
the mongoloids are mainly found in asia. typical features are 'slit eyes'. what purpose does it serve in evolution?
why different species of humans have different facial bone structures? they should have their evolution purpose too, right? -
the mongoloids are mainly found in asia. typical features are 'slit eyes'. what purpose does it serve in evolution?
Having slit eyes may just mean tat the other races had develop large eyes while mongoloid do not develop during evolution. BTW wat purpose does large eyes have over small eyes ? Do u see more things with large eyes ? smaller eyes may means having lesser probability of getting sand into them...
why different species of humans have different facial bone structures? they should have their evolution purpose too, right?
During a certain part of time, maybe it do serve its purpose. Maybe like a lot of animals, the appearence is a guage of their genes. Just like peacockc, the tail is meant to let the other peacocks know how healthy it is. The more colourful it is, the more healthy it is suppose to be.
Then let me ask u, why does men have eyes, nose and features according to the bible ? Why does mongoloids have slit eyes according to the bible ?Who created the world and how the world was created are 2 different questions. I believe that Genesis account was written to address the former.
The problem is the time it had stated is wrong. They say it is created within 6 days but the time for the formation is certainly more than 6 days. Even in the passage they claim tat one morning and one night account for a day. Later in the genesis they use a lot of word "day" and it just meant as days. The order he "made" the stuffs is wrong too. Sun is older than earthWhen someone lays down his life for others, that runs contrary to the logic of self-preservation. A believer is no more illogical than a lover.
Not really. They r people making sacrifices for their love ones too. Sometime in order to protect one love ones is very great, to the point tat they will sacrifice their loves for them. Even a lover is logical. They get to have happiness is doing romantic things, happiness from the happiness of the lover etc. Your lover is real. Your effort toward it is real.
For faith it is not really logical... because they believe in something which do not exists. Do u think it is logical for a person to be the lover of an imaginary person ? -
The sites you gave are really filled with information and i really had a hard time just to keep track of the details that were in them. But i do have some obervations that i want to note here.
Concerning the hind-legs of the whale, i found on some web pages that shows the muscles that are attached to the "hind-legs". It was from here that you will notice that bone is not a "hind leg", but it is like a pivot bones for the muscles that contols movement (expand, contract) of the reproduction organs for the whale.
As for the tail on the child, the site did say that it is very uncommon. When i first read it the first thing that came to my mind people with an extra thumb or finger. A part of the site says that the tail could be due to genetic mutation and thus slight chance inheritance. But another part say it could be the tail that human was supposed to gathered from the monkeys. So there is a slight contradiction that the site didn't explain further. I will tend to believe to be more of a genetic mutation since the recorded cases can be counted with just 2 hands.
I asked an doctor friend of mine casually about why the human embryo seems that have a tail. He said that it is not a tail but actually the embryo spine. He explained that the spine have to be developed first in the embryo before the limbs and other organs can be developed. It like the foundation of a building. Interestingly he added that everyone has a "tail-bone", but that bone is not for a tail. It is commonly known as the tail bone because is the last column of the spine down near the buttocks. The bone, like the "hind-legs" of the whale, have 6-9 muscles connected to it that controls the mucles of the anus. If you remove that bone, you will be like a free flowing chocolate cake machine. Sorry for the language.
This does not go to prove that we came from apes.
About the chromosomes, what i wanted to highlight is that there is such a huge difference in the DNA structure of living things and it will really out of this world to say that all this living things came from a single bacteria millions of years ago. Evolution is about chance, like a lottery. The odds is more than billion to one. Again i am not a scientist, but taking the example of a chimp and a human. Although the two DNA structure are 95% similar, that 5% difference means there is a difference in millions of molecular stucture betweent the 2 DNAs, yet it will only take just 3 molecular strcuture changes to the DNA to kill either a chimp or human.
I don't belive any one can live to past 200 years old now. But back then in the Noah's time, yes.
There must be millions of pores on the skin of the earth worm.
Counting of rings may not be accurate because there is a thing called dead rings. Could be caused by atmospheric changes, (Hey, the flood!), climatic changes (The flood again.).
Talking about petrified trees, many petrified trees are found stuck vertically in 3-4 layer of rocks where each layer was supposed to be formed only through millions of years.
Noah's global flood is really critical this topic because it can prove evolution wrong. I will explain this another time...if time permits.
As with carbon dating, i just want someone to tell me how would a scientist determine which one shows a correct result since the percentage of right and wrong estimate seems to be like 50-50.
Finally, i also want to know how the very FIRST bacteria, the ancestor of ALL living things, was formed.
Someone asked how to know the age of Earth using the bible. Just count the age of the people mentioned in the bible and trace back from Jesus to Adam and you will get the figure of around 6000 years. -
Concerning the hind-legs of the whale, i found on some web pages that shows the muscles that are attached to the "hind-legs". It was from here that you will notice that bone is not a "hind leg", but it is like a pivot bones for the muscles that contols movement (expand, contract) of the reproduction organs for the whale
I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. ... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.
However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to explain on the basis of a creation model."
-Carl Wieland
Found it there in the website. He is suppose to help christians.
Found tis further downMost of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.
They really found leg hanging, and even have some toes emerging out from it. I don't know man.. wat is your explanation on a whale to develop out a foot with toes ? Surely a reproduction system can't have toes ?As for the tail on the child, the site did say that it is very uncommon. When i first read it the first thing that came to my mind people with an extra thumb or finger. A part of the site says that the tail could be due to genetic mutation and thus slight chance inheritance. But another part say it could be the tail that human was supposed to gathered from the monkeys. So there is a slight contradiction that the site didn't explain further. I will tend to believe to be more of a genetic mutation since the recorded cases can be counted with just 2 hands.
Having a mutation on of extra eye, extra toes or no kidneys r easy. But having an organ tat was never found in the body before is diffcult. Tis is not about the tail bone, it is about a tail. For the tail bone, they just name it "tail bone", and it is nothing about tails mentioned here. They r talking about tails here, not tail bone and it is a bit... wierd to talk about tail bone when the things they r discussing is tail. They have already accounted for mutated spine bones in the passage Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations. The focus on the article is not about these pseudo-tails
I asked an doctor friend of mine casually about why the human embryo seems that have a tail. He said that it is not a tail but actually the embryo spine. He explained that the spine have to be developed first in the embryo before the limbs and other organs can be developed. It like the foundation of a building. Interestingly he added that everyone has a "tail-bone", but that bone is not for a tail. It is commonly known as the tail bone because is the last column of the spine down near the buttocks. The bone, like the "hind-legs" of the whale, have 6-9 muscles connected to it that controls the mucles of the anus. If you remove that bone, you will be like a free flowing chocolate cake machine. Sorry for the language. This does not go to prove that we came from apes.
As indicated in the passage, these real tails r can move voluntary. Please take a look at the picture. These picture will explain the difference between tails and tail bones.
http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html
And surprisingly, these tails appears to be inherited. It appears to occur down a line of families. They even have a good explanation on the genes found on human tat support the growing of tails, NOT tail bones. For human, they develop another gene tat will remove the tail in the later stage of growth.About the chromosomes, what i wanted to highlight is that there is such a huge difference in the DNA structure of living things and it will really out of this world to say that all this living things came from a single bacteria millions of years ago. Evolution is about chance, like a lottery. The odds is more than billion to one. Again i am not a scientist, but taking the example of a chimp and a human. Although the two DNA structure are 95% similar, that 5% difference means there is a difference in millions of molecular stucture betweent the 2 DNAs, yet it will only take just 3 molecular strcuture changes to the DNA to kill either a chimp or human.
I have said many times before, they have infinite many site for reaction and infinite many times to perform a reaction. If it is one billion to one, it is actually pretty high.
about the example of a chimp and human. When the molecular difference changes by these 3 molecules, they just die and their faulty genes is never pass down to decendent, aka extinct. BTW gene r develop to make the species "fitter", thu they r not probably going to developa gene tat will kill them. The rest of the unevolved species will evolved in other ways and some will form human while the other will form chim. Know of genetic algorithm ? Although it is a programing code and nothing link with bio, but evolution bio works in a similar way but in a more efficient manner. The random occurances or changes of a possible answer can give out solution faster than other calculation even when the probability of this is little.I don't belive any one can live to past 200 years old now. But back then in the Noah's time, yes
The whole issue is u claiming the "air becomes bad" after the flood and saying tat in the past people lived for hundreds of years while we now can live up till 100 at most. When noah clearly can live 350 years before he dies, isn't tat a clear proof tat the air do not goes bad and dinosaur do not die because their nostrils r smallThere must be millions of pores on the skin of the earth worm
true, but the air has never gone bad so your assumption is wrongCounting of rings may not be accurate because there is a thing called dead rings. Could be caused by atmospheric changes, (Hey, the flood!), climatic changes (The flood again.).
U don't even believe in the counting of rings ?!?! U know why ring is accurate to count age ? they r develop because they grow differently during the different seasons. It can only fail due to seasonal difference, NOT a flood, climatic or atmospheric difference. It will not form a ring or lesser rings because the flood doesn't last for thousands of years. Com'on man, please don't anyhow throw away tis ancient and accurate way of assessing age for trees anyhow. U just wanna throw away any method of counting age just because all accurate ways of accessing age points to the fact tat the earth is older than wat bible predicted ? Surely radio and tree rings have result tat r similar. U still wanna throw it away ?Talking about petrified trees, many petrified trees are found stuck vertically in 3-4 layer of rocks where each layer was supposed to be formed only through millions of years.
So ? Tat is why it is accurate isn't it ? U mean trees still grow under layers of rocks ? These rings r a true indication of its age before it dies isn't it ?As with carbon dating, i just want someone to tell me how would a scientist determine which one shows a correct result since the percentage of right and wrong estimate seems to be like 50-50.
Who says the odds r 50-50 ? The odds r 99 when it is done by an expert, using a suitable specimen in an professional condition. U think scientist r dumb and do not argue on such high inaccuracies if it is so ? Someone even win a nobel prize for finding cardon dating ! The data fround after radio of a tree and the number of rings found r found to match. Surely tis is an verified means of assessing age ?Finally, i also want to know how the very FIRST bacteria, the ancestor of ALL living things, was formed
No one knows for sure. But do u know how does god get created ? We do not know how the first bacteria is formed, but it doesn't means we give up and just rely on supernatural to explain stuffs. If we keep using supernatural to explain stuffs, men r very little from animals then. If we don't know we try to find it out. Tat should be a good starting moltivation to find the truth. Not just don't search at all and rely on theories tat were never proven or verified. BTW scientist r pondering on a few possible reasons for why life begins. It is hard to perform the experments out and even if the did so, they may have to try for billions of times before life can occur. They also have a natural apprehension tat religion will slam them hard, much like wat happened in the olden days. -
Man did NOT evolve from apes. Man evolved from some kind of primate, and apes are another kind of primate, all of these primates probably evolved from some other organism. if Man evolved from apes, there would be no more apes today.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I thought there is substantial evidence tat men were evolved from apes... why do u not believe in it ? -
in the past, some people thought the earth was a giant turtle with elephants one its back...Originally posted by nukewatch:Did the Bible claim that the Earth is 6000 years old? How did you arrive at that figure?
not surprising some people thought the earth was 6000 years old 
-
are u all talking about Evolution?
-
stupid is smart is not right.Originally posted by sillyme:ok. so how to explain the variety of species that still exists? if one evolves to another, shouldn't the older species die out?
and why did the human 'species' evolved to so many races? is there a need to evolve to so many races for survival?
yes the older species will be gone, because this is the way evolution works:
organism has to adapt to environment. some organism are fitter, they survive, the not so fit ones cant survive so they die and their poorer genes are gone. the ones that survive pass on their genes, and the same process happens in the next generation. one generation is slightly different from the previous because their genes are more fit. natural selection keeps happening and eventually after a very very long time(millions of years). these slight differences all add up to become a big difference, and a new species is born. as for the original species aeons ago, their genes have been lost so long ago.
humans have many races just like there are different kinds of cats and dogs. however, when homo erectus were evolving into humans, there were climatic and environmental differences which might have affected the evolutionary process. and since evolution is a complicated process, you cant guarantee that a species will evolve into a specific form right? for example even among the same type of species of animals, it is often observed that slight differences occur and that is due to adaptation.
and the sun is the same age as the earth. -
Originally posted by fandango:
Concerning the hind-legs of the whale, i found on some web pages that shows the muscles that are attached to the "hind-legs". It was from here that you will notice that bone is not a "hind leg", but it is like a pivot bones for the muscles that contols movement (expand, contract) of the reproduction organs for the whale.
you are wrong. those are leg bones because scientists can tell that the structure is tha of a leg. they do not help in swimming but when the whale is mating it can help the whale lock its lower body on its mate, you must have mistaken that for "movement of reproduction organs"
This does not go to prove that we came from apes.
we did NOT come from apes, the ignorant thinks we come from apes because the misunderstand what evolution is. ask any genetist(if thats the word) whether we came from apes and he will tell you no
About the chromosomes, what i wanted to highlight is that there is such a huge difference in the DNA structure of living things and it will really out of this world to say that all this living things came from a single bacteria millions of years ago. Evolution is about chance, like a lottery. The odds is more than billion to one. Again i am not a scientist, but taking the example of a chimp and a human. Although the two DNA structure are 95% similar, that 5% difference means there is a difference in millions of molecular stucture betweent the 2 DNAs, yet it will only take just 3 molecular strcuture changes to the DNA to kill either a chimp or human.
of course not a "single bacteria"
I don't belive any one can live to past 200 years old now. But back then in the Noah's time, yes.
why would people in the past live longer?? the historical trend has been that Man's lifespan has always been increasing.
Noah's global flood is really critical this topic because it can prove evolution wrong. I will explain this another time...if time permits.
ya, prove evolution wrong...using something thats not been proven.
As with carbon dating, i just want someone to tell me how would a scientist determine which one shows a correct result since the percentage of right and wrong estimate seems to be like 50-50.
I dont know where you heard that carbon dating is only 5050 chance. but there are many ways to support the determining of age, for example checking the date of other substances found on the same level. if they all match with a minimum boundary of error, then it can be seen that it is a correct result.
Finally, i also want to know how the very FIRST bacteria, the ancestor of ALL living things, was formed.
I am not very knowledgable, but I can provide a theory that I just thought of(scientists have better theories, i am just trying to tell you that there are these kind of possibilities). that is a long long time ago, certain proteins and hydrocarbons whatever formed into "things that work". for example something that can assimilate other biological molecules. then these things assimilate one another and eventually a larger thing is formed with multiple functions, for example now it might be able to digest the substances. and eventually more complex things are formed and these things evolved into the first bacteria, which has many functions in its body. someone who takes biology pls give more insight.
Someone asked how to know the age of Earth using the bible. Just count the age of the people mentioned in the bible and trace back from Jesus to Adam and you will get the figure of around 6000 years.
I dont see how something written on a book when Man was still pretty uncivilized can prove hundreds of years of study of geography, chemistry and other sciences wrong.
[/b] -
Panspermia?Originally posted by fandango:Finally, i also want to know how the very FIRST bacteria, the ancestor of ALL living things, was formed.
Someone asked how to know the age of Earth using the bible. Just count the age of the people mentioned in the bible and trace back from Jesus to Adam and you will get the figure of around 6000 years.
This is plainly wrong. Adam was not created on the first day. The traditional Jewish understanding (before modern science) tells us the age before and the age after Adam was created is different.
God created many living things in Genesis 1. Whether you believe in evolution, I'm sure you agree Adam is a special creation.
In fact Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, marks the creation of the world. I leave you to guess which creation is that. -
sun is the same age as the earth.
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/05_2.shtml
This age seemed reasonable, considering that the Sun should have burned out if it were much older, and that a planet should be younger than its star.
Star of solar = sun, planets= venus, mercury etc including earth
According to the theory on how the solar system is formed, the sun must formed first before the other planets such as earth.
Anyway for me, ape = primate... I used to thought tat apes r a group of animals tat resembles monkey, gorillas etc. I will take note of using the proper term now.