|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2005 : 13:59:28 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The human/chimpanzee ancestor was neither human nor chimpanzee, and definitely not a monkey, but an hominid
Ok, show me a couple hundred hominid fossils, that is, tell me who's found them with proof that they are another "missing link" species. Good luck. Somebody found one partial skeleton that he "thinks" is such a creature. Wow. Most supposed fossils have been shown to be either human or really some other animal, but hominids?
You'd think the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming with all the chest puffing that goes on in this subject. The things I read are "underwhelming" supposition and assumption, always with another plausible explanation. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:05:50 [Permalink]
|
"nobody even remotely suggested that humans evolved from chimpanzees." says Geemack
Can we assume, then, that no one involved in this discussion believes that humans evolved from any other primate, or are you just speaking for yourself?
Can we then assume that you believe humans did not evolve at all? Are you rejecting Darwin's origins theories or just some of them? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:07:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
My point is, that logically, mutations in the degree that are talked about to turn a chimp into a man are so numerous and complex that as certain small mutations occurred, in process, such a mutant being would be subject to irradication, those small mutations being a hinderance, rather than a help while in process. It is a simple fact that men cannot run as fast, nor as they as strong as chimps, even in there current "evolved" form, much less in their weakened state of mutation.
Please, don't take this as being ad hominem, but you either resist understanding for some reason, or maybe you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. Several times in just the past few postings it has been made clear that nobody here is claiming humans evolved from chimpanzees.
On the other hand, if it puts your mind at ease, I think we'll all agree that you are correct in believing that humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Of course everyone who understands evolution, even those who "got it" before Darwin, knows this to be true. So you really haven't come up with anything new.
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:15:01 [Permalink]
|
"Several times in just the past few postings it has been made clear that nobody here is claiming humans evolved from chimpanzees."
So, why not clarify with a positive statement of what you believe is being said when a person tells me that the chimp is my closest relative? Relatives are understood to be those from which I descended.
If it isn't the chimp, what creature was it? Is is the elusive "hominid"? What did that creature evolve from, or was that creature not evolved from another? Do you expect me to understand you when you state a negative, but refuse to define the positive? To me it is evasion of the issue at hand, nothing more, unless you can clarify positively stating your current belief on the subject.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:20:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Furthermore, why do we no longer see these gross mutations occurring in the wild? Are we to assume that each creature has attained to it's highest state of perfection and no further alterations with new species are needed? Or maybe it just doesn't happen.
Uh, who said we don't? Not the other day we've discussed a cat with more fingers than usual, one resembling a opposable thumb. I've seen reports about a chick born with four legs, all four healthy and operational, not a month ago. Not to mention the male goat who was born with milk-giving teats.
True, those are all domestic animals. But they weren't bred for that. Nature did it, all on itself. Wild animals are harder to observe, but I'd think anyone working actively with wildlife could spot a few abnormalities.
Besides, those 'gross' changes are to happen over long periods of time, around millions of years. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:35:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Ok, show me a couple hundred hominid fossils,
Whoever talked about the fossil record? We were discussing the genetics.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:39:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
So, why not clarify with a positive statement of what you believe is being said when a person tells me that the chimp is my closest relative? Relatives are understood to be those from which I descended.
Okay, here's the positive statement: You don't understand. Virtually all the rest of the English speaking population of the Earth understands "relative" to mean something like this dictionary definition:
rel·a·tive n. One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage.
Someone already tried to correct your misunderstanding. You either ignored it, overlooked it, resisted it, or simply are incapable of understanding it.quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
Doomar, did you "come from" your cousin? Closest relatives means we have related ancestors.
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 14:52:12 [Permalink]
|
" Nature did it, all on itself. Wild animals are harder to observe, but I'd think anyone working actively with wildlife could spot a few abnormalities.
Besides, those 'gross' changes are to happen [i]over long periods of time, around millions of years."
Do you expect to see the male goat that can be milked fulfilling a likely roll in the goat kingdom anytime soon? Doubtful. We are talking about useful mutations that cause animals to turn into other species and these mutations remain for thousands of years pasted on to suceeding generations. Just by the numbers we should see thousands of such things in the wild at this moment.
How many millions of years does it take for millions of mutations to occur? Are we to assume that these millions of mutations that were needed for one species to evolve into another could be done in a short time of "millions" of years? I'm thinking billions or trillions of years. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:08:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
" Nature did it, all on itself. Wild animals are harder to observe, but I'd think anyone working actively with wildlife could spot a few abnormalities.
Besides, those 'gross' changes are to happen [i]over long periods of time, around millions of years."
Do you expect to see the male goat that can be milked fulfilling a likely roll in the goat kingdom anytime soon? Doubtful. We are talking about useful mutations that cause animals to turn into other species and these mutations remain for thousands of years pasted on to suceeding generations. Just by the numbers we should see thousands of such things in the wild at this moment.
How many millions of years does it take for millions of mutations to occur? Are we to assume that these millions of mutations that were needed for one species to evolve into another could be done in a short time of "millions" of years? I'm thinking billions or trillions of years.
Perhaps. It certainly would help the survival of orphan babies - perhaps we're in for a new type of goat, where females could have more offspring and both parents could feed it. Perhaps they could revert to hermaphroditism, where one parent impregnates the other. Perhaps in a couple million years, the whole concept of male and female goat will be changed. Who knows?
Besides, mutations aren't necessarily useful. They don't have to. That's the beauty of it - there are no rules. There isn't a purpose. There is no design in it. They just happen and are selected - those which are useful remain, those which aren't don't. Multiply it by an enormous variety of possible changes, by a thousand ambiental changes... anything's possible.
What's so overwhelmingly impossible about it? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:12:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
" Nature did it, all on itself. Wild animals are harder to observe, but I'd think anyone working actively with wildlife could spot a few abnormalities.
Besides, those 'gross' changes are to happen [i]over long periods of time, around millions of years."
Do you expect to see the male goat that can be milked fulfilling a likely roll in the goat kingdom anytime soon? Doubtful. We are talking about useful mutations that cause animals to turn into other species and these mutations remain for thousands of years pasted on to suceeding generations. Just by the numbers we should see thousands of such things in the wild at this moment.
How many millions of years does it take for millions of mutations to occur? Are we to assume that these millions of mutations that were needed for one species to evolve into another could be done in a short time of "millions" of years? I'm thinking billions or trillions of years.
I've seen a few over the years, but all were juveniles or neonates. These things simple don't survivive in the wild due to being unable to compete for food and a vulnerability to predators. Thus, their genes are lost to the species pool -- evolution correcting itself, if you will.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
"Several times in just the past few postings it has been made clear that nobody here is claiming humans evolved from chimpanzees."
So, why not clarify with a positive statement of what you believe is being said when a person tells me that the chimp is my closest relative? Relatives are understood to be those from which I descended.
So your brother or cousins are not your relatives? Maybe it's a language thing, but in my native tongue, "relatives" includes cousins. Separate lines of descent.
How about this for a positive statement:
Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I subject the overwhelming likeness in DNA, including traces of HERV in that DNA, as evidence.
quote:
If it isn't the chimp, what creature was it? Is is the elusive "hominid"?
Ok, maybe hominid was a poor choice of word. I'm an electronics engineer, not a professional biologist. Primate is probably a better word. The point is the same.
quote:
What did that creature evolve from, or was that creature not evolved from another?
Don't be coy. You know what "common ancestry" means. Don't you?
quote:
Do you expect me to understand you when you state a negative, but refuse to define the positive? To me it is evasion of the issue at hand, nothing more, unless you can clarify positively stating your current belief on the subject.
And you sir, are just playing semantics games.
Are you really that ignorant of the theory of evolution?
Ask questions about it, and we'll try to answer them. You really need to learn about it, before your criticism will be taken seriously.
Before that, all you do is creating straw-men to hack up, and that serves neither us nor you.
(except giving us something to giggle at, and you don't want that, right?) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:17:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
We are talking about useful mutations that cause animals to turn into other species and these mutations remain for thousands of years pasted on to suceeding generations. Just by the numbers we should see thousands of such things in the wild at this moment.
Um, we do. Every animal in the wild is a result of useful mutations being passed down through generations. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:21:03 [Permalink]
|
rel·a·tive n. One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage.
Doomar, did you "come from" your cousin? Closest relatives means we have related ancestors.
Alrighty then. What's to say that the same building blocks used in making the chimp were not used in making a human being? There is no evolution needed to explain such a "relationship". It is the same as if a carpenter makes a house out of wood and then makes a piece of furniture out of the same wood. Different uses of the same substance, different results. What was the "relation"? Same carpenter. Do we intend to say the house is related to the furniture? In substance, yes. In authorship, yes. Did the furniture evolve from the house? No. No one would suggest such a crazy relationship....er would they? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:33:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
Do you expect to see the male goat that can be milked fulfilling a likely roll in the goat kingdom anytime soon? Doubtful.
The possibilities border on the infinite. There certainly are instances of male creatures who have evolved to take on some of the biological tasks that we might more often see undertaken by females. Read up on the seahorse, a fish in the family Syngnathidae, for an interesting example.quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
We are talking about useful mutations that cause animals to turn into other species and these mutations remain for thousands of years pasted on to suceeding generations. Just by the numbers we should see thousands of such things in the wild at this moment.
We do see them, and not just thousands, millions. Every living species on Earth has evolved and is evolving, keeping the useful mutations, many remaining for thousands or even millions of years.quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
How many millions of years does it take for millions of mutations to occur? Are we to assume that these millions of mutations that were needed for one species to evolve into another could be done in a short time of "millions" of years? I'm thinking billions or trillions of years.
At this point we have fossil evidence of life forms found in areas of Australia that are estimated to have lived somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 billion years ago. So, yes, maybe millions of years, sometimes billions. The possibilities vary widely of course because some creatures produce hundreds or thousands of generations in the same time frame as others might produce one. Also, some extreme environmental changes, which are known to occur often (relative to a time line of millions of years), can create situations where certain mutations become useful which might have otherwise been benign.
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 15:48:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
Alrighty then. What's to say that the same building blocks used in making the chimp were not used in making a human being? There is no evolution needed to explain such a "relationship". It is the same as if a carpenter makes a house out of wood and then makes a piece of furniture out of the same wood. Different uses of the same substance, different results. What was the "relation"? Same carpenter. Do we intend to say the house is related to the furniture? In substance, yes. In authorship, yes. Did the furniture evolve from the house? No. No one would suggest such a crazy relationship....er would they?
But one could say that the house and the furniture had a common ancestor: THE TREE! Now do you get it? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
