human evolution
Rahulal...@gmail.com
about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.This is ofcourse
the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
existence.......so from the time man was born,he was born as man
itself...........................If u need another solid reason,then
here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
Bob D
Man! I'm sorry, but you are ignorant. Please stay around in this group
for a year or so, you might learn something!
The First Lesson:
Humans ARE apes.
richardal...@googlemail.com
On Jan 11, 10:28 am, Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:
> scientists believe that humans evolved from apes.....
Nope. Humans are apes
>The major fact
> about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
Nope. The evidence shows that the mental capacities of humans were much
as they are now about 100,000 years ago
>This is ofcourse
> the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> existence.......
Nope. Chimps are close to us in intelligence, and in some measures
exceed us.
>so from the time man was born,he was born as man
> itself...........................
Nope. There is a whole slew of early hominims which are not modern man.
>If u need another solid reason,then
> here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
Because
1) Men are apes and
2) It's a fucking stupid argument
RF
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> >The major fact
> > about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> > modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> > the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
>
> Nope. The evidence shows that the mental capacities of humans were much
> as they are now about 100,000 years ago
>
> >This is ofcourse
> > the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> > existence.......
>
> Nope. Chimps are close to us in intelligence, and in some measures
> exceed us.
for example?
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
"Using a 64-bit value introduces a new wrap around date in about 290
billion
years, on Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596 15:30:08 UTC. This
problem is
not, however, widely regarded as a pressing issue."
wiki/Year_2038_problem
richardal...@googlemail.com
On Jan 11, 11:44 am, "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 10:28 am, Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:<snip>
>
> > >The major fact
> > > about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> > > modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> > > the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
>
> > Nope. The evidence shows that the mental capacities of humans were much
> > as they are now about 100,000 years ago
>
> > >This is ofcourse
> > > the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> > > existence.......
>
> > Nope. Chimps are close to us in intelligence, and in some measures
> > exceed us.for example?
>
> <snip>
I posted a few links a while back:
There's a newspaper report here:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1327942004
The paper on which this is based can be found here:
http://springerlink.com/content/4rw8fldp7rvd73qv/?p=8d7909aa0a22436a8...
There was a TV programme on this a while ago in which Dr Susan
Blackmore was comprehensively trounced by a chimp in a computer game
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463295/)
RF
]
Ron O
This may be the same troll because of the punctuation, but how many
times has this stupid argument come up in the last month? Is there
some new push to get this argument out to the ignorant masses (and in
this case, obviously, also incompetent or just bogus)? There is
probably some bogus creationists propaganda sheet that is making the
rounds that uses this argument to get the creationist rubes to use it
so often when it is such a stupid argument.
When even the AIG tells people not to use a creationist argument
anymore, the clueless might want to get a clue. These guys wouldn't
know honesty if it bit them in the face and said hello, but even they
know the arguments that are so bogus that they make creationists look
like the ignorant rubes, that have obviously been scammed, that most of
them probably are.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Quote:
However, the main point against this statement is that many
evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from
the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large
population, and that most change happened in the small group which can
lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population
forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory
that requires the main group to become extinct.
End Quote:
Even their excuse is incomplete and self serving so you know how bogus
the organization is. Why not mention speciation in general? Why leave
out sympatric speciation? Why leave out the fact that the AIG requires
speciation rates that are astronomical in order to fit the limited
number of animals on the ark, and that the molecular genetic data does
not support their rapid speciation scenario, but is consistent with
what is observed in the fossil record.
All they need to say is that speciation does not require the parent
species to go extinct, and does not limit the parent species from going
in other directions and producing other new species that do not have to
follow the genetic path of other derived species. This is the basics
of how evolution works. Once a species splits off gene flow is
dramatically reduced and the new species is free to evolve
independently of the parent species. This allows the new species to
change relative to the parent species. It is basic evolutionary
biology.
It is obvious that the AIG also does not support the old scientific
creationist claim that speciation does not occur. Even Morris (one of
the founders of the modern scientific creationists movement) had to
give up on that one.
So if you are an ignorant creationist rube that just believes the swill
that they are told, you should probably look up the AIG list to see
which arguments you obviously are not too stupid to get conned into
using.
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
Ron O wrote:
> Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > scientists believe that humans evolved from apes.....The major fact
> > about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> > modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> > the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.This is ofcourse
> > the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> > existence.......so from the time man was born,he was born as man
> > itself...........................If u need another solid reason,then
> > here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
> > Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> > THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> > HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
>
> This may be the same troll because of the punctuation, but how many
> times has this stupid argument come up in the last month? Is there
> some new push to get this argument out to the ignorant masses (and in
> this case, obviously, also incompetent or just bogus)? There is
> probably some bogus creationists propaganda sheet that is making the
> rounds that uses this argument to get the creationist rubes to use it
> so often when it is such a stupid argument.
When a creationist argument goes belly up, they retreat to a previous
position. The ID fiasco has them falling all the way back to the
"arguments for the brain dead."
Creationism is in its death throes, using the Cheney definition.
--
Greg G.
How many canards must a creationist choke down,
before they call him a creationist? </DYLAN>
Marc
Not exactly. We shared ancestors (but you do not understand this).
> The major fact
> about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
Not exactly. Read this PLoS-Biology paper (it's FREE on the web)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050013
(Wang et al.) "Rate of Evolution in Brain-Expressed Genes in
Humans and Other Primates" - give it a glance.(in html or as a PDF)
> This is of course
> the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> existence.......so from the time man was born,he was born as man
> itself...........................If u need another solid reason,then
> here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020207
Fortna et al. - "Lineage-Specific Gene Duplication and Loss
in Human and Great Ape Evolution"
There are a lot of other papers about humans and the other related
primate species - use www.pubmed.gov and learn something.
(signed) marc
.
mcv
> scientists believe that humans evolved from apes.....The major fact
> about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> modern technology,
Humans have evolved through the lines of modern technology? What does
that mean?
>the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
No. The name mental capabilities at 10,000 years ago? Yes. The same as
100,000 years ago? Quite possibly. But not millions.
>If u need another solid reason,then
> here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,
Because they are well adapted to their ecological niche. That's all that's
needed to survive.
> WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
If you consider humans to be apes (which a lot of people do) then many
apes are indeed giving birth to human offspring. But the idea that chimps
could give birth to humans is a creationist myth.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
bullpup
<Rahulal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168511285.0...@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The same reason you have cousins and those cousins do not suddenly become
your brother or sister.
Really, a cretinoid "challenges", the "why are there still apes" is one of
the lamest ones around, and demonstrates the complete ignorance of the
individual asking it.
Read a book on the subject (and not some ignorant cretinoid screed), get
educated, then you will not look like an idiot.
Boikat
Iain
Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:
> scientists believe that humans evolved from apes
Eh? Humans are African Great Apes.
>.....The major fact
> about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> modern technology,the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
Yyyyyys. Same-ish.
>This is of course
> the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> existence.......so from the time man was born,he was born as man
> itself...........................If u need another solid reason,
Woah, woah, solid reason for what?
>then
> here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES
Why wouldn't there be?
> AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES
How would an animal "transform itself"?
> AS
> HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
What are the odds of that?
~Iain
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
Geez, not again! We just answered this one a few days ago. You could
have read a few posts first and saved yourself some typing.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
TomS
<1168511285.0...@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Rahulal...@gmail.com stated..."
Just to repeat some of the standard replies to this:
Just as white Americans are descended from Europeans, yet there are still
Europeans around.
And then there is the joking reply: While apes were turning into humans,
there were monkeys turning into apes, just a step or two behind, to fill
in the gaps. And why are there still monkeys? Because there were lizards
turning into monkeys ... Or the other joke: Why are there still apes?
Because some of them made the better choice.
Seriously, though, evolution is not a step up a ladder of progress, or a
matter of animals having a drive to improve themselves. A new species
can arise when one part of a population is isolated, and finds a new
environment in which it changes enough, while the other part of the
population remains in the old environment, and stays much the same.
If by "ape", you mean the ordinary use of the word, to include gorillas,
Barbary apes, (maybe) baboons, and some other animals alive today; then
the answer is that humans are not descended from any of those animals.
(It is true that if the common ancestor of humans and chimps were still
around today, we'd probably call it an ape.)
If by "ape", you mean some more scientific sense: a group of animals,
all of which are more closely related to each other than they are to any
animals outside the group; then the only reasonable sense of "ape" is:
member of the Superfamily Hominoidea. And humans are in that
Superfamily, along with chimps, orangs, and Australopithecines, among
others.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Elf M. Sternberg
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> HUMANS OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
Because we haven't wanted the niche apes occupy until recently.
Elf
Blodgett
Just think, when we've turned the rain-forests into IKEA products the
creationists will never be able to keep recycling this dull old
argument.
:-)
bhawes
Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:
*snip the first volley of every creationist*
Brand spankin' new hotmail account, I'm 1st to call Loki (what do I
win?)
Kermit
Humans are apes, really, unless by "Ape" you mean the common "any
tailless primate except humans", which is really rather lame for this
sort of discussion.
Humans evolved from other hominids, which are a subset of apes. We *are
African great apes.
> The major fact
> about this is that though humans have evolved through the lines of
> modern technology,
Um... no. We evolved genetically, like everything else alive on this
planet.
> the human race were the same millions of years ago in
> the sense that they had the same mental capabilities.
Our ancestors of several million years ago had measurably smaller
brains. They most likely were not up to snuff. Humans were not
essentially modern until 150,00 years ago or thereabouts.
> This is ofcourse
> the obvious reason that modern world itself had come into
> existence.......
This sentence does not parse. Do you mean that this is why the modern
world came about? If you mean civilization, yes.
> so from the time man was born,he was born as man
> itself...........................
Depends on what you mean by "Man". Anthropologists consider humankind
to encompass several species, all but one of which are now dead.
>If u need another solid reason,
You misspelled "incoherent".
> then
> here is a simple and sensible question to this mind blowing issue:
> Q.IF MAN EVOLVED FROM APES THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AND
> THEIR KIND LEFT AS APES,
If you and your distant cousins are alive, why aren't your
great-great-great-grandparents?
> WHY DONT THEY EITHER TRANSFORM THEMSELVES AS
> HUMANS
This seems to be asking literally, why don't your very distant cousins
become you? How would that work, exactly?
> OR MAYBE GIVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN OFFSPRING????????????????????????
Let us know if that ever happens - it would be a *major problem for
evolutionary science.
Kermit
Robert Weldon
Your timeline is way off, try hundreds of thousands of years, not
millions. I will throw this back at you. If humans were created by
god from clay, why is there still clay? Finally, learn some biology,
an individual can't transform itself, you are confusing evolution with
pokemon. And if you want to get right down to it, the ancestral
species of apes did give birth to a human offspring, it is just that
the process was so gradual, that the changes took hundreds of thousands
of years to manifest.
Luminoso
>scientists believe that humans evolved from apes.....
No, we don't.
We know that apes and humans had a common ancestor.
Ah ... clearly SOME people have a little more of the
common ancestor left in their DNA than others ......
Desertphile
Please name one scientist who believes humans evolved from apes. Thank
you.
CreateThis
Does the American Taliban give you guys lobotomies before sending you
out on these antievolutionist suicide missions?
The problem with this strategy is that you're only killing yourselves.
Idiots.
CT
Frank J
This is the 3rd one of these "kinds" that I have noticed in a few days,
after a relative dry spell. Any of you computer geeks have an
explanation other than coincidence? Yeah, I know it's a design
argument, but as you know this is a case where we have the "side info"
that ID lacks.
Frank J
All of them. Since humans *are* apes, it's just "microevolution"
anyway. ;-)
(yes, I am aware fact that most people don't think about the difference
between "present day other species of ape" and "common ancestral
species", and that anti-evolutionists routinely exploit that)
Thurisaz the Einherjer
Get lost loser, your 15 seconds of fame are over... *wiping tears of
laughter from his eyes*
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
maximum maypo
@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> Rahulalchem...@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^
> Brand spankin' new hotmail account, I'm 1st to call Loki
>(what do I win?)
>
a pair of reading glasses?? ;^D
--
max