Geneticists: no evidence of human chromosomes in the chimp's blood.
All-Seeing-I
Oliver, "the easygoing chimpanzee who walks upright and once enjoyed a
nightcap while watching TV is an ape hybrid, a mutant or an entirely
new species is unclear."
"There is no evidence of a human-chimpanzee hybrid," said David
Ledbetter, a University of Chicago geneticists who conducted the first-
ever DNA test on the chimp who for years was hailed on the freak-show
circuit and in tabloids as the so-called missing link between human
and monkey."
What on earth is going on here?
"Ledbetter's test, completed amid little hoopla last fall, found no
evidence of human chromosomes in the chimp's blood. But his research
leaves unexplained Oliver's unchimplike peculiarities and mannerisms -
such as waking on two feet - that continue to generate heated debate
among a Oliver's small army of aficionados."
Some said Oliver had 47 chromosomes, one more that a human and one
fewer than a chimpanzee. But freak-show promoters where not the only
ones to entertain bizarre genetic scenarios for Oliver.
Anthropologists, swayed in part by Oliver's small head, pronounced
nose and disdain for using all fours, held out the possibility that
Oliver was part human. "Humans and chimps are at least 99 percent
identical in term of basic biological chemistry," said Gordon Gallup
of the State University of New York at Albany last fall before the
testing. "And you can get hybrids among much more diverse creatures
that that."
However, Ledbetter's findings dashed such theories, with the
University of Chicago geneticist dismissed as the stuff of checkout-
line tabloids.
Oliver's blood sample, Ledbetter said, showed 48 chromosomes, proof he
was not a human-chimp hybrid.
"He's a normal chimp," Ledbetter said. "We haven't found anything that
suggests otherwise."
Such scientific scrutiny apparently has had little impact on Oliver,
who was purchased for research by Buckhire Corp. of Pennsylvania in
the late 1980s before ending up at a spacious open-air cage at
Primarily Primates.
"He was getting along with a chimp named April, but that kind of
soured," Swett said. "He still prefers to be by himself, go to bet at
3 in the afternoon, that kind of thing."
So there ya have it.
Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
--
Educating the masses...
The All Seeing I
All-Seeing-I
Caranx latus
<snip>
> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
Who argues that they are?
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:800f5854-8af2-4e09...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
Who on Earth claimed otherwise?
John Harshman
> Who?
A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
for evolution?
[snip]
> So there ya have it.
>
> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were. What we're saying is
that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
centromere?
David Hare-Scott
When you produce such an obvious non sequitur you make it plain that you are
merely laughing up your sleave at those who provide serious rebuttals to
your foolishness. Nobody should believe anything you type.
David
Boikat
No shit? Besides, 'tard-boy, the article merely points out that
Oliver was not a human/chimp hybrid.
>
> --
> Educating the masses...
Yes. Thanks again for education everyone of the fact that you are an
ignorant hick, who swallows the ignorant BS that the cretinists serve
up for gullible twits, like you, to swallow.
>
> The All Seeing I(diot)
Boikat
Cory Albrecht
Glad you taken in by Oli's joke. You're so stupid you even get taken in
by a joke. :-)
Dana Tweedy
> Who?
snipping irrelevant article
>
> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
No one claimed that chimps are humans. You seem to be confused here.
Let me see if I can make it clear for you:
Humans are apes, ie they fit within the group of organisms called "apes".
Not all apes are humans. Chimps are apes, but they aren't humans.
Gorillas are apes, but are not humans. Orangutans are apes, but aren't
humans. Humans are apes, but *are* humans.
Hope that clears it up for you.
DJT
All-seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > Who?
>
> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
> for evolution?
It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
the apes.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So there ya have it.
>
> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
hierarchy together.
>What we're saying is
> that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
> conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
> the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
> similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
> remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
> centromere?
If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
descended from us? If man were descended from an ape that would
suggest the chromosomes were UN-fused in some way. How? By magic?
OTOH, a mutation would explain the fusing of chromosomes much better
then unfusing them.
But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
evolutionists know what they are taking about.
One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
of human chromosomes in the his blood". What does the bible say? "The
life is in the blood". So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong. You cannot always go
by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
hierarchy.
Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head; --
But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
same on the nested hierarchy, why on earth would you consider man to
be close relatives with the apes?
Which means the nested hierarchy is useless in determining such things
as "family" groups".
Linnaeus� named humans Homo sapiens, and placed humans in the genus
Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at
the time, in the genus Homo.
But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
observation; which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
life. Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
fabricated to match the hierarchy.
So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
were forced to fit that idea.
.
There are too many other indicators that human and apes are not from
the same family tree. And similarities cannot be a reliable factor
when cataloging life.
All-seeing-I
Your level of thinking is rather rudimentary. Buy some books boikitty.
With pictures if necessary --but buy some.
Burkhard
> On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> Who?
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
>> for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So there ya have it.
>>> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
> hierarchy together.
Being in one group in the nested hierarchy does not mean identical. I'm
not identical with the Chinese prime minister, yet we are both humans -
meaning we are more similar with each other than to any other non-human
life form. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are not identical, yet they are
both dogs and have more in common with each other tan either has with
cats. Cats and dogs are no identical, yet they are in the same group,
mammals, which means they have more in common with each other than with
non-mammals like fish etc etc.
Iain
> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
The fact that we're even being invited to argue against statements
such as this, sums up perfectly the ass-backwardsness of the whole
general ID\Creationist faction.
--Iain
Iain
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>�You seem to be confused here.
No shit.
--Iain
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 27, 7:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > Who?
>>
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
>> for evolution?
>
>It is plain to see that man does belong in the same catagory as
>the apes.
I've corrected your error.
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > So there ya have it.
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
>It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
>hierarchy together.
Very true, but we are still separate species.
>
>>What we're saying is
>> that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
>> conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
>> the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
>> similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
>> remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
>> centromere?
>
>If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
>descended from us? If man were descended from an ape that would
>suggest the chromosomes were UN-fused in some way. How? By magic?
We share a very resent common ancestor. We last interbred as recently
as about four million years ago.
>OTOH, a mutation would explain the fusing of chromosomes much better
>then unfusing them.
>
>But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
>origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
>evolutionists know what they are taking about.
Other possibilities have been considered, and the experts have
rejected them because they do not fit the evidence.
>
>One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
>strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
>habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
>of human chromosomes in the his blood".
Would not expect there to be.
> What does the bible say? "The
>life is in the blood".
It says a lot of other crap as well.
> So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
No, be the genes.
>Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong.
Nope. Tooooooo much evidence to support it.
>You cannot always go
>by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
>hierarchy.
>
>Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
>they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
>softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head; --
>But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
>differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
They are close, strangely enough they diverged around the same time
that humans and chimps did - about 4-6mya.
>
>If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
>same on the nested hierarchy, why on earth would you consider man to
>be close relatives with the apes?
Because we are.
>
>Which means the nested hierarchy is useless in determining such things
>as "family" groups".
Nope.
>
>Linnaeus� named humans Homo sapiens, and placed humans in the genus
>Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at
>the time, in the genus Homo.
>
>But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
>observation; which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
>life. Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
>fabricated to match the hierarchy.
Liar!
>
>So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
>in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
>were forced to fit that idea.
Liar!
>.
>There are too many other indicators that human and apes are not from
>the same family tree. And similarities cannot be a reliable factor
>when cataloging life.
And yet genetics have shown it to be correct.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ron O
So what is your argument here. There doesn't seem to be any worth
talking about. Really, what do you think that this means. It is one
example where some people wanted to check the parentage of a chimp
because it had some strange behavioral and morphological traits. No
big whoop, The chimp turned out to be a chimp. So what?
Ron Okimoto
Boikat
Falure to address the point, noted.
>
> > > --
> > > Educating the masses...
>
> > Yes. Thanks again for education everyone of the fact that you are an
> > ignorant hick, who swallows the ignorant BS that the cretinists serve
> > up for gullible twits, like you, to swallow.
>
> Your level of thinking is rather rudimentary.
As usual, you are wrong. But that's because you are an uneducated
hick with delusions of aspirations to reach "retarded cockroach"
levels of intelligence.
> Buy some books boikitty.
> With pictures if necessary
How does that solve your stupidity problem?
Boikat
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:D4udnVu4X_NFpqXW...@bresnan.com...
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:33b392cf-4891-4d12...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > Who?
>>
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
>> for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
I declare that pussy cats don't belong in the same category as lions and
tigers, so there!
.
Boikat
> On Dec 27, 7:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
> > for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
>
>
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > So there ya have it.
>
> > > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> > Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
> hierarchy together.
>
Your reading abilities never cease to amaze.....
Being similar enough to be placed in the two "together" in the nested
hierachy, on the same branch and twig, of the taxonomic tree, does not
mean humans and chimps are same species, you slack jawed, mouth
breathing moron.
Where did you say you went to school? Oh, wait. Since you've never
seen the inside of a school room, you can't answer that question. So,
home schooled by a pair of equally slack jawed, mouth breathing
morons? Or were they simply incompetant bafoons, who probably should
not have had any children, due to too much drug use? Hell, for that
matter, if people are the result of their up-bringing, your parents
should be sent to prison for crimes against humanity.
Boikat
Iain
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> I declare that pussy cats don't belong in the same category as lions and
> tigers, so there!
O my!
--Iain
All-Seeing-I
[chuckle]
you are on the right track.
It was "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My", with Bears not belonging
with the tigers any more then man does with the apes.
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 8:17 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:50 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > I declare that pussy cats don't belong in the same category as lions and
> > > tigers, so there!
>
> > O my!
>
> > --Iain
>
> [chuckle]
> you are on the right track.
>
> It was "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My",
I'm sure he knew that.
> with Bears not belonging
> with the tigers any more then man does with the apes.
Damn, you're stupid. Or a self deluded. Or a fucking liar. Or a
troll. Or all four.
Boikat
Boikat
> "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
ASS-I(diot) doesn't like challenges to his belief that he's "special",
in terms of ancestry. He takes pride in believing he has "created
genes". I speculate that he believes the Mother Ship will be arriving
soon, and he's hoping to become a "Boot Licker in Chief" and "Primary
Ass Kisser" as the rest of humanity is sent off as servents.
Boy, won't he be surprised if the "created genes" were designed to
make the meat less stringy and more tender.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:db1a4797-edd7-416c...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > Who?
>
> snipping irrelevant article
>
>
>
> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
You are confused.
I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
together in the nested hierarchy.
Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
classified as an ape or with the apes.
Unless you like fantasy of course.
John Harshman
> On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> Who?
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
>> for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
No it isn't. What's plain to see is that Homo sapiens and Pan
troglodytes (or is it Pan paniscus?) are two different species with a
common ancestor.
>>> So there ya have it.
>>> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
> hierarchy together.
That's right, they are. But that doesn't mean that chimps are human, any
more than it means that humans are chimps. It just means they're related.
>> What we're saying is
>> that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
>> conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
>> the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
>> similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
>> remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
>> centromere?
>
> If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
> descended from us? If man were descended from an ape that would
> suggest the chromosomes were UN-fused in some way. How? By magic?
> OTOH, a mutation would explain the fusing of chromosomes much better
> then unfusing them.
Yes, but you are confused. The mutation is in the human line, and it's
fusion. Unfusion isn't a possibility here. Apes are not descended from
humans. (Such a claim is technically meaningless, so I've translated it
into something that makes sense, a claim that humans are paraphyletic to
apes.)
> But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
> origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
> evolutionists know what they are taking about.
No, that isn't a possibility. Now. If humans are separately created, how
do you account for the apparent fusion of two ape chromosomes in us? You
could suppose that god originally created us with ape chromosomes, and
the fusion happened after creation. But why would god do such a thing?
> One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
> strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
> habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
> of human chromosomes in the his blood". What does the bible say? "The
> life is in the blood". So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
> Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong. You cannot always go
> by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
> hierarchy.
That's nonsense. Chromosomes are in cells. Not just blood cells, but
every cell. (Actually, most mammalian blood cells -- the red ones --
don't have any chromosomes, but white cells do.) Blood was just a
convenient way to get some cells without injuring the subject. You have
once again turned a garbled understanding into a biblical prophecy.
And you are once again claiming that any difference makes organisms two
different kinds. That would suggest that anyone with type O blood is a
different kind from anyone with type AB blood. Sorry, that doesn't work.
The nested hierarchy accounts for differences, in fact depends on
differences in order to be detectable. Your claim makes no sense.
> Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
> they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
> softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head; --
> But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
> differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
> If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
> same on the nested hierarchy, why on earth would you consider man to
> be close relatives with the apes?
Because "close relatives" and "the same" are two different things.
Because inability to interbreed can arise through evolution. The two
elephants are related; the two apes (humans and chimps) are related.
Elephants and apes are related, all of them being mammals. Elephants,
apes, and bananas are related, all being eukaryotes. And so on.
> Which means the nested hierarchy is useless in determining such things
> as "family" groups".
Another non sequitur. The nested hierarchy is why there are such things
as families (in the Linnean sense).
> Linnaeus� named humans Homo sapiens, and placed humans in the genus
> Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at
> the time, in the genus Homo.
>
> But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
> observation; which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
> life. Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
> fabricated to match the hierarchy.
If observations aren't a reliable way to classify life, what is a
reliable way? And what do you mean by "fabricated"? Who fabricated it?
Who are you accusing of such criminal behavior?
> So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
> in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
> were forced to fit that idea.
How can you force DNA sequence evidence to fit an idea? I don't see a
way other than by falsifying the data. Are you claiming that the DNA
data are falsified?
> There are too many other indicators that human and apes are not from
> the same family tree. And similarities cannot be a reliable factor
> when cataloging life.
What are those indicators? So far, all you have mentioned is that humans
and chimps have a different chromosome number. But that's explained by
the fusion of two chromosomes, a simple mutation. If the difference you
mention is something that can arise through mutation, it can't be an
objection to evolution.
John Harshman
not the same family. Lions and tigers are both members of Felidae, while
bears are not. But all three belong to the order Carnivora. Similarly,
humans belong to the genus Homo, while other apes do not. But all of
them (except gibbons) belong to the family Hominidae. That's how a
nested hierarchy works: groups within groups.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well there ya go.
If anything, there is more a chance you are descended from the Chinese
prime minister. But we know you aren't. And neither is man descended
from apes.
You are not descended from the Chinese prime minister any more then
man descended from an ape based on something as flimsily as the nested
hierarchy because attributes do not always classify life properly; As
we see from the article.
You guys watched too much "Planet of The Apes" as children.
Boikat
> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > snipping irrelevant article
>
> > > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> You are confused.
> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> together in the nested hierarchy.
On what planet did that happen?
>
> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> classified as an ape or with the apes.
Why not? Just because it offends your religious beliefs? Because you
don't want to be just another species of ape?
>
> Unless you like fantasy of course.
You're the fool who thinks fantasies are reality. Another example of
projection on your part.
>
> Hope that clears it up for you.
It did not add to anything everyone already knows: You are deluded
and stupid.
Boikat
Greg G.
> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > snipping irrelevant article
>
> > > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> You are confused.
> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> together in the nested hierarchy.
>
> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> classified as an ape or with the apes.
Try a different perspective. Bonobos and chimpanzees are more similar
to one another than to any other creatures so they are grouped
together. Neandertals and H. sapiens are more like each other so they
are grouped together. Bonobos and chimpanzees are more like humans
than they are like gorillas, so they all should be grouped together
with humans. Gorillas are more like bonobos, chimpanzees, Neandertals,
and modern humans than they are like orangutans, so they are grouped
together. Orangutans are more similar to gorillas, bonobos,
chimpanzees, Neandertals, and modern humans than they are like any
other creatures so all are grouped together and the group is called
"apes".
Since gorillas are as similar to humans as they are to chimpanzees and
chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, if you
put chimpanzees and gorillas in the ape category, you are forced to
put humans in the group, too. Else, you can stomp your feet, close
your eyes, cover your ears, and shout "la la la la la".
Boikat
Man and apes shae a common ancestor, and man is still classed as an
ape, whether you like it or not.
>
> You are not descended from the Chinese prime minister any more then
> man descended from an ape based on something as flimsily as the nested
> hierarchy because attributes do not always classify life properly; As
> we see from the article.
>
You don't understand squat about the nested hiearchy. You don't know
squat about science. You simply do not know squat about anything.
> You guys watched too much "Planet of The Apes" as children.
That's ironic, coming from a 'tard that thinks "The Flintstones" was a
documentary.
Boikat
Ye Old One
NashtOff is.
--
Bob.
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
Statement on Evolution. http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
Burkhard
Wrong substitution. Nobody claims humans are descendent from chimps.
They share a common ancestor, as do I and the Chinese PM
>
> You are not descended from the Chinese prime minister any more then
> man descended from an ape based on something as flimsily as the nested
> hierarchy because attributes do not always classify life properly;
That is all what classifications do: look at attributes and group those
that share attributes together. What else do you think they do?
As
> we see from the article.
The article does not show what you think it does.
Mark Evans
By Zeus, Selu, Gwyn ap Nudd and all the other made-up deities you are
willfully dumb. Humans and chimps are both apes. Neither descended
from the other. They both come from a common ancestor, as do gorillas
and orangs. Different one diverged from the line at different times
with humans and chimps budding off fairly recently. They are our
cousins, close enough that you could say siblings, but they are not
the same species. They are our closest living kinfolk. What your are
arguing is that lions and house cats are both cats but are different
cats.
Mark Evans
hersheyh
[snip]
>
> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
Of course not. Chimps and humans are separated by several speciation
events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
human). All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
apes. Those and many more species are primates. But aren't you the
same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
group? That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
whereas foxes and wolves are?
Kermit
I don't think anybody, including ASI, knows what he thinks.
What is he imagining when he sees a nested hierarchy described? Why
does he think interbreeding is a necessary condition for being
related? What does the heading mean by "no human genes in chimps? We
share genes with all living forms on Earth. Well, unless you include
prions...
Kermit
Devils Advocaat
> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > snipping irrelevant article
>
> > > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> You are confused.
> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> together in the nested hierarchy.
>
> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> classified as an ape or with the apes.
>
> Unless you like fantasy of course.
>
> Hope that clears it up for you.
>
coyotes being grouped together, and why was that? Because of their
similarities.
Yet you have a major problem with humans, chimps, gorillas and
orangutans being grouped together, and why is that? Because of their
similarities.
TomS
<81805960-f3a0-4f96...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
stated..."
[...snip...]
>That's ironic, coming from a 'tard that thinks "The Flintstones" was a
>documentary.
Why would the producers of "The Flintstones" lie to us?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
hersheyh
Either you are terminally dim-witted or a troll. The current Chinese
prime minister may be my very distant cousin (i.e. related to me in a
branching tree from some distant ancestor -- since I am not Han
Chinese, it would have to be quite distant, perhaps back to the Khans
as I do have Eastern European ancestry) without being either my
*direct* descendant or my being his direct descendant.
Similarly the two modern chimp species can be my even more distant
cousins (5-10 million years rather than 1-2 thousand) without my being
either the descendant from or ancestor to those modern species.
Evolution is not a ladder of perfection with modern species being
points on a linear ladder. The common ancestor of modern human and
chimp species is extinct, as are a number of intermediate species in
the human lineage. The intermediates in the modern chimp lineage are
unknown because of their poor record of fossilization.
>
> You are not descended from the Chinese prime minister any more then
> man descended from an ape based on something as flimsily as the nested
> hierarchy because attributes do not always classify life properly; As
> we see from the article.
'Ape' is a broad category, not a single species. Stop using
kindergarten taxonomy and stop thinking of evolution as a ladder of
progress.
Kermit
> "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
You would be, too, if you were descended from your cousins.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > snipping irrelevant article
>
> > > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> You are confused.
> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> together in the nested hierarchy.
Similarities are exactly what the nested hierarchy *shows. What do you
think it means when anyone says "nested hierarchy of morphology"?
>
> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> classified as an ape or with the apes.
>
If the classification is by genes or body plan, we certainly *do
belong to the same group. We are hominids, we are apes, we are
primates, we are mammals, we are tetrapods, we are vertebrates, we are
metazoans, we are eukaryotes.
Which organisms would you say we are more alike than apes?
> Unless you like fantasy of course.
That's your preference. Calling them "special perceptions" doesn't
change anything.
>
> Hope that clears it up for you.
You're the one that is hopelessly confused/. What do you think a
nested hierarchy *is?
>
>
>
> > No one claimed that chimps are humans. You seem to be confused here.
>
> > Let me see if I can make it clear for you:
>
> > Humans are apes, ie they fit within the group of organisms called "apes".
>
> > Not all apes are humans. Chimps are apes, but they aren't humans.
> > Gorillas are apes, but are not humans. Orangutans are apes, but aren't
> > humans. Humans are apes, but *are* humans.
>
> > Hope that clears it up for you.
>
> > DJT
Kermit
TomS
<7fe259cc-260b-4fa2...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Greg G.
stated..."
This is true, but it may be too complicated for creationists.
The point being that it is not simply that humans look like chimps
and other apes, but that there is a complex web of relationships.
Relationships of relationships. That requires a higher level of
abstract reasoning than is met with in ordinary life. I can't
think of an ordinary case where we do.
It might be helpful if someone could think of another instance
where we think of relationships of relationships.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:2b33847a-a423-4d9c...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Silly, man is an ape but you won't recognize the obvious so we can't expect
you to understand this. Go back to your fantasy land, you won't be hurt
there - so you think.
.
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 27, 6:42 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Who?
>
> > Oliver, "the easygoing chimpanzee who walks upright and once enjoyed a
> > nightcap while watching TV is an ape hybrid, a mutant or an entirely
> > new species is unclear."
>
> > "There is no evidence of a human-chimpanzee hybrid," said David
> > Ledbetter, a University of Chicago geneticists who conducted the first-
> > ever DNA test on the chimp who for years was hailed on the freak-show
> > circuit and in tabloids as the so-called missing link between human
> > and monkey."
>
> > What on earth is going on here?
>
> > "Ledbetter's test, completed amid little hoopla last fall, found no
> > evidence of human chromosomes in the chimp's blood. But his research
> > leaves unexplained Oliver's unchimplike peculiarities and mannerisms -
> > such as waking on two feet - that continue to generate heated debate
> > among a Oliver's small army of aficionados."
>
> > Some said Oliver had 47 chromosomes, one more that a human and one
> > fewer than a chimpanzee. But freak-show promoters where not the only
> > ones to entertain bizarre genetic scenarios for Oliver.
>
> > Anthropologists, swayed in part by Oliver's small head, pronounced
> > nose and disdain for using all fours, held out the possibility that
> > Oliver was part human. "Humans and chimps are at least 99 percent
> > identical in term of basic biological chemistry," said Gordon Gallup
> > of the State University of New York at Albany last fall before the
> > testing. "And you can get hybrids among much more diverse creatures
> > that that."
>
> > However, Ledbetter's findings dashed such theories, with the
> > University of Chicago geneticist dismissed as the stuff of checkout-
> > line tabloids.
>
> > Oliver's blood sample, Ledbetter said, showed 48 chromosomes, proof he
> > was not a human-chimp hybrid.
>
> > "He's a normal chimp," Ledbetter said. "We haven't found anything that
> > suggests otherwise."
>
> > Such scientific scrutiny apparently has had little impact on Oliver,
> > who was purchased for research by Buckhire Corp. of Pennsylvania in
> > the late 1980s before ending up at a spacious open-air cage at
> > Primarily Primates.
>
> > "He was getting along with a chimp named April, but that kind of
> > soured," Swett said. "He still prefers to be by himself, go to bet at
> > 3 in the afternoon, that kind of thing."
>
> > So there ya have it.
>
> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
> > Educating the masses...
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> talking about. �Really, what do you think that this means. �It is one
> example where some people wanted to check the parentage of a chimp
> because it had some strange behavioral and morphological traits. �No
> big whoop, �The chimp turned out to be a chimp. �So what?
So what? The nested hierarchy is wrong. Thats "so what".
It should be clear from the article that physical attributes are not
an accurate way to group and catalog life and it's descendent's.
First they thought he was human, then, they decided he was chimp, ---
and this is a 'live' specimen they were dealing with.
If it was this difficult to figure out what this creature was with a
live specimen it would be impossible to determine what you are looking
at when studying bone fragments from millions of years ago.
Evolution is the largest body of work based on hunches that i have
personally read in my life. There is no science to it. Just a bunch of
wild and exotic guesses.
You began with the original 'Classification of Life' which was nothing
more then a guess based on observations. But the article shows that
observations can be unreliable. So you began the ToE with the
presupposition that man belongs with the apes and you guys have been
forcing the other evidences to fit that classification ever since.
Science show life variates. That matches exactly what we can see.
When it comes to divergence however you have nothing but guesses and
speculation.
Now. I do not know why so many of you have such an emotional
attachment to speciation. But from a common sense point of view, it
simply does not happen. Nothing of the sort is shown with clear
scientific evidence. There is no model, there are no direct
observations. Direct observations are reality. Micro Evolution is
reality.
Speciation divergence is fantasy. It matches none of the other
processes on the earth that are observable, testable, predictable.
All-Seeing-I
The only ones with their heads in the sand to avoid truth are those
that are emotionally attached to speciation and the idea that man is
descended from an animal like the ape.
There is nothing to "force" one species be associated with another and
this article is evidence of that because physical attributes are not a
reliable way to classify life.
Plus there is a lot of DNA that science does not know it's use. So
they call it 'junk' DNA.
Variation can be observed, tested, manipulated. It is predictable.
You cannot say the same for divergence speciation
All-Seeing-I
> "On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:09:24 -0800 (PST), in article
The Good`Ole "They Do Not Understand" routine.
When all else fails the evo-perps fall back on the Good`Ole "They Do
Not Understand" routine.
You are seeing what you //Want// to see and not what the evidence
shows.
The evidence clearly shoes variation takes place. The evidence does
NOT show speciation takes place.
>
> The point being that it is not simply that humans look like chimps
> and other apes, but that there is a complex web of relationships.
> Relationships of relationships. That requires a higher level of
> abstract reasoning than is met with in ordinary life. I can't
> think of an ordinary case where we do.
>
> It might be helpful if someone could think of another instance
> where we think of relationships of relationships.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Hide quoted text -
Dan Listermann
point that speciation does take place? What is there to stop it? Please
ignore my post as is your normal practice.
.
All-Seeing-I
It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
between a type of great ape and man.
Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
observations say it does so by respecting some boundries. Water
species stay water species. Air or flying species stay flying. They
all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
originally evolving from.
To assume that, you have to take all accmulated data and infer that
speciation divergence events happen. But the data itself can be
inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
for many reasons.
Greg G.
The conclusion that man is an ape follows from a dispassionate study
of the evidence. The emotional side is those who say,"I ain't related
to no damn ape!"
>
> There is nothing to "force" one species be associated with another and
> this article is evidence of that because physical attributes are not a
> reliable way to classify life.
Logic forces one to conclude what the evidence tells you or to throw a
hissy fit. Your choice.
>
> Plus there is a lot of DNA that science does not know it's use. So
> they call it 'junk' DNA.
It's called "junk DNA" because it doesn't code for anything. It can be
rearranged or deleted with no effect. Some can be identified as the
remnants of genes that are functional in other species. Some can be
identified as the remnants of endogenous retroviruses, up to 8% of
human DNA is ERVs. Their locations on chromosomes are too precisely
similar in ape species to be by chance, which means they were inserted
there in a common ancestor.
>
> Variation can be observed, tested, manipulated. It is predictable.
Correct.
>
> You cannot say the same for divergence speciation
We can say that speciation (if you mean divergent lines from a common
ancestor group being unable to reproduce) has been observed because it
has been observed in the lab and in the wild, in plants and animals.
All-Seeing-I
You have observed no such thing. The entire ToE is mumbo jumbo that
changes depending on the argument.What happened to needing /millions
of years/ for speciation divergence to take place? I guess you have a
magic lab? Did you get your lab from the same place jack got his bean
stalk beans?
The same kind of life will produce variations of itself. That is all
we can see. That is all that happens. I suggest removing the emotional
attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
see that.
Variation is real. Divergence is fantasy.
Greg G.
In the first paragraph, you say that people "are emotionally attached
to speciation". In the second, you concede that "physical attributes"
will result in the scientific classification, but it is not reliable.
Classifying by physical attributes, then, is not an emotional
classification. If it was not reliable, then we should see very
different heirarchies when classified by morphology vs DNA similarity
vs ERV location vs junk DNA similarity vs active DNA similarity. Since
they all confirm the same heirarchy, they are very reliable. The only
outlier classification system is yours.
TomS
<c2194$4b38e243$4a53bf9f$67...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
And I would also point out that ASI is engaged in the Good Ol'
"Change The Subject" Routine.
What everybody was talking about was the relationship between chimps
and humans and the evidence for that relationship. Whether X being
related to Y meant that X was identical with Y or that X was
descended from Y. Whether anyone was claiming that X was similar to
Y was sufficient evidence for X being related to Y. I suggested that
there might be an easier-to-understand explanation for how the
inference to relationship works.
And ASI ignores the topic altogether. Whether this is an indication
that the topic is too complicated for ASI (the charitable explanation)
or whether ASI is deliberately changing the subject because he
realizes that he has no answer - I don't know and I don't care.
Although it is a minor irony that if the first, then ASI is, in his
complaint, only confirming the truth of what he is complaining about.
Greg G.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>
> The same kind of life will produce variations of itself. That is all
> we can see. That is all that happens. I suggest removing the emotional
> attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
> see that.
>
> Variation is real. Divergence is fantasy.
If enough variation occurs between two related lines, their offspring
may be less fertile. A little more variation and their offspring is
infertile. A little more and their offspring is not even viable. It is
not necessarily a matter of alot of accumulation, as many things can
cause two lines to be mutually infertile. A chihuahua that survived
the mating might be able to produce viable, fertile offspring with a
Great Dane if the pregnancy didn't kill the bitch. A little variation
might make the offspring unviable before the offspring becomes
infertile.
So, what do you think prevents divergence?
Dan Listermann
But the data itself can be
> inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
> for many reasons.
>
In your mind, it is because you ignore it.
.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You obviously cannot read. Which seems to be a common deficate for the
evolutionist.
The emotional attachment is to the "idea that speciation divergence"
takes place.
Dan Listermann
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b42764-ce30-459a...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
.
Ye Old One
No, what is wrong is YOU.
>
>It should be clear from the article that physical attributes are not
>an accurate way to group and catalog life and it's descendent's.
Not totally, but it is a very good starting point.
>
>First they thought he was human, then, they decided he was chimp, ---
>and this is a 'live' specimen they were dealing with.
I don't think anyone really thought he was human. If they did then it
says a lot for their mental abilities, and what it say is not good.
>
>If it was this difficult to figure out what this creature was with a
>live specimen it would be impossible to determine what you are looking
>at when studying bone fragments from millions of years ago.
Wrong. As usual.
>
>Evolution is the largest body of work based on hunches that i have
>personally read in my life. There is no science to it. Just a bunch of
>wild and exotic guesses.
Wrong, again.
>
>You began with the original 'Classification of Life' which was nothing
>more then a guess based on observations. But the article shows that
>observations can be unreliable. So you began the ToE with the
>presupposition that man belongs with the apes and you guys have been
>forcing the other evidences to fit that classification ever since.
Nope.
>
>Science show life variates. That matches exactly what we can see.
And evolves. That is exactly what we see.
>
>When it comes to divergence however you have nothing but guesses and
>speculation.
And again, totally wrong.
>
>Now. I do not know why so many of you have such an emotional
>attachment to speciation. But from a common sense point of view, it
>simply does not happen. Nothing of the sort is shown with clear
>scientific evidence. There is no model, there are no direct
>observations. Direct observations are reality. Micro Evolution is
>reality.
Good, because that is all there is. However, many steps of micro
evolution add up to what you call macro evolution.
>
>Speciation divergence is fantasy. It matches none of the other
>processes on the earth that are observable, testable, predictable.
And yet it is observable, testable and, to a certain extent,
predictable.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> Who?
>>
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story
>> meant for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
How is that "plain to see"? Can you give any reasonable criteria for
that?
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So there ya have it.
>>
>>> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
> hierarchy together.
Which doesn't mean they are the same species.
>
>> What we're saying is
>> that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
>> conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because
>> two of the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your
>> explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp
>> chromosomes, including remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion
>> and a second, inactive centromere?
>
> If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
> descended from us?
Humans didn't descend from chimps. Both chimps and humans descend from a
common ancestor.
> If man were descended from an ape that would
> suggest the chromosomes were UN-fused in some way.
Why? That doesn't make sense.
> How? By magic?
The fusing of two chromosones was a mutation. They couldn't have "unfused"
with telomeres in place.
> OTOH, a mutation would explain the fusing of chromosomes much better
> then unfusing them.
Right, which is why human chromosones are known to be fused from two
chromosones in the common ancestor.
>
> But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
> origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
> evolutionists know what they are taking about.
Then you'd be wrong. There are "other possibilities", but none of them are
suported by the evidence.
>
> One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
> strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
> habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
> of human chromosomes in the his blood".
Which means he's a close relative of humans. The "striking similarities"
with humans are seen in all chimp populations.
> What does the bible say?
It wouldn't matter.
> "The
> life is in the blood".
Which is biologically incorrect. The vast majority of living things don't
have blood.
> So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
Again, there is only one 'kind' of life. Human blood is basically
identical to chimp's blood.
> Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong. You cannot always go
> by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
> hierarchy.
The nested heirarchy is, as far as can be seen, correct. That means your
own claims are wrong. If one can't catalog species by observations, how
is one to catalog them at all? Observations are all that's available.
>
> Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
> they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
> softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head;
> -- But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
> differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
Which means they are divergent populations.
>
> If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
> same on the nested hierarchy,
They are, however known to be closely related. They are on different
"twigs" of the same branch.
> why on earth would you consider man to
> be close relatives with the apes?
Because they are. All available evidence shows that they are. Why would
you think they are not?
>
> Which means the nested hierarchy is useless in determining such things
> as "family" groups".
Only if one is completely ignorant of biology.
>
> Linnaeus� named humans Homo sapiens, and placed humans in the genus
> Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at
> the time, in the genus Homo.
Which indicates that Linnaeus understood that chimps and orangs were close
relatives of humans.
>
> But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
> observation;
If he based it on appearance and observations, it's not arbitrary.
>which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
> life.
Actually, it is very reliable, which is why it's still used.
> Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
> fabricated to match the hierarchy.
That's a very serious charge. Do you have any evidence to support such a
serious allegation?
>
> So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
> in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
> were forced to fit that idea.
No, the observation that humans and apes are closely related was not an
"assertion". It's a conclusion from the evidence. The other evidence that
came in confirmed the concluson. Nothing was "forced to fit".
> .
> There are too many other indicators that human and apes are not from
> the same family tree. And similarities cannot be a reliable factor
> when cataloging life.
What are those "other indicators"? Similarities are known to be a
reliable factor. Why should anyone believe you?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>>>> Who?
>>>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story
>>>> meant for evolution?
>>
>>> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
>>> the apes.
>>
>>
>>>>> So there ya have it.
>>>>> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>>
>>> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
>>> hierarchy together.
>>
>> I'm not identical with the Chinese prime minister, yet we are both
>> humans - meaning we are more similar with each other than to any
>> other non-human life form. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are not
>> identical, yet they are both dogs and have more in common with each
>> other tan either has with cats. Cats and dogs are no identical, yet
>> they are in the same group, mammals, which means they have more in
>> common with each other than with non-mammals like fish etc etc.-
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
You missed the point.
>
> If anything, there is more a chance you are descended from the Chinese
> prime minister. But we know you aren't. And neither is man descended
> from apes.
The point is that the Chinese prime minister and Burkard have a common
ancestor, not that he's descended from a Chinese politician. Humans are
apes, and are descended from apes.
>
> You are not descended from the Chinese prime minister any more then
> man descended from an ape based on something as flimsily as the nested
> hierarchy because attributes do not always classify life properly; As
> we see from the article.
You appear to be very confused as to the idea of common descent. The
article doesn't show the nested heirarchy is wrong.
>
> You guys watched too much "Planet of The Apes" as children.
Humans are apes, there is no way around it.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> Who?
>>
>> snipping irrelevant article
>>
>>
>>
>
How so? I am aware of evidence, and I understand the relationship between
humans and apes.
> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> together in the nested hierarchy.
No, you really haven't. You've made some very odd and unsupported
assertions, but they don't make sense.
>
> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> classified as an ape or with the apes.
Why not? Why do they have those similarities otherwise? Why the
broken Vitamin C gene? Why the fused chromosone?
>
> Unless you like fantasy of course.
Fantasy can be fun, but we are talking about science here.
>
> Hope that clears it up for you.
It only shows how confused you are.
snip what was ignored
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> This is true, but it may be too complicated for creationists.
>
> The Good`Ole "They Do Not Understand" routine.
When you don't understand, what else can one say?
>
> When all else fails the evo-perps fall back on the Good`Ole "They Do
> Not Understand" routine.
Nothing has failed. You simply don't understand.
>
> You are seeing what you //Want// to see and not what the evidence
> shows.
You obviously don't understand what the evidence shows.
>
> The evidence clearly shoes variation takes place. The evidence does
> NOT show speciation takes place.
Then why does speciation take place? It's been directly observed to
happen. No matter how much you ignore it, it still happens.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Since gorillas are as similar to humans as they are to chimpanzees
>> and chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, if
>> you put chimpanzees and gorillas in the ape category, you are forced
>> to put humans in the group, too. Else, you can stomp your feet, close
>> your eyes, cover your ears, and shout "la la la la la".
>
> The only ones with their heads in the sand to avoid truth are those
> that are emotionally attached to speciation and the idea that man is
> descended from an animal like the ape.
Why do you imagine anyone has an "emotional attachment" to the idea that
humans are apes? Humans are animals, and are apes. It's just a fact.
It's not more an emotional attachement to that, than an emotional
attachement to the wavelenght of sodium vapor light.
>
> There is nothing to "force" one species be associated with another and
> this article is evidence of that because physical attributes are not a
> reliable way to classify life.
The similairity of humans to chimps goes far beyond mere physical
resemblance. One doesnt' have to "force" the relationship between humans
and chimps, it's clearly shown on many different levels.
>
> Plus there is a lot of DNA that science does not know it's use. So
> they call it 'junk' DNA.
That's because it doesn't code for anything, and appears to be simply
filler. Note that humans and chimps share nearly all the same "Junk DNA"
as well. There's no reason they should, except for common descent.
>
> Variation can be observed, tested, manipulated. It is predictable.
Variation is part of speciation.
>
> You cannot say the same for divergence speciation
Sure one can. You simply deny the obvious.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> We can say that speciation (if you mean divergent lines from a common
>> ancestor group being unable to reproduce) has been observed because
>> it has been observed in the lab and in the wild, in plants and
>> animals
>
> You have observed no such thing. The entire ToE is mumbo jumbo that
> changes depending on the argument.
You know that's not true.
> What happened to needing /millions
> of years/ for speciation divergence to take place?
No one claimed millions of years are required. That's your own mistake.
> I guess you have a
> magic lab?
No, just quickly reproducing organisms.
> Did you get your lab from the same place jack got his bean
> stalk beans?
I see you've fallen back to the "hissy fit" choice....
>
>
> The same kind of life will produce variations of itself.
And all life is the "same kind".
> That is all
> we can see. That is all that happens.
That's all that needs to happen for divergence to happen.
> I suggest removing the emotional
> attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
> see that.
I don't have any emotional attachment to the concept. I accept it because
it's well supported.
>
> Variation is real. Divergence is fantasy.
Both are real, no matter how deep in denial you are.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
did you, or did you not write:
"The only ones with their heads in the sand to avoid truth are those that
are emotionally attached to speciation and the idea that man is
descended from an animal like the ape."
>
> The emotional attachment is to the "idea that speciation divergence"
> takes place.
That's not what you said above.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> So what is your argument here. There doesn't seem to be any worth
>> talking about. Really, what do you think that this means. It is one
>> example where some people wanted to check the parentage of a chimp
>> because it had some strange behavioral and morphological traits. No
>> big whoop, The chimp turned out to be a chimp. So what?
>
> So what? The nested hierarchy is wrong. Thats "so what".
That doesn't follow. That chimps are chimps and humans are humans doesn't
show the nested heirarchy as wrong.
>
> It should be clear from the article that physical attributes are not
> an accurate way to group and catalog life and it's descendent's.
Again, humans are not the descendants of chimps, or chimps descendants of
humans. Both share a common ancestor. They are close cousins.
>
> First they thought he was human, then, they decided he was chimp, ---
> and this is a 'live' specimen they were dealing with.
No one thought Oliver was a human. They thought he might be a hybrid of
human and chimp.
>
> If it was this difficult to figure out what this creature was with a
> live specimen it would be impossible to determine what you are looking
> at when studying bone fragments from millions of years ago.
Bone fragments from millions of years ago aren't modern humans either, but
intermediate forms.
>
> Evolution is the largest body of work based on hunches that i have
> personally read in my life.
Which is wrong. Evolution is not based on "hunches" but on evidence.
> There is no science to it. Just a bunch of
> wild and exotic guesses.
This is just bald assertion. When asked for details, you just run away.
>
> You began with the original 'Classification of Life' which was nothing
> more then a guess based on observations.
No, it was a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Note that Linnaeus was a
creationist, he felt that all species were created by an omnipotent being.
His classification of life had nothing to do with evolution.
> But the article shows that
> observations can be unreliable.
Actually, the article showed that observations are quite reliable, which is
why they classifed Oliver as being a chimp, not a human.
> So you began the ToE with the
> presupposition that man belongs with the apes and you guys have been
> forcing the other evidences to fit that classification ever since.
The theory didn't begin with the "presupposition" that man belongs with the
apes. Darwin didn't even mention human evolution in the Origin of
Species, nor was it his focus.
>
> Science show life variates. That matches exactly what we can see.
And that's based on the same ''observations" you decry. Worse, for you,
variation is the basis of speciation.
>
> When it comes to divergence however you have nothing but guesses and
> speculation.
And direct observation of populations becoming new species.
>
> Now. I do not know why so many of you have such an emotional
> attachment to speciation.
There is no emotional attachement to speciation. Why should there be?
> But from a common sense point of view, it
> simply does not happen.
"common sense" is not your own prejudice.
> Nothing of the sort is shown with clear
> scientific evidence.
Actually, it is. You simply ignore that evidence.
> There is no model, there are no direct
> observations.
Actually, there is both.
> Direct observations are reality. Micro Evolution is
> reality.
You claim above that ''observations can be unreliable" Apparently it's
only the observations you don't like that are unreliable.
>
> Speciation divergence is fantasy. It matches none of the other
> processes on the earth that are observable, testable, predictable.
Yet it can be obseved, tested, and predicted. It does match other
processes. You are so emotionally opposed to the idea that you reject it
out of hand
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 28, 9:29 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 7:42 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course not. Chimps and humans are separated by several speciation
>> events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
>> human). All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
>> apes. Those and many more species are primates. But aren't you the
>> same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
>> group? That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
>> What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
>> whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
> It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
> between a type of great ape and man.
Sure it is. That's why there are several intermediate species between human
and other apes.
>
> Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
> with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
> an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
> variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
One sees variation in human populations as well, and as Oliver shows, there
are variations in the Chimp population too. As pointed out before, Larch
trees are not evergreens but are descended from "evergreen" trees.
>
> It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
> observations say it does so by respecting some boundries.
There are no boundries seen.
> Water
> species stay water species.
Like frogs, toads, and salamanders? Like walking catfish, or mudskippers?
> Air or flying species stay flying.
Like Ostriches, Rheas, or Cassowaries?
> They
> all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
> completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
> originally evolving from.
As pointed out many times already, all life is something like it's
predecessors. Nothing ever becomes totally unlike it's ancestors.
>
> To assume that, you have to take all accmulated data and infer that
> speciation divergence events happen.
Again, that's not an assumption, but a conclusion. In everything one does,
one must take accumulated data, and make inference. Why should this be any
different?
> But the data itself can be
> inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
> for many reasons.
Which is why science is the process of weeding out the inaccurate,
misunderstood, or misleading. All evidence is going to be incomplete, but
that doesn't matter. You are just taking refuge in nihilism whenever you
are shown to be wrong.
DJT
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 28, 9:29�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 7:42�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course not. �Chimps and humans are separated by several speciation
>> events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
>> human). �All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
>> apes. �Those and many more species are primates. �But aren't you the
>> same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
>> group? �That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
>> What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
>> whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
>It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
>between a type of great ape and man.
The last common ancestor between humans and chips was between 4 and 6
million years ago.
>
>Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
>with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
>an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
>variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
No it is not. You have been given many examples of speciation.
>
>It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
>observations say it does so by respecting some boundries. Water
>species stay water species.
But they don't. Eventually some crawled out and became land animals.
Millions of years later some even went back to the water.
>Air or flying species stay flying.
Some do, some don't. The penguin is a good example, a bird that gave
up flight and took up swimming.
> They
>all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
>completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
>originally evolving from.
How can you possibly say that when you look at the fossil record?
Stupidity?
>
>To assume that, you have to take all accmulated data and infer that
>speciation divergence events happen. But the data itself can be
>inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
>for many reasons.
No doubt some small details are, by they make no difference to the
overall picture.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
john wilkins
> On Dec 28, 1:50 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > I declare that pussy cats don't belong in the same category as lions
> > and
> > tigers, so there!
>
> O my!
>
Can't you bear it?
Fiery
> On Dec 27, 7:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Who?
>
> > A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
> > for evolution?
>
> It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
> the apes.
>
>
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > So there ya have it.
>
>
>
> It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
> hierarchy together.
>
> > that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
> > conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
> > the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
> > similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
> > remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
> > centromere?
>
> If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
> suggest the chromosomes were UN-fused in some way. How? By magic?
> OTOH, a mutation would explain the fusing of chromosomes much better
> then unfusing them.
So, you say the fusion of chromosomes is easily explainable? Well,
that's nice, since that's exactly what John Harshman said. On the
other hand, no one except you mentioned any sort of un-fusing.
But, hey, no one expected you to actually try to read for
comprehension.
> But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
> origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
> evolutionists know what they are taking about.
>
> One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
> strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
> habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
> of human chromosomes in the his blood". What does the bible say? "The
> life is in the blood". So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
> Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong. You cannot always go
> by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
> hierarchy.
>
> Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
> they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
> softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head; --
> But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
> differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
>
> If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
> same on the nested hierarchy, why on earth would you consider man to
> be close relatives with the apes?
>
> Which means the nested hierarchy is useless in determining such things
> as "family" groups".
>
> Linnaeus� named humans Homo sapiens, and placed humans in the genus
> Homo. He also placed orangutans and chimpanzees, the two apes known at
> the time, in the genus Homo.
>
> But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
> observation; which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
> life. Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
> fabricated to match the hierarchy.
>
> So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
> in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
> were forced to fit that idea.
Boikat
> "On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:16:06 -0800 (PST), in article
> <81805960-f3a0-4f96-aec0-6c68bb00e...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
> stated..."
> [...snip...]
>
> >That's ironic, coming from a 'tard that thinks "The Flintstones" was a
> >documentary.
>
> Why would the producers of "The Flintstones" lie to us?
Back in the day, Hanna Barbera was a powerful force in animation, and
wanted to hold on to that power.
Boikat
raven1
>On Dec 28, 9:29�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 7:42�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course not. �Chimps and humans are separated by several speciation
>> events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
>> human). �All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
>> apes. �Those and many more species are primates. �But aren't you the
>> same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
>> group? �That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
>> What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
>> whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
>It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
>between a type of great ape and man.
>
>Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
>with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
>an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
>variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
>
>It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
>observations say it does so by respecting some boundries. Water
>species stay water species. Air or flying species stay flying.
Wow. I apologize for Harshman and Hershey's over-estimation of your
comprehension. It's now abundantly clear that your understanding of
evolution isn't even on a kindergarten level.
If you think I'm being uncharitable, you have every opportunity to
demonstrate that I'm wrong by simply giving your definition of exactly
what you think "species" means. As Inigo Montoya put it, "I do not
think it means what you think it means".
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 9:57 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <7fe259cc-260b-4fa2-878b-c75cbfb0b...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Greg G.
> > stated..."
>
> > >> On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > >> > > Who?
>
> > >> > snipping irrelevant article
>
>
> > >> I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
> > >> together in the nested hierarchy.
>
> > >> Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
> > >> classified as an ape or with the apes.
>
> > >Try a different perspective. Bonobos and chimpanzees are more similar
> > >to one another than to any other creatures so they are grouped
> > >together. Neandertals and H. sapiens are more like each other so they
> > >are grouped together. Bonobos and chimpanzees are more like humans
> > >than they are like gorillas, so they all should be grouped together
> > >with humans. Gorillas are more like bonobos, chimpanzees, Neandertals,
> > >and modern humans than they are like orangutans, so they are grouped
> > >together. Orangutans are more similar to gorillas, bonobos,
> > >chimpanzees, Neandertals, and modern humans than they are like any
> > >other creatures so all are grouped together and the group is called
> > >"apes".
>
> > >Since gorillas are as similar to humans as they are to chimpanzees and
> > >chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, if you
> > >put chimpanzees and gorillas in the ape category, you are forced to
> > >put humans in the group, too. Else, you can stomp your feet, close
> > >your eyes, cover your ears, and shout "la la la la la".
>
>
> The Good`Ole "They Do Not Understand" routine.
Because you obviously don't.
>
> When all else fails the evo-perps fall back on the Good`Ole "They Do
> Not Understand" routine.
So, you understand, but chose to lie instead.
>
> You are seeing what you //Want// to see and not what the evidence
> shows.
Maybe you are being willfully ignorant because you feel your "special"
status is being threatened?
>
> The evidence clearly shoes variation takes place. The evidence does
> NOT show speciation takes place.
Variation within a population can lead to speciation if there is
reproductive isolation. Go back to school or grow a brain. Both would
be nice.
Boikat
Boikat
> that are emotionally attached to speciation and the idea that man is
> descended from an animal like the ape.
Projection. You are the one emotionally attached to your fairy tale
creation myths.
>
> There is nothing to "force" one species be associated with another and
> this article is evidence of that because physical attributes are not a
> reliable way to classify life.
You did not understand anything from the article you posted a link to.
.
>
> Plus there is a lot of DNA that science does not know it's use. So
> they call it 'junk' DNA.
>
> Variation can be observed, tested, manipulated. It is predictable.
>
> You cannot say the same for divergence speciation-
If variations can be observed, tested, manipulated and is predictible,
so is evolution *within reason*. It's the "within reason" that you
will probably have problems with, since in involves "reason, along
with logic and sanity. Traits you do not possess.
Boikat
Kermit
> On Dec 28, 9:29�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 7:42�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
>
> > events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
> > human). �All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
> > apes. �Those and many more species are primates. �But aren't you the
> > same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
> > group? �That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
> > What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
> > whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
> It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
> between a type of great ape and man.
Sure it is.
The fossil record. the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and
genomes, vestigial structures and behaviors all make it pretty clear.
>
> Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
> with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
> an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
> variation of itself.
Ginkgo biloba, Larix decidua, Glyptostrobus pensilis, Metasequoia
glyptostroboides...
> That can be said for all life on the planet.
Agreed. We are just a variation of fish.
>
> It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
> observations say it does so by respecting some boundries.
Really? Bounded by your ignorance, I suppose. I assume you don't want
to provide supporting evidence for that claim.
> Water species stay water species.
Tiktaalik.
> Air or flying species stay flying.
Ostriches.
>They
> all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
> completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
> originally evolving from.
Sure they do. All living things on Earth are descended from bacteria.
>
> To assume that, you have to take all accmulated data and infer that
> speciation divergence events happen.
Yes. As we study and share, data accumulates. Reality produces the
evidence which we observe, so any theory of reality must conform to
*all data. Scientists aren't afraid of the evidence, even if it
sometimes makes them unhappy.
> But the data itself can be
> inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
> for many reasons.
Yes. That is why the evidence must be verifiable, and the models that
explain them must be testable.
Compare this to your data, which is imaginary (you agree others can't
see your "special perceptions"), and your models aren't testable (you
have yet to make any specific predictions). Since you are *not
comparing your models to reality, they differ from every other divine
revelation.
Science works.
Kermit
Kermit
Speciation can take place in one generation, although that is unlikely
in animals. Nobody said otherwise. What we said was that major
morphological changes associated with speciation will take
considerable time. A new species of lizard might take 20 years; an
early reptile that evolves into all the bird species might take 100
million years.
This is not a complicated idea. Erecting a tent might take 20 minutes.
Building a great city from scratch will take several lifetimes at
least. Whining about the length of time it takes is not an argument
against the nature of the process. ("Are we there yet?")
> I guess you have a
> magic lab? Did you get your lab from the same place jack got his bean
> stalk beans?
You'll find fairy tales down this aisle on the left, filed with
mythology.
>
> The same kind of life will produce variations of itself. That is all
> we can see.
Not if one looks.
> That is all that happens. I suggest removing the emotional
> attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
> see that.
When you understand what a nested hierarchy of morphology is, then you
can explain why it's not evidence of common descent. You have so far
given every indication that it baffles you. Do you truly not admit to
yourself when you don't understand something?
>
> Variation is real. Divergence is fantasy.
Much variation is inheritable. Some variations are more likely to
reproduce. Everything else follows.
Kermit
All-seeing-I
> No, that isn't a possibility. Now. If humans are separately created, how
> do you account for the apparent fusion of two ape chromosomes in us? You
> could suppose that god originally created us with ape chromosomes, and
> the fusion happened after creation. But why would god do such a thing?
Let's pause here for a moment. Good question. Why would God do such a
thing if in fact that is what happened?.
I have a few questions.
1) What evidence is there that this chromosome exists only between ape
and human? and; Can the chromosome or a close variant be found
elsewhere?
2) Exactly what do you mean "they are fused"? That suggest they are
either dysfunctional because of the fusion, or they are better
functioning because of the fusion and, what purpose does the specific
chromosome serve in each species?
3) What would cause the fusion. If it is a mutation, are you able to
expand on that and say what caused the mutation why and when.
4) DNA has a process that corrects mutations. DNA in chromosomes are
organized. Why didn't the DNA in the chromosomes correct the fusion?
5) Why does sharing this chromosome equal a common ancestor betyween
ape and man?
thanks.
hersheyh
> On Dec 28, 9:29�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 7:42�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
>
> > events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
> > human). �All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
> > apes. �Those and many more species are primates. �But aren't you the
> > same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
> > group? �That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
> > What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
> > whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
> It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
> between a type of great ape and man.
Do you really think that evolution proposes that humans evolved
directly from one of the two modern chimpanzee species or that one or
both the modern chimp species evolved directly from modern humans as
your analogy with the Chinese minister implies? The presence of
extinct hominid 'species' with intermediate characteristics at the
right places in the fossil record is the *expectation* or *prediction*
one would make under the theory of evolution. The surprise was that
the feature of surviving modern humans that evolved first was feet
(bipedality) and not brains (cranial capacity changed late in the
lineages). That is, evolution, because it is a *science*, can be
tested.
>
> Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place.
But not with foxes.
Among the variations we see accumulating in appropriate local
conditions today in humans, we have lactose tolerance into adulthood,
skin color, ability to digest grain starch, and a slew of variations
that help in resistance to malaria (sickle cell trait, thalassemia,
hemoglobin c, hemoglobin e, and favism among them).
> Same
> with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
> an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
> variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
Evergreens are not *even* a coherent classification group. If you
mean conifer plants, that is an entire division of plants and includes
approximately eight families, 68 genera, and 630 living species (as
well as many extinct ones)! This is equivalent to saying that an
entire animal *order*, like insects are all the same 'kind'.
>
> It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
> observations say it does so by respecting some boundries. Water
> species stay water species.
amphibia, snails
> Air or flying species stay flying.
penquins, ratites, island beetles
>They
> all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
> completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
> originally evolving from.
>
> To assume that, you have to take all accmulated data and infer that
> speciation divergence events happen. But the data itself can be
> inaccurate, incomplete, misunderstood, or even misleading at times ---
> for many reasons.
Yes. But the pattern of the *best* data is clear.
TomS
<8caf1b9f-0dff-47af...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Kermit
stated..."
Evidence?
That's a tall order, considering that he hasn't even described what
the boundary might be, or how it might function, or where it comes
from. What laws of nature stop the evolution of "reptile-like mammals"
from "mammal-like reptiles", or of humans from other primates?
>
>> Water species stay water species.
>
>Tiktaalik.
[...snip...]
Haven't we gone over this several times with him? We've pointed
out that one doesn't even have to speak of evolution to see the
major changes to life. Mosquito larvae are fully aquatic, adult
mosquitos live in the air.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Burkhard
> On Dec 28, 11:08�am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 11:34�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 9:09 am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 9:53 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 27, 11:02 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > > > > > Who?
>
> > > > > > snipping irrelevant article
>
>
He personally possibly not. But e.g. de Vries observed it with Evening
Primrose
and Halliburton and Gall induced speciation in flour beetles
The entire ToE is mumbo jumbo that
> changes depending on the argument.What happened to needing /millions
> of years/ for speciation divergence to take place?
It was explained to you several times that while the process that
created today's diversity took billion of years, but that for
individual species, it can be much quicker if the animals in question
have a short live and high reproduction. Don't complain that people
say you don't understand the basics of the ToE if you can't even get
this simple fact after numerous explanations.
I guess you have a
> magic lab? Did you get your lab from the same place jack got his bean
> stalk beans?
>
> The same kind of life will produce variations of itself. That is all
> we can see. That is all that happens. I suggest removing the emotional
> attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
> see that.
>
Ron O
> On Dec 28, 7:24�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Educating the masses...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > talking about. �Really, what do you think that this means. �It is one
> > example where some people wanted to check the parentage of a chimp
> > because it had some strange behavioral and morphological traits. �No
> > big whoop, �The chimp turned out to be a chimp. �So what?
>
> So what? The nested hierarchy is wrong. Thats "so what".
Nothing in your post would indicate that the nested hierarchy is
wrong. Nothing.
Even as mentally deficient as you act, you could likely be trained to
gather the data and analyze it to demonstrate that the nested
heirarchy is a fact in both morphology and genetics.
Just claiming that it is wrong is so stupid that it is nearly
unbelievable. But nothing you claim can be too stupid.
>
> It should be clear from the article that physical attributes are not
> an accurate way to group and catalog life and it's descendent's.
No one makes claims based on single examples of extraordinary
individuals. Why should they. Is every human as tall as incompetent
as you are?
>
> First they thought he was human, then, they decided he was chimp, ---
> and this is a 'live' specimen they were dealing with.
Demonstrate that anyone thought this poor fellow was human.
>
> If it was this difficult to figure out what this creature was with a
> live specimen it would be impossible to determine what you are looking
> at when studying bone fragments from millions of years ago.
It isn't difficult. The animal was obviously a chimp, but how much of
a chimp? He had some unusual characteristics. So what? Look at
yourself in the mirror.
>
> Evolution is the largest body of work based on hunches that i have
> personally read in my life. There is no science to it. Just a bunch of
> wild and exotic guesses.
Get the beam out of your eye. Turn the same level of scrutiny on your
ancient texts and say that again. You just lied didn't you, because
you know for a fact that there is a much larger body of work based on
hunches.
>
> You began with the original 'Classification of Life' which was nothing
> more then a guess based on observations. But the article shows that
> observations can be unreliable. So you began the ToE with the
> presupposition that man belongs with the apes and you guys have been
> forcing the other evidences to fit that classification ever since.
What do you think this means? One example? Get the beam out of your
eye. What does the ancient texts say about genetics. They are wrong,
right. Can you change the genetics of sheep and goats by putting them
up aganst sticks? Isn't it due to descent? Jacob just had to kill
the unspotted rams and what would have happened? No miracles needed.
Just selective breeding.
>
> Science show life variates. That matches exactly what we can see.
In a nested heirarchy, reflecting descent with modification. Nothint
in your post would deny this as fact.
>
> When it comes to divergence however you have nothing but guesses and
> speculation.
No we have genetics and we understand reproduction. We also know for
a fact that mutations happen and we don't know of any way to stop them
from happening. Didn't your dad ever tell you about the birds and the
bees? What do you have by comparison. Zip is about it.
>
> Now. I do not know why so many of you have such an emotional
> attachment to speciation. But from a common sense point of view, it
> simply does not happen. Nothing of the sort is shown with clear
> scientific evidence. There is no model, there are no direct
> observations. Direct observations are reality. Micro Evolution is
> reality.
Get the beam out of your eye. If it wasn't for emotional attachement
to some really stupid assertions, you would look like an idiot most of
the time.
>
> Speciation divergence is fantasy. It matches none of the other
> processes on the earth that are observable, testable, predictable.-
Too bad it is an observable "fantasy" and even you could generate the
data to convince yourself of that if you wanted to let go of your
emotional attachments. Just look at how much evolution that the guys
that believe in Noah's ark have to claim happened. Millions of years
of evolution in just a few thousand years. They claim that you are
wrong because they need such evolution to happen much more quickly
that it has been observed to happen using modern technology and
inferences from the fossil record.
Ron Okimoto
All-seeing-I
You people simply do not understand how garbled your explainations
sound.
"Evolution happens except when these other conditions exist and that
changes what happens but then it happens differently because you are
too stupid to understand"
It must take a special brain chemistry to understand evolution.
=============================================
"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
=============================================
Obviously this enables them to understand divergence (that does not
happen) while preventing them from understanding they were created by
God.
.
Burkhard
> On Dec 28, 4:25�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > You have observed no such thing.
>
> > He personally possibly not. But e.g. de Vries observed it with Evening
> > Primrose
> > and Halliburton and Gall induced speciation � in flour beetles
>
> > The entire ToE is mumbo jumbo that
>
> > > changes depending on the argument.What happened to needing /millions
> > > of years/ for speciation divergence to take place?
>
> > It was explained to you several times that while the process that
> > created today's diversity took billion of years, but that for
> > individual species, it can be much quicker if the animals in question
> > have a short live and high reproduction. Don't complain that people
> > say you don't understand the basics of the ToE if you can't even get
> > this simple fact after numerous explanations.
>
> You people simply do not understand how garbled your explainations
> sound.
>
> "Evolution happens except when these other conditions exist
no, evolution happens pretty much all the time, speciation however
takes time
>and that
> changes what happens but then it happens differently
That indeed is garbled - which shows how little you uderstood of the
pretty simple concept that for speciation, what matters is less the
absolute time, and more the time it takes for individuals of that
species to grow old enough to reproduce.
> because you are
> too stupid to understand"
>
that is pretty much the one true point you are making
> It must take a special brain chemistry to understand evolution.
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
says the person whose brain chemistry is so abnormal that he can't
perceive the truth of Gaia rising out of the primordial chaos and
bringing forth Uranus, the sky as her mate.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 4:25�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> It was explained to you several times that while the process that
>> created today's diversity took billion of years, but that for
>> individual species, it can be much quicker if the animals in question
>> have a short live and high reproduction. Don't complain that people
>> say you don't understand the basics of the ToE if you can't even get
>> this simple fact after numerous explanations.
>
>You people simply do not understand how garbled your explainations
>sound.
If you're unable to make sense of one person's explanation of one
point of a topic, there's a decent chance it's their fault. If you
consistently fail to understand everyone's explanation of every point
on that topic, the fault probably lies elsewhere.
John Harshman
> On Dec 28, 8:50 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> No, that isn't a possibility. Now. If humans are separately created, how
>> do you account for the apparent fusion of two ape chromosomes in us? You
>> could suppose that god originally created us with ape chromosomes, and
>> the fusion happened after creation. But why would god do such a thing?
>
> Let's pause here for a moment. Good question. Why would God do such a
> thing if in fact that is what happened?.
>
> I have a few questions.
>
> 1) What evidence is there that this chromosome exists only between ape
> and human? and; Can the chromosome or a close variant be found
> elsewhere?
I don't know that it has been studied. At any rate I can't say one way
or the other. Googling shows that the numbers vary a bit in primates:
rhesus monkeys have 42, squirrel monkeys have 44, howler monkeys have
individual variation with possibility of 47, 48, or 49. Various other
fusions and translocations have happened within primates too. However,
all the various parts of the chromosomes are all found in each species,
just rearranged in various orders.
> 2) Exactly what do you mean "they are fused"? That suggest they are
> either dysfunctional because of the fusion, or they are better
> functioning because of the fusion and, what purpose does the specific
> chromosome serve in each species?
"They are fused" means that one chromosome has become joined to the
other, end to end. There has been no loss of function. They aren't
better and they aren't worse. Chromosomes don't serve "a purpose".
They're long strands of DNA that have lots of genes on them, and the
genes do all manner of things.
> 3) What would cause the fusion. If it is a mutation, are you able to
> expand on that and say what caused the mutation why and when.
Yes, it's a mutation. Look up "Robertsonian fusion". No, I can't say
what caused it, or when. It happened some time after the human lineage
diverged from the chimp lineage, and some time before the common
ancestor of all living humans. That's a window of 5 million years or so.
> 4) DNA has a process that corrects mutations. DNA in chromosomes are
> organized. Why didn't the DNA in the chromosomes correct the fusion?
There is no mechanism to correct fusions. And the mechanisms that
correct mutations are imperfect, and are factored in to estimates of
mutation rates, because if the mutation is corrected we never see it.
> 5) Why does sharing this chromosome equal a common ancestor betyween
> ape and man?
That's not the question. Sure, god could have followed the scenario I
mentioned: created humans with an ape complement of chromosomes, and
then allowed or caused the fusion later. But, as I asked at the
beginning and you never answered: why?
But I'm glad to answer questions, apparently unlike you. Sharing a
chromosome doesn't mean a common ancestor, though it sure suggests a
fairly close relationship. Chromosome counts are moderately
conservative, but vary quite a bit over all of evolutionary time. But we
were talking about the fusion. What about that?
David Fritzinger
<29082c2f-e8e4-4472...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
[snip]
> species stay water species. Air or flying species stay flying. They
> all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
> completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
> originally evolving from.
May I introduce ASI to the penguin (the best bird!). Its ancestors flew.
It is now a water-dwelling animal.
Oh, and the word "variate" is not a verb...
[snip]
David Fritzinger
<9ec80248-345e-4711...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
[snip]
> You obviously cannot read. Which seems to be a common deficate for the
> evolutionist.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here.
What on earth is a common deficate?
>
> The emotional attachment is to the "idea that speciation divergence"
> takes place.
Why would one have an emotional attachment to divergence? The plain fact
is that speciation takes place, and that species vary over time. You
look at fossils from a million years ago, and you will find that, for
the most part, they aren't all that much different than what we see
today. If you look at fossils from 50 million years ago, the organisms
are much more different. That is evidence that evolution occurs. If you
compare the nested hierarchy of morphology with the nested hierarchy of
gene sequences, you will find that they match. More evidence for
evolution. Then, if you look for evidence that the BS you spout is true
(dare I use the phrase verbally deficate-and yes, the misspelling was
done on purpose), I see no evidence for it at all.
Caranx latus
> In article
> <9ec80248-345e-4711...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> You obviously cannot read. Which seems to be a common deficate for the
>> evolutionist.
>
> For the life of me, I cannot figure out what you are trying to say here.
> What on earth is a common deficate?
Gotta feel sorry for the [M]adape. Whether he uses his spell checker or
not, his posts are never quite English.
'deficate' is 'deficit'. I hope.
Dana Tweedy
>> It was explained to you several times that while the process that
>> created today's diversity took billion of years, but that for
>> individual species, it can be much quicker if the animals in question
>> have a short live and high reproduction. Don't complain that people
>> say you don't understand the basics of the ToE if you can't even get
>> this simple fact after numerous explanations.
>
> You people simply do not understand how garbled your explainations
> sound.
>
> "Evolution happens except when these other conditions exist and that
> changes what happens but then it happens differently because you are
> too stupid to understand"
If that is garbled, it's because you garbled it. He said that evolution
has been going on for billions of years, but speciation itself doesn't
require millions of years, especially in species that reproduce quickly.
>
> It must take a special brain chemistry to understand evolution.
No, just a willingness to understand the evidence.
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
Which is nonsense.
>
> Obviously this enables them to understand divergence (that does not
> happen) while preventing them from understanding they were created by
> God.
Divergence does happen. If humans were created, then God used evolution as
his means of creation.
DJT
> .
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>> --Iain
>
>[chuckle]
>you are on the right track.
>
>It was "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My", with Bears not belonging
>with the tigers any more then man does with the apes.
the flying monkeys were, however, the best explanation that
creationism has to date of how it works
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 7:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > Who?
>>
>> A better question: why? Whatever did you think that little story meant
>> for evolution?
>
>It is plain to see that man does not belong in the same catagory as
>the apes.
it's plain to see you're wrong
>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > So there ya have it.
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course they aren't. Nobody ever said they were.
>
>It was you that claimed the similarities place the two on the nested
>hierarchy together.
?? and how does this prove that humans and apes are identical?
>
>>What we're saying is
>> that humans and chimps are close relatives. For this, there is
>> conclusive evidence. Take the chromosomes. Humans have 46 because two of
>> the ape chromosomes have become fused. What is your explanation for the
>> similarity of human chromosome 2 to two chimp chromosomes, including
>> remnants of telomeres at the point of fusion and a second, inactive
>> centromere?
>
>If the chromosomes are fused, couldn't one 'possibility' be THEY
>descended from us?
?? who says we're descended from each other? we have a common
ancestor.
>
>But this is besides the point and yet another possibility for ape
>origins. As long as there are other possibilities, i do not believe
>evolutionists know what they are taking about.
so your suggestion is that descent with modification happens...AKA
evolutuion...and this proves evolution doesn't happen?
uh...OK
>
>One of the points of the article is, here we have a creature, with
>strikingly similarities with humans; such as behavior, mannerism,
>habits, walking on 2 feet and appearance; but... there is "no evidence
>of human chromosomes in the his blood". What does the bible say?
there are 38,000 christian denominations. what does the bible say if
christians cant even tell us?
"The
>life is in the blood". So the kind of life is determined by the blood.
>Which means the nested hierarchy is dead wrong. You cannot always go
>by observations when cataloging and separating species in the
>hierarchy.
how is the nested hierarchy wrong when we can test it?
>
>Same with the African and Asian elephant. They both look as though
>they are the same but with minor differences such as ear size, toes, a
>softer trunk on one harder trunk on the other and shape of the head; --
>But--, they are in fact, genetically different. The genetic
>differences are so great that they actually cannot be interbred.
so they're different species...a prediction of evolution
>
>If the Asian elephants and African elephants are not considered the
>same on the nested hierarchy, why on earth would you consider man to
>be close relatives with the apes?
because of the evidence. because we can test the idea.
and because creationism had a 2000 year head start and produced NO
evidence in support of its superstition
>
>
>But he did this in an arbitrary manor based on appearance and
>observation; which as we can see is not a reliable way to classify
>life. Which further means the other evidences for evolution have been
>fabricated to match the hierarchy.
in some cases this is true. because we've learned that evolution can
produce quite a wide variety of organisms and features.
creationism has no way to predict or test this
>
>So evolutionist began with the assertion that apes and humans belonged
>in the same family based on observations and then the other evidences
>were forced to fit that idea.
really? what 'other evidence'?
>.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 8:50�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> No, that isn't a possibility. Now. If humans are separately created, how
>> do you account for the apparent fusion of two ape chromosomes in us? You
>> could suppose that god originally created us with ape chromosomes, and
>> the fusion happened after creation. But why would god do such a thing?
>
>Let's pause here for a moment. Good question. Why would God do such a
>thing if in fact that is what happened?.
>
>I have a few questions.
>
>1) What evidence is there that this chromosome exists only between ape
>and human? and; Can the chromosome or a close variant be found
>elsewhere?
>
>2) Exactly what do you mean "they are fused"? That suggest they are
>either dysfunctional because of the fusion, or they are better
>functioning because of the fusion and, what purpose does the specific
>chromosome serve in each species?
why does this suggest either? it's an accident of dhemistry. of
course, creationists dont know anything about chemistry so right away
you have a problem
>
>3) What would cause the fusion. If it is a mutation, are you able to
>expand on that and say what caused the mutation why and when.
>
>4) DNA has a process that corrects mutations. DNA in chromosomes are
>organized. Why didn't the DNA in the chromosomes correct the fusion?
if the process DNA uses to correct mutations was perfect, we'd never
get cancer.
so you saying cancer doesnt exist? another prediction of creationism?
>
>5) Why does sharing this chromosome equal a common ancestor betyween
>ape and man?
because we can see where the chromosome came from and the fact ours is
fused means we had a common ancestor.
creationism predicts nothing. it can't even tell us when it's wrong.
it's useless
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>So what? The nested hierarchy is wrong. Thats "so what".
?? uh where's your evidence? you seem to think that since there are
different species, there is no nested hiearchy. that's exactly 180 deg
out of phase with evolution which predicts a nested hiearchy...
>
>It should be clear from the article that physical attributes are not
>an accurate way to group and catalog life and it's descendent's.
in some cases this is correct. however what it shows is that the
classification is not perfect because we have learned alot about how
evolution can produce features that LOOK similar from dissimiliar
ancestors
and creationism is still trying to find its first ghost. a pity,
really...
>
>First they thought he was human, then, they decided he was chimp, ---
>and this is a 'live' specimen they were dealing with.
>
>If it was this difficult to figure out what this creature was with a
>live specimen it would be impossible to determine what you are looking
>at when studying bone fragments from millions of years ago.
?? so the fact science is hard is proof that it's wrong? what does
this say about creationism which, for 2000 years, said demons caused
earthquakes, then found out this was wrong? you guys havent found your
first angel.
>
>Evolution is the largest body of work based on hunches that i have
>personally read in my life. There is no science to it. Just a bunch of
>wild and exotic guesses.
says the guy who thinks angels exist because they've never been seen
>
>You began with the original 'Classification of Life' which was nothing
>more then a guess based on observations. But the article shows that
>observations can be unreliable. So you began the ToE with the
>presupposition that man belongs with the apes and you guys have been
>forcing the other evidences to fit that classification ever since.
what it shows is that EVIDENCE is used to test theories. if evolution
was a conspiracy, as your 'theory' of evolution predicts,
then why would scientists pubish this data? that's a test of your
'theory of conspiracy' and it blows it out of the water
>
>Science show life variates. That matches exactly what we can see.
what is 'variate'? another new creationist word
>
>When it comes to divergence however you have nothing but guesses and
>speculation.
the hawthorne fruitfly...is diverging today....as we speak.
>
>Now. I do not know why so many of you have such an emotional
>attachment to speciation. But from a common sense point of view, it
>simply does not happen. Nothing of the sort is shown with clear
>scientific evidence. There is no model, there are no direct
>observations. Direct observations are reality. Micro Evolution is
>reality.
you don't know how science works. it's too hard for you. your religion
can't comprehend the idea of testing an idea which is why, for 2000
years, you've been wrong on every idea of nature you've had.
>
>Speciation divergence is fantasy. It matches none of the other
>processes on the earth that are observable, testable, predictable.
natural selection is testable
angels and demons are testable too. they've never been found.
creationism is a failure
>
>
>
>
>
>
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 11:02�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > Who?
>>
>> snipping irrelevant article
>>
>>
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>
>You are confused.
>I have show that similarities have nothing to do with nesting species
>together in the nested hierarchy.
>
>Just because man is similar to apes does not mean man should be
>classified as an ape or with the apes.
sure it does. because evolution is not ONLY about observations, it's
about a MECHANISM.
and we have one in evolution: natural selection. that's what you, as
a creationist, miss. you creationists don't know how science works so
you just invent ideas like angels and demons.
unfortunately we can test the idea of angels. and we've never seen
one. ever. not once
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The only ones with their heads in the sand to avoid truth are those
>that are emotionally attached to speciation and the idea that man is
>descended from an animal like the ape.
>
>There is nothing to "force" one species be associated with another and
>this article is evidence of that because physical attributes are not a
>reliable way to classify life.
sure there is: the testable mechanism of natural selection. i realize
that, to a creationist, ideas are true only if someone says they're
true, but science doesnt work this way
>
>Plus there is a lot of DNA that science does not know it's use. So
>they call it 'junk' DNA.
>
>Variation can be observed, tested, manipulated. It is predictable.
>
>You cannot say the same for divergence speciation
speciation is a class of variation
>
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The Good`Ole "They Do Not Understand" routine.
>
>When all else fails the evo-perps fall back on the Good`Ole "They Do
>Not Understand" routine.
the historian dan diner shows, in his book 'lost in the sacred; why
the muslim world stood still' why religious fundamentalism inhibits
learning and comprehension.
you're a great example of this. you're not alone. your condition is
treatable. but there's no doubt it exists.
>
>You are seeing what you //Want// to see and not what the evidence
>shows.
>
>The evidence clearly shoes variation takes place. The evidence does
>NOT show speciation takes place.
meaningless. speciation is a class of variation
>
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>You people simply do not understand how garbled your explainations
>sound.
says the guy who can't understand science because of his religious
beliefs
>
>"Evolution happens except when these other conditions exist and that
>changes what happens but then it happens differently because you are
>too stupid to understand"
>
>It must take a special brain chemistry to understand evolution.
>
>=============================================
>"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
>"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
>will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>=============================================
>
>Obviously this enables them to understand divergence (that does not
>happen) while preventing them from understanding they were created by
>God.
what is 'god'? what test tube do i put him in to test him?
creationism: 2000 years of failure
>.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>You have observed no such thing. The entire ToE is mumbo jumbo that
>changes depending on the argument.What happened to needing /millions
>of years/ for speciation divergence to take place? I guess you have a
>magic lab? Did you get your lab from the same place jack got his bean
>stalk beans?
no science can test an idea over millions of years. if this is your
argument against evolution, then neither physics nor chemistry is
science.
so you have a problem, don't you?
>
>
>The same kind of life will produce variations of itself. That is all
>we can see. That is all that happens. I suggest removing the emotional
>attachment that many of you have to divergence speciation and you will
>see that.
>
>Variation is real. Divergence is fantasy.
speciation is a class of variation
and creationism is useless
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 9:29�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 7:42�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Chimps are NOT human no matter what the similarities.
>>
>> Of course not. �Chimps and humans are separated by several speciation
>> events and have three separate living species (two chimpanzee and one
>> human). �All three (along with gorillas and orangutans) are great
>> apes. �Those and many more species are primates. �But aren't you the
>> same guy who argues that evergreens are a simple classification
>> group? �That wolves and foxes are both canis and are the same kind?
>> What is your argument that chimps and humans are not the same 'kind'
>> whereas foxes and wolves are?
>
>It is not clearly established those speciation events took place
>between a type of great ape and man.
>
>Whereas with dogs, we can observe the variations taking place. Same
>with the evergreens. No one can clearly show (without inference) that
>an evergreen has ever given rise to anything other then another
>variation of itself. That can be said for all life on the planet.
if that were true we wouldn't be here. speciation is a form of
variation
and creationism? it explained earthquakes in terms of demons. that was
wrongl. creationism has no way to explain the world around us.
>
>It is obvious life evolves for many reasons. But the direct
>observations say it does so by respecting some boundries. Water
>species stay water species.
then why are there mammals in the water? mammals started on land. so
how did they get to water if they stayed land animals?
Air or flying species stay flying. They
>all variate but none are shown with clear evidence to diverge so
>completely that they are no longer anything like what they were
>originally evolving from.
and your 'classification' scheme is meaningless. 'land' kinds? what
about ampibians? land or water? sea gulls...water or land?
meaningless