How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
backspace
James Goetz
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
It never happened.
mur...@tntech.edu
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Don't ask us. *You're* the one who reads the Weekly World News for
your science education.
---DPM
Qarel
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
In the usual way, I suppose.
Regards,
Karel
Will in New Haven
Now you will backspace through all the answers you get, you loon.
--
Will in New Haven
Life is very difficult. Once you understand that, life becomes easier.
-Buddha
Mark VandeWettering
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Ask yo mamma.
wf3h
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
how did the bible give rise to biblical literalism?
Lee Jay
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Over roughly a million generations, give or taken an order of
magnitude or two.
Mark Evans
It didn't, but sometimes when I read the posts I wonder.
Here is how it seems to have gone: After many years and many
generations, creatures not quite human (what ever "human" is) have
offspring that are more human. This continues until we have humans.
Eventually the remote descendants of these humans will no longer be
classified as human and be called something else. (Or, if they stay
civilized, they will still be calling themselves human and calling
modern humans something pre-human.)
Mark Evans
stew dean
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
I thought we where apes not monkeys. You question may be how did an
ape give birth to a slightly smarter ape?
Ron O
> On 2008-03-22, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
> Ask yo mamma.
Wouldn't that be the other way around, in that a human would have to
give birth to a monkey? Maybe he was adopted?
Ron Okimoto
mel turner
news:4bcc8ad3-0192-479a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Who says one did?
Are you so remarkably ignorant that you think the evolution of modern
humans from early ancestral "monkeys" should have involved any such
step? [That's a rhetorical question; of course you are.]
But perhaps you've got your intent all tangled up, and are tripping
over your pragmatics.
Can you more rigorously define your terms "monkey" and "human" for us?
[I'll let you slide on providing documentation of the authority who
first coined them.]
Perhaps you might mean "monkey" as in "a member of clade Anthropoidea",
in which case humans are indeed one particular type of large tailless
"monkey" [and so are all the other apes].
If so, then of course many thousands of such human "monkeys" do
indeed give birth to humans every day.
cheers
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
They fucked.
Didn't your fundamentalist momma explain any of that to you?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Harry K
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
More to the point: How did two humans smart enough to figure out how
to screw give birth to you?
Harry K
Rusty Sites
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
How did a mutt give birth to a beagle?
geo...@hotmail.com
what are your pragmatics with the punctuation-mark '?'
Frank J
Jeez, I thought even you would find a more original way to make
creationists look stupid.
mel turner
news:24e8a977-d6b2-4353...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Mar, 17:52, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
> I thought we where apes not monkeys.
I'd say we're both, if we're either.
Just as we humans are "apes" [Hominoidea or Hominidae],
we apes are also "monkeys" [Simiiformes or Anthropoidea].
We're also primates, placental mammals, amniotes, tetrapods,
vertebrates, etc., in the same way.
>You question may be how did an
> ape give birth to a slightly smarter ape?
Or is it how a Latin-speaker gave birth to a French-speaker?
cheers
chris thompson
backspace is the logical end-product of abstinence-only training.
Chris
Dana Tweedy
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bcc8ad3-0192-479a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Lamaze classes.
DJT
>
Iain
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Backspace -- honestly, are you serious?
~Iain
VoiceOfReason
backspace wrote:
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
I give up. How?
Anthropus
news:c7813c1d-af3b-48ee...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
> Backspace -- honestly, are you serious?
No: it's trolling. A sad, bored inadequate's attempt to salvage some
substitute for self-worth by throwing 9 words at a n/g and then sitting back
to watch the scramble. Kind of like the way a stupid kid with nothing to do
will kick an ant-heap...
M.
backspace
Or put it this way, we have a CA/monkey/ape(choose your vernacular) at
one point in time, as we move on we find humans. How did we go from a
monkey/ape/simian(choose your vernacular) to a human. At what point
did something "monkeyish" give birth to something "humanish" ?
backspace
wrote:
> "stew dean" <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, as UC pointed out humans are not apes, you can't invent your own
fantasy world.
Lee Jay
backspace
Dr.Wilkins pointed out that whatever you want to call the ape back
then "common ancestor", "monkey", bonobo or "simian" you are just
replacing on vernacular for another. The real reason materialists don'
t want to call this apish thing a monkey is because it makes look
stupid.
backspace
wrote:
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
UC explained in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7
that ran for three months with over 3000 posts that humans are not
apes.
Rick Brandt
> Or put it this way, we have a CA/monkey/ape(choose your vernacular) at
> one point in time, as we move on we find humans. How did we go from a
> monkey/ape/simian(choose your vernacular) to a human. At what point
> did something "monkeyish" give birth to something "humanish" ?
At one point in time we had people speaking Latin as we move on we find
people who speak French. At what point did a Latin speaker give birth to a
French speaker?
backspace
Mutts (vernacular of mongrel dog) and a beagle are still dogs, humans
are not monkeys and natural selection is a semantic impossibility no
matter what Ken Ham and Dembski tells you.
backspace
Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
Friar Broccoli
I would say it happened about 2.5 million years ago when we
were walking fully upright and our brains had started to become
larger than that of any other ape, although still a lot smaller than
the brains of modern humans.
However, one could pick any time between about 5 million years
ago and 50,000 years ago, depending on how you want to
categorize things. Actually since we are technically still apes
one could push the date back to about 15 million years ago, if
you consider chimps and gorillas to be "humanish", which I do.
Boikat
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Do you sit around *TRYING* to come up with stupid, asinine, ignorant,
dumb, dull-witted, and trollish questions, or does it come naturally?
Boikat
Lucifer
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
It didn't, you're still a monkey.
Sorry about that mate, but there's nowt that can be done about it.
Timberwoof
<f7a28ad5-8fbd-41c6...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
> > backspace wrote:
> > > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
> >
> > How did a mutt give birth to a beagle?
>
> Mutts (vernacular of mongrel dog) and a beagle are still dogs, humans
> are not monkeys and natural selection is a semantic impossibility
That's true as long as you childishly insist that your semantic model of
the world is the world.
> no
> matter what Ken Ham and Dembski tells you.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Friar Broccoli
mel turner
> On Mar 22, 8:43 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4bcc8ad3-0192-479a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>>
>> Who says one did?
No answer?
>> Are you so remarkably ignorant that you think the evolution of modern
>> humans from early ancestral "monkeys" should have involved any such
>> step? [That's a rhetorical question; of course you are.]
>>
>> But perhaps you've got your intent all tangled up, and are tripping
>> over your pragmatics.
>>
>> Can you more rigorously define your terms "monkey" and "human" for us?
>> [I'll let you slide on providing documentation of the authority who
>> first coined them.]
No answer?
>> Perhaps you might mean "monkey" as in "a member of clade Anthropoidea",
>> in which case humans are indeed one particular type of large tailless
>> "monkey" [and so are all the other apes].
>>
>> If so, then of course many thousands of such human "monkeys" do
>> indeed give birth to humans every day.
> UC explained in this thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7
> that ran for three months with over 3000 posts that humans are not
> apes.
And do you agree with UC?
If so, you're likely the only one who did.
If you can, briefly summarize his argument's main points.
Why is it convincing to you? While you're at it, can you
also explain his intent and pragmatics?
cheers
raven1
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 8:43 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
>wrote:
>> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4bcc8ad3-0192-479a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>>
>> Who says one did?
>>
>> Are you so remarkably ignorant that you think the evolution of modern
>> humans from early ancestral "monkeys" should have involved any such
>> step? [That's a rhetorical question; of course you are.]
>>
>> But perhaps you've got your intent all tangled up, and are tripping
>> over your pragmatics.
>>
>> Can you more rigorously define your terms "monkey" and "human" for us?
>> [I'll let you slide on providing documentation of the authority who
>> first coined them.]
>>
>> Perhaps you might mean "monkey" as in "a member of clade Anthropoidea",
>> in which case humans are indeed one particular type of large tailless
>> "monkey" [and so are all the other apes].
>>
>> If so, then of course many thousands of such human "monkeys" do
>> indeed give birth to humans every day.
>>
>> cheers
>
>UC explained
You misspelled "claimed incorrectly"
Friar Broccoli
> On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
> > How did a mutt give birth to a beagle?
>
> Mutts (vernacular of mongrel dog) and a beagle are still dogs, humans
Then there is a problem with the language/semantics.
mel turner
As pretty much everyone else pointed out, UC made little or no sense
at all.
Perhaps you'd like to present and defend his position in your own
words, if you found it so convincing?
>you can't invent your own fantasy world.
That's your trick. You seem think pretending not to understand
the words will make the big bad scientific reality go away.
Even if you foolishly insist we can't rightly be called "apes", nope,
nohow, noway, we and the [other] apes are still "Hominoidea" by
definition, a word which means very much the same thing as "the apes".
Whatever you call it, the grouping is still the same.
We're also Simiiformes or Anthropoidea, a.k.a. "monkeys". We're also
Vertebrata, in case you want to get worked up over being called a
"fish".
But then it's just the form of the words that matter, not the
reality they refer to, right?
cheers
Ye Old One
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Never happened.
You really are rather stupid to ask such a very stupid question.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<stew...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 22 Mar, 17:52, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>I thought we where apes not monkeys. You question may be how did an
>ape give birth to a slightly smarter ape?
Or, in his mother's case "How does an ape give birth to a very stupid
ape?"
--
Bob.
Treus
backspace wrote:
>
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
Time-did-it, or why-couldn't-time-have-done-it.
John Harshman
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
to you (also a monkey and a human, or so I imagine).
Of course you don't mean that. You're working with a false model of
evolution, in which new species arise by some magical macromutation. It
doesn't work that way.
Or, to put it in other terms, how did a Latin speaker give birth to a
Romanian speaker?
John Harshman
> On Mar 22, 1:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
Ha! It happens every time a human is born.
John Harshman
John Harshman
evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
(and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
there some other implications you had in mind?
*There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
to mind?
wf3h
the problem with creationists is they know what they believe
and it's wrong.
Ye Old One
Humans are apes.
--
Bob.
wf3h
what's a semantic impossibility is 'biblical literalism'. it's an
oxymoron.
wf3h
wrote:
>>
> I believe Mr. BS
appropos name...
is referring to my statement that individuals don't
> evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
> (and everyone writing it) is a monkey;
golly. i have a niece....i guess that makes me a monkey's uncle...
Ye Old One
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And he was wrong every single time he said it.
--
Bob.
backspace
> On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:24 pm, Mark Evans <mev...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 1:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> > > Here is how it seems to have gone: After many years and many
> > > generations, creatures not quite human (what ever "human" is) have
> > > offspring that are more human. This continues until we have humans.
> > > Eventually the remote descendants of these humans will no longer be
> > > classified as human and be called something else. (Or, if they stay
> > > civilized, they will still be calling themselves human and calling
> > > modern humans something pre-human.)
>
> > > Mark Evans
>
> > Or put it this way, we have a CA/monkey/ape(choose your vernacular) at
> > one point in time, as we move on we find humans. How did we go from a
> > monkey/ape/simian(choose your vernacular) to a human. At what point
> > did something "monkeyish" give birth to something "humanish" ?
>
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i...
But even if you move gradual from monkey to human, you still will
cross the actual point of species transition where the monkey gave
birth to a human.
backspace
> However, one could pick any time between about 5 million years
> ago and 50,000 years ago, depending on how you want to
> categorize things. Actually since we are technically still apes
> one could push the date back to about 15 million years ago, if
> you consider chimps and gorillas to be "humanish", which I do.
Please get your argument past "UraniumCommittee" or UC - he is an
atheist professor in English from Hong Kong I believe and he begs
to differ his view is that humans are not apes/monkeys/bonobos/simians/
chimps/"common ancestors (chose whatever vernacular makes you feel
less stupid).
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
<...>
> I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
> evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
> (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
> upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
> Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
> there some other implications you had in mind?
>
> *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
> walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
> to mind?
Congress.
Will in New Haven
> On Mar 22, 9:01 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "stew dean" <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:24e8a977-d6b2-4353...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> > I'd say we're both, if we're either.
>
> > Just as we humans are "apes" [Hominoidea or Hominidae],
> > we apes are also "monkeys" [Simiiformes or Anthropoidea].
>
> > We're also primates, placental mammals, amniotes, tetrapods,
> > vertebrates, etc., in the same way.
>
> > >You question may be how did an
> > > ape give birth to a slightly smarter ape?
>
> > Or is it how a Latin-speaker gave birth to a French-speaker?
>
> > cheers
>
> No, as UC pointed out humans are not apes, you can't invent your own
> fantasy world.
To "point something out," you have to be correct. He simply "said" it.
Repeatedly. He was wrong. For some reason, he was interesting. But he
was wrong. Treating UC as an authority-figure is pathetic, although he
would enjoy it if he saw it.
Will in New Haven
--
There are no normal people--only people you don't know very much
about.
-- Nancy Lebovitz, rasfw
backspace
wrote:
> > Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
> > population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
> > with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
> > JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
> > and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
> I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
> evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
> (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
> upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
> Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
> there some other implications you had in mind?
>
> *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
> walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
> to mind?
A chimp and a gorilla can both be called a "monkey" in the vernacular
sense, does this mean they can mate and create a "chimpgor" ?
Humans and monkeys are separate species and no amount of word games is
going to obscure the fact that the species transition from ape to man
implies that somewhere along the line an ape/bonobo/chimp/baboon/
simian/monkey(choose vernacular that makes you feel less silly)
gave birth to a human. The only way mammals can reproduce is through
sexual means, thus two monkeys came together with the babe monkey
fondling the balls of the stud monkey and then a few months later a
human was born.
This is the sort of insane lunacy you start believing when you deny
your Creator.
Lee Jay
Wrong again.
It's entirely possible that every single generation is capable of
reproducing with members of the generation before it, and yet not
capable of reproducing with the offspring of a generation some large
number of generations before.
You're making the mistake that there is a hard edge species dividing
line, and that it's possible to say that a child is a member of one
species and the parents a member of a different species. This is
wrong.
Imaging walking from a large desert, thousands of miles into a great
forest. You were in the desert at the beginning, and the forest at
the end. Yet, there was never really a single step where you stepped
from the desert into the forest. Rather, the landscape gradually
changed over time as you took many, many steps.
backspace
> On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> Sorry about that mate, but there's nowt that can be done about it.
Tell me why do we label "baboons" baboons and "chimps" chimps ?
Will in New Haven
Oddly enough, the way you describe evolution does seem rather far-
fetched. And then you bring up your wholly made up god figure, as if
he/she/it/them were something real and matter of fact.
Imbecile.
--
Will in New Haven
raven1
Actually, it's the sort of insane lunacy that you start spouting when
you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Every dog living today is ultimately descended from wolves. Does that
mean you would somehow expect a wolf to have given birth to a
chihuahua at some point in the past? Or were there gradual,
intermediate steps along the way?
Treus
Lee Jay wrote:
>
> Imaging walking from a large desert, thousands of miles into a great
> forest. You were in the desert at the beginning, and the forest at
> the end. Yet, there was never really a single step where you stepped
> from the desert into the forest. Rather, the landscape gradually
> changed over time as you took many, many steps.
If desert and forest are mutually exclusive categories, and there is
no third type of landscape between them, then you would cross from one
to the other in a single step.
John Locke
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
It didn't happen. But if it did, it wouldn't be much of an
improvement.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
mel turner
> On Mar 22, 11:33 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> > Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
>> > population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
>> > with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
>> > JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
>> > and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
>
>> I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
>> evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
>> (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
>> upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
>> Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
>> there some other implications you had in mind?
>>
>> *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
>> walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
>> to mind?
>
> A chimp and a gorilla can both be called a "monkey" in the vernacular
> sense, does this mean they can mate and create a "chimpgor" ?
Non sequitur. There's no implication that things in the same category
"in the vernacular sense" should be able to interbreed. Do all "fish"
or all "birds" or all "deer" interbreed?
Besides, chimps are genetically closer to humans than they are to
gorillas.
> Humans and monkeys are separate species
There are a great many fully separate species of "monkey". Humans are
just one of them.
>and no amount of word games
That's evidently your specialty, but you're so bad at it you should
perhaps look for a different hobby.
>is
> going to obscure the fact that the species transition from ape to man
> implies that somewhere along the line an ape/bonobo/chimp/baboon/
> simian/monkey(choose vernacular that makes you feel less silly)
You're the only silly simian here.
> gave birth to a human.
Absolutely wrong. There's no such implication of one-step
speciation of single individuals. Is the word "gradually" in your
dictionary? Can you parse the phrase "over many generations"?
> The only way mammals can reproduce is through
> sexual means, thus two monkeys came together with the babe monkey
> fondling the balls of the stud monkey and then a few months later a
> human was born.
Completely wrong. You evidently are just as ignorant the subject
as you have always seemed.
> This is the sort of insane lunacy you start believing when you deny
> your Creator.
The only possibly insane lunacy is in your own erroneous strawman. And
why should accepting the reality of evolution and common descent imply
anything at all about "denying" a creator? Plenty of theists seem to
see no such conflict.
cheers
John Harshman
Frank J
Sorry, but as you know, and pathetically pretend not to, belief in a
Creator has nothing to do with *how* the Creator created humans,
monkeys, broccoli, etc.
Michael Behe plainly states that modern humans and modern monkeys (and
moderrn broccoli) share common ancestors. If you disagree, take that
up with him. He claims that he believes in a Creator, but insists that
the Creator is not necessarily the same as the unnamed, possibly
designed, possibly deceased designer that he caught in his
"mousetrap." Again, if you disagree, take it up with him.
John Harshman
again?
stew dean
> On Mar 22, 9:01 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "stew dean" <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:24e8a977-d6b2-4353...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> > I'd say we're both, if we're either.
>
> > Just as we humans are "apes" [Hominoidea or Hominidae],
> > we apes are also "monkeys" [Simiiformes or Anthropoidea].
>
> > We're also primates, placental mammals, amniotes, tetrapods,
> > vertebrates, etc., in the same way.
>
> > >You question may be how did an
> > > ape give birth to a slightly smarter ape?
>
> > Or is it how a Latin-speaker gave birth to a French-speaker?
>
> > cheers
>
> No, as UC pointed out humans are not apes, you can't invent your own
> fantasy world.
No we are apes - it's a common bit of info - just look it up.
John Harshman
> On Mar 22, 11:33 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>>> Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
>>> population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
>>> with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
>>> JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
>>> and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
>
>> I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
>> evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
>> (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
>> upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
>> Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
>> there some other implications you had in mind?
>>
>> *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
>> walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
>> to mind?
>
> A chimp and a gorilla can both be called a "monkey" in the vernacular
> sense, does this mean they can mate and create a "chimpgor" ?
No it doesn't. You may have noticed that there are many species in the
world, few pair of which can (or at least commonly do) mate with each
other. You may have noticed that there are many species of monkey, for
which this is also true. Because two species are both monkeys is no
implication that they can produce offspring.
> Humans and monkeys are separate species
Monkeys are not a species. They are a paraphyletic group (under the old
definition) that contains a bit over 300 species. Adding in the apes
(including humans) raises the total only slightly.
> and no amount of word games is
> going to obscure the fact that the species transition from ape to man
> implies that somewhere along the line an ape/bonobo/chimp/baboon/
> simian/monkey(choose vernacular that makes you feel less silly)
> gave birth to a human.
No it doesn't. Any such change was gradual and involved populations
rather than individual macromutations. During the entire transition,
children looked much like their parents. You have been given the
following analogy, but have always ignored it. Why not pay attention
this time? Ready? Here it is: Latin turned into French (or Romanian, or
Italian, whatever), and the two languages are mutually unintelligible.
Yet there was never a time in which the parents spoke Latin and the
children spoke French, and so couldn't communicate with each other. The
change was gradual, even imperceptible to the participants. See how that
works?
> The only way mammals can reproduce is through
> sexual means, thus two monkeys came together with the babe monkey
> fondling the balls of the stud monkey and then a few months later a
> human was born.
Or perhaps a population evolved gradually over time, with no sharp
breaks between generations, just as Latin turned gradually into French
(etc.).
> This is the sort of insane lunacy you start believing when you deny
> your Creator.
It's hard to be sure, but you just might be the least intelligent
creationist it has ever been my misfortune to come across. (Hard to be
sure because the competition is so strong.)
Lee Jay
Same mistake as Backspace - there are no hard-edge regions. When in a
region between two other regions where there are no separately-defined
regions between them, there is often a large gray area where you could
be in either one or both, depending on definition. Same with
species. There's no magic genetic tag that says "I'm a different
species than my Mom". Both you and Mom (and several thousand
generations either way) might be said to be transitionals between
species.
Dana Tweedy
So that they don't get their underwear mixed up in the laundry.
DJT
>
Will in New Haven
Actually, his argument is that humans are part of the _biological
grouping_ that we choose to call apes. He simply thinks we should
always use the technical term and not use the word apes. He is
perfectly in accord with the ToE, as it is applied to humans and
others. He just has wierd ideas about vocabulary. So he doesn't really
agree with you. He just puts you in the position where you can claim
that he supports you. This is _exactly_ why his quibbling was so
infuriating.
Will in New Haven
--
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
Treus
Lee Jay wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:30 pm, Treus <treusd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Lee Jay wrote:
> > >
> > > Imaging walking from a large desert, thousands of miles into a great
> > > forest. You were in the desert at the beginning, and the forest at
> > > the end. Yet, there was never really a single step where you stepped
> > > from the desert into the forest. Rather, the landscape gradually
> > > changed over time as you took many, many steps.
> >
> > If desert and forest are mutually exclusive categories, and there is
> > no third type of landscape between them, then you would cross from one
> > to the other in a single step.
>
> Same mistake as Backspace - there are no hard-edge regions.
None at all? Why not?
Tony Raymonds
<ce926a6e-4238-4cf4...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i...
>
>But even if you move gradual from monkey to human, you still will
>cross the actual point of species transition where the monkey gave
>birth to a human.
At which point in the rainbow does red change to blue? By your
reasoning there must be one.
There were many creatures we wouldn't classify as either monkeys nor
humans between the two groups. Some you would call monkey like, some
you would call ape like and some you would call human like.
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
James Goetz
wrote:
> James Goetz wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 1:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> Ha! It happens every time a human is born.
What will you tell me next? "Fish give birth to humans."
wf3h
>
> This is the sort of insane lunacy you start believing when you deny
> your Creator.
what does evolution have to do with denying a creator?
non sequitur.
Friar Broccoli
The vocabulary really doesn't matter. Chimps are more closely
related to us than they are to Gorillas, so whatever family chimps
and gorillas are in, we are also in.
Dick C
>
> No, as UC pointed out humans are not apes, you can't invent your own
> fantasy world.
>
Why not? You seem to have your own fantasy world.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.net
Dick C
>
> UC explained in this thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b41188
> 7c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7 that ran for three months with
> over 3000 posts that humans are not apes.
He did not explain, he claimed. There is nothing to explain from that pov
only claims. And the claims are nonsensical. And it was you using the
nym UC that made the claim.
You were wrong then, you are wrong now.
John Harshman
> On Mar 22, 5:18 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> James Goetz wrote:
>>> On Mar 22, 1:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>>> It never happened.
>> Ha! It happens every time a human is born.
>
> What will you tell me next? "Fish give birth to humans."
>
"animals give birth to humans", "mammals give birth to humans",
"primates give birth to humans", etc.
Friar Broccoli
John Harshman
Lee Jay
> Lee Jay wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:30 pm, Treus <treusd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Lee Jay wrote:
>
> > > > Imaging walking from a large desert, thousands of miles into a great
> > > > forest. You were in the desert at the beginning, and the forest at
> > > > the end. Yet, there was never really a single step where you stepped
> > > > from the desert into the forest. Rather, the landscape gradually
> > > > changed over time as you took many, many steps.
>
> > > If desert and forest are mutually exclusive categories, and there is
> > > no third type of landscape between them, then you would cross from one
> > > to the other in a single step.
>
> > Same mistake as Backspace - there are no hard-edge regions.
>
> None at all? Why not?
Because it's very unlikely that a creature so different from its
parents as to be reproductively isolated from their generation and the
rest of their own generation, would also be viable. Evolution doesn't
work that way, it works over many generations, not all at once.
John Harshman
You haven't been following BS. He disagrees with Behe, Dembski, Hovind,
and pretty much every other creationist on a host of points, and says
so. Telling him that Behe disagrees him will be no surprise and will
have no effect. (Mind you, nothing has an effect, so your post was just
as good a way to bang your head against a wall as any other.)
Grandbank
> On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
>
> Mutts (vernacular of mongrel dog) and a beagle are still dogs, humans
> are not monkeys and natural selection is a semantic impossibility no
> matter what Ken Ham and Dembski tells you.
Unbelievable as it seems, I do believe this boy understands even less
about semantics than he does about evolution.
KP
John McKendry
> On Mar 22, 10:02 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, one could pick any time between about 5 million years ago and
>> 50,000 years ago, depending on how you want to categorize things.
>> Actually since we are technically still apes one could push the date
>> back to about 15 million years ago, if you consider chimps and gorillas
>> to be "humanish", which I do.
>
> Please get your argument past "UraniumCommittee" or UC - he is an
> atheist professor in English from Hong Kong I believe and he begs to
> differ his view is that humans are not apes/monkeys/bonobos/simians/
> chimps/"common ancestors (chose whatever vernacular makes you feel less
> stupid).
UC is a graphic designer from Columbus, Ohio, with a degree in
philosophy who published an article in Semiotica about some word
in Kant. He fancies himself an authority on language and photography
and is considered ridiculous and annoying by people expert in both
fields.
So the idea that he is a professor of English from Hong Kong is
closer than you usually get to the facts, anyway. Well done.
But citing UC as authority for your claims is not going to advance
your cause on this newsgroup.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0d00bb6ff159ecf6
http://www.myfonts.com/person/scarpitti/michael/
John
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
It didn't, as has been explained to you several times. Do
you enjoy looking stupid?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
<snip>
>...as UC pointed out humans are not apes
And UC was wrong, as was explained to him several times. Any
more irrelevant comments? Are you as unwilling to learn as
UC?
<snip>
Mike Painter
Imagine swimming in the salt water ocean and then up into a fresh water
river.
Iain
> On Mar 22, 9:52 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 8:24 pm, Mark Evans <mev...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 1:52 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Here is how it seems to have gone: After many years and many
> > > > generations, creatures not quite human (what ever "human" is) have
> > > > offspring that are more human. This continues until we have humans.
> > > > Eventually the remote descendants of these humans will no longer be
> > > > classified as human and be called something else. (Or, if they stay
> > > > civilized, they will still be calling themselves human and calling
> > > > modern humans something pre-human.)
>
> > > > Mark Evans
>
> > > Or put it this way, we have a CA/monkey/ape(choose your vernacular) at
> > > one point in time, as we move on we find humans. How did we go from a
> > > monkey/ape/simian(choose your vernacular) to a human. At what point
> > > did something "monkeyish" give birth to something "humanish" ?
>
> > No point. Gradually.
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i...
>
> But even if you move gradual from monkey to human, you still will
> birth to a human.
So?
~Iain
Iain
> On Mar 22, 11:33 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
> > > population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
> > > with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
> > > JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
> > > and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
> > I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
> > evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
> > (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
> > upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
> > Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
> > there some other implications you had in mind?
>
> > *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
> > walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
> > to mind?
>
> A chimp and a gorilla can both be called a "monkey" in the vernacular
> sense, does this mean they can mate and create a "chimpgor" ?
> Humans and monkeys are separate species and no amount of word games is
> going to obscure the fact that the species transition from ape to man
> implies that somewhere along the line an ape/bonobo/chimp/baboon/
> simian/monkey(choose vernacular that makes you feel less silly)
They're your wordgames, not ours. Your question contains a strawman.
Nothing resembling an ape ever, ever, ever gave birth to anything
resembling a man, ever ever.
As you well know, the gap is bridged by a set of intermediaries
spanning millions of years.
Are you identical to your father? I doubt it.
The link between modern humans, and smaller, hairier, less clever
ancestors, consists of a non-random accumulation of father-to-son
variations, over millions of generations, giving rise to gradual
overall change. The direction of this accumulation is determined by
successive environments(which have a selective-breeding effect on the
population). Your question implies that there must be some unusual
difference between the parent and the offspring. This is your
strawman. At no point does an ape need to give birth to anything any
more different to it than you are to your mother. If you were to stand
all your ancestors in a row, at no point would one of them lack family
resemblence to the one after it.
So, bearing all that in mind, what the hell is someone intelligent
supposed to say when faced with the inane question "how does an ape
give birth to a man"?
How did the last speaker of Medieval English communicate with the
first speaker of Modern English?
~Iain
Bob Casanova
>...natural selection is a semantic impossibility
I believe I see your problem (well, one of them). Listen
carefully: Nature is not constrained by semantics.
Shane
> On Mar 22, 4:30 pm, Treus <treusd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lee Jay wrote:
>>
>>> Imaging walking from a large desert, thousands of miles into a great
>>> forest. You were in the desert at the beginning, and the forest at
>>> the end. Yet, there was never really a single step where you stepped
>>> from the desert into the forest. Rather, the landscape gradually
>>> changed over time as you took many, many steps.
>>
>> If desert and forest are mutually exclusive categories, and there is
>> no third type of landscape between them, then you would cross from one
>> to the other in a single step.
>
> Same mistake as Backspace - there are no hard-edge regions.
I believe that is incorrect. I can recall whilst flying over the Nile
River that the dividing line between the cultivated/arable land and the
sandy desert was quite sharp. On the ground at Luxor it could be seen
quite clearly that you could have one foot in the sand and one foot on
grass. Desert oases also seem to fit the bill of abrupt transitions.
Not that I am suggesting this in any way negates the idea behind your
analogy. but some abrupt transitions do occur. A more analogous
situation may be walking from the Arctic ice to Death Valley.
[...]
Lee Jay
> On Mar 22, 11:33 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, very serious you should see the antics of Dr.Harshman on the
> > > population/ individual distinction which is a red herring. The problem
> > > with evolutionists are that they don't even know what they believe.
> > > JH, UC and Wilkins of course knows exactly what the implications are
> > > and are trying their utmost to obscure it.
> > I believe Mr. BS is referring to my statement that individuals don't
> > evolve, populations do. I will freely admit that everyone reading this
> > (and everyone writing it) is a monkey; a rather unusual tailless,
> > upright-walking, and quite clever* monkey, but a monkey all the same.
> > Are those the implications I'm trying my utmost to obscure, or were
> > there some other implications you had in mind?
>
> > *There are exceptions, of course. A few people have tails; some can't
> > walk; and some are not at all clever. Does any example of the last come
> > to mind?
>
> A chimp and a gorilla can both be called a "monkey" in the vernacular
> sense, does this mean they can mate and create a "chimpgor" ?
> Humans and monkeys are separate species and no amount of word games is
> going to obscure the fact that the species transition from ape to man
> implies that somewhere along the line an ape/bonobo/chimp/baboon/
> simian/monkey(choose vernacular that makes you feel less silly)
> sexual means, thus two monkeys came together with the babe monkey
> fondling the balls of the stud monkey and then a few months later a
> human was born.
>
> This is the sort of insane lunacy you start believing when you deny
> your Creator.
Once you have displayed your ignorance of a topic (no shame there, we
are all born ignorant) and been corrected, you are expected to learn
from the experience and become less ignorant. It's how most of us
learn. However, if you continue to display the same ignorance as you
had before you were corrected, then you've crossed the line into
either *dumb as a rock* (incapable of learning) or *willful
ignorance*. People who are simply unintelligent deserve remedial
educational support to become the best they can be. People who are
*willfully ignorant* do not deserve the oxygen they are breathing.
Which are you?
Lee Jay
Shane
> On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>>
>> How did a mutt give birth to a beagle?
>
> Mutts (vernacular of mongrel dog) and a beagle are still dogs, humans
> are not monkeys
But we are 97% or so monkey. You seem to be labouring under the
misapprehension that we have nothing in common with monkeys/primates.
Yet the vast majority of our the primate genomes are identical. We share
the same organs, body plan, senses, an large number of behaviours, and
physical features. Under what basis do you conclude that we are so
totally different from them that we have no commonality?
[...]
Lee Jay
That was an analogy to get across a biological point, and I meant
there are no (or if there are I'm not aware of them) hard-edge
definitions/regions of speciation. In other words, no creature ever
produces an offspring of a different species than its own.
Frank J
Interesting. I only recall that he evaded my usual questions. But I'll
check what he has written at other times. And if anti-evolutionists
with whom he disagrees have bothered to challenge him. As you probably
know, my goal is not to have an effect on him, but to make lurkers
aware of the games anti-evolutionists play.
Free Lunch
Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote in
<eee8b2e0-b835-439f...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
Arguably some plants do with polyploidy.
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bcc8ad3-0192-479a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> How did a monkey give birth to a human ?
>
Now you are just trolling, nowhere near up to the usual standard of your
obfuscation.
But to answer the question, the same way yo mumma did.
David