Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolutionists cop out

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:57:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Evolution doesn't predict that man came from chimps. It predicts a common ancestor that split into what are now called humans and chimps.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:03:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:57:22 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Evolution doesn't predict that man came from chimps. It predicts a common ancestor that split into what are now called humans and chimps.

Bull. Evolution doesn't predict anything.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:05:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:03:08 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:57:22 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Evolution doesn't predict that man came from chimps. It predicts a common ancestor that split into what are now called humans and chimps.

Bull. Evolution doesn't predict anything.

Fine. Then it doesn't predict that man came from chimps. That's still a strawman!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:17:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.

Unlike humans, chimp is not that different.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:26:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Humans are a different species than chimps. That is the difference from the common ancestor to humans and chimps. Both species have the same common ancestor. That's why it's common.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:30:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So there was a species called chimpman, and now we have two separate species called human and chimp. That's what is predicted by evolution.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:33:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:26:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Humans are a different species than chimps. That is the difference from the common ancestor to humans and chimps. Both species have the same common ancestor. That's why it's common.

What if the so called common ancestor is an extinct animal that once co existed with chimps and humans.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:42:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:33:14 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:26:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Humans are a different species than chimps. That is the difference from the common ancestor to humans and chimps. Both species have the same common ancestor. That's why it's common.

What if the so called common ancestor is an extinct animal that once co existed with chimps and humans.

So what if it is? I don't see how that matters. So there was a species called chimpman, a few chimpmans went to one area to become chimps over millions of years, other chimpmans went to another area to become humans over millions of years, and the original chimpmans stayed where they were and mutated slightly but were still chimpmans. Then the chimps and humans wanted more territory so they killed off the chimpmans. Quite possible.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 9:16:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:42:50 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:33:14 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:26:59 AM, user13579 wrote:
Humans are a different species than chimps. That is the difference from the common ancestor to humans and chimps. Both species have the same common ancestor. That's why it's common.

What if the so called common ancestor is an extinct animal that once co existed with chimps and humans.

So what if it is? I don't see how that matters. So there was a species called chimpman, a few chimpmans went to one area to become chimps over millions of years, other chimpmans went to another area to become humans over millions of years, and the original chimpmans stayed where

So those who went to other areas were not original chimpmans?

they were and mutated slightly but

Mutated slightly?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:07:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Ok, they were all originally chimpmans. Some stayed in the best environment for chimpmans, other ones went to other environments to become separate species. You have absolutely no point here. In fact, I'm done with you!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:07:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Some evolution will occur even if the environment is constant (which of course it can't quite be), so when the original chmpmen split into a chimp line each line would evolve separately, that means today we have modern chimps. And modern humans but no archaic chimpmen, but chimomen didnt die out... They just carried on evolving along two lines rather than one.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:16:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 10:07:42 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Some evolution will occur even if the environment is constant (which of course it can't quite be), so when the original chmpmen split into a chimp line each line would evolve separately, that means today we have modern chimps. And modern humans but no archaic chimpmen, but chimomen didnt die out... They just carried on evolving along two lines rather than one.

I just gave another possibility where the chimpmen lived "alongside" humans and chimps. That's what the creationist with no point to make wanted, so I humored him/her. I'm not saying it actually happened.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:37:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 10:07:12 AM, user13579 wrote:
Ok, they were all originally chimpmans. Some stayed in the best environment for chimpmans, other ones went to other environments to become separate species. You have absolutely no point here.

Everyone would want the best environment for itself, why did some chimpmans go to other environments?

In fact, I'm done with you!

Not yet.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:46:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 10:07:42 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Some evolution will occur even if the environment is constant (which of course it can't quite be), so when the original chmpmen split into a chimp line each line would evolve separately, that means today we have modern chimps. And modern humans but no archaic chimpmen, but chimomen didnt die out... They just carried on evolving along two lines rather than one.

You are narrating the story as if you saw it.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 11:35:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Peter, the two nearest relative species to humans are bonobo apes and chimps. None is descended from the other, but rather, all have common ancestry. Bonobos and chimps began diverging from one another about a million years ago [https://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu...], while humans began diverging millions of years before that (conjectures are generally between 4 and 10 million years, but refining as technologies improve.) [http://humanorigins.si.edu...] In no case is this divergence billions of years old, and if you are quoting those figures and talking about man descending from chimps, then you have not researched and do not understand the history of life and this planet.

Human, bonobo and chimp genes have been studied extensively using the latest gene sequencing technology, by more than forty scientists from some 22 institutions in a dozen different countries. A scientific report on the methods and findings was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, in 2012. You can find it here. [http://www.nature.com...]. An abstract of the findings is reproduced below:

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.

If you don't understand that report, then a suitable approach is to explain what you don't understand and ask for assistance -- not to lecture members in how science must work when you haven't a clue the methods in evolutionary research, and barely grasp the biological history of earth in the first place.

Essentially, Peter, the soul of wisdom is to know your incompetence, which in this matter is extensive.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 3:43:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Humans evolved at a remarkable rate over the past few million years while apes didn't evolve nearly as much. We know modern apes are like the older ones because we have dug up the older ones and they are very similar to modern ones.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:09:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Yea - Yet again a post showing that creationists don't listen or read a damn thing we post. The species Homo is only about 4 million years old, not billions. Further, I don't know how many damn times anyone has to explain that humans did not evolve FROM chimps. This stuff, the basics, are not complex. If you can't read, or bother to reproduce what people say accurately, you are playing a dishonest game.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:37:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:43:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Humans evolved at a remarkable rate over the past few million years while apes didn't evolve nearly as much.

And why so? That's something I would like to know.

We know modern apes are like the older ones because we have dug up the older ones and they are very similar to modern ones.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

First, "millions", not "billions".

And chimps are different from both humans and likely our common ancestor.

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

For what possible reason would it be useless to compare?

Why is it useless to know that chimps are the closest taxonomically, physically and genetically to humans? They are closer than other apes, which are closer than other primates, which are closer than other mammals, which are closer than other vertebrates, and so on.

It seems you reel off a couple of facts, one of which is a date that is out by two orders of magnitudes (surely if you can make a mistake that simple, it should tell you something), then draw a conclusion that doesn't even seem to follow.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:17:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:37:11 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:43:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Humans evolved at a remarkable rate over the past few million years while apes didn't evolve nearly as much.

And why so? That's something I would like to know.

We can only make educated guesses since all we have are fossils and the remnants of the environments they are in and it can be hard to know why they changed.

We know that a few million years ago Africa was mostly covered by jungle, today only large parts of Western Africa are jungle while the rest has turned into desert and dry grassland. The early hominid fossils are found in these dry areas that used to be jungle. We also find that these early fossils are just apes that walk on two legs. Later fossils show a massive expansion of brain size and the frontal lobe.

What scientists think is that as parts of Africa began losing their forests, apes that were better able to walk on two legs survived better and eventually the ability to walk on two legs evolve. Those that didn't died as the trees they lived in disappeared.

Walking on two legs make their hands more available for doing things instead of using for walking. Apes have the most advanced hands in the animal kingdom because they swing on trees, they are also the smarted animals besides humans. So these very smart animals having these highly advanced hands free made it easy for them to use them to make tools. Those that were smarter were better able to make tools. Plus, without tools it is very hard for slow two-legged animals to survive on the ground so there was major natural selection pressure for more intelligence to make tools. Because of this the brain evolved to be more and more intelligent until we got modern humans.

A big brain has mostly benefited humans because of the amazing tools we have made. It is far less useful for pigs because they can't make anything. The apes that lived in the parts of the forests that survived were still perfectly adapted to their environments and continued to swing in trees and eat bananas. They never evolved the ability to walk because that would make them less agile in the trees. Their hands are far less free for making tools and they survive very well without them anyway. So their intelligence did not go through the revolution that happened for humans.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 12:37:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:43:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Humans evolved at a remarkable rate over the past few million years while apes didn't evolve nearly as much.

it may be more complex than that, Distraff. Evolution doesn't entail that species will 'advance' -- only adapt or die. At the moment there's some great international work being done on gene sequencing across the great apes, and it's turning up some surprises. For example as this paper [http://www.nature.com...] reports (underlining mine):

Even though early human-like species were present at the same time as the ancestors of some present day great apes, the evolutionary history of ancestral great ape populations was far more complex than that of humans. Compared to our closest relatives, chimpanzees, human history appears "almost boring" conclude [two participating researchers]. The last few million years of chimpanzee evolutionary history are fraught with population explosions followed by implosions demonstrating remarkable plasticity. The reasons for these fluctuations in chimpanzee population size long before our own population explosion are still unknown however.

Other than the bottleneck that eventually saw humans escape Africa and populate the world, human evolution seems fairly staid. However, it seems like great apes had a hard time of it even before then, with a great deal of inbreeding suggesting significant struggles to survive.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:10:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:17:43 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.

Unlike humans, chimp is not that different.

ME: Exactly, there are many chimps today that are very much like chimps.

The us of common ancestor, what was the common ancestor of chimp and man, and before that what was the two family groups that merged to make that common ancestor?

Technically, saying that man comes form chimps is not exactly correct, as evolution spreads the blanket a bit by saying man comes from apes. Why are there still apes...IF yo look at man's "achievements", the apes win!
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:18:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.

ME: Species of what family group/s? If you "Know" all this, what was the family and the species that started this magical evolutionary change.? If you don't "Know" you should not say you do.

Were there two species of the one family, two species of different families, one species of one family with mutations, One family, species, group type, kind, mob or primordial grub in the slime, that is not discovered yet, one confused story trying to sound scientific?

All these questions, and more will be answered in the next episode of (Deep voice) the Great Mystery of Life.... or Not!
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:23:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:10:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:17:43 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.

Unlike humans, chimp is not that different.

ME: Exactly, there are many chimps today that are very much like chimps.

The us of common ancestor, what was the common ancestor of chimp and man, and before that what was the two family groups that merged to make that common ancestor?

What? What are you talking about?


Technically, saying that man comes form chimps is not exactly correct, as evolution spreads the blanket a bit by saying man comes from apes. Why are there still apes...IF yo look at man's "achievements", the apes win!

Yet again. This is NOT what is said, is it? I mean really. You have been in enough of these conversations, answer truthfully. Is anyone saying this?
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:53:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:10:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:17:43 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:10:03 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:06:34 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

+1
You have a point. Like humans, chimps too should differ significantly from the common ancestor.

They do differ from the common ancestor. The difference is a species called human and a species called chimp.

Unlike humans, chimp is not that different.

ME: Exactly, there are many chimps today that are very much like chimps.

The us of common ancestor, what was the common ancestor of chimp and man, and before that what was the two family groups that merged to make that common ancestor?

Technically, saying that man comes form chimps is not exactly correct, as evolution spreads the blanket a bit by saying man comes from apes. Why are there still apes...IF yo look at man's "achievements", the apes win!

Why are there still apes? Because a common ancestor around 6 million years ago evolved into different species, one line going towards human characteristics, and another line staying relatively the same over time. Not EVERY ancestor ape evolved into human.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 1:23:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 11:35:40 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2016 7:53:11 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

Where is the answer?

Peter, the two nearest relative species to humans are bonobo apes and chimps. None is descended from the other, but rather, all have common ancestry. Bonobos and chimps began diverging from one another about a million years ago [https://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu...], while humans began diverging millions of years before that (conjectures are generally between 4 and 10 million years, but refining as technologies improve.) [http://humanorigins.si.edu...] In no case is this divergence billions of years old, and if you are quoting those figures and talking about man descending from chimps, then you have not researched and do not understand the history of life and this planet.

Human, bonobo and chimp genes have been studied extensively using the latest gene sequencing technology, by more than forty scientists from some 22 institutions in a dozen different countries. A scientific report on the methods and findings was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, in 2012. You can find it here. [http://www.nature.com...]. An abstract of the findings is reproduced below:

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.

If you don't understand that report, then a suitable approach is to explain what you don't understand and ask for assistance -- not to lecture members in how science must work when you haven't a clue the methods in evolutionary research, and barely grasp the biological history of earth in the first place.

Essentially, Peter, the soul of wisdom is to know your incompetence, which in this matter is extensive.

ME: Please give you qualifications to judge. And, what is an evolutionist bigot doing using the word 'soul' or are you saying that there is a evolving soul as well? It wouldn't surprise me from the rest of the rot you come up with.

ME: Thank you so much for you page of clap trap. You amongst many others say that the Bible was written by men and can't be true. Who developed this manner of investigating the similarities between families of animals?Men, no divine inspiration here.

Who wrote the book of "true fact of evolution"? No one, it does not exist. Man will find ways to make graphs, technical instructions and all sorts of "information" to "prove" his theories, but that are man made and fraught with falsehoods.

DNA is the new fun thing for evolutionists; however there are noted simalarities between all animals and humans. The DNA that works along the procreation line, the DNA that works along the breathing line, the DAN that works along the amount of intelligence line and etc. The latter must be missing in your DNA, and present it self more towards the monkeys. It is only reasonable that DNA will have a certain code that is applicable to both human and animal where it is used for the same purpose.
DNA is the blueprint for each living organism on earth and holds the key to creation of all life. Man is not smart enough to work it out yet, and rely on a "close enough match", which may give an error % of millions to one, but there is still that % of error.

Your monkey, isn't that the bloke that married Sher...Bono,

When someone is convicted in court using DNA as evidence, it is not allowable as the only evidence, is it? Other mitigating circumstances must be applied to convict.

So saying, that the theories of evolution, relying on man made assumptions and technical evidence, devised by man, and the millions if not billions of years that you use to cover your tracks with, can not to any logical mind be anywhere near the truth of life on earth.

Now, insulting words will not get my attention as far as anything learned is concerned. So go put the dunces hat on as sit in the corner until you are called...No one will of course, but sit anyway.