Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 713 of 1075 (623097)
07-08-2011 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:44 AM


So much blah blah, so little time
What is obvious is your choosing one little aside as some token gesture of an attempt to feel you have refuted me.
Well, what is "obvious" to you is in fact, once again, wrong.
As I and OTHERS have pointed out in MULTIPLE POSTS, your arguments are nothing more than Gish Gallop.
Rather than respond to actual points people are raising, you just vomit up an endless and ever changing list of unbacked assertions.
I've SPECIFICALLY asked you to pick just ONE THING to be wrong about rather than trying to be wrong about everything all at once.
You've refused.
So, I've decided I'm only going to respond to ONE THING and ignore the rest.
It's apparent that you are either unwilling or unable to handle all (perhaps any) of the information which has been coming you way, so I'm flunking you down to a remedial level of discussion.
Until you show us that you have the ability to handle ONE THING, there's really no reason to believe you can handle more.
So, let's get back on point.
Earlier made a claim that no humans made it to Australia before ~200 years ago.
Did you mean that Aborigines are not human? Or were you just woefully wrong about Australian history?
It's been something like 3 weeks, and you still haven't been able to settle this ONE POINT.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:44 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 714 of 1075 (623099)
07-08-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:53 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles.
Wonderful. You've learned something. Good for you. Gold star.
Now, more importantly, WHY are you saying this? No one on this side of the debate is claiming that birds are reptiles.
Are you just saying things at random?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:53 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 715 of 1075 (623100)
07-08-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 1:14 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
How about a feathered T Rex
Now you are arguing that T-Rex was a bat? You're going to have a hell of a time proving that one.
Let's hear your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 728 of 1075 (623207)
07-08-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:04 PM


Re:
My assertion is ..
Evos use every variation of ape to try to show some human line of decent.
And you make that assertion by proclaiming everything an "ape".
Setting aside your continued inability to grasp the definition of the word "ape", we'll go on the assumption that you actually mean that these previous species are not in the line of descent.
So, your assertion is that species which existed PRIOR to humans are not related to humans no matter how many features they have in common.
So, you are claiming that Homo Erectus, which walked upright, fashioned and used tools and tended fires is _no relation_ to humans but is instead a special kind of monkey which does things that no other monkey does.
Does this assertion answer questions of morphology? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of DNA? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of ERVs? No.
Does this assertion answer questions about why you can line up the fossils either chronologically OR morphologically and get the same order? No.
And, what does your assertion say about where humans came from if we bear no relationship to any other life form no matter how similar to us?
Well, that's simple: "A Jewish Wizard used Jewish Magic to do it".
Evidence for Jewish magic? None.
Evidence for Jewish Wizards? None.
To squark off beligerent accusations against me while you offer no evidence of refute the FACTS of my claim
I'll make you a deal. YOU offer FACTS and I'll refute them.
I'm STILL waiting for your FACTS to support your claim that Native Australians are not human. It's been what? 3 weeks now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:04 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 6:26 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 729 of 1075 (623208)
07-08-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:35 PM


Looking to one small part of the genome, MTDNA, the cells powerhouse, would have to be the most simplistic, misrepresentative method of comparison available and the only part of the entire genome that yeilds such close similarities.
Yawn.
You clearly know as little about mDNA as you do all the rest of this argument.
If you want to get into this in depth, the first you need to finish answering the questions you started a month ago.
STILL waiting for you to prove that Native Australians aren't human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 737 of 1075 (623273)
07-09-2011 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Morphometrics
I am entitled to my views and interpretation
Yup. But when you post them, we're entitled to point out that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.
Now, back to the issue at hand...
You claim that non-white Australians aren't human.
Care to back that up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 4:23 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 743 of 1075 (623283)
07-09-2011 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 740 by Portillo
07-09-2011 3:40 AM


The fact that you dispute the existence of Jesus shows your bias. How many other historical not mythological people do you deny existed? I bet you dont deny that Buddha or Muhammad existed.
So, your argument is that if Person A exists, then person B must exist?
That's pretty weak sauce.
There's no actual evidence for Jesus having existed. The _closest_ thing you've got is a known forgery of a historical record. Hardly evidence.
Is it possible or even likely that there was a person in that general area at that general time who had that name? Sure. There's at least 2 guys named Jesus on my street!
But the STORY spun in the Bible is not the story of a living breathing person.
It's a collection of features from EARLIER religions which the Jews/Early Christians co-opted.
This CAN'T be news to you.
Can you tell me how "Jesus" differs significantly from Horace or Mithra or any of the other solar deities of the area?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by Portillo, posted 07-09-2011 3:40 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 748 by Portillo, posted 07-09-2011 5:27 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 744 of 1075 (623284)
07-09-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 742 by Portillo
07-09-2011 3:48 AM


Some guys say...
Some scientists have said that homo erectus is fully human.
Oh, hey, we're playing the "some guys say" game.
I'm AWESOME at this game.
Some Christians say that Jesus was a pedophile.
Some Christians say that Jesus was actually a goat.
Some Christians say that all Christians are made of chocolate.
It's AMAZING all the things that "Some guys say" when you don't have to actually back up the claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by Portillo, posted 07-09-2011 3:48 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 747 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 5:08 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 745 of 1075 (623285)
07-09-2011 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by LucyTheApe
07-09-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
The Angel Gabriel approached Mary, our Mother and Eternal Virgin
And by "eternal virgin" you mean, the girl who became a virgin when the translators realized there was only one word in the Ancient Greek that meant both "young girl" and "girl who hadn't had sex".
Funny how retroactive those sort of changes can be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-09-2011 2:31 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 754 of 1075 (623320)
07-09-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 746 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 4:23 AM


Australians
Nuggin....After you clarify what on earth you are talking about.
Once again I see you dilly with asides. This is great as it demonstrates you are unable to mount any refute..again.
It's not dillying with asides. It's handling your errors in chronological order.
It's taking WEEKS to get you to deal with this one, in that time you've made a good 100+ additional errors.
The more of them people refute, the more you just say "Well, I believe otherwise" and then post something else.
So, I'm nailing you down to ONE specific error and getting you to confront it.
When discussing human migration, you claimed that no humans had reached Australia prior to ~200 years ago.
So, either A) You are in error about Australian history
or B) Aboriginese are not human
And since you've never admitted to being in error about ANYTHING so far, I'm waiting for you to back up B
12th time I've asked. Let's see if you can handle this ONE thing before we move onto your next error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 4:23 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 755 of 1075 (623321)
07-09-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 747 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 5:08 AM


Re: Some guys say...
As I stated previously your continual ignorance of my argument and inability to refute my assertions is becoming more and more obvious.
Maz, your tactic of Gish Gallop is dishonest. We've called you out on it, but rather than stop you just get worse and worse.
So, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, since YOU ARE UNABLE to pick ONE ISSUE and stick with it, then I am going to do it for you.
I will refute ALL of your assertions in ridiculous detail.
ONE AT A TIME.
And I won't move onto #2 until you ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG about #1.
So, back to it.
You claim that aborigenes are NOT HUMAN. Back it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 5:08 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 756 of 1075 (623322)
07-09-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 748 by Portillo
07-09-2011 5:27 AM


Do you believe that Buddha, Muhammad and Confucius existed?
Open a new thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by Portillo, posted 07-09-2011 5:27 AM Portillo has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 757 of 1075 (623323)
07-09-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 6:26 AM


Re:
How dare you say I cannot grasp the defenition of ape.
I dare because you've demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the definition.
You keep using the term "ape" as if it excluded humans.
You keep insisting that there are no "human apes alive today".
CLEARLY the 20+ posts in which people have pointed out that humans ARE apes hasn't sunk in.
So, either you are deliberately being dishonest (read: Creationist)
OR... you CANNOT GRASP the definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 6:26 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 758 of 1075 (623324)
07-09-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 6:26 AM


ERVS
ERV's show nothing more than some species were in the same place and were exposed to some bug.
This will be the thing I beat to death once you are done resolving the first issue about the Australians.
Just a fair warning. Better go read up on it because it's complicated and I don't think you have the basics to even grasp the issue, let alone debate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 6:26 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 3:01 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 774 of 1075 (623381)
07-09-2011 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 3:01 PM


Re: ERVS
Australian Aborigines are humans that have adapted to their environment.
So, you admit you were wrong when you said that there were no humans in Australia before 200 years ago.
Great. Now that we've settled that you were WRONG about that, we can move onto the next thing you are wrong about. ERVS.
Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes... Since all these animals have the same viral infections, it has been claimed by some evolutionists that they must have a common ancestor....Viruses can be uncannily acquired independently and arrive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes....
Let's be SPECIFIC.
We're not talking about certain places in the genome meaning "somewhere in the 2nd chromosome". We're talking about certain places in the genome meaning the EXACT SAME PLACE.
So, SAME STRAIN of the virus, infecting the EXACT SAME PLACE, in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN and EVERY SINGLE OTHER GREAT APE....
By chance?
Okay, one virus. MAYBE. Two viruses? You'd have been luck winning the lotto 6x in a row.
But we aren't talking about one or two viruses. We're talking about hundreds of viruses.
If YOUR claim were correct then we'd expect to find DIFFERENT strains of the virus in the exact same location in different groups of people all around the world.
But we don't. Do we?
We find the EXACT SAME STRAIN, int he EXACT SAME PLACE, in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN.
And we see it again and again and again and again.
Can you offer a plausible explanation for HOW every single human in the entire world would contract the EXACT SAME virus and have it insert into the EXACT same area in the DNA? With NO exception. NO one left out. NO one with a different version of the virus?
You should not infer that I cannot back my claim
I never infer.
I'm stating FLAT OUT that you can not back up your claims. Not one of them. Not from ANY post. Not for as long as you've been here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 3:01 PM Mazzy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024