Message 751 of 1075 (623294) 07-09-2011 6:41 AM

Reply to: Message 747 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 5:08 AM

Since Mazzy keeps going on about "Lluc" (Anoiapithecus brevirostris), here's a picture.

There's his "FLAT FACED APE", which, you will note, is not flat-faced.

And here's Turkana Boy again ...

... the same Turkana Boy who was "well within the variation of human skulls today" a week last Thursday.

And today Mazzy "would say that he looks just like Lluc".

Well well.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 752 of 1075 (623295) 07-09-2011 7:08 AM

Reply to: Message 750 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 6:26 AM

"Similar" and "nothing like" are antonyms.

I believe you about the hereafter and the hair.

You have, of course, no evidence for these assertions.

This illiterate nonsense is off-topic.

If you can really do no better than to produce a bizarre non sequitur, I think you ought to give up now.

What are you talking about?

Actually, the stooped specimen (La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1) is still stooped, since your gibberish has failed to cure his arthritis.

You have not pointed out the imaginary bias.

And we can hop on one leg. So what? We have anatomical adaptations for being bipedal which chimps lack.

And you are laughably wrong, as we have seen.

As you would know if you were literate, that is a measure of alignment, and does not contradict other figures for similarity.

But why do chimpanzees have to be closer to us than they are to anything else?

The article to which you refer (in Wired, for heaven's sake) states: "The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA."

I suggest that you read up on ERVs until you understand the point; or until you die of old age, whichever comes sooner.

But I have a dream that one day we will be able to sequence entire genomes ...

... oh, wait.

A more accurate description of what you have done would be "screamed ignorant and illiterate nonsense".

Hey, you said something true!

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 753 of 1075 (623296) 07-09-2011 7:24 AM

I am going to recuse myself from debate and discussion in this thread as Percy for the next two days, then beginning Monday morning I will take on a moderator role as Admin. Members might want to brush up on their Forum Guidelines, particularly these:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Quote boxes will be required. For a description of how to use quote boxes see the announcement whose link is at the top of this page, or read the dBCode documentation.

Discussion will continue for 300 more messages after I begin moderating, followed by a short period for participants to post their final summations. Only one summation per person, no responses permitted.

Message 754 of 1075 (623320) 07-09-2011 11:58 AM

Reply to: Message 746 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 4:23 AM

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

Message 755 of 1075 (623321) 07-09-2011 12:01 PM

Reply to: Message 747 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 5:08 AM

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.

Message 756 of 1075 (623322) 07-09-2011 12:03 PM

Reply to: Message 748 by Portillo 07-09-2011 5:27 AM

Open a new thread

Message 757 of 1075 (623323) 07-09-2011 12:10 PM

Reply to: Message 750 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 6:26 AM

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.

Message 758 of 1075 (623324) 07-09-2011 12:17 PM

Reply to: Message 750 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 6:26 AM

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.

Message 759 of 1075 (623332) 07-09-2011 1:49 PM

Reply to: Message 748 by Portillo 07-09-2011 5:27 AM

Buddha is a probable no. I consider his historicity to be similar to that of Jesus. Compare Buddha to Alexander the Great who is of roughly the same time period. We have tons of historical evidence and artifacts for Alexander, nothing for Buddha. Also, Buddah is not the fat guy most Americans think of as Buddha. That is Budai

Muhammad is also questionable for the same reasons I question the historicity of Jesus. There are no contemporary accounts. There seems to be a bloodline from Muhammad but this is attributed to tradition not actual historical sources.

Confucius is most probably not a historical character. There is actually some recent scholarship that suggests Confucius was a creation of Jesuit missionaries.
Confucius and the Scholars

Unless I see actual historical evidence I am skeptical of the historical existence of these figures. I am also skeptical of the historical existence of Jesus.

Message 760 of 1075 (623337) 07-09-2011 2:25 PM

Reply to: Message 751 by Dr Adequate 07-09-2011 6:41 AM

So you are happy to accept a creature that is reconstructed from a few bones when it fits with your paradigm. But you don't when it doesn't suit you. Isn't that the sort of thing you lot say creationists do, pick and choose and then ignore the rest?

LLuc is a flat faced ape. It is your evolutionary researchers that describe it as such. They also specifically state that it is not in the homo line and yet has morphology only compared to homo.

"ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) — Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one. The finding sheds important new light on the evolutionary development of hominids, including orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

If you do not like what your researchers are saying then you had best go argue with them and make your case. For now we have a flat faced ape dated to 12mya...like it or not.....it could be the ancestor of any other ape with similar features.

Message 761 of 1075 (623340) 07-09-2011 2:51 PM

Reply to: Message 760 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 2:25 PM

Please tell us what it is a picture of.

Again you do realize that Humans are apes, don't you?

Please show where they say this. Are you lying?

This is what the article says.

quote:

---

The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo, the researchers note. However, the similarity might be a case of evolutionary convergence, where two species evolving separately share common features.

---

Please show where any of this supports anything you are trying to spout. Why do you think anyone feels there is a need for this to be a direct ancestor of humans? You do realize a flat face makes it more resembling humans than any other great ape don't you?

Message 762 of 1075 (623344) 07-09-2011 3:01 PM

Reply to: Message 758 by Nuggin 07-09-2011 12:17 PM

Re ERV's
Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys. Since all these animals have the same viral infections, it has been claimed by some evolutionists that they must have a common ancestor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjXP3vEA3Rk

There is no evidence anywhere that one species comes out of another species anyways. 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. An example would be HIV, it infects humans and chimps in the exact same location of the chromosome. Also the Adenovirus does the same. Having the same retrovirus in different species shows nothing about common ancestory, all it proves is that different species share similar homogeny.

However, in 2007 Retroviruses were found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes. One of them is called PTERV1 I believe.

According to the phylogenetic tree Chimps are closer to Humans than to Gorillas, they claim to have overvaluing evidence supporting this claim, if this claim is true, and if evolutionists interpreted ERVs correctly, then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV, unless, this ERV is also present in humans, therefore finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans should falsify evolution, or at least the argument on ERVs, however there is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans, these ERVs are in orthologous position, therefore this fact should falsify evolution.

Evolutionists claim that this does not falsify evolution because maybe a retrovirus infected the common ancestor of gorillas, humans and chimps, but humans lost the ERV recently, however this makes the argument on ERVs impossible to falsify, besides evolutionists fail to explain how many of this irregularities are allowed, without contradicting evolution, they fail to provide a process in which an ERV can disappear, they fail to provide a rate in which ERVs disappear, besides if one human somehow lost an ERV, only some of the descendents of this human should lack this ERV, but not all humans.

Here is support from your own evo researchers that there are ERV's that humans and other primates do not share.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

and this one also.

http://holysmoke.org/01-herv-k-provirus.pdf

So if you want to get around believing ERV's prove you are an ape I respect your wish to do so. You should not infer that I cannot back my claim because indeed I can and from your own body of research.

ERVs are just another unfalsifiable claim, where you invent more convoluted nonsense and hypthesis to explain what isn't there that should be eg PTERV1, and is there and shouldn't be eg genetic homoplasy.

However to continue to suggest by inuendo or otherwise that creationists have no basis to question your evolutionary assertions and hypothesis around ERV's is comparable to asking a creationists to shut down the intelligence, common sense and reasoning ability they were given.

ERV's do not demonstrate common descent. Now you toddle off and find some research that refutes the stuff I posted that states in black and white that some ERV's in apes are not found in humans or convince me that the excuses these researchers invent to explain it have any veracity outside of dream time.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Message 763 of 1075 (623346) 07-09-2011 3:20 PM

Reply to: Message 761 by Theodoric 07-09-2011 2:51 PM

I am not an ape just because your silly researchers have classed humans as such.

The Genus Homo is unlike any other taxon at Genus rank in that it is the only genus where one of the species described within are so obviously different from the others.

Evolutionary convergence, is just another myth to explain what is there that shouldn't be. Genetic and morphological homoplasy is another...evos have lots of excuses invented under the guise of theory to explain the unexpected and unpredicted eg chimp/human Y chromosome='accelerated' evolution. You must continue to invent these excuses to keep TOE alive. I understand.

I understand and have empathy for you and admire the depths of your and others unwavering faith in TOE in the face of contradictions, the death of much of your evidence eg LUCA, Ardi,etc and continual changes eg punctuated equilibrium the luck of genetic drfit, epigentic Mendellian style inheritance, HGT in Prokaryotes etc. You are very faithful to your cause.

Message 764 of 1075 (623347) 07-09-2011 3:33 PM

Reply to: Message 763 by Mazzy 07-09-2011 3:20 PM

The gish gallop continues.