Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 803 of 1075 (623575)
07-11-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 2:13 PM


Mazzy needs to Clarify!
All this nonsense on ERV's demonstrates is that organisms were exposed to the same virus eg Hendra, swine flu, HIV.
So, you are saying that despite the fact that there are countless viruses and countless strains of each viruses, it's just a massive coincidence that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN AND OTHER PRIMATE all happened to acquire ALL the exact same viruses, AND have them ALL insert themselves in the EXACT same place in the genome completely at random.
And you don't understand why we don't take your position seriously?
Let's pretend for one microsecond that you could describe a mechanic by which this could take place.
That STILL doesn't explain the fact that the viruses that these groups have IN COMMON form a completely independent tree of descent which matches PERFECTLY with the DNA tree of descent, the fossil tree of descent and the morphological tree of descent.
Now, let's stop pretending.
Why don't you present us with ANY mechanism by which ALL chimps and ALL humans can contract the exact same version of the exact same virus and have it appear in the EXACT same point in the genome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 2:13 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 6:20 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 805 of 1075 (623593)
07-11-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by Taq
07-11-2011 6:20 PM


Re: Mazzy needs to Clarify!
Please discuss the topic and not the people discussing the topic. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 6:20 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 806 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2011 8:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 807 of 1075 (623602)
07-11-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by AZPaul3
07-11-2011 8:49 PM


Re: Mazzy needs to Clarify!
Please discuss the topic and not the people discussing the topic. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2011 8:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 809 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2011 10:27 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 952 of 1075 (625614)
07-24-2011 1:34 PM


A ball is not a pork chop
There has been no progress because there's really nothing to progress here.
This isn't a debatable question.
It's a question of definitions.
Mazzy rejects the definition of a word and substitutes her own definition. In this case the word is "ape". A few hundred posts later and NO PROGRESS has been made.
That's because there's no progress to be made.
This is like arguing with a child who insists that the word "ball" means "pork chop".
It doesn't. That's not what the word means.
You can point it out in dictionaries. You can explain the origins of the word. You can demonstrate that the entire rest of the world has a shared understanding of the definition different than the child's claim.
But _none_ of that matters. The child sticks her fingers in her ears and screams "no! no! no! I want to eat a ball with apple sauce!"
That's the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.
So long as Mazzy insists on being the child, there's no debate to be had.
There's no reason to post pictures. There's no reason to ask for explanations. There's no reason to try and educate or even reason.
This entire post should consist of exactly 2 messages:
Mazzy: "Humans aren't apes"
Anyone else: "Actually, they are. Look it up."
END OF DISCUSSION.

Replies to this message:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 960 of 1075 (625934)
07-26-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 11:22 AM


Round and round and round
My offer is that there are no intermediates alive today because there never were any. That is a fairly typical creationist reply, given creationists do not accept sharing a common ancestor with apes.
Yes, we know. It was wrong when you said it the first time. It was wrong when you said it the 100th time. It's wrong the 1000th time.
It's going to keep being wrong no matter how many times you say it.
Frankly, none of us on this side of the debate even believe that YOU believe this claim. You've certainly failed to present any evidence to support it.
It's becoming very apparently that you're just repeating yourself because you've got nothing else to say.
If that's your plan, you should really pick something better to squawk about because this claim is just worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 962 of 1075 (625940)
07-26-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 1:34 PM


wrong again
What I am saying is that ERV's ultimtely show nothing as far as ancestry goes. An ape can be exposed to virus such as HIV as can a human, maybe even at the same time in history. Both will show the exposure in their genomics somewhere and sometimes it may show in a similar place to other species. This does not necesarily mean the connection is via descent unless one needs it to be.
FAIL. Again.
First of all, if this claim of yours were true, then the ERV trees would NOT match the morphological trees or trees of descent.
You are claiming that the exposure to these viruses is essentially random. Then why do humans and chimps share MORE ERVs than humans and gorillas? Why do humans and gorillas share more than humans and baboons?
If what you were claiming were true (and I think you and I both know it's not) we'd expect roughly the same number of ERVS to be shared by humans and chimps as ERVs shared by gorillas and humans with no correlation between the three.
That's NOT the case.
Further, you have REPEATED your false claim that these things are inserted in "similar" places. Not similar. The SAME.
The genome is EXTREMELY long. The odds of two independent organisms being exposed to the EXACT SAME STRAIN of the EXACT SAME VIRUS and having it show up in the hereditary genome in the EXACT SAME PLACE are ASTRONOMICAL. And that's for ONE ERV. We're talking MANY MANY MANY ERVs.
I know you are a big proponent of "Jesus Magic" as far as answers go, but unless you can demonstrate that this magic is being used to work out virus position, your claim holds no water whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 1:34 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 972 of 1075 (626028)
07-26-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 5:34 PM


Re: wrong again
Nuggin, I am not sure if ERV's fits in with the topic parameter set by admin.
The topic is about evidence that humans are apes. ERV is evidence.
I admit it's not needed, since this is basically a question of the definition of the word "Ape" and that was settled in the first response.
At this point, my team is just beating a dead horse going over and over and over the thousands of ways you are continuing to use the word incorrectly.
ERVs are just one of those ways.
I will say if ERV's in every species demonstrates a dilineation of ancestral lineage then predictively the not finding of same would disprove the connection. You have found such ERV's not present in humans and only present in non humans. Therefore the basis for the theory is falsified and you need to get some more theories in to save the whole concept. That is how I see it.
Nope. You're wrong. Again.
You are trying to say that humans can not get ERVS and have not obtained ERVs since separating from chimps. False. OBVIOUSLY.
Even you should know better than to try and pull this kind of an argument.
Some ERV's can be anywhere in human genome
Application Unavailable | Springer Nature
Not what that link says. Did you not read the link? Or did you read it and just not understand it? Or were you just trying to throw up some crap hoping we wouldn't catch the ***?
This link also does not support your claim. Nice try though. Actually, no, not even a nice try. Just another ***.
And really researchers are not clear on what they are looking at...
LOL. Are you even reading what you are posting? Seriously?
You are taking the fact that the researches are acknowledging differing rates of change within inserts to mean that inserts didn't happen.
Further, you are pointing to a report about ONE insert as if it explained the THOUSANDS of inserts which make up the evidence.
I know the admins like to pretend that Creationists are trying to be honest, but come on. YOu aren't fooling anyone with this shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 5:34 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 989 of 1075 (626217)
07-27-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 988 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 6:36 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
You need to explain why plain proof for no ancestry between chimps and humans gets convoluted into something it is not.
Not to trip the triple negative but...
We don't need to explain why plain proof of no ancestry is anything, since there is no proof of no ancestry.
Or written another way:
We don't need to disprove you lack of evidence to support you assertion that something didn't occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 6:36 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 992 of 1075 (626221)
07-27-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
1. Can explain why PTERV-1 is not found at an ancestral point in humans and orangs?
Because the human orang line split before the human chimp line
2. Why guinea pigs have the same ERV in the same genomic region as humans?
Guinea pigs and humans are both mammals, an ERV in the same place in both would have been present in the ancestor mammal to both groups.
The number of ERVs shared between GPs and Humans is much less than those shared by closer ancestors.
3. How can researchers tell if an ERV has been transmited via HGT, epigentic inheritance etc, as opposed to ancestry?
Because it's present in the same place in ALL cells. That can only occur if the infection takes place at the SINGLE cell stage.
Could it happen ONCE that by happenstance a fertilized egg happened to get and ERV just before it split into 2? Sure. ONCE. Not hundreds of thousands of times.
If you cannot explain the inconsistencies and contradictions to a theory ...
Just ONCE I would love it if one of you Creationists held yourself to ANY SORT of standard.
You've failed to explain the inconsistancies in your claims for 1000 posts in this thread, yet here you are bitching about other people who ARE explaining.
It's ASTONISHING.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 6:23 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 995 of 1075 (626233)
07-27-2011 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 993 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Repeating the Topic
In this light it is interesting to note that over 30,000 different ERVs are known within human genome. 37,43 The range of the total human genome occupied by ERV sequences is anywhere from 1% to 8% - depending upon the reference (with more recent references favoring 8% or greater). The same range is true for the chimp genome as well.41 In fact, more recent work suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general ( Link ). In any case, of these tens of thousands of recognizable ERVs, only seven are currently known to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations within the separate genomes ( Link ). Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions? Yet, this is the argument for ERVs being evidence of common descent as per Talk.Origins:
Mazzy, I'm trying very hard to pretend you aren't intentionally being dishonest.
But then you come along and make a claim like ther eare "only 7 of them which are shared between chimps and humans".
Come on.
EVEN YOU know that that's bullsh1t.
When you deliberately *** in a fashion where you can't help but get caught it just shows us that you have absolutely no intention to argue in good faith. It shows us that you KNOW you are wrong but are just arguing because "Jesus loves ***".
It's _CHILDISH_.
You need to stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 993 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 7:28 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1003 by Admin, posted 07-28-2011 6:39 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 1011 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 3:59 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 1001 of 1075 (626263)
07-28-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 12:40 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
If my friends gave me this reply I would know they were evading the question. If some I don't know gives such a simplistic reply they are either avoiding the question or do not know any better.
Or they simply think that you don't have the intelligence to bother giving you a complicated answer.
You've proven that talking to you as an equal gets people nowhere.
Hell, we're 1000 posts into a thread about how you don't know what the word "ape" means.
You must learn to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.
I say that you cannot differentiate.
Yes, you do say a lot of things. None of which are even close to rational.
It's a good thing the scientific community is not forced to take you at your word, isn't it?
I am saying, and have given many examples of where ERV's show inconsistent results that do not link close species together and rather link very distantly related species together.
No, Mazzy, what you've done is taken the fact that there are some 200,000 identical ERVs between chimps and humans and claimed that instead there were 7.
You're only off by 199,993.
You keep expecting us to treat you with some respect while simultaneously handing us steaming handfuls of feces and pretending it's evidence.
It's laughable.
So the remaining question to give a simplistic answer to is "Why are ERV's used to show common descent re humans and apes when there are more examples that falsify it available then there is actual evidence for it?"
Because scientists deal in the reality of the evidence, not in the made up bullsh1t that you pretend is real.
Just because YOU claim that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't make the evidence go away.
Just because YOU claim that 7 is more than 200,000 doesn't make it so.
Just because YOU claim that YOU ALONE should be allowed to classify fossils doesn't make that true either.
Just because YOU claim that the word "ape" has a special meaning known only to you and the other 7 BILLION people on the planet don't use it right, doesn't make that true either.
You aren't special. You aren't magic. You're just another boring Creationist who has gotten it wedged in what you call a brain that Jesus loves ***.
It's BORING.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 12:40 AM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Admin, posted 07-28-2011 6:47 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1049 of 1075 (626573)
07-30-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Let me say this Granny Magda, your own representations changed enormously without additional fossil evidence. It was DNA that morphed, as if overnight, an ape man into a human being
This is your folley and not mine.
Mazzy,
Do you not know the difference between an adult male and a young female? Really?
Here:
Wow! It's almost like they are two different people?!
One of them seems so old and male and with a beard, while the other one looks almost young and female and without a beard!
You TOTALLY busted us. Scientists DISTINGUISHED between adult males and adolescent females when classifying skulls.
How dare they?
After all, it's it the Bible that says:
'Lo, thou shalt not be able to tell thy men from thy girls.' Book of Mazzy 1:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 1050 of 1075 (626574)
07-30-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:56 PM


Re: On to classification.
If you are unable to refute the evidence I have provided then just say so and I'll graciously call it a stalemate.
Your evidence has been refuted a thousand times.
And, as THIS VERY POST of yours shows, you are absolutely unwilling to address the evidence presented by others.
He asked you an EXTREMELY straight forward question.
You are attempting to use a classification system which has NO DEFINITIONS, NO EXAMPLES and NO GUIDELINES.
Yet, when he asks you to use this system to sort even SIMPLE groups, you refuse. Why?
Because you CAN'T.
You know, as well as EVERY OTHER PERSON reading this thread, that if you TRY and answer the question about tigers/cheetahs or termites/cochroaches or various bacteria, it's going to become ABUNDANTLY apparent that your classification for humans vs apes is ENTIRELY arbitrary and based on nothing more than "Jesus hates monkeys".
So, you can spit and hiss and whine all you want, but if you aren't willing to address even this most BASIC challenge to your magical sorting system, there's really nothing to discuss.
You are dismissed with prejudice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:56 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1053 of 1075 (626609)
07-30-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Admin
07-30-2011 5:28 AM


Re: Discussion of ERVs is now Off Topic
The evolution side should explain why humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are placed within a single group,
See pages 1 through 50 for 49 pages of repeats of the points made on page 1.
and the creation side should explain not just why they shouldn't be grouped together, but how they should be regrouped and why.
"Jesus hates monkeys."
Why this thread is this long boggles the mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Admin, posted 07-30-2011 5:28 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 1055 of 1075 (626618)
07-30-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1054 by ZenMonkey
07-30-2011 12:43 PM


How Barimology works
If you can't show us how barimology works to determine groupings among other organisms, how can we know whether or not your placement of humans in one group and the other Hominidae in another is valid?
There are two rules of barimology.
#1) Whatever I say goes
#2) Jesus hates it when you explain
That's it.
No two creationists will ever agree with each other on any of the rules. And no single creationist will keep and use the same set of rules for more than a day.
I've had creationists argue that barimology uses shared features - like wings on all birds, only to then turn around and claim that bats are not in the same barim because their wings "don't count".
Trying to get them to explain "their rules" is like trying to get a child to explain how "the floor got turned into lava" as they jump from couch to chair.
It's a GAME for children. There aren't any "rules".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-30-2011 12:43 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by Mazzy, posted 07-30-2011 4:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024