From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

That link completely overlooked the fact that no species can produce offspring of another species with whom it cannot breed. And since humans and animals cannot interbreed, then a human cannot be the descendant of an ape. So it's absolutely pointless to talk about genetic potentiality when the premise is impossible to begin with!

So how did we "evolve" from an ape if we are not its descendants? And how can we be its descendants if it cannot produce human descendants? Last I heard, mating between parents is what produces descendants. So which 2 beasts mated to produce a creature that turned into a human being and how was that possible? I know that evolutionists call this creature a "common ancestor". So if it's common to humans and animals, it must be half-man, half beast. Is that correct? Or was it half-bird, half beast? Or does no one know since it's still missing? Too many unanswered questions and contradictions for evolution to be considered plausible.

Exactly. The key phrase in your post was "if animals can breed and produce offspring..." And animals and humans cannot mate and produce offspring together so we cannot possibly be the descendants of apes!This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 02:32 PM

I understand how evolutionists explain the theory of evolution because I bought into it for over 30 years. But when I really started thinking about it, it doesn't make sense at all. Humans breed humans and apes breed apes. And it has been that way since the beginning of time. Each species is unique and has its own unique set of genes. No species can be intermingled with another species unless the 2 can breed offspring together. That is a no-brainer and an elementary principle of biology that evolutionists haven't learned yet. Once they do, they will see not only how impossible their theory is, but how perverse in its insinuation that animals and humans can be intermingled.

Man invented time, my friend. It's definitely been true since there have been witnesses. There's about as much proof for evolution as there is that aliens came millions of years ago and deposited human beings and millions of years from now they'll come back and prove it. Only that theory doesn't contradict the reproductive process like evolution does! The theory of evolution simply contradicts the way species mate and produce offspring. And that is why it's not simple but elaborate. But the truth is always simple and lies are always convoluted.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 03:14 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 03:14 PM

As I've said before, I bought into evolution for over 30 years so have studied it probably longer than you have. The notiont that just because someone disagrees with you means they don't understand it is hogwash. Unfortunately, I understand evolution all too well and it contradicts basic reproduction. First and foremost, apes obviously did not reproduce themselves, they bred offspring to which they gave the name of a new species! That's like my husband and I giving birth to andreloids, not humans. Secondly, evolution contradicts the way animals and humans mate and produce offspring which is why it is such a complex and convoluted theory. But again, the truth is always simple and needs no explanation because it's obvious and can be supported by reality.

Sorry, but i always get this statement from evolutionists who cannot answer my questions. It's easy to say, but impossible to back up. So which statements do I have wrong about evolution? The notion that we desended from apes? I have heard some evolutionists say we do and some say we don't. Others have made up a fictious beast called a common ancestor who have traits common to both humans and primates but cannot explain how this common ancestor acquired those traits. And still others say we came from undefinable primates that looked different from apes today, but they cannot provide any evidence for them, or even know what they looked like. And still others say that we used to be able to breed with them, but others say we have never been able to breed with them. It's no wonder you don't think I understand evolution when evolutionists themselves can't get their stories straight! So which is it? The truth is always clear, concise, and simple. It doesn't avoid, invent, or contradict. So is there anything in the theory of evolution tht's factual enough that it doesn't conradict other evolutionists?

But humans of one color are able to mate with humans of another color regardless of whether or not they want to, just like dogs of one size can mate with dogs of another size regardless of whether or not they want to. But this is moot again because humans and animals cannot mate and produce offspring together, thus proving that humans cannot be the descendants of apes.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-09-2005 09:15 AM

Sorry, but you're talking about human manipulation of genes. You forget that humans weren't around before primates created them to manipulate genes. So again, how did apes breed human beings (or primates who haven't been found yet)? And why isn't anything resembling a primate today prdoucing offspring that have turned into humans since the beginning of recorded history?Also, if this was done strictly through mutation, then why the need for a common ancestor? Thank you.