|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution for Dummies and Christians | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
No problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
So a dog that has the traits of another dog didn't get that way through breeding? Sorry, but interbreeding is what causes one species to acquire the traits of another species. And if you suggest that humans are descendants of apes, then you are suggesting interbreeding because offspring can only inherit the genes of their ancestors and ancestors are created through breeding. That is the most basic principle of reproduction. Therefore, the notion that we are descendants from apes is a fallacy unless you are suggesting interbreeding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
You still haven't answered my question of how the common ancestor acquired the traits of a human.
How has life changed? Animals and humans have been breeding defective babies and healthy babies ever since the beginning of recorded history and still are. So what has changed? And where did the first living thing come from? Oh? So if the gene for talking happened in one offspring of primates but not others, then how could that offspring have progressed to a full blowm human being without the ability to talk? Sorry, but all of those mutations had to have happened in one offspring in order to produce the human being with all of the complexities that apes do not have. So again, you're statement is nonsense. In other words, you don't have proof of this common ancestor. He still exists in the imagination. So you're saying that evolution is not a fact? In that case, why not let creationism be taught in the schools when the biblical account of creation conforms perfectly to how the world hs worked since the beginning of recorded history. Why exchange that for man-made theories that can't be proven and call that more factual? Another contradiction! What's perverse is saying that humans are descendants of apes which suggests bestiality because offspring are produced by the mating between their parents. That again, is basic biology. This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 07:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Therefore, the notion that we are descendants from apes is a fallacy unless you are suggesting interbreeding. You can't have "interbreeding" unless you're talking about two different groups. Populations don't "interbreed" with themselves, they simply breed. Humans, being apes, are the decendants of other apes. No interbreeding of any human group has ever occured with any other ape group; the group called "human" only became human when it stopped being able to breed with other populations of apes. That's speciation. Species are not species because of their traits. They're species because of what members of their population can breed with. When members of a certain population of apes lost the ability to breed with certain other populations of apes, they became "humans."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
you arent listening to anyone are you? Which wolf possesed the traits of a bulldog?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You still haven't answered my question of how the common ancestor acquired the traits of a human. The common ancestor did not have the traits of a human. It had the traits of itself. Only its decendants aquired the traits that we associate with humans, which they aquired via mutation.
So if the gene for talking happened in one offspring of primates but not others, then how could that offspring have progressed to a full blowm human being without the ability to talk? Huh?
In other words, you don't have proof of this common ancestor. He still exists in the imagination. No, actually, he exists in Africa. It's a species called Sahelanthropus tchadensis and it's a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, known only by fossils.
What's perverse is saying that humans are descendants of apes which suggests bestiality because offspring are produced by the mating between their parents. How would that be bestiality, exactly? Bestiality is a person having sex with an animal, not two animals having sex with each other. Unless you're proposing that the offspring is mating with its parents. If that's how it works in your family I suggest you need to talk to someone about it, like the police.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Sorry, but interbreeding is what causes one species to acquire the traits of another species. no. you don't get it. it's not that these ancestors acquired the traits of humans. it's that humans acquired from this ancestor IT'S traits. we came from it, not the other wway round. it came from some older ape-thing. that came from some other weird older mammal thing with came from god knows what before. (i'm no paleontologist.) *edit*only for you ps. This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-09-2005 01:10 AM i'm worldwide bitch, act like ya'll don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
brennakimi-
A word of advice, if I may? Your new boldface quotes definitely are not working for you - it looks as though you are vehemently stating something (since everyone else on the board uses boldface for emphasis) and then arguing with yourself. Since it is only a two-letter difference between bold coding and quote coding, the time you are saving isn't worth the confusion you're causing the people trying to read your posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
*sigh*
it's not about saving time. it's about boardspeek being obnoxious. but i'll try again. just for you, hot stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
just for you, hot stuff.
meow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
but then i am known for arguing with myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You still haven't answered my question of how the common ancestor acquired the traits of a human. The common ancestor did not acquire the traits of a human, its descendants did.
How has life changed? Through various means, famously including genetic mutation, but other 'mechanisms' are in play.
Animals and humans have been breeding defective babies and healthy babies ever since the beginning of recorded history and still are. So what has changed?
Nothing. All organisms have had more babies than survive to reproduce. The ones that don't make it have been selected out of the gene pool. The ones that survive, pass on their mutations, increasing their frequency throughout the population.
And where did the first living thing come from? Off topic. Try this forum, an interesting thread can be found here.
Oh? So if the gene for talking happened in one offspring of primates but not others, then how could that offspring have progressed to a full blowm human being without the ability to talk? The genes that led to talking obviously occurred in one of our ancestors.
? Sorry, but all of those mutations had to have happened in one offspring in order to produce the human being with all of the complexities that apes do not have Not at all. If one mutation happens in one offspring. A descendant of that offspring develops the next mutation. Now both mutations are being passed on and spread throughout the population. Over a looong period of time these mutations accumulate to where we are today. If the figure of 1,000,000 mutations is about right and our common ancestor with apes was 5,000,000 years ago then we are looking at only 0.2 relevant inherited mutations per year (that is, one mutation every five years). Given that each of our offspring has about 50-100 mutations, and the number of offspring conceived per year (which must be pretty huge)...I don't think it much of a stretch.
So again, you're statement is nonsense. If you want to demonstrate that as true, then by all means back it up with something more substantial than rhetoric.
In other words, you don't have proof of this common ancestor. He still exists in the imagination Science is not about proving things, its about disproving things. Every test devised so far has given the same result as if we share a common ancestor with apes. Its not proof anymore than any murderer is proved to have committed his crime, but its an abundance of evidence which puts it way beyond reasonable doubt.
So you're saying that evolution is not a fact? Depends on your definition. Nothing is a 100% known truth. However, we can be sure of many things. We can be sure that life has changed on earth over a long time with massive confidence, and the theory that describes that change is very robust.
, why not let creationism be taught in the schools when the biblical account of creation conforms perfectly to how the world hs worked since the beginning of recorded history 1.) Creationism requires miracles to make certain data sets fit.2.) Creationism doesn't make succesful predictions about what we should find in living beings 3.) Creationism doesn't make succesful predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. 4.) The world has existed for a long time before recorded history. That's just a few reasons that spring to mind. If you want to discuss it further try this thread Why exchange that for man-made theories that can't be proven and call that more factual? Another contradiction!
If creationism is a God-made theory and God does not lie, then creationism is more factual. However, it could be that creationisms is a pre-science theory invented by a tribe of nomads who adapted other creation stories for their own God. Neither creationism nor ToE can be proved. They can be tested, and ToE has been rigorously tested and stands unfalsified. Creationism is falsified unless miracles are invoked to save it. Any theory that requires a miracle to work is not science and so should not be taught in science.
What's perverse is saying that humans are descendants of apes which suggests bestiality because offspring are produced by the mating between their parents. That again, is basic biology.
Is it bestiality to reproduce with your own species? That is what the ToE If you think evolution suggests a human appearing and having sex with an ape to produce lots of little humans, then you misunderstand evolution. Evolution is about how populations genetic makeup shifts over time, leading to a general shift in morphology (the appearance of the organism). What evolution actually is Read Message 84, that will give you the start of the principles of evolution. This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 09-December-2005 07:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Looks like as good of a place as any, to shut this one down.
Note to those new around here - It is forum custom from way back, to close topics at or about 300 messages. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024