Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
65 online now:
nwr, Theodoric (2 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 36 (272723)
12-25-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nuggin
12-25-2005 8:09 PM


Re: Your one and only question
Actually, that did not nswer my question. Again, how can one species change into another species without being able to breed with that species to begin with? In other words, the theory of evolution is suggesting that what creates a new species, is one species simply turning into that species, i.e., an ape turning into a human being. Is that correct? If not, then how could an ape have turned into a human when humans weren't around to begin with? If the answer to my question is yes, then again, please explain how one species can simply turn into another species, i.e., an ape into a human without breeding with humans. And I no longer want to hear that they are the same species when the dictionary clearly defines a species as members who are capable of breeding with each other and exchanging genes, which humans and apes clearly cannot do.

Also, how do you know that the ancestors of the fox lived that long ago when scientists keep changing their minds about when apes turned into human beings, especially when the carbon dating methods have been shown to be unreliable due to any intense heat on the surface of the ground that renders carbon dating unreliable? And how do you know that species was the ancestor of a fox except that some people have simply said so? Thank you.

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:04 PM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:07 PM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:12 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 8:09 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 1:10 AM Carico has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 17 of 36 (272750)
12-26-2005 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-25-2005 11:03 PM


Re: Your one and only question
the theory of evolution is suggesting that what creates a new species, is one species simply turning into that species, i.e., an ape turning into a human being. Is that correct?

No.

If not, then how could an ape have turned into a human when humans weren't around to begin with?

Apes do not have to "turn into" humans. Humans are apes.

please explain how one species can simply turn into another species

My previous post was about this exactly that. I'd go into greater detail, but unfortunately you yourself have stated that you are incapable of understanding the basics of the theory.

And I no longer want to hear that they are the same species when the dictionary clearly defines a species as members who are capable of breeding with each other and exchanging genes, which humans and apes clearly cannot do.

This statement goes to show that, along with the theory of evolution, you also don't understand the system of classification by which we sort out animals.

Apes are not a species. "Apes" refers to the superfamily Hominoidea. That superfamily contains the family Hylobatidae (gibbons and "lesser apes") and the family Hominidae (gorillas, chimps, humans, bonobos, orangs - the "great apes")

Perhaps you'd like to restate the question so that it makes sense?

how do you know that the ancestors of the fox lived that long ago when scientists keep changing their minds about when apes turned into human beings

First of all, this is a very bizarre question.

I might ask you, how do you know that "The Sound of Music" came out in 1965 when historians keep arguing about the release date of "Birth of a Nation". Though tangentially related, there is no correlation between the two.

Secondly, I can not answer this question for you, since you are unable to understand the answer I would give. Your time might better be served either asking questions about subjects you are capable of understanding, or striving to understand subjects about which you have questions.

especially when the carbon dating methods have been shown to be unreliable due to any intense heat on the surface of the ground that renders carbon dating unreliable?

Well, I could go into this, but it would require a discussion of geology, another of the subjects you are unable to understand.

And how do you know that species was the ancestor of a fox except that some people have simply said so?

Again, I'd answer this if you could understand the answer.

Instead, let's look at this question a different way:

"How do you know that there was a Great Flood except that some people simply said so?"

I know that my responses here seem harsh, and I'm sorry. I truly wish I could discuss these topics with you, since you obviously have questions. But, since you are unable to even consider a world older than 5,000 years, there's simply no point digging any deeper. The concepts would be far too hard for you to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 11:03 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Carico, posted 12-26-2005 8:52 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 36 (272790)
12-26-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nuggin
12-26-2005 1:10 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Who says humans are apes? If we are apes, then why can't we breed with apes? It is very clear what the differences between humans and apes are. Humans rule over the animals and apes are found in the jungle and in zoos where man put them. So why make no distinction between them? Apparently the boundaries are very blurred to evolutionists between animals and humans, but not so to children. Since evolutionists can't see the differences between apes and humans, I will explain them to you.

1)Apes cannot form complex analyses
2) Apes cannot walk on 2 legs
3) Apes cannot talk
4) Apes cannot contemplate spirituality
5) Apes cannot rule the world
6) Apes do not have blue eyes, blond hair or transparent skin
7) And most importantly, apes cannot breed with humans

So calling a human an ape is not only a misnomer, it is absurd. And it still does not prove that humans came from the wombs of apes one bit!

AND YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED HOW AN APE TURNED INTO A HUMAN. yOU HAVE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THEY DID WITH ZERO PROOF OF IT.

Your analogy doesn't apply at all! It isn't difficult to determine the date when the "Sound Of Music" was first played in theatres. There are playbills and receipts to document it. But there is nothing, zero, zip to document that the ancestor of a fox was a different animal. Nothing. That again, only comes from the imaginations of men. So again, facts please, not guesses.

Sorry, but it appears that it is you who doesn't understand that the breeding between 2 parents is what passes along genes to their offspring. My children are not going to turn into tigers on their own because they simply don't have tiger genes, nor can they breed with tigers. And neither do apes have human genes or they would be breeding human offspring! But they clearly are not.And until you understnd that, then you will make up whatever story suits your fancy even though it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:54 AM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:55 AM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:56 AM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:58 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 1:10 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 3:59 PM Carico has replied
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2005 10:37 AM Carico has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 36 (272884)
12-26-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Carico
12-26-2005 8:52 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Who says humans are apes? If we are apes, then why can't we breed with apes?

A human male can breed with a human female. Both are apes. Therefore we can breed with apes.

You continue to misuse the term "ape". "Ape" is a classification of a group. Just like "mammal" is a classification of a group.

Humans are mammals. Whales are mammals.

Perhaps you mean to ask why we can't reproduce with Chimps, or with Gorillas. That would be a more rational question.

YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED HOW AN APE TURNED INTO A HUMAN. yOU HAVE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THEY DID WITH ZERO PROOF OF IT.

There is no reason to offer proof. Just a few messages ago you said that you could not imagine a world that was older than 5,000 years old. With that kind of limitation, there's no point going deeper into details with you, as any point I make will be well above your ability to understand it.

It isn't difficult to determine the date when the "Sound Of Music" was first played

Wow! Did you ever miss the point on that analogy! You said that scientists did not know about fox evolution because other scientists had "changed" the date of human evolution. What one scientist says about one subject has no bearing on what another scientist knows about a different subject.

And until you understnd that, then you will make up whatever story suits your fancy even though it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

Nothing whatsoever to do with reality as you understand it. Of course, your reality is extremely subjective and ignores all evidence from science, history, logic, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Carico, posted 12-26-2005 8:52 AM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 36 (273136)
12-27-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
12-26-2005 3:59 PM


Re: Your one and only question
Now you ARE suggesting bestiality by saying that we can breed with apes. Not only is that perverse, but it is impossible. It is also a desperate attempt to make evolution true but shows instead, that evolution is based on a lie. All you have shown is that humans can breed with humans and apes can breed with apes. But you have NOT shown that a human can breed with an ape.

But this is the kind of lie that happens when one calls a human an ape. It also proves that trying to turn one species into another just because you say so can't make it true. So you either don't know that apes and humans can't interbreed, or you know it and are deliberately lying about it. So which is it, Nuggins? I'd like to know before we go any further.

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-27-2005 03:53 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 3:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 4:05 AM Carico has taken no action
 Message 27 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:12 AM Carico has taken no action

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 36 (273137)
12-27-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
12-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Actually, to save you the trouble of either contradicting yourself or incriminating yourself, Nuggins, you have just proven that evolution is based on a lie. Your overt declaration that humans can breed with apes has said it all. It is not only again, pervserse, but a lie as well. It also shows the myriad of contradictions in the theory of evolution because when I've said that evolutionists suggest bestiality, I was severely chastized for it but now an evolutionist himself has verified that that's what evolutonists believe which is a false belief. So since I previously stated that I will not debate with an evolutionist if he contradicts himself, or takes back any staments,I have proven the theory of evolution a lie and this debate is over. But I must admit, it didn't take very long to prove evolution a lie, and by an evolutionist himself in a formal debate, no less.

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-27-2005 04:08 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Carico has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 6:48 AM Carico has replied
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:19 AM Carico has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 36 (273164)
12-27-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Carico
12-27-2005 4:05 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Carico,

I hope Nuggin won't mind if I step in here.

So since I previously stated that I will not debate with an evolutionist if he contradicts himself, or takes back any staments,I have proven the theory of evolution a lie and this debate is over.

Nuggin did not contradict himself. He said humans breed with apes because humans are apes. He, & everyone else has been saying this all along. Quite how you think the consistency displayed by Nuggin is contradictory beggars belief.

So since I previously stated that I will not debate with an evolutionist if he contradicts himself, or takes back any staments,I have proven the theory of evolution a lie and this debate is over. But I must admit, it didn't take very long to prove evolution a lie, and by an evolutionist himself in a formal debate, no less.

Firstly, you did not "prove" evolution was false. Even if Nuggin got it completely wrong, it would have no impact on evolutionary theory. But Nuggin, as described above, has actually been perfectly consistent throughout.

You also keep saying something along the lines that humans can't breed with apes, they are therefore not apes. And once again, I have to repeat the sentiments of everyone who has replied to you that you have rudely ignored, including myself. This does not preclude humans from being apes. A simple understanding of classification will expose what a ridiculous position this is.

Gorillas are apes, chimps can't breed with gorillas, therefore chimps aren't apes, according to your logic. Right? Given how many times this has been addressed one wonders if you bother reading replies. If not, why come here? The alternative is that you don't understand.

But working on the assumption that the second hypothesis is true....

Biological classification is based upon nested hierarchies. Another way of putting it is that you have a large box, inside which fit smaller boxes. Inside which fit smaller boxes until you hit the last hierarchy of boxes that contain species. Each of these hierarchies is given a name. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, & finally species. This is not immutable, you get super orders & sub classes & so on. You may have several phyla in a kingdom, then several classes in a phyla & so on all the way down to the genus being able to have several species contained within it. Organisms are grouped based on what are called apomorphies. That is, shared derived characteristics. What we find is that organisms cluster into these nested hierarchies because they share more apomorphies in common with each other than everything else.

Apes, including humans, share more apomorphies with each other than anything else, & so at that level they are grouped in the same taxonomic rank. In other words, humans are apes in exactly the same way that blue whales & moles are mammals. In exactly the same way that timber wolves & foxes are canines. In exactly the same way that ants & mosquitos are insects. In exactly the same way that sessile oak & sugar cane are flowering plants. You get the picture?

Because sugar cane can't breed with the oak does not mean it should be excluded from the angiosperms. Because ants can't breed with mosquitos does not mean they are not insects. Because foxes & timber wolves can't breed does not mean they aren't canines. Because moles can't breed with whales does not mean they aren't mammals.

A - N - D ...

Because humans can't breed with chimps does not mean they aren't apes.

The next highest taxonomic rank above species is the genus. Given that they are occupied by species, they shouldn't be able to breed with each other.

Do you understand?

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2005 07:09 AM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 4:05 AM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 7:45 AM mark24 has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 36 (273165)
12-27-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
12-27-2005 6:48 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Again, you contradicted yourself because you said that humans can breed with apes. Are you saying that the apes in the jungles are not apes? What are you calling them? Therefore, when you claim that humans can breed with apes, you are also including the beasts in the jungle unless you are saying they are not apes. Therefore, you cannot claim that humans can breed with apes unless you change the name of the beasts in the jungle to a different name which then defeats the whole point of evolution by saying that humans came from apes. But again, this kind of contradiction and irrationality is what happens when people try to make one species into another.

So this becomes so convoluted and contradictory, all to counter the biblical account of creation. The fact is that you cannot claim that humans came from apes without contradicting yourself. This has been apparent by the endless changing of stories on this forum. But you can NEVER admit you're wrong, even with the incessant contradictions staring you in the face. Therefore, it will serve no useful purpose to debate with people who openly lie without a conscience. It's bad enough that you can lie to yourselves, but its reprehensible that you opnely make false statements to our school children. You guys are trying so hard to make an impossible theory possible, that you contradict yourselves incessantly to the point that none of you can get your stories straight. You have no idea what a human is and what an ape is, nor do you have any idea that humans and an apes cannot interbreed. So I'd suggest you not only brush up on basic biology, but go to a zoo where you can see what apes breed and what they are before you can even think about having an honest and serious conversation about how genes are passed along to offspring. Only when you are able to understand that apes and humans are different species because they cannot breed with each other, will you be able to have an honest and rational conversation with those who understand that. Therefore, it serves no useful purpose to converse with people who cannot be honest. You can call humans anything you like and it still does not make it possible for humans to breed with apes. But unfortunately, that is another fact you don't understand either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 6:48 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 9:38 AM Carico has taken no action
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:25 AM Carico has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 36 (273175)
12-27-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Carico
12-27-2005 7:45 AM


Re: Your one and only question

Thread is for Nuggin and Carico only - (added by AdminNWR)


>

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-27-2005 08:59 AM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 7:45 AM Carico has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminNWR, posted 12-27-2005 9:41 AM mark24 has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 36 (273176)
12-27-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
12-27-2005 9:38 AM


Inappropriate posts
mark24,

This thread is restricted to Nuggin and Carico.

Your posts here are inappropriate.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 9:38 AM mark24 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 9:50 AM AdminNWR has taken no action
     Message 30 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 10:33 AM AdminNWR has taken no action

      
    mark24
    Member (Idle past 4429 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 26 of 36 (273180)
    12-27-2005 9:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by AdminNWR
    12-27-2005 9:41 AM


    Re: Inappropriate posts
    AdminNWR,

    I appreciate that, I was just trying to get things moving for Nuggin by taking a different slant on systematics. I'll ask Carico to respond in the other thread.

    Mark


    There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by AdminNWR, posted 12-27-2005 9:41 AM AdminNWR has taken no action

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1727 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 27 of 36 (273187)
    12-27-2005 10:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
    12-27-2005 3:52 AM


    Re: Your one and only question
    Carico,

    I'm positively baffled by your ability to type words when you show no ability to read words.

    You continue to misuse the word "ape". Please restate your question using a more specific word.

    Here are some examples:

    "Can humans and chimps interbreed?"
    or
    "Does evolutionary theory suggest that humans and gorillas have interbreed at some point in the past?"

    Instead, you keep asking questions that are the equivilent of:

    "How can you say that a split level ranch is a house, when clearly a colonial is a house?!"

    That question shows a misunderstanding of the word "house" just as your question shows a misunderstanding of the word "ape".


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Carico has taken no action

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1727 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 28 of 36 (273190)
    12-27-2005 10:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Carico
    12-27-2005 4:05 AM


    Re: Your one and only question
    Nuggins, you have just proven that evolution is based on a lie. Your overt declaration that humans can breed with apes has said it all.

    First of all, NUGGIN, there is no S. For some reason, all the IDers and YECs think there is an S.

    Second, what lie? Can humans mate with humans? Absolutely. Are humans part of the family of Hominidae? Yes. Are all members of Hominidae classified as apes? Yes. Which of these three questions do you not understand?

    evolutionists suggest bestiality

    Not to stray too far off topic, but as a YECrs I have to assume that you are also a "born again" or a evangelical, or whatever you want to call it.

    Why are the fundies so OBSESSED with sex? Beastiality, gay marriage, etc. Everything for them is about sex. Frankly, it's a little suspicious.

    bestiality, I was severely chastized for it

    Oh, may that explains it.

    this debate is over

    Yawn. Cut and run if you like Carico, but please show me where I suggested beastiality before you go. And, while you are at it, please look up a few words in the dictionary so that you can better understand the actual questions you are asking.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 4:05 AM Carico has taken no action

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1727 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 29 of 36 (273192)
    12-27-2005 10:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 23 by Carico
    12-27-2005 7:45 AM


    Carico, basic definitions
    Carico,

    You have frequently turned to wiki for definitions of words like species to try and prove your point.

    I ask that you do that again.

    Here is a diction definition of "ape" from wiki


    Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Currently, there are two families of hominoids:

    the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 12 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the "lesser apes"
    the family Hominidae consisting of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes".

    Do you agree with this definition, or should we use a definition that you make up instead?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 7:45 AM Carico has taken no action

      
    mark24
    Member (Idle past 4429 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 30 of 36 (273194)
    12-27-2005 10:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by AdminNWR
    12-27-2005 9:41 AM


    Re: Inappropriate posts
    Admin,

    Was there any real & need to delete my last post? I had already indicated I was accepting your request, & had made no further posts. You could have just left it & let Carico respond to the link I had provided by edit, thereby removing my line-of-posts to another thread.

    That was just punitive.

    Mark


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by AdminNWR, posted 12-27-2005 9:41 AM AdminNWR has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-27-2005 10:43 AM mark24 has taken no action

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022