Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 128 (266476)
12-07-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Carico
12-07-2005 3:13 PM


Have you even read anything that I posted? Have you looked for any evidence for evolution, or did you just decide that your understanding of evolution was all that there is to know about it? Whether or not you agree with it, you have it all wrong, and even if you agreed with it for 30 years like you say, with all due respect you had it wrong then too. It does not contradict our understanding of mating. Why do you think we would accept such an explanation if it did? If it contradicted anything, we would change it so that it would fit the evidence better. That way we don't have to stick to old beliefs religiously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 3:13 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 4:41 PM Gary has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 128 (266489)
12-07-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Carico
12-07-2005 3:13 PM


None of that actually answers my question.
Could you please go back, re-read it, and try to answer it again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 3:13 PM Carico has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 33 of 128 (266502)
12-07-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:09 PM


Re: I think it's essential that Christianity be covered in secular schools...
Carico writes:
o how did we "evolve" from an ape if we are not its descendants?
We did not evolve from ape. Learn the freaking theory first.
And how can we be its descendants if it cannot produce human descendants?
Learn the theory first.
Last I heard, mating between parents is what produces descendants.
Learn the theory first.
So which 2 beasts mated to produce a creature that turned into a human being and how was that possible?
Learn the theory first.
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.
Learn the theory first.
Or was it half-bird, half beast?
Learn the theory first.
Or does no one know since it's still missing? Too many unanswered questions and contradictions for evolution to be considered plausible.
Learn the theory first.
All of your questions above demonstrate a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of the theory of evolution. It's like me asking the question, "do you still beat your wife?"
You could begin by legitimately asking questions rather than spouting your ignorance around. When you are ready for a serious discussion, tell us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:09 PM Carico has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 128 (266504)
12-07-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Gary
12-07-2005 3:26 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Gary, posted 12-07-2005 3:26 PM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AdminNosy, posted 12-07-2005 4:54 PM Carico has replied
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 12-08-2005 6:18 PM Carico has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 35 of 128 (266509)
12-07-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Carico
12-07-2005 4:41 PM


Back down and consider for a minute
I understand evolution all too well and it contradicts basic reproduction.
Pretty much everything you have posted so far contradicts the above statement. You were given some friendly advice I suggest that you will get more out of this forum if you follow it.
Start by understanding that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND anything about evolution at all. If you insist on sticking to the idea that you do you will be wasting your time here and that of others. Eventually they will give up on you.
If you understand instead that you have much to learn then you have a chance of making progress and will find a number of patient, friendly and very knowlegable folk to help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 4:41 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:19 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 36 of 128 (266594)
12-07-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
12-07-2005 3:23 PM


Now "penetrate" isn't "fertilize," but I'm not sure you can catagorically say that humans and chimps aren't interfertile. And no, I'm not advocating experiments to test it out - not beyond the second cell division, anyway.
They only let it go to the second cell division before destroying it? I could've sworn it went longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2005 3:23 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2005 4:57 PM Cthulhu has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 128 (266882)
12-08-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AdminNosy
12-07-2005 4:54 PM


Re: Back down and consider for a minute
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AdminNosy, posted 12-07-2005 4:54 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 12-08-2005 4:36 PM Carico has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 38 of 128 (266897)
12-08-2005 3:53 PM


but see... there's enough to support the idea that we are a species of chimpanzee.
or is this not common knowledge?

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 39 of 128 (266913)
12-08-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Carico
12-08-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Back down and consider for a minute
Sorry, but i always get this statement from evolutionists who cannot answer my questions.
However, people have been answering your questions.
It's easy to say, but impossible to back up.
It has been backed up. You have made a number of false statements about evolution. That's already pretty strong evidence that you don't understand the theory of evolution.
The notion that we desended from apes? I have heard some evolutionists say we do and some say we don't.
That's partly because you have worded your posts poorly and ambiguously.
  • In Message 233 you wrote "They didn't turn into dogs like evolutionists say apes turned into humans." That makes it sound as if you are talking about an individual ape magically turning into a human, and not as a matter of descending from humans.
  • In Message 240 you wrote "Is it or is it not true that evolutionists believe that man came from the ape?" By using "the ape" you make it sound as if you are referring to a specific ape, presumably one of the ape species alive today.
  • In Message 246 you wrote "Are you saying that animals spontaneously turn into other species without mating?" Again, you seem to be using "turning into" as something different from descent.
  • In Message 37 the message to which I am responding, you use the phrase "desended from apes", which could refer to an earlier species no longer found.
    You appear to be talking about many different things. That's why you are getting many different answers.
    If you want clear answers, you need to ask clear precise questions.
    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.
    Did you just pop into existence, out of nowhere at all - maybe during a recent thunderstorm?
    Maybe you are a descendent of your great great great great great grandmother. That's what many of us would assume. But you cannot describe all of the traits of your great great great great great grandmother, nor can you tell us how she acquired those traits. Based on your own way of arguing, should we assume that your great great great great great grandmother was fictitious?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by Carico, posted 12-08-2005 3:19 PM Carico has not replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 40 of 128 (266919)
    12-08-2005 4:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 36 by Cthulhu
    12-07-2005 9:40 PM


    omg why would they do such a thing?
    i mean. i understand the ethical considerations of a monkey/man hybrid, but why would they try the experiment and not follow it through. holy crap.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Cthulhu, posted 12-07-2005 9:40 PM Cthulhu has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-08-2005 5:11 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

      
    pink sasquatch
    Member (Idle past 6023 days)
    Posts: 1567
    Joined: 06-10-2004


    Message 41 of 128 (266927)
    12-08-2005 5:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 40 by macaroniandcheese
    12-08-2005 4:57 PM


    It hasn't been done, not to my knowledge. Read carefully what Coragyps wrote:
    And no, I'm not advocating experiments to test it out - not beyond the second cell division, anyway.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2005 4:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2005 5:14 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
     Message 49 by Cthulhu, posted 12-10-2005 6:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 42 of 128 (266930)
    12-08-2005 5:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 41 by pink sasquatch
    12-08-2005 5:11 PM


    i see.
    however. they should try stuff like this. it's important that we understand the nature of speciation. ethics be damned!

    i'm worldwide bitch, act like ya'll don't know.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-08-2005 5:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

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


    Message 43 of 128 (266949)
    12-08-2005 6:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 34 by Carico
    12-07-2005 4:41 PM


    Lurker alert!
    Okay, so I'm not 100% a lurker on this thread, since I did post in the first 10. I just havent been back to it in a very long time.
    Been reading up on the last few posts and it seems like this the core argument right now.
    Carico: "I studied evolution for 30 years. I know what the Theory of Evolution is."
    Others: "No, you don't."
    I don't know Carico personally, so I'm going to have to accept the 30 year thing as a given.
    But, let's clear this up right now.
    Carico, can you please describe the Theory of Evolution in simple terms. Also, can you describe what the Theory of Evolution says about the ancestory of mankind.
    That should clear up your level of understanding of the Theory and we can move onto to salient points.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 34 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 4:41 PM Carico has not replied

      
    Carico
    Inactive Member


    Message 44 of 128 (267136)
    12-09-2005 9:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by TheLiteralist
    10-03-2005 2:48 AM


    Re: non-mating tarantulas
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 2:48 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Yaro, posted 12-09-2005 9:24 AM Carico has not replied
     Message 46 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-09-2005 9:31 AM Carico has not replied

      
    Yaro
    Member (Idle past 6496 days)
    Posts: 1797
    Joined: 07-12-2003


    Message 45 of 128 (267139)
    12-09-2005 9:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 44 by Carico
    12-09-2005 9:14 AM


    Re: non-mating tarantulas
    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.
    Carico, have you read and understood anything anyone has posted so far? Or are you here just to troll?
    Do you actually want answers? Or do you just want to mouth off?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by Carico, posted 12-09-2005 9:14 AM Carico has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024