|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Mazzy,
You didn't respond to anything I said. This seems to be yet another repeat of your claim that evolution is false and in a horrendous mess. When you click on a message's reply button there's a kind of expectation that you'll be replying to the contents of that message, but good for you for thinking out of the box! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Mazzy writes: The problem being genetic and morphological homology between non related species. means evos get to accept what suits them and then have a theory to explain what doesn't fit. You keep repeating stuff like this, but that's all you ever do is repeat the same assertions over and over again. When it comes to actually supporting those assertions, meh! Maybe you could try explaining what those links have to do with the classification of humans as apes. Why is it that the classification of humans as animals, vertebrates, mammals and primates, just like chimps, gorillas and orangutans, doesn't bother you, but including humans in the ape family drives you crazy? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4540 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
I really do know how to use effect and affect correctly both as nouns and also as verbs. I assume that Theodoric does as well, and his error was just an oversight. However, in the interest of historical accuracy, I let the original stand.
Gosh, this is so much nicer than trying to get some sense out of (or into) Mazzy. /off-topic Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4620 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I thought the implication of homoplasy & homology was self evident.
Many of your systems for classification are flawed at their inception by the fact that any shared trait you want to use as a criteria for clasification of apes, humans or any other organism could have nothing to do with ancestry at all. Although even creationists need some way of identifying kinds and naming them, the presumption of ancestry is not there for us. In other words the fact that several kinds meet your class of mammals, does not imply ancestry between all of them. It means a similar system was used in various kinds like humans and cows. I am sure the names would have been quite different if the naming had of been left to creationists. We could have used a name to describe any shared function or trait similalry, however the implication that this relates to ancestry is not required. The mammalian middle ear and mamalian teeth for example evolved twice according to evolutionists. You have mammals bunched together in with synapsids. Let's face it most of your evidence in from chards of fossils in may cases and assumptions made in their reconstructions. This bunching is where the huge assumptions are mostly made. Hence you presume mammals arose once rather than having being created that way. In fact several lines of mammals evolved 210mya. Again the explanation is all but one line survived. Do you not get sick of hearing the same excuse? Science So Percy, the sad fact is that by your own evolutionary researchers hands any shared human/chimp trait may or may not be a result of ancestry. Your classifications are biased in favour of common ancestry to apes. Forward facing eyes and any method that implies ancestry is flawed. Homoplasy and homology research is my evidence of confounding factors in any trait based classification system http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...071031-new-mammal.htmlhttp://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/.../HistoryofLife/CH15.html Now do you get it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Let's face it most of your evidence [is] from chards of fossils in [many] cases and assumptions made in their reconstructions. I ask again: Have you ever taken an evolution course? Have you ever studied human osteology? Have you ever handled many of the casts of these fossil man specimens? I am beginning to think you have no direct experience with this field beyond creationist websites. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes I have heard of 'PROBABLY out competed'. Now your statement re Neanderthal says modern decendants "were PROBABLY instrumental in the demise of Neanderthal". Creationists do not need 'probably'. How nice for you. So, please give us the 100% certain definite creationist answer as to why Neanderthals are extinct, and explain why you can be so certain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Mazzy writes: I thought the implication of homoplasy & homology was self evident. I guess not. Could you explain the implications, please? In your own words instead of just links?
Mazzy writes: Many of your systems for classification are flawed at their inception by the fact that any shared trait you want to use as a criteria for clasification of apes, humans or any other organism could have nothing to do with ancestry at all. As I've said a number of times, I'm talking about classification based upon shared characteristics, not ancestry. Since any mention of ancestry or descent sends you off on another tirade about the "assumption of ancestry" I've been avoiding such terms. The Linnaean system is based upon structure, not ancestry as you've mistakenly stated at least a couple times, and that system works pretty well for the categories of life we've been talking about.
I am sure the names would have been quite different if the naming had of been left to creationists. So it's the name you object to? It's just the "ape" label that drives you crazy? What's in a name? Why do you care? That gorillas, chimps, orangutans and humans all bear live young, have teats, have opposable thumbs, etc., is a fact, and these shared characteristics require that at some level of classification they be in the same group. It just so happens that that group is called Hominidae, or more popularly, apes.
Now do you get it? I get that you post links you never explain. You may as well give up the practice in replies to me because I checked out a few of them early on and they didn't seem to support your position at all. Requests that you explain how they proved your point were ignored, so I gave up looking at your links a long time ago. By the way, what you're doing is covered in the Forum Guidelines:
All you do is make an assertion with no supporting evidence or argument, followed by a link. You never describe any evidence or state any rational chain of reasoning or argument. You might find it illuminating trying to construct effective arguments from the information in your links. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add additional sentence at the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4540 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Mazzy writes: Although even creationists need some way of identifying kinds and naming them, the presumption of ancestry is not there for us. In other words the fact that several kinds meet your class of mammals, does not imply ancestry between all of them. It means a similar system was used in various kinds like humans and cows. That's nice. I again invite you over to the The Creationist Challenge - Can You Identify Kinds? thread and demonstrate the creationist method for distinguishing kinds. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4620 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I have already established common sense has no place in evolutionary thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4540 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : picture hidden. use peek if you are curious Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Mazzy writes: I have already established common sense has no place in evolutionary thinking. Are you Amish, or a hypocrite? Electricity? Do you use gasoline, derived from oil, which is discovered through principles of the very geology and biology you have already declared as lacking common sense? Ignorance is not a virtue, neither is bearing false witness. Troll. And your avatar is hideous. Why can't you answer Percy's comments? Knock, knock, anyone home? The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Theres no doubt that animals have intelligence. And I marvel at the magnificent technology and abilities that animals have. Animals tend to make no progress and are restricted to the inbuilt abilities they have. Animals have instinct not a creative mind. It goes back to the way you think. Is man an accident, pond scum, a product of chance or an intricately formed, intelligent, responsible, purposely made creature? This contrast is the belief that everything is specially made with meaning and purpose. You see how the way of thinking can change depending on your foundation? Evolution proclaims the amazing world around us. But the true miracle of evolution is the evolution of human affairs! Education teaches human physiology, anatomy, anthropology, psychology. Universities take man apart, study him and take the human brain apart. Why does man have the thinking and reasoning ability and knowledge that is impossible for other animals to have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Mazzy writes: I have already established common sense has no place in evolutionary thinking. What you've established is a definite impression in the minds of the other participants, but it has nothing to do with common sense or evolution. All this one sentence post does is add yet another unsupported assertion to your long list. To help move the discussion forward you should respond to one of the messages about classification with the evidence and rationale for your position. Or to one of the messages about the fossil evidence for human ancestry. Or to one of the messages about classification of fossils. Or to one of the messages inquiring how your links support your position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4620 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I am happy to take the challenge, when I find time later.
Let me say that I have put forward a definition of kind already. A kind refers to the initial creation of God and its' decendants. However there are others I have mentioned such as Baraminology. Given all the contradiction in the definition of species I expect you are not requesting any more clarity than you yourselves can provide. What are the Genesis kinds? - ChristianAnswers.Net It is about interpretation of the data, the weight you place on conflicting research, and what you choose to accept. I at least can display a balanced view, although I do not accept TOE as fact. Not all evo researchers accept the dino to bird thing and have redated modern birds much earlier, although they all believe birds evolved from something else. So even within creationist research there will be debate and research based on different assumptions than TOE. There will be refute and so on. However, in the end both are based on interpretation of research, assumptions and faith in what you choose to accept. The definition of a kind has nothing to do with the topic. According to biblical creationists an apobaramin sees humans, chimps and gorillas as three separate kinds. Rather than 'almost humans' evolving all around the place and being displaced etc by modern man, there were no 'almost humans' or part ape/human ever. Your so called mid species within Homo and before are either mankind, chimps, gorillas or other variations of apes. This is why today you still see distinction between humans and other apes and there are no mid human/ape species getting around today. I see flat faced apes such as Lluc around 12 mya, and huge variety in skull shapes and morpholgy. Although todays chimps have similar skeletal morphology or genetic similarities to mankind, side by side, they are obviously far removed from each other. Given it is all theoretical and based on assumptions I think it ignorant of some evolutionists to not learn about the creationists stances they belittle, when we bother to learn what evos base their belief system on. You believe ape men were here then all dissappeared due to possibilities. I believe there never were any in line with observed data and fossil evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
A kind refers to the initial creation of God and its' decendants. Which is totally without content, worthless and utterly *** until you provide us god's list of the initial created critters. AbE: And Bariminology is certainly not science and anyone claiming it is science is quite simply a liar. When you start out by saying some book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago must be considered as over riding reality, you are NOT doing science. Edited by jar, : add information on Bariminology. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024