Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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!
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 128 (266388)
12-07-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2005 1:02 PM Carico has replied
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 1:02 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 1:20 PM Carico has replied

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


Message 17 of 128 (266391)
12-07-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:57 PM


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Dude, learn the theory first before you criticize it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:57 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:09 PM coffee_addict has replied

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


Message 18 of 128 (266392)
12-07-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:57 PM


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.
You've been shown in several different threads why this is not the case.
Are you ever going to reply to those responses? Or are you just here to spam the forum? I guess I'd like to know in advance how much time I should waste on you. Are you going to respond to well-reasoned argumentation in kind, or simply call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:57 PM Carico has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 128 (266405)
12-07-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Carico
12-07-2005 12:57 PM


Carico writes:
since humans and animals cannot interbreed, then a human cannot be the descendant of an ape.
That doesn't follow at all. You're thinking backwards.
If two animals can breed and produce offspring, those offspring will be different from their parents. And after many generations, the differences accumulate. Distant cousins may no longer be able to interbreed - i.e. they become different species.
Of course the process is not reversible - nobody ever said it was. But that doesn't make the forward process impossible.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:57 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 128 (266432)
12-07-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by coffee_addict
12-07-2005 1:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2005 1:02 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 2:32 PM Carico has replied
 Message 33 by coffee_addict, posted 12-07-2005 4:37 PM Carico has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 21 of 128 (266438)
12-07-2005 2:23 PM


A note from message 1
I fear that the "From chimp to man" phrase in the topic title is deceptive in regards to the topics intended theme. That phrase should have been fixed before the "Proposed New Topics" version was promoted, but I guess we're now stuck with it (or are we?).
TheLiteralist, in message 1 writes:
Now, chimps and humans are extant species and I realize no evolutionist is actually proposing that chimps evolved into humans (but the official proposal is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor).
Maybe all should go back to and review message 1's content.
Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-07-2005 02:24 PM

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 128 (266441)
12-07-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
12-07-2005 1:20 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 1:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 2:38 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2005 3:23 PM Carico has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 128 (266443)
12-07-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:09 PM


Carico writes:
So how did we "evolve" from an ape if we are not its descendants?
We did not evolve from apes. Apes are our cousins, not our grandparents.
Our grandparents produced our parents and the apes' parents. Every generation is different. (Do your children look exactly like you?)
Then the apes' parents produced the apes and our parents produced us. The apes are different from their parents and even more different from their grandparents. Similarly, we are different from our parents and even more different from our grandparents. (Of course there are more than three generations in the real "family tree" - but can you really not understand how the apes can be our distant cousins?)
As it happens, we can not interbreed with our distant cousins, the apes. That doesn't mean that we don't have the same ancestors. It only means that there have been a lot of changes over the generations and that the apes have changed in different ways than we have.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:09 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:36 PM ringo has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 128 (266450)
12-07-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
12-07-2005 2:32 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 2:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 2:41 PM Carico has replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 12-07-2005 2:45 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 28 by Gary, posted 12-07-2005 2:46 PM Carico has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 128 (266452)
12-07-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:30 PM


Carico writes:
The key phrase in your post was "if animals can breed and produce offspring..."
Yes, I said that if animals can mate and produce offspring.... I didn't say anything about different species mating together. That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is about offspring being different from their parents and about the differences accumulating over many generations. Eventually, different lines of descent become unable to interbreed.
You are still thinking backwards when you insist that the reverse process is impossible. Think about the forward process.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:30 PM Carico has not replied

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


Message 26 of 128 (266455)
12-07-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:36 PM


. And it has been that way since the beginning of time.
I don't understand what makes you think it's been that way since the beginning of time.
Let me ask you a question. Can you concieve of a situation where two populations that have the ability to interbreed could lose that ability over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:36 PM Carico has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 3:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 128 (266456)
12-07-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:36 PM


Carico writes:
I understand how evolutionists explain the theory of evolution....
No you don't, as all of your posts demonstrate.
The Theory of evolution is not about different species mating together to produce a new species.
Each species is unique and has its own unique set of genes.
And each set of genes changes with every generation.
No species can be intermingled with another species unless the 2 can breed offspring together.
And that is not what the Theory of Evolution says. That is the first thing you need to learn in Evolution Kindergarten.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:36 PM Carico has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 128 (266457)
12-07-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:36 PM


I used to think that was how it worked as well, until I read more about it. Think about the definition of the word "species". It is vaguely defined. The reason it is vague is that sometimes closely related animals can interbreed, and sometimes they can't, and so it is hard to draw the line between two species. The theory of evolution does not require a huge jump from one species to another. Rather, it implies small changes in each generation. These small changes are not usually enough to prevent reproduction.
After enough time however, these changes build up, and reproduction becomes impossible, or flawed. This is why horses and donkeys produce sterile mules as their offspring. If they were more closely related, the mule would be able to breed with horses or donkeys. If they were less closely related, no mules would be born at all.
Given a few thousand more years, maybe donkeys and horses will no longer be able to interbreed and make any mules at all. This is because too many changes (mutations) have built up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:36 PM Carico has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 128 (266468)
12-07-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
12-07-2005 2:41 PM


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 PM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 03:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 2:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Gary, posted 12-07-2005 3:26 PM Carico has replied
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2005 4:11 PM Carico has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 128 (266475)
12-07-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Carico
12-07-2005 2:30 PM


And animals and humans cannot mate and produce offspring together
And you know this how, exactly? Human sperm have been shown to be able to penetrate the ovum of a gibbon - a primate, but far removed from humans/chimps. 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.
Lions and tigers are interfertile to at least some degree, and I'll bet a shiny nickel that those two differ more genetically than man and chimp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 2:30 PM Carico has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Cthulhu, posted 12-07-2005 9:40 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 47 by babelfish, posted 12-09-2005 4:22 PM Coragyps 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