Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
54 online now:
Aussie, jar, Tangle (3 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,398 Year: 9,146/23,288 Month: 161/1,544 Week: 436/518 Day: 16/88 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 766 of 1075 (623357)
07-09-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 3:20 PM


Turkana ape-man
Mazzy writes:

I am not an ape just because your silly researchers have classed humans as such.

But you have agreed that Turkana boy is both human and ape, so it follows that you're an ape, surely? And, as you're alive, then there are clearly still "human apes" alive today, making nonsense of this topic's title.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 4:52 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 768 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 7:03 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 770 of 1075 (623370)
07-09-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 767 by Mazzy
07-09-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Turkana ape-man
Mazzy writes:

There was a whole reply to Nuggin explaining that I no longer agree with many creationists that suggest Turkana Boy is human. I see Turkana apes no, that I have seen a side view and read more about the pelvis, arms, nose.

If changing ones mind in the face of finding more information kills one's theory.....

Changing your mind in the face of finding new information is a very good thing to do, and I think you should make a habit of it. But an interesting point is this. You are dividing apes into one group and humans into another. If they are two such distinct groups, then it's surprising to find that you had so much trouble with Turkana boy. And it is also surprising that creationists are divided on the point. If there are two clearly distinct groups then, by definition, it should be easy to distinguish.

I find it so hard to draw a line that I call them all apes.

.... then TOE died long ago and carries on in a zombie state...with life lines like convergent evolution, homoplasy, accelerated evolution, punctuated evolution, Lamarkian style epigentic inheritance, junk DNA no longer junk at all etc etc etc

Why on earth are those things "lifelines"?

Mazzy writes:

Are you unable to further refute the main points of my arguments?

What are the main points? If your central argument is that we are not related to the other apes, your difficulty in deciding which side of the supposed divide Turkana boy is on effectively has refuted it. We'll call him a "creationist transitional" until the creationists have a united view on the subject.

Mazzy writes:

The overall conclusion for me is that nothing I have asserted or supported by way of research proves that macroevolution from bacteria to human did not occur.

I agree entirely, and it's good to find common ground.

Mazzy writes:

However what I see is that the door is open for many other hypothesis of the data found.

Do you mean that there are many different ways in which the Creation could have happened? You sound rather more open-minded than some of your fellow creationists.

Mazzy writes:

You have explanations based on theories and interpretation of research findings, as to why no tribe remains that appears ape like in appearance.

"Appears ape like" is very vague. I once knew a guy who looked remarkably like some of the reconstructions of Turkana boy. And we're only a mutation or two away from being very very hairy.

We can put up theoretic evidence against theoretical evidence endlessly and it will be no more than facing off one theory or interpretation against another.

I think it's more a case of you putting up theoretical evidence against biologists looking at real evidence.

So your choosing to harp and strain points with no substance is truly a waste of time....

The true sign of transition is when things are difficult to classify. There's certainly substance in that point. When we find ourselves looking at fossils and saying "is this more of a fish than it is an amphibian", or "is this more of a mammal than it is a reptile", then the honest and astute readers of evidence amongst us realise that we're looking at macro-evolution. Big time.

I certainly agree with you on mind changing, and if you keep examining Turkana boy every so often, you might easily find your views in a constant state of flux.

There's a reason for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 4:52 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 834 of 1075 (624614)
07-19-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 832 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:06 AM


IamJoseph writes:

There are no human apes today because ToE is bogus. The glitch of Darwinian evolution, or what became ToE is thus:

Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Joseph, and welcome back. Is this a view of the universe with all of time being created at the creation point that you're describing?

And if the maths destroys evolution, could you show us the workings in detail? You could wait until last Friday to show us if you want to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:06 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:28 AM bluegenes has responded
 Message 847 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 8:13 AM bluegenes has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 838 of 1075 (624619)
07-19-2011 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:28 AM


IamJoseph writes:

You may use whichever time premise you like. The Math still prevails.

But can you show the detailed workings? And how many dimensions are involved?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:28 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:41 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 843 of 1075 (624625)
07-19-2011 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2011 5:03 AM


The seed factor of host parents
Dr Adequate writes:

This doesn't mean anything.

But it might do if you consider the seed factor in relation to the time factor in respect of the role of the ape host parents, even without added dimensions, and do the math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2011 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 848 of 1075 (624643)
07-19-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 847 by Admin
07-19-2011 8:13 AM


Admin writes:

Hi Bluegenes,

Please don't let Joseph shift the topic away from biological classification and human evolution.

I had no idea what topic he was or wasn't on. How does one tell? I was just seeing if I could speak Josephish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 8:13 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020