|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I'll remind you AGAIN of florensiensis and Neanderthal debates deary.......Creationists arguments are likewise based on facts, and are much more parsinomous that your convoluted theories and excuses for what you find that should not be there.
Error. Universidad de Navarra http://culturesocietypraxis.org/...p/article/viewFile/131/99 So here are just 2 examples of a bunch of evolutionary researchers all having access to the same research and information, all well credentialed, and they can NOT agree on what they see, either in relation to the fossils themselves or the genomic data. It is all so irrefuteably as clear as mud. What is wishful thinking is calling any of it 'evidence'!!!! Likely, maybe & possibly calls for faith. So I'll sum up the evolutionists argument "We have no clue, but still that proves ...it all evolved." Suck this up...... "Creationism, like naturalism, can be scientific, in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered scientific in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other." Is creationism scientific? | GotQuestions.org TOE is zombie science, there never were any mid ape-human species, and that is why there are no hairy apey people here today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
So here you are as bold as brass with big words.
The skull pictured is an darn ape. Homo erectus are mostly apes. You lot have heaped a bunch of totally different looking specimens into a bunch. It is rubbish. You can call it what you want, it is not human, nor on its' way to being human and neither are any homo erectus, or Ardi or Lucy. They are apes. I was not the dope that contested partial fossils and sinlge bones as being offered up for evidence of these species. You were. Your stupid totally unrelated retaliation does not hide ignorance. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
What are you on about?
Please explain how non life 'poofed' into a living cell or else evolution does not exist. That is how silly your comment is!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I do not need to con the audience. Your science has done this for me. I have already stated that the creation uses a science that we are yet to comprehend. We are talking about a spirit being which far beyond our current comprehension. You have enough trouble explaining what we see here and now......
Some here are so used to convoluted theories that you expect a similarly convoluted complicated model on exhibition for creation. We do not have to have the nonsense of ancestry going back to a bacteria or several, depending on which evo model you like. Remember LUCA is dead with the realisation of HGT. 4066-‘APP It does not matter that evo scientists refute creation research because they refute each other anyway! (apart from 'it all evolved') Is there evidence for a young world? - ChristianAnswers.Net If kinds were created all we need is evidence of dating, which we have. Evidence of creative days, which we have eg Cambrian explosion All our scientists need to work out where the fossils reside in the creation of kinds, how many kinds and varieties therein were created. The difference is the assumptions made, interpretation of the evidence and working out what actually is evidence as opposed to theoretical assertions. Ok let's talk about luck now. You have not bothered to refute even the few examples I provided. The earths position in space, it's iron core, the very reasons why earth has life and no other planet in our solar system has so much as a bacteria to report. We are very lucky, despite all the meanderings of whether or not there is life elsewhere. You have not found it. Evolution, genetic drift, catastrophes no longer seen as driving speciation, http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=100 What about stomalites that were meant to oxygenate the earth. These are made with the assistance of bacteria. So life was already here and now you have to woffle on about how life not only poofed into existence, it also did so in an deoxygenated world. Do you choose to challenge the obvious because you have exhausted your defenses? LUCK played an important role in our being here and many or your researchers agree with me and NOT you. Go figure.....I am obviously not the least educated here in your own science. However many here appear totally ignorant to the various creationists stances. "If evolutionists have learned anything from a detailed analysis of evolution, it is the lesson that the origin of new taxa is largely a chance event. Ninety-nine out of 100 newly arising species probably became extinct without giving rise to descendant taxa. And the characteristic of any new taxon is to a large extent determined by such chance factors as the genetic composition of the founding population, the special internal structure of its genotype, and the physical as well as biotic environment that supplies the selection forces of the new species population." http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/...Evolution_by_Accident.html Are you now going to assert that these evolutionary researchers that speak to the importance of luck are all fools and idiots, also? WE ARE LUCKY TO BE HERE........I WIN!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
So you had better go tell your researchers that looking for the most parsinomous explanation is all crap.
I am sure they will applaud you..... NOT. Questia Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics) - Wikipedia Talk of stalks and babies is highlighting your apparent desperation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Actually the point being that the research was trying to explain why parsinomy is not so important. Meaning...IT IS IMPORTANT.
You love to strain asides. The Creation model is better supported by the evidence than TOE is. It is more parsinomous with the data, whether parsinomy is required or not. "God did it" is just as scientifically robust as saying "It all evolved". "When an evolutionist sees a new hominid in the fossil record (such as australopithecine) he or she is more likely to give it a subjective title such as "the ancestor of humans", while the creationist calls it by what it really is -- an extinct ape-like creature. Most evolutionary changes supposedly occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, and the evolutionist would expect there to be hundreds or thousands of intermediate forms between kinds. This just isn't the case. For example with human evolution, to go from the ape-like australopithecines to modern humans, there are only a handful of supposed intermediate forms (these are Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and archaic Homo sapiens). Few evolutionist propaganda is as humorous as the charts (trees) supposedly showing the paths of evolution; the only things shown as definite are the leaves, with a bunch of question marks and uncertain speculative paths connecting in between. " http://mysite.verizon.net/vzephl0d/ The how, when, where and why of TOE remain up for grabs by any imaginative headline seeker to provide todays 'common knowledge' and flavour of the month. Too bad they fail so miserably at explaining why no hairy apey people, (like lets say the one in this picture link below), have survived anywhere untill recently. There were none.......... http://www.cryptomundo.com/...tent/JohorHominidSquatting.jpg .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I will again restate in simple terms that the 'how' God created kinds is the same as the evolutionists 'how' to abiogenesis. Neither of us can explain nor prove our version of abiogenesis. Only a bigotted boofheaded hypocrite would demand a level of explanation more robust than they themselves can provide. I hope there are none here!!!
Is this the only harp you can come up with...that I come up with a theory of a science we cannot comprehend or a theory of everything. Lazy you say. A thick hide may be what you have when you are unable to demonstate how abiogenesis occured. The Kinds of birds that have feathers, have feathers because they were created that way. It is the evos that have to demonstrate the dino to bird thing that some of your own researchers do not accept. Why should I? Why birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs | Daily Mail Online Your researchers have no idea why some organism landed. They hypothesise with never ending thoeries that you call evidence. I am sure evos can no longer tell the difference between fact and theory. If you have not heard by now the explanations of the human/chimp similarity, then you kow nothing of creationism and have not read looked at my links.
quote: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzephl0d/ Also your biased models reflect colour stains from a hand ful of enzymes. The Pergalen research demonstrates chimp genes are much more different that first thought. You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED# Here is some more about what rubbish your comparisons are:Is the evolutionary tree changing into a creationist orchard? - creation.com So I say creationists have the evidence they need and you have a mess that requires sorting. I have already shown how little you know about the fossil record and its representations. Now let's see how little you know about genomics by asking ever more silly questions. So now, smarty pants, you explain the impact of genetic drift(luck) and its importance in driving evolution. When your paper has been accepted by the scientific community you let us all know!!!! Your researchers will be greatfull because they do not currently know. I will repeat..there are no ape men around because there never were any. Simple and in line with what we see now, and without the necessary convoluted theories evos need to explain it. Edited by AdminModulous, : put quoted text into quote boxes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Well if talking to asides bothers you, perhaps you had better tell these evos here to stop harping on the asides, as this seems all they can go on about..just look at them. How many of them are on topic?....NONE.....
I at least continue to say there are 1. no apey men around because there never were any. 2. The FACT that there are none around today is in line with what a creationist would expect. 3. Evolutionists have nothing more than hand waving to offer as explanations. That is perfectly on topic...... Go tell your evo friends, that continue to embarrass themselves with dribbling asides, to stay on topic!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Oh I see no paper of explanation of your recent embarrassment re the rise of life and man being lucky, nor genetic drift. All you have is circlular asides.
Why do you not refute the evidence I provided to refute genetic similarity as being necessarily connected to deep ancestry? Huh? Answer: You cannot. All you are able to do is parrot off the same old lines and asides over and over. There are plenty of cambrian and precambrian eg stomolites, jellyfish still here today. There are chimps, gorrillas etc all survived untill today. But non one apey, hairy tribe found anywhere. There have been hypothesis put forward, but NO evidence. In fact it is debated still. So the creationists stance is the stronger as it does not need complicated assumptions. The fossil evidence also supports the creationists stance. I have given three points that address the topic. Now you explain why something like Neanderthal, with a bigger brain than us, went extinct? Why did all the other millions of side species in last 5 million years all go extinct? This is your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia 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'. Your theory suggests modern humans left Africa and found 'human like' species. Below is a link suggesting modern humans left Africa 70,000 years ago.National Geographic Magazine You have humans that wore jewellery and buried the dead in Isreal 92,000-115,000 years ago.Mount Precipice - Wikipedia You use the words gracile or robust to try to make chimps out of humans, yet teeth and bone density are simply ties to the environment. For example Aboriginal teeth are different. Now there is evidence of modern humans in Isreal 400,000 years old. HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost So basically creationists never believed there were any mid human-ape species. Here are modern humans placed in Israel 400,000 years ago, by your dating methods. "PROBABLY instrumental" is not scientific evidence, nor does PROBABLY constitute a FACT. Creationists do not need PROBABLY to explain why there are no mid human/ape species about. There are no mid species about because there never were any and that is in line with the fossil evidence and the FACT that there are none here today. So you lot have a cascade of probably's to explain what should be here but isn't, then another cascade of probably's to explain why something is there that shouldn't be. This is not science, it is faith. How many times do I have to tell you that PROBABLY, MAYBE & LIKELY is NOT scientific fact. I wonder if it will sink in this time. So the best you can do is provide probably to explain no hairy half apes around today. I require the facts alone....there aren't any!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I have stated that the difference between mankind and apes is our higher reasoning powers and perception. Mankind was created in the image of God and therefore is able to comprehend such things as an afterlife and salvation. This is something an ape cannot do.
To denegrate mankind to an ape, is based on the evolutionary need to show ancestry. Evos say that skeletal and cranial morphology is similar. That is rather simplistic. When one looks to apes, regardless of the similar skeletal structure to humans, common sense must leave the room to suggest in fact we are similar. We have 4 limbs and a head in common appearance and not much more. I suggest there are no mid species fossils found. Rather they are either human or ape. I have played this line here. So my assertion is the reason there are no hairy half humans around is because there never were any, only a large variety of apes and humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Tigers have forward facing eyes also. It means little as far as ancestry goes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/08/080828120312.htm With genetic and morphological homology demonstrated between distantly related species and HGT, I'd say one can pick and choose what suits them as support or denial of common ancestry. It is very unfortunate for evos that no mid ape/human species are around today, like the famous Yeti. But there aren't, and this is a fact that creationists expect and have found without the requirement of 'probably' to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
It is true that evolutionists are the only ones that can place a chimp and human side by side and say they are the same. It appears to be you that is blinded by faith.
Creationists can clearly see the obvious defference. Any kind will obviously appear closer to one species than another. Percy already suggested that I must admit we are closer to chimps than any other species. I challenged this by posting research that speaks to the closer morphological similarity to orangutans. To suggest that the species that most closely resembles mankind is ape is one statement. To look at both side by side and say they are similar is a totally different claim, one of which is ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I am looking forward to Lucy's reply.
I would like to add this..... "What my colleagues and I did was apply all of these new methods to the problem of the origin of modern birds, with each method making different assumptions about how mutation rate changes across the tree," Brown said. He hoped the analysis would narrow the gap between fossil and molecular data, but in fact it only reinforced the rock-clock split by underscoring the finding that modern birds arose more than 100 million years ago." http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/02/080205171749.htm So once again I have provided evidence of an evolutionary mess. The bible states bird kind was created before the majority of land animals. The biggest mess in your classification system is birds. Birds and reptiles are also not settled cladistically. As you should be aware cladistics is favoured by many scientists as opposed to the Linnaeus system, although not without its problems also. Cladistics favour monophylies. Monophylies are akin to created kinds. Cladistics - WikipediaMonophyly - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Basically the trunk of your evolutionary tree is the divide of created kinds that are able to adapt by in-kind variation which is limited. This is further supported by research such as this...a limit to continuing adaptation where fitness levels out and ceases to adapt, while contuinuing to aquire mutations. Creationists accept speciation and observed evidence, but they deny what is observed leads to macroevolution. Macroevolution is what evos must assume, and cannot prove due to time contraints or whatever. The fact being it is assumed and not proven. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htm Homo is a monophyly and in line with biblical creation. There are no mid species, only apes and humans, now and always. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Percy what you say sounds so convincing on face value.
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. Many traits have arisin independently and it is about time evolutionists stopped looking at the evidence that suits them and inventing excuses via theories about what doesn't. eg accelerated genomic regions on the Y chromosome. Chaos theory, homology and homoplasy, speak to the mess and confounding variables relating to comparisons across closely related and distantly related species. The chaos theory of evolution | New ScientistHomology - Wikipedia(biology) Homology and homoplasy :: features and relationships - john hawks weblog Seriously, this looks like a game of pick what you want that suppports TOE and invent a theoretical excuse for that which doesn't. Creationists do not need the mumbo jumbo. The facts support the creation, including a monophyletic group of human beings being the only group alive today as expected. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024