Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

My siblings are still human beings who are incapable of breeding with an ape. So again, please tell us how animals can exchange genes with humans since they cannot interbreed.

Hey Carico. Since you are spred out everywhere, lets keep the discussion in one place. Please see my response in the "Evolution for Christians and dummies" thread. I would love to discuss this with you as you seem genuinely interested in learning.

I hadn't gotten any replies to my posts until today so I posted them in more than one category. But my post also corresponds to the threads in which I posted and I cannot procced with those discussions without reference to the statements I've made. But i would also love to discuss this with you in the thread you mentioned. Thanks.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 01:47 PM

Please read my post from earlier in the thread. I said that animals don't normally evolve by huge jumps in a single generation. There were primitive hominids at one time, then they gave birth to offspring that were a little bit more like humans, but not different enough to make them unable to reproduce. As time went on, the population became more and more like what humans are now, though they had not set "human" as a goal.If the original population of hominids had split into two groups, and they remained separated for too long, eventually the differences would build up and they would no longer be able to interbreed. That is why humans and chimpanzees can't mate with each other.

I understand that evolutionists hold that humans have "evolved" over millions of years. I never said that evolutionists claim that 2 apes instantly bred a human. I'm saying that apes and humans cannot exchange genes with each other so it is impossible for the genes of a human to even get into an ape in the first place! But evolutionists forget that and claim that apes spontaneously changed on their own. There is not only zero proof for this because apes are still around today and not changing on their own, but offspring acquire genes from the mating between their parents. What makes each human unique is the specific set of genes acquired from its parents. And so far, no human has ever bred anything other than a human being and neither has any animal ever bred a creature that turned into a human being!Each species passes along the set of genes unique to its species to its offspring. And that is why birds breed birds, dogs, breed dogs, cats breed cats, apes breed apes and humans breed humans. This is so elementary yet evolution contradicts it.The theory of evolution is all from the imagination. It came from "Hey, what if men came from apes? How could this be possible"? And that started the imagination working over time. And because it's a human theory,it will always be fallible and there will always be holes in it...gaping holes.

Don't do that! If folk won't answer you in one post, leave the issue alone! (Welcome to EvC by the way. I am one of the creationist Admins.)

Why would humans need to exchange genes with apes for evolution to be correct?There is no solid, set-in-stone barrier between human and ape. Now, there aren't any nonhuman hominids left for humans to breed with. There are only our more distant relatives remaining, like chimpanzees and gorillas. The ones that were more like modern humans, like the Neanderthals, all died off.Because there is no solid barrier, there are many transitional fossils in between apes and humans, and it is hard to tell where apes end and humans begin. This is in line with what the theory of evolution would predict. All evolution requires is for the ape-like ancestors to give birth to offspring just a little different from themselves - that is, the offspring has mutations. After many generations, the mutations build up and you have something very different from what you started with.We share around 96% of our genes with chimpanzees. The other 4% is mutations that have built up since the common ancestor between chimps and humans.

If that's so, how do you explain the fact that humans and apes share so many of our genes? How did we get each other's genes if it's supposedly impossible for that to be the case?

How can apes have the genes of humans and humans have the genes of an ape if we cannot interbreed? Do you not know that genes are passed along through mating and producing offspring? Do you not know that offspring resemble their parents? Yet human beings are so obviously different than apes who are in the jungles and in zoos where man put them and we rule over them just like the bible says we do. Why do humans not produce offspring with wings? Why haven't we simply developed that gene like evolutionists claim apes developed the gene for speech, cognition, the ability to form complex analyses and walk on 2 lesg? Just luck? And as you can see, no ape has those traits today and no one has ever witnessed an ape with those trait
s since the beginning of recorded history.By the reasoning of evolutionists, I can say that we came from birds who dropped the gene for wings and have now become extinct. I can say anything happened before there were witnesses and people would believe me if I have a ph.d. That is how much power people give those with a ph.d. unless people can learn to think for themselves.

Can you really not imagine a situation where A can mate with B, and B with C, but not A with C? But wouldn't gene flow persist from A to C in that model?I can't tell if you're just purposefully ignorant, or you have no imagination.

...to avoid turning to stone?You're looking more and more like a troll the more you post.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I have a PhD (in chemistry, not biology) and I still have to pay $0.89 for a Hershey Bar at the 7-11 just like you do. Nobody listens to me at all except when I suggest how they should acidize their oil well - and that has almost nothing to do with any of my chemistry education. Power. I'd like some, I guess, but this AIN'T WORKIN'!!

Sorry, but I just replied to an evolutionist who said that humans only breed humans and apes only breed apes. Are you suggesting otherwise? how do you support your theory if evolutionists themselves can't even agree on whether or not humans descended from apes?But assuming that you believe that humans descended from apes even thoug other evolutionists do not, cats and dogs both have 4 legs, 2 eyes, 2 noses, 2 ears, whiskers, mammary glands and a mouth yet they cannot interbreed. There are many, many species who are alike but did not descend from each other. God created many, many species with similar traits but as separate species who all have a specific function in the world. We also have similar characteristics of plants. We both need food, water, mate, and grow. Does that make us plants? Of course not. And all this theorizing simply to deny that God exists, yet reality supports the biblical account of creation perfectly.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-08-2005 12:15 AM

Well, humans are apes, so that's not exactly useful information. My guess is, you're not understanding even half of what you're being told. Oh, nobody disagrees. It's just your mistake if you think humans don't have ape ancestry according to evolution. Try to pay more attention, ok? And ask questions when you don't understand.And, please, answer my question. Can you really not concieve of a situation where A can mate with B, and B with C, but A not with C? And wouldn't there be gene flow between A and C anyway?Answer the question this time, ok?

So? How is that homologous? Shouldn't we expect similar genes for analogous structures? Seems to me the genes are just analogous like the structures.What's the basis for calling the genes homologous rather than analogous?More to the point, suppose the genes were different. That would be more expected for evolutionary theory because it would be a stronger case for genetic relatedness due to common descent rather than design. If the genes are just more similar as a result of common design, then that could just as easily be called analogous as homologous.