Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
20 online now:
dwise1, Theodoric (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 85 of 184 (808151)
05-08-2017 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Davidjay
05-08-2017 11:51 AM


Re: Thread Information is true
Davidjay writes:

But it should be noted that most evolutionists here state that primates ancestor was batsmeaning in their opinion, our further back ancestor is and was bats.

Davidjay can't figure out how his cousins can be his relatives while not being his ancestors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Davidjay, posted 05-08-2017 11:51 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:37 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 87 of 184 (808403)
05-10-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 2:37 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

Evolutionists cant figure out where we came from,

We came from a common ancestor shared with chimps as supported by the fossil record and genetics.

But go ahead explain, how our relatives are not our ancestors.

You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:37 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:54 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 91 of 184 (808415)
05-10-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 2:54 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats.

That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that.

You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives...

Perhaps your ancestors were cousins, but mine were not. In my family, my grandparents are my ancestors. My cousins are not. My cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents, but my cousins are not my grandparents.

Do you seriously not understand this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:54 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 96 of 184 (808723)
05-12-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

When the original statement was relatives, as relatives includes parents and grandparents, and those with direct links to us.

The original statement meant relativies as in cousins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:19 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:28 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 98 of 184 (808737)
05-12-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

No relatives means relatives and not merely cousins.

The posters meant cousins when they used the word relatives. What matters is what the posters were trying to communicate, not what you can twist their words to mean. Our position is that bats are our cousins, not our ancestors.

If all you have is semantics, then you lose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:28 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 107 of 184 (809118)
05-16-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Cousins not ancestors, once again.
Davidjay writes:

Lets see what the confused evolutionists now say....
Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.

False. Euarchonta includes primates, scandentia, and their common ancestor. Any clade includes all of the living species (which are cousins), any extinct side branches, and the common ancestors of those cousins.

Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.

Primates and Scandentia ARE Euarochonta, just as humans are still primates.

OK, but lets not misunderstand their artists conception of our ancestrial tree..

It isn't an artistic conception. It is an objective phylogeny based on morphological and genetic data.

Euarconta is an ancestor to us primates..

Primates ARE Euarochonta. You keep getting this wrong. Primates are Euarochonta in the same way that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. However, this doesn't mean that Chihuahuas are ancestral to Great Danes just because they are both dogs.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:47 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 11:47 AM Taq has responded
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 12:06 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 112 of 184 (809144)
05-16-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 11:47 AM


Re: Cousins not ancestors, once again.
Davidjay writes:

No your family tree clears states that E......'s are our ancestors.

No, it doesn't. It clearly states that humans ARE Euarochonta just as humans are still primates and Chihuahuas are still dogs.

Primates are labeled after and down the branch.

Primates are labeled as being on the Euarochonta branch, which means they are still Euarochonta.

You say, E's are our ancestors.

Where did I say that? Quote me, I dare you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 11:47 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 113 of 184 (809145)
05-16-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Re:Tag, you need a new artist
Your old tree, showed E turning into primates.......

It shows that primates ARE Euarchonta. They are on the Euarchonta branch which makes them Euarchonta. Primates are just a group within Euarchonta in the same way that apes are a group within primates.

You need to learn how phylogenies and clades work before embarrassing yourself like this.

as in Dogs turning into Danes and Chihuahuas....

Are you saying that Danes and Chihuahuas are not dogs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 12:06 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2017 12:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 115 of 184 (809151)
05-16-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 11:49 AM


Re: Cousins not ancestors, once again.
Davidjay writes:

The set of primates is not concentric with Euarchonta's. They are not the same... E's came before according to evolutionists. They are suppose to be our ancestors, our forefathers.

Humans ARE Euarchonta because we are on the Euarchonta branch. This is the same as saying primates are a group of mammals, but not all mammals are primates. Apes are a group of primates, but not all primates are apes. Hominids are a group of apes, but not all apes are hominids. All modern humans are hominids, but not all hominids are anatomically modern humans.

My word, man, this is basic biology. Were you never taught how taxonomy or cladistics works? Do you really think that Chihuahuas stopped being dogs when they started looking different from other dogs? Did birds stop being vertebrates when they grew feathers? You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were plus modifications. Humans are still hominids, still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. We never stopped being those things.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 11:49 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 118 of 184 (809156)
05-16-2017 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 12:50 PM


Re: And all our ancestors are now extinct
Davidjay writes:

And all our ancestors are now extinct... how convenient..

Did you think your ancestors were immortal? I don't remember any of saying that organisms are immortal.

I quess we got magic beneficial mutations which elevated us into a higher superior race than our cousin tree shrews and uncle bats and above the Euarconta organisms.

You would be guessing wrong.

Pity we are not allowed to discuss this on a New Topic and discuss Missing Links.... its very embarassing for evolutionists, so I reckon that answers that question.

Pity that you can't even discuss the topics of threads that you start.

Primates ancestors were Euarconta say the evolutionist...

False. Evolutionists say that primates ARE Euarchonta.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 12:50 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 119 of 184 (809157)
05-16-2017 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

So where did humans come from ?

Haven't you been taught where babies come from?

People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying.

Why don't you quote their actual words?

So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ?

You don't come from a branch. You are ON a branch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 140 of 184 (810494)
05-30-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Davidjay
05-29-2017 10:46 AM


Re: Ancestors were humans, humans did not evolve
Davidjay writes:

Anyway Humans have not evolved, is what I say and state. You have to state, 'Humans did evolve' and then tell us who are oour ancestors were, without microscopic graphs from others being your cop out.

Why do we have to state who our ancestors were? We already have genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes and other primates. We can't know for sure if any fossil has living descendants because those fossils don't carry DNA. However, that doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away.

We don't need to name anything since we already have the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-29-2017 10:46 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:55 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 142 of 184 (810506)
05-30-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:55 AM


Re: Ancestors were humans, humans did not evolve
Davidjay writes:

Can we therefore call it, NO NAME EVIDENCE....

You can call it "mountains of genetic evidence supporting common ancestry".

I thought after all these years, you would have pinpointed some kind of ancestry for us primates...

We have pinpointed ancestry through genetic evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:55 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 11:57 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 144 of 184 (810641)
05-31-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 11:57 PM


Re: Ancestors were humans, humans did not evolve
Davidjay writes:

In other words, Razz's results or conclusions differ from other evolutionists and evolutionists do not agree and have no confirmed idea where we came from...

That's not what RAZD said, nor is it what the scientists are saying. What they are saying is that they aren't sure which of those other branches are more closely related to us.

or we can rationally conclude that evolution does not agree on who our ancestors were....

All scientists agree that we share a common ancestor with other mammal species. Nothing you are pointing to casts doubt on that. The only disagreement is the precise details of which branches branched first. There is no doubt that the mammal branches join together at one time in the past.

Also note that he uses the word 'BRANCH' which evolutionists and Razz used, yet evolutionists HEREIN keep denying they ever believed in branching.

The only thing we disagree with is your misrepresentation of how the branching works. You continually make the mistake of taking the species at the tips of the branches and putting them where the branches meet. That's not how it works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 11:57 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Diomedes, posted 05-31-2017 1:49 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Davidjay, posted 06-01-2017 11:40 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019