|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution for Dummies and Christians | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Carico, again, no one is saying humans came from an ape.
It's a common ancestor. Did you come from your cusin? No. But you are related by virtue of your grandparents. Millions of years agao there was an ape-like creature that lead both to humans and modern apes. No ape/human crossbreed necissary. Oh, and please reply to this mesage Message 241 This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-08-2005 08:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
I will listen. But if I see contradictions, am I free to point them out? I have heard the same statements about evolution for over 30 years, so I don't think there's anything new you can tell me. And then when i point out contradictions, they either change their premis or yell at me because of their contradictions. So what do you suggest I do? I know I'm going to hear things I've heard many times before. But i'm wondering if it's possible for evolutionists themsleves to see their own contradictions. Is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I will listen. But if I see contradictions, am I free to point them out? Of course. But please, don't simply shout "AHA! SEE YOUR WRONG!" That get's us nowhere. If you see something you feel is in conflict, or that you don't understand, point it out. I would be happy to address the issue.
I have heard the same statements about evolution for over 30 years, so I don't think there's anything new you can tell me. Well, from what I have read from you so far, whatever you have heard for the last 30 years is compleatly worng. I'm sorry to say, but you are very misinformed. Look, you don't have to accept the theory. You can think it's total hogwash for all I care. But, it's important for you to understand how the theory works. I would like to explain it to you if you will listen.
And then when i point out contradictions, they either change their premis or yell at me because of their contradictions. So what do you suggest I do? Well.... would you like to have a great Debate Topic Just you and me?
I know I'm going to hear things I've heard many times before. But i'm wondering if it's possible for evolutionists themsleves to see their own contradictions. Is it? Sure. I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong. But you must first learn the subject you wish to debate. Namely the ToE. Would you like to start a great debate topic? This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-08-2005 09:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
carico writes: how can I understand evolution when evolutionists keep contradicting themselves? I'm simply trying to pin down your premise. Apparently it's you who is contradicting herself. First you tell us that the "premise of evolution" is a lie, then you say that you are trying to pin down "our premise", implying you don't know what it is exactly. If you don't know what the premise is, you cannot say that it is a lie.
Is it or is it not true that evolutionists believe that man came from the ape? If by 'ape' you mean modern apes - the apes that live now: chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - then it is not true that evolutionists believe that. Evolutionists think that modern man and modern apes have a common ancestor.
If it is true, then I am right when I say that is a premise of evolution. That's faulty logic. Even if it were true, then you would still be wrong in calling it a premise of evolution. It would be a conclusion of evolution. Consider the absurdity of it being a premise: how can something that happened only in the last few million years be a premise for the truth of a process that's been going on for billions of years prior to it? I'll tell you the real premises of the theory of evolution:
The conclusion from these premises is that populations change over time. Like you have said: the truth is simple. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-Dec-2005 02:33 PM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
So is this common ancestor half-man, half-beast? If not, then how can it be common to both humans and apes? If so, then how did it develop the traits of another species without mating with it? Are you saying that animals spontaneously turn into other species without mating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Are you answering Yaro or me?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-Dec-2005 02:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
You.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
So is this common ancestor half-man, half-beast? If not, then how can it be common to both humans and apes? If so, then how did it develop the traits of another species without mating with it? Are you saying that animals spontaneously turn into other species without mating? Well first off, before I address this, you need to understand two concepts. First, given the dog example (chihuahua and great dane) do you now see how one population of creatures can change to the point where they can no longer breed with a previous population? Second, do you agree that random mutations in genes occur, and that this is the reason for genetic variation "drift"? This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-08-2005 09:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
The ancestor is almost human, and almost modern-ape. The traits a species develops as it evolves, are not the traits of another existing species it mates with. That's not how traits are acquired.
Instead, random mutations produce individuals that are slightly different from their siblings. Some differences lead to advantages of the individual over others. There are limited resources and not all individuals survive until they can reproduce. Only the better adapted individuals get to reproduce, thus passing on their advantageous traits. This is called natural selection. In this manner, over a long period of time, the population of a species changes. I'll bow out now, and let Yaro talk to you a bit. We can continue this later. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-Dec-2005 02:32 PM This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-Dec-2005 02:49 PM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I repeat:
APES NEVER INTERBRED WITH HUMANS!!! Instead, animals that we, today, would likely say were some sort of ape critter bred among themselves. Perhaps one daddy fathered kids on either side of the Limpopo River. The kids on the north side moved to the woods. The kids on the south side moved to the savannah. They didn't see each other again, but kept breeding among each of their two populations. Over a few hundreds of generations, the north woodsy family had changed just a tiny bit - they were better at climbing trees thad the daddy had been, since the kids that weren't as good at climbing didn't get as much fruit to eat, and some part of the bone and muscle changes that helped climbing were heritable.. Meanwhile, the south savannah family had changed a tiny bit, too: they stood upright more than the original daddy had. The ones that didn't inherit the oddity of standing to look around were more likely to be a cheetah snack. In addition to those changes, the two groups were isolated from each other - first by the Limpopo, later by their preference for woods or savannah, later still by not liking each other's looks when the river was down - and finally by diverging enough genetically that they couldn't breed any more. Two species, where there once was one. No interspecies sex, ever. APES NEVER INTERBRED WITH HUMANS!!! Critters just bred with their own kind, got separated, and the "kind" that each had been changed, little by little. Until we wound up with chimps and humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
Random mutation is exactly that. Random. It does not keep adding new genes to a cell in the same offspring over and over and over again in the same species. It is random and happens by chance. That also means that the likelihood of this mutant's offspring also having a random mutation is almost nil, ESPECIALLY adding another superior gene like the ability to talk. But that's what evolutionists propose for us to believe, which is a contradiction. The number of mutations that would have to have occured for MILLIONS of years for an ape to turn into a man is more impossible than anything in the bible!!
No. You still haven't proven how a great Dane and a Chihuaua were ever able to breed. I know it's possible for a human to manipulate genes, but not for animals themselves to do it. So without human manipulation, how can a Great Dane and a chihuahua produce offspring together? And where is the proof that they ever could?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Random mutation is exactly that. Random. It does not keep adding new genes to a cell in the same offspring over and over and over again in the same species. It is random and happens by chance. That also means that the likelihood of this mutant's offspring also having a random mutation is almost nil, ESPECIALLY adding another superior gene like the ability to talk. But that's what evolutionists propose for us to believe, which is a contradiction. The number of mutations that would have to have occured for MILLIONS of years for an ape to turn into a man is more impossible than anything in the bible!! Ok.. so you agree that it happens right? Random mutations and genetic variation. That's why we get tall people, short people, dark people, light-skinned people, blond hair, black hair, etc. Just random variations in the genome that crop up over time. We agree?
No. You still haven't proven how a great Dane and a Chihuaua were ever able to breed. I know it's possible for a human to manipulate genes, but not for animals themselves to do it. So without human manipulation, how can a Great Dane and a chihuahua produce offspring together? And where is the proof that they ever could? Humans didn't manipulate the genes. It's a process known as selective beeding. And it's essentially what goes on in nature all the time. Except in nature humans aren't doing the selecting, the environment is. In any case, you can see that a chihuahua and great dane cannot naturaly mate? Even if size is the only reason. You agree with me there correct? That chihuhua is a dog bread to the point where it can no longer mate with other, larger, groups of dogs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
You don't seem to realize that there are always variations within each species. But calling humans the same species as apes just to say there is no God is ludicrous. Reality doesn't support that and neither does the process of reproduction. Therefore, your statement about short people, tall people, etc. is completely meaningless because they are still human beings. And by using the dog example, you're trying to show that humans and apes can cross-breed, are you not? If so, then you are suggesting bestiality which is not only impossible, but perverse as well. If not, then why bring up the dog example? I have to be offline for awhile. I'll be back later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
You don't seem to realize that there are always variations within each species. But calling humans the same species as apes just to say there is no God is ludicrous. Reality doesn't support that and neither does the process of reproduction. Therefore, your statement about short people, tall people, etc. is completely meaningless because they are still human beings. And by using the dog example, you're trying to show that humans and apes can cross-breed, are you not? If so, then you are suggesting bestiality which is not only impossible, but perverse as well. If not, then why bring up the dog example? I have to be offline for awhile. I'll be back later. Carico. You didn't answer my questions. I have no alterior motive here. You are jumping to all these conclusions and it's making me feel like you aren't listening to me. Look, just answer yes or no. We can talk about all the ramifications later, but I need you to at least come this far with me. If you don't come at least this far, you won't ever understand the ToE. Further, you will continue to look foolish even to people who hold similar beliefs to yours. Again, yes or no. Random mutations occur? A population of creatures (chihuahua and great dane) can become so different from another population that they can no longer interbreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
I did answer that. Yes they do. But not to the same species generation after generation after generation. Then they are no longer random, particularly when the mutations just "happen" to keep producing superior traits over and over again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024