Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
39 online now:
jar, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,087 Year: 13,835/23,288 Month: 27/326 Week: 47/92 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Human Evolution
Dr Adequate
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 5 of 36 (443121)
12-23-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kakip
12-23-2007 6:21 PM

Hi there.

If humans were said to be.. or be related to gorillas.. or chimpanzees or of those african apes, why is there still such things as gorillas and other apes.. wouldnt there be all humans if the apes have evolved into these humans..

Ah, it's the ol' "why are there still monkeys?" thing again.

If Iceland was colonized by Scandinavians, why are there still Scandinavians?

how are these apes still maintain all the perfect DNA as to what exactly they are as apes, when apes have evolved into humans.

The apes we have now are not, in fact, the apes you used to get in the good old days, they too have evolved since the time of our common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kakip, posted 12-23-2007 6:21 PM kakip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Equinox, posted 12-25-2007 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 7 of 36 (443134)
12-23-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
12-23-2007 7:55 PM

Actually ...
We are apes.

Whoever told you that stuff is simply a liar, likely another "Liar for Jesus."

All us Apes evolved from something that was not yet Ape

I wish people wouldn't do that.

Look, if apes are a clade, then our common ancestors with chimps was an ape.

If, on the other hand, we're going to allow the term "apes" to be anacladic, then in common parlance we are not apes, and our common ancestor with chimps would so be clasified. 'Cos they look like, y'know, apes.

Your definition of apes, in which we are, but our ancestors aren't, corresponds to no concept I've ever heard of, and combines the worst features of both definitions.

Be nice.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 7:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 8:26 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 13 of 36 (443339)
12-24-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Jack
12-24-2007 3:25 PM

So, 6 million years ago there's a bunch of apes hanging around in a tree, some of these apes thought it'd be a nifty idea to start hanging around on all this big shiny savanna that opened up and was filled with Lions and Tigers along with the odd Mushroom and Badger and so they hoped down from the trees and learnt to walk on two legs, shave and do complicated long division sums while the rest of them sloped around and became chimps.

Close, but no cigar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 12-24-2007 3:25 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 30 of 36 (448976)
01-15-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Elmer
01-15-2008 6:18 PM

Re: Natural Selection
And yes, I've heard all the darwinist fairy-tales [just-so stories] about how, once upon a time, these creatures did not live in snowy climates, until one happy day a normal brown animal suddenly was touched by a magic genetic mutation that caused white fur when the winter came, but reversed itself with the snow-melt, and that complex but fortuitous genetic mutation enabled/compelled him/her to move north in the winter for camouflage purposes--to a place where, previously, all the brown-furred animals were wiped out soon after the first fall of snow, because they weren't snow white. Duh!!

You have not, in fact, heard that, because no-one has ever said that.

Except possibly the voices in your head.

Does gravity change "in unpredictable and irregular ways"? Does electro-magnetism or the nuclear forces?

No, but environments do. This is a fact.

So how in the world can darwinists keep insisting that their "NS" is on the exact same level of causality as the four accepted 'forces'?

They do not, which is why you can't quote them as doing so.


Why don't you try arguing with some opinion that someone actually holds? Or is that too difficult for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Elmer, posted 01-15-2008 6:18 PM Elmer 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 © 2020