2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleThis is where I do believe ‘myths/beliefs/faith’ play a major part of
Dr. Geoffry Bourne, Director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, in 1996 stated that apes and monkeys are the evolutionary descendents of men due to the fact that fossils of man predate his supposed ape-like ancestors (Australopithecus and Homo erectus) and that the human fetus bears certain resemblence to the ape.
In h sm as long as the central "dogma" and its profound implications remains: Man is a beast.
evolutionary theory, you are using Dr. Geoffry Bourne as a source,
cool, but look at what you are doing here! You have a fossils of apes
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ancestors, and just not our modern date apes and
monkeys ancestors only? That is quite a leap to suggest that, making
that as part of your evidence, we have fossils of apes and monkeys,
we have modern apes and monkeys, yet you want to throw in humans
too, why? The only reason I can think of is because it fits what you
believe to be true, I don’t see any other reason to do that.
"On the other hand Richard Leaky has point out that the cast of apes considered to be ancestral to man will continue to change, as it has in the past, but that is not important to evolutionism as long as the central "dogma" and its profound implications remains: Man is a beast."
I find this disturbing; you believe it is profound to believe man is a
beast? Why would that be important in the least? I can only come up
with one explanation, that to suggest we are something greater puts
the entire way we view all life in a different light. I’ll bring this up
again, it is how I view those that believe such a thing, I call that
Disney Science in honor of Walt Disney’s work, making us from
children think of animals as people by our giving them human speech,
emotions, motives, personalities and so on. Hard nut to crack if that
isn’t true, since it comes at us so innocently.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You have a fossils of apes
This is where I do believe ‘myths/beliefs/faith’ play a major part of
evolutionary theory, you are using Dr. Geoffry Bourne as a source,
cool, but look at what you are doing here! You have a fossils of apes
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ance and so on. Hard nut to crack if that
isn’t true, since it comes at us so innocently.
Kelly
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ancestors, and just not our modern date apes and
monkeys ancestors only? That is quite a leap to suggest that, making
that as part of your evidence, we have fossils of apes and monkeys,
we have modern apes and monkeys, yet you want to throw in humans
too, why? The only reason I can think of is because it fits what you
believe to be true, I don’t see any other reason to do that.
…
Analysis of the genes that modern apes have would show that they clearly have more genes in common with us than any other animal and this evidence along with other biological similarities such as well developed binocular vision and front limbs designed with some ability to grip and relatively large brains in proportion to their body size compared to most mammals etc is all very strong evidence (if not “proof&rdquo😉 that we and modern apes are closely related -why else would such similarities exist?
Given this very strong evidence that we and modern apes are closely related, if all modern apes share a common ancestor then it would be more than reasonable to assume that we are not the exception to that rule and we share the same ancestor with all the other modern apes.
It would be strange for me to suggest that, for example, that all modern apes and humans share a common ancestor EXCEPT, say, green monkeys (found in Barbados and West Africa -I think) despite the strong evidence that green monkeys are clearly just as closely related to other apes as the gorillas -for it would beg the obvious question; why would green monkeys be the exception? In the same way, it wouldn’t be reasonable for me to totally arbitrarily pick humans out of the primate family and think them as the exception in this respect.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=============================================
[b]…You have a fossils of apes
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ancestors, and just not our modern date apes and
monkeys ancestors only? That is quite a leap to suggest that, making
that as part of your evidence, we have fossils of ...[text shortened]... bitrarily pick humans out of the primate family and think them as the exception in this respect.
Analysis of the genes that modern apes have would show that they clearly have more genes in common with us than any other animal and this evidence along with other biological similarities such as well developed binocular vision and front limbs designed with some ability to grip and relatively
=================================================
"[Limbs] designed" you say ?
Designed ???
Remember there is no design in Darwinism.
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
[b]…You have a fossils of apes
and monkeys that according to your dating methods predate man,
which has nothing to do with my question, but why do you assume
these are human ancestors, and just not our modern date apes and
monkeys ancestors only? That is quite a leap to suggest that, making
that as part of your evidence, we have fossils of ...[text shortened]... bitrarily pick humans out of the primate family and think them as the exception in this respect.
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places,
one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus being this could mean
we are related as it has been suggest we are. I would also submit that
is not iron clad either since it could also mean that we simply have a
common design as well; however, either way requires some leap of
faith don't you think? It is still quite a leap suggesting humans came
from apes when we have modern apes and humans today, so why
should anyone accept that humans came from apes, why not just
accept that the modern apes came from those in the past? We do not
accept that modern apes and man are the same thing today, so why
do we accept it is possible we were in the past, we share many common
genes with modern apes, and we are not thought to be the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDesign requires a leap of faith - evolution does not.
There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places,
one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus being this could mean
we are related as it has been suggest we are. I would also submit that
is not iron cla ...[text shortened]... the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it?
Kelly[/b]
Evolution is a theory (in the scientifical sense) that has made predictions, which have been independentyly tested, the results / data / stats etc of which have all been pointing to the hypothesis being correct for the last 150 years = no faith
Design - not one prediction, one test, nor one independent data set to arrive at your conclusion = faith
At least you are keeping this junk in spirituality where it belongs.
Originally posted by timebombtedIncase you were not following the conversation it went to a very
Design requires a leap of faith - evolution does not.
Evolution is a theory (in the scientifical sense) that has made predictions, which have been independentyly tested, the results / data / stats etc of which have all been pointing to the hypothesis being correct for the last 150 years = no faith
Design - not one prediction, one test, nor one inde ...[text shortened]... your conclusion = faith
At least you are keeping this junk in spirituality where it belongs.
specific point, none of which has anything to do with any predictions,
and that is of the fossils of apes and monkeys, are they just the
ancestors of modern day apes and monkeys, or in addition to them
of humans too? This rests completely in the past, the answer if you
have it, I’d like to know how you got it. You can tell me whatever
you want about predictions; you can make any claims you want
about anything, but how do you know the fossils belong to the
ancestors of man? It isn’t like you were there, it isn’t like there
was some scientific study marking time and lineage of man through
the millennia. What part of evolution gives you insight into the
fossils of apes and monkeys that you would know those also belong
to ancestors of man, since modern day apes and humans are not
the same species in the here and now, why do you think those fossils
show they were in the past?
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedYou couldn't give me a dssign test for cars that you could also apply
Design requires a leap of faith - evolution does not.
Evolution is a theory (in the scientifical sense) that has made predictions, which have been independentyly tested, the results / data / stats etc of which have all been pointing to the hypothesis being correct for the last 150 years = no faith
Design - not one prediction, one test, nor one inde ...[text shortened]... your conclusion = faith
At least you are keeping this junk in spirituality where it belongs.
to life could you? I doubt you could, or would even want to either, the
only thing I think you could come up with is that humans make cars
and you have to rely on that, and that alone. In other words, if you
cannot see it you cannot prove it.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillTotally wrong! Of course there is design in Darwinism -Just not the same kind of “design” you are presumably referring to here for it is not “conscious design” or “deliberate design” but “blind design” meaning there is no intelligence behind the design and the “designer” is a totally mindless process.
....
"[Limbs] designed" you say ?
Designed ???
Remember there is no design in Darwinism.[/b]
Although it is a slightly odd way of putting it, it is never a less correct to say that the shape of a sand dune is “designed” by the wind.
But that doesn’t imply that the sand dune has a conscious designer -does it!
Totally mindless processes can “design” things and evolution is just one example of that.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI find it impossible to decipher exactly what your argument is here but this claim is clearly false:
You couldn't give me a dssign test for cars that you could also apply
to life could you? I doubt you could, or would even want to either, the
only thing I think you could come up with is that humans make cars
and you have to rely on that, and that alone. In other words, if you
cannot see it you cannot prove it.
Kelly
“….if you cannot see it you cannot prove it.”
There have been many things that have been proved without people actually seeing it directly with their eyes:
Nobody has ever seen an electron! And yet the existence of electrons have been proven -and if electrons didn’t exist, computers wouldn’t work. The existence of electrons has been proven by indirect observations.
Before people went into space, the Earth was proven to be round. And yet nobody saw that it was round with their own eyes. The round shape of the Earth was proven by indirect observations.
In the same way, evolution has been proven even though nobody has actually seen one species evolve into another using their own eyes. Evolution has been proven by indirect observations.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOut of context, refer to the fact I was speaking about design, and
I find it impossible to decipher exactly what your argument is here but this claim is clearly false:
[b] “….if you cannot see it you cannot prove it.”
There have been many things that have been proved without people actually seeing it directly with their eyes:
Nobody has ever seen an electron! And yet the existence of electrons have b ...[text shortened]... es evolve into another using their own eyes. Evolution has been proven by indirect observations.[/b]
my question you pulled was asking for a design test. He was going
out of his way saying there wasn't any test for design in life, so I'm
asking for a test for design, period. If he cannot come up with one
even though we are in a universe where we know we designed
countless things, his complaint about not being able to test for design
in life becomes meaningless. It also side steps the origional questions
I was putting forward too, but that too is typical of him.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAre you going to forget I was asking you about fossils, to be very
I find it impossible to decipher exactly what your argument is here but this claim is clearly false:
[b] “….if you cannot see it you cannot prove it.”
There have been many things that have been proved without people actually seeing it directly with their eyes:
Nobody has ever seen an electron! And yet the existence of electrons have b ...[text shortened]... es evolve into another using their own eyes. Evolution has been proven by indirect observations.[/b]
specific about ape, monkey, and humans?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places,
one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus being this could mean
we are related as it has been suggest we are. I would also submit that
is not iron cla the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it?
Kelly[/b]
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places …
You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence.
…one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus being this could mean
we are related as it has been suggest we are. I would also submit that
is not iron clad either since it could also mean that we simply have a
common design AS WELL; … (my emphasis)
Actually both of these things are true and there is no contradiction. We are BOTH related to modern apes (through a common ancestor) AND we have a “common design” with modern apes BECAUSE we are related to them. The words “common design” implies a “designer” and that “designer” is evolution which is a totally mindless process.
…however, EITHER way requires some leap of faith don't you think?… (my emphasis)
How can “EITHER” way be a “leap of faith” when both ways say we are related to apes and this is based on evidence rather than faith?
…so why should anyone accept that humans came from apes, why not just
accept that the modern apes came from those in the past? We do not
accept that modern apes and man are the same thing today, so why
do we accept it is possible we were in the past, we share many common
genes with modern apes, and we are not thought to be the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it? .…
The answer to the above question is that humans are related to modern apes so I don’t understand your argument here. I could say (erroneously):
…so why should anyone accept that chimpanzees came from apes, why not just
accept that the modern apes came from those in the past? We do not
accept that modern apes and chimpanzees are the same thing today, so why
do we accept it is possible chimpanzees were in the past, chimpanzees share many common genes with modern apes, and chimpanzees are not thought to be the same
species now, what changes when looking in the past that makes you
accept it? .…
And the answer to the above is that chimpanzees are related to other modern apes.
So why totally arbitrarily pick out humans from the primate family and ignore the evidence that humans are related to other primates? Why not totally arbitrarily pick out, say, chimpanzees; and then say they are not related?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKelly said, ….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
[b] ….There are a several ways I'm sure we could look at the data for ape
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places …
You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence.
…one being the way you are suggesting there are some things very
common between us and apes, with the focus ...[text shortened]... es? Why not totally arbitrarily pick out, say, chimpanzees; and then say they are not related?
genes and our analysis could take us a number of different places … "
Andrew said, "You are wrong. There is only one rational conclusion we can draw from this evidence."
Really, only one? You have a very narrow mind if you honestly believe
that, or you are just a true believer in the face of it all you can only
see it occurring one way. My question to you was, we see ape and
monkey fossils, we have modern apes and monkeys who we do not
call human. So in the past you can only see one way of looking at
those fossils; the modern day counter parts are not the same we call
human different than apes and monkeys, so logically the only
rational conclusion is the fossils must prove they were the same, they
could not possibly have been different back then too? I only have
one question for that one, why is that?
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….Are you going to forget I was asking you about fossils…
Are you going to forget I was asking you about fossils, to be very
specific about ape, monkey, and humans?
Kelly
I do not recall you asking me about fossils in this thread.
I think you may have asked me some questions about fossils a few days ago but that was in a different thread I think.
I have looked at every question you have asked me in this thread and I cannot see any mention of ‘fossils” .
Which post (and thread?) are you referring to?
-ARR! -now I have just noticed you have just posted a question for me about fossils at your 24 Aug '08 09:17 post AFTER you said “Are you going to forget I was asking you about fossils” ! and just before I posted this post! And before I had a chance to read your question -good one KellyJay! You say I forgot your question before you asked it! Perfect.