Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

jonesdave116 said:
Hmmm, our DNA is greater than 98% the same as Chimpanzees. It's slightly less for Gorillas. A bit less still for Orangs. So the conclusion of this is that........our closest common ancestor is a penguin!
Click to expand...

Yeah. You pay attention too much to the likenesses and ignore the differences. The differences are HUGE, in case you didn't know.
 
Slowvehicle said:
The idea that "micro-evolution" is somehow different from what creationists call "macro-evolution" is as silly as the idea that "micro-walking" (walking to the fridge for a beer) is a different process than "macro-walking" (walking to Albuquerque for Beerfest).



It will help your arguments conform with reality.
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with your theory, it's strengths and many, many weaknesses. By the way, which version of abiogenesis do you go with? :eek:
 
Designated Hitter said:
Thank you, Ladewig. I was just making it clear that macro-evolution, especially the so-called evolution of man from ape like creature has never been proven, only speculated from so-called fossil evidence.

Most people don't know that because in America evolution is taught in public schools as fact when it isn't fact. It is just another theory.
Click to expand...

"so-called fossil" if it isn't fossil what is it?
 
Designated Hitter said:
.........which version of abiogenesis do you go with? :eek:
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. However much you magic-it-out-of-the-air types want it to be, evolution is simply the accumulation of changes throughout the history of life, and says nothing whatever about the origins of life. Did you say you knew something about this subject?
 
Designated Hitter said:
Please post the DNA changes from our "ape-like" ancestor, step-by-step over millions of years. Please explain EXACTLY how they occurred and why they occurred.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Frankly, that would be childs play for a geneticist, but you wouldn't understand it. It would probably overwhelm the carrying capacity of the forum server, too.

As to why, that's very easy. Because naturally occuring mutations (do you look exactly the same as your father?) were selected for by the death of millions of our ancestors prior to them reaching breeding age. If you don't breed, your genes don't get passed on. You have heard of genes, I take it?
 
Last edited:
Designated Hitter said:
I am quite familiar with your theory, it's strengths and many, many weaknesses. By the way, which version of abiogenesis do you go with? :eek:
Click to expand...

First off, thank you for the attempted compliment, but evolution by natural selection is not "my" theory. I am, however, capable of noticing that it has predictive power that no version of "creation science", "ID", or any of their ilk can even begin to hope to match.

Second off, you are not as "familiar" with the theory of evolution by natural selection as you seem to think you are, if you can ask your final question with a straight face.

"Abiogenesis" (more properly, biopoesis, to avoid confusion with the work of Spallanzani, Tyndall, and Pasteur, et al.) is the investigation of how life began. Evolution by natural selection is the theory about how living things have developed; it properly applies to things that are living.

Many Creationists (and ID hucksters) try to conflate the two, but they do err when they do so. You should read.
 
Designated Hitter said:
Please post the DNA changes from our "ape-like" ancestor, step-by-step over millions of years. Please explain EXACTLY how they occurred and why they occurred.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

You really ought to go check out the "cognitive dissonance" thread...

BTW, which "version" of "abiogenesis" (moire properly, biopoesis) do you, personally, espouse?
 
MikeG said:
Yeah, that gets dull pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

I believe his point is that if humans are animals only by definition, it doesn't preclude humans at the same time being utterly different from every other animal that exists; as a definition is an arbitrary point of language developed by humans.

Whereas if humans are animals by classification, then that is saying something about the innate qualities of humans.

The latter is much more important. I think it is a point worth making in this discussion.
 
PursuedByABear said:
I believe his point is that if humans are animals only by definition, it doesn't preclude humans at the same time being utterly different from every other animal that exists; as a definition is an arbitrary point of language developed by humans........
Click to expand...

We aren't utterly different from every other animal that exists, though, any more than the peacock is utterly different from every other animal, or the elephant shrew is utterly different from every other animal, or the howler monkey..........or the whatever. By whatever yardstick one cares to use, we are a mammal, an animal. All I can assume with the silly semantic games is that people have some sort of vested interest in denying this obvious point. We are an oddly naked version of great ape with a brain enlarged by roughly the same form of runaway feedback loop which caused the peacock's tail to go nuts.
 
MikeG said:
What about that Eve from a rib thing? How come we've still got the same number of ribs?
Click to expand...
LOL You are not that naive are you? The rib is a metaphor for the hard erect penis and sexual intercourse. Get it? Adam giving Eve his "rib"? Part of the larger symbolism of marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." We don't speak in metaphors much anymore. Some, but ancient Hebrew was a language of mostly metaphors. Any attempt by you to translate them literally will always fail miserably.

Let's not you make that same mistake please. You laugh at people who comment about science while ignorant of science. It does your case little to make the same mistake in reverse by commenting on religion out of ignorance. All it does is widen the very divide you rant against.
 
Designated Hitter said:
The evolution of man from ape like creatures is one of the most effective lies told in all of history. No proof exists for this, only speculation as wild as that in the OP.
Click to expand...

Driven by Marietta a load of times headed North and South!!! Damn glad now I never stopped there!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom