View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 35 of 52 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post

    The teosinte plant branched off into corn, didn't it?
    I have no clue, I cannot answer all possible specualtions you are willing to come up with.

    If it is your answer to the question #1 please submit it in the form requested by the question #1. .

  2. #342
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Well, Tucker, disregard my previous question. It was dumb. It is all obvious for you. Evolutionist text books and sources are the ones who are lying blatantly. It is obvious. Even evolutionists here - the ones who have an ability to reason, come to acception. So the question to you is - why evolutionist text books and sources are lying?

  3. #343
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    None of the answer are correct we didnt evolve from apes we are apes and we evolved from a common ancestor.
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  4. #344
    Royal Pain
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    06-06-11 @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,595

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Half of an exact replicate of our DNA can be found in Bananas. But i dont think my ancestors grew off trees.
    That's not the way it works. We have a common ancestor with plants, understand, from way back. That 50% likely controls the very most basic (and most important) functions of life, down to and below the cellular level, that are shared in all organisms. Much of it also may be "junk DNA," that apparently serves little purpose for most organisms. However, having this junk DNA does not make an organism less likely to survive and reproduce (it is not selected against), so it doesn't go anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Such DNA results showing "similarities" is nothing...because we have nothing to suggest we did evolve from monkeys, the only evidence we do have is "similarities" which for me isnt conclusive enough.
    Actually, DNA results showing similarities is everything. The more DNA a pair of species share, the more similar they are in appearance and in function. Beyond the conclusive DNA evidence, we also have fairly extensive fossil records, further proving that we evolved from an ape-like species.


    Duke
    The big majority of Americans, who are comparatively well off, have developed an ability to have enclaves of people living in the greatest misery without almost noticing them.
    -- Gunnar Myrdal


    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
    -- Henry Kissinger


    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
    account be allowed to do the job.
    -- Douglas Adams

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I have no clue, I cannot answer all possible specualtions you are willing to come up with.
    I named ONE example of observed speciation over recent human history.

    You argued that it didn't happen.

    My example proved you wrong.

    It's all I needed to do.

  6. #346
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Justone in oyur own source provided it said

    5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
    While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
    And thats the first one. A new species was created, hence speciation. Polyploidy happens more in plants and rare in animals, but polyploidy has been observed, new species of plants have been observed.

    Regarding speciation in animals, the European Corn Borer and the Apple Maggot fly are in ACT I of speciation at the minute. I am confident in the over next 100 years we will observe a speciation even in animals.
    Remember we have only known about the theory of evolution through natural selection for 150 years, a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

    And lets just say for hypothethical reasons we had no observed speciation. If no-one witnessed a murder, does that mean a murder never happened? Even if there is the evidence of a dead body, murder weapon, DNA evidence, fingerprints, footsteps in mud, a used cig butt and the murderers semen everywhere?

    Also why would scientists lie justone? You never answered me on that.
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-03-09 at 02:48 PM.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  7. #347
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Well, Tucker, disregard my previous question. It was dumb. It is all obvious for you. Evolutionist text books and sources are the ones who are lying blatantly. It is obvious. Even evolutionists here - the ones who have an ability to reason, come to acception. So the question to you is - why evolutionist text books and sources are lying?
    Interesting question.

    I'm not entirely convinced that anyone is "lying", per se. Clearly, one side must be wrong. Either it has or it has not been observed. Whichever side is wrong would only fall into the "lying" category if they knew that the information they claimed to be true was actually false. If they believed that the information were true when the statement was made, then they are simply wrong.



    I think this whole issue is often clouded by the way information is portrayed.

    For example, it is a common statement by many to say that human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are 96% alike. But when you break it down further, as far as genetic alignment goes, there is, at most, a 70% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA:

    Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So that makes me wonder, which one is right? Is our DNA 96% like a chimp's DNA or is it 70% like the chimps?

    Is one lying and the other telling the truth?

    Are they both telling the truth, but from different perspectives with different frames of reference?

    Is there purposeful misinformation being done by researchers because of conscious ulterior motives?

    Or is it accidental due to a subconscious desire to support a pre-existing belief?

    When someone says that humans and chimps share 96% of their DNA I'm often tempted to say, "So? What does that mean? It's not like we're 96% similar to chimps phenotypically. Clearly a mechanism is in place causing greater variance than what that measure can see. I can accurately say that a Diamond shares 100% of the same basic building blocks as Graphite. It turns out the way those building blocks go together is as important as the building blocks themselves when it comes to the nature of the two. The truth is, that 96% is arranged very, very differently in the two species."


    So I don't think anyone is actually lying, I just they are overzealous in their attempts to support a theory with the data without fully analyzing the data in it's own right.

  8. #348
    That European Guy
    GarzaUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland
    Last Seen
    11-30-15 @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Half of an exact replicate of our DNA can be found in Bananas. But i dont think my ancestors grew off trees.

    We share 50% of our DNA with bananas

    Such DNA results showing "similarities" is nothing...because we have nothing to suggest we did evolve from monkeys, the only evidence we do have is "similarities" which for me isnt conclusive enough.
    You didnt read my message right. Even if we disregarding the amount of DNA humans and apes share, the Genome markers give the game away so to speak.

    Retroviruses replicate by inserting their DNA into our DNA and the cell repicates by mitosis and copies the DNA with the viral DNA in it. Some of these can be passed to the offspring. These viruses can place their DNA in trillions of places in our genome, and they do so randomly.

    So if intellident design/creationists are correct then each speices should have viral DNA in a different combination of markers, kind of like a bar code. The odds that two non-related species would have the same viral DNA combination is astronomical.

    Yet we do not find this. We find a progression of viral DNA with the progression of species. This is kind of crude, but Ill go for it.

    Fish will have viral DNA on markers 65, 23, 99, 56
    Mammalian Reptiles 65, 23, 99, 56, 33, 72, 4
    First Mammals 65, 23, 88, 56, 33, 72, 4,7, 9
    Monkeys 65, 23, 88, 56 33, 72, 4,7,9,77, 96
    Chimps 65, 23, 88, 56 33, 72, 4,7,9,77, 96,23
    Humans 65, 23, 88, 56 33, 72, 4,7,9,77, 96,23,65

    This can only come about if species are related, as they pass on their DNA viral markers to their ancestors, including those of different species. Much like the passing of genes from parents to children
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-03-09 at 02:40 PM.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Justone in oyur own source provided it said



    And thats the first one. A new species was created, hence speciation. Polyploidy happens more in plants and rare in animals, but polyploidy has been observed, new species of plants have been observed.

    Regarding speciation in animals, the European Corn Borer and the Apple Maggot fly are in ACT I of speciation at the minute. I am confident in the over next 100 years we will observe a speciation even in animals.
    Remember we have only known about the theory of evolution through natural selection for 150 years, a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

    Somebody, Ticker, please explain the simplest question to the evolutionist?

    It is the tread where I asked you for one, just one link for a peer reviewed publication claiming an observation of speciation. Where I had to spend post after post trying to explain to such a simple question, and still you produced all kind of totally irrelevant things but not even one justone I was asking for.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/scienc...post1057928654

    There has been no evolutionist in my practice who would be able to understand the simplest question:

    provide one justone link to a peer reviewed publication claiming an observation of speciation.

    Just post a link, so that everyone can click on it and read the article

    To make it easier for you this link: Observed Instances of Speciation has a whole list which includes a whole bunch of peer reviewed articles. I am not even asking for such a fairness of not submitting an article from an evolutionist magazine where scientists do not publish their works. I am asking for one, justone article a peer reviewed scientific publication, so I can read and review it. Can you understand?

    this link has a list too:

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation]Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[1] .

    From those lists or from anywhere else pick and post one justone link, so that everyone can click on it, read the article







    and see that you are cheating again, that there is no claim of an observation of speciation in the article.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    And lets just say for hypothethical reasons we had no observed speciation. If no-one witnessed a murder, does that mean a murder never happened? Even if there is the evidence of a dead body, murder weapon, DNA evidence, fingerprints, footsteps in mud, a used cig butt and the murderers semen everywhere?
    You have to observe that DNA is unique first. You provide millions of experiments showing that DNA is unique first. Then it is an evidence. You have to observe that a bullet leaves a unique trace, and you go to a lab and make an experiment to make sure this bullet belongs to this gun, you have to observe that people leave footprints in order to formulate the law – people leave footprints. You have to observe and record footprints of a deer in order to hunt the deer by the evidence it leaves on the snow. You have to burn cigarettes first to observe how much time does it take for this brand to burn to these conditions. You have to observe dead bodies first in order to make a conclusion that this body is dead. Forensic science is all and only the result of numerous direct observations and experiments happened before the decomposed body or fossil is found. It will not say a thing about the body if that thing is not a law made from NUMOROUS previous observations and experiments. You have picked the worst for evolution example .

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Also why would scientists lie justone? You never answered me on that.
    Do you agree with the fact that they lie stating that speciation has been observed?
    Until the fact is established unarguably there is no sense in explaining it.
    Last edited by justone; 05-03-09 at 06:08 PM.

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Interesting question.

    I'm not entirely convinced that anyone is "lying", per se. Clearly, one side must be wrong. Either it has or it has not been observed. Whichever side is wrong would only fall into the "lying" category if they knew that the information they claimed to be true was actually false. If they believed that the information were true when the statement was made, then they are simply wrong.
    I am sorry, but I am asking you to be reasonable. We are talking about scientists. If a scientist makes a statement within realm of science it is his duty to be aware of what he is saying, to double check the information and to formulate so that there wouldn’t be any other meaning guessed by peers. If a scientist states that evolution is observed he submits ALL results and procedure of the observation, so that other scientists can observe it in the same way. It is science 101. It is a must. It is how science operates. If a scientist says that the conclusions of his research are based on aq+c-b=m*n^2 he makes a reference to a scientific article or law or formula. If then a peer opens the referred article and sees that it says aq+c-b=m-n the scientist looses his creditablity. A scientist may be misstating somewhere in details, that’s why before he is published he is reviewed by peer, and after he is published he is reviewed by peers. But if a scientist lists 20 articles and states that they all claim observations of speciation, while none of them does, that an intentional deception beyond any reasonable doubt, and he is no scientist anymore.

    Here we have a bunch of publications stating the same thing – speciation has been observed - and referring to peer reviewed articles, - when none of the articles claims observation of speciation. It is not like one would be added by a mistake, - or 2 would be added by a mistake or misreading or 3 or 4, - none of hundreds makes a claim.

    Why even evolutionists cannot make such a claim? Because of the peer reviewed process described above. Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, theoretically yes, there are less than a few which call the observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. They are absolutely exclusion. In practice such a scheme does not fly with serious scientists. Especially when it comes to speciation, - other scientists would be all over such a publication. It would be a revolution, so nobody dares..

    It is absolutely clear that evolutionists – and there is no such thing as a PhD in evolution – are either absolutely dumb and incapable of reading and/or understanding of article and reality, which I agree is possible, or they have very certain intention trying to represent evolution as observed in their books and writings.

    The articles they list are the information they refer to. There is hardly a doubt that information in the article is false even if it can contain mistakes and misreading. These are articles in peer reviewed magazines, many are written by believers in evolution. None of the articles claims observation of speciation.

    Thus evolutionists are either completely dumb or intentionally in the business of deception.

    Allowing that they are not dumb, why it is so important for them to assure us that speciation is observed that they go to such extend?

    Why this moment is so important to them? Because if scientists became aware that speciation has never been scientifically observed – directly or indirectly, and thus does not allow an experiment – there would be blood on the streets. Evolutionists would loose their only argument – ‘’we are scientists’’. As a philosophy making logical deduction from empirical evidence they wouldn’t withstand a child. They would find themselves in the same position as professors of the scientific communism in Russia. Whether they think about this directly or indirectly, - but they cannot be not feeling this by instincts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I think this whole issue is often clouded by the way information is portrayed.

    For example, it is a common statement by many to say that human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are 96% alike. But when you break it down further, as far as genetic alignment goes, there is, at most, a 70% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA:

    Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So that makes me wonder, which one is right? Is our DNA 96% like a chimp's DNA or is it 70% like the chimps?

    Is one lying and the other telling the truth?
    DNA=96 or DNA =70

    I am sorry but only one can be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Are they both telling the truth, but from different perspectives with different frames of reference?

    Any time when a statement is made but the perspective and frame of reference are not formulated

    Or is it accidental due to a subconscious desire to support a pre-existing belief?
    Sure, USRAUK and many others do really believe on a subconscious and conscious level that speciation has been observed, that fossils exist, that DNA=96, and hell with it I will say 98 just to be more convincing, that evolution is science, that overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific consensus make sense, that a scientist would delegate his scientific opinion to a few elected officials who issue statements from Academy of Science, etc. This is what people hear in schools, universities, TV books media. Don’t you know that USRA studies biology and hears what professors tell him?

    It takes a researcher, a real man who does not give about atheism and theism and the overwhelming majority to say:



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    When someone says that humans and chimps share 96% of their DNA I'm often tempted to say, "So? What does that mean? It's not like we're 96% similar to chimps phenotypically. Clearly a mechanism is in place causing greater variance than what that measure can see. I can accurately say that a Diamond shares 100% of the same basic building blocks as Graphite. It turns out the way those building blocks go together is as important as the building blocks themselves when it comes to the nature of the two. The truth is, that 96% is arranged very, very differently in the two species."

    And to do what you did – check it and find out that it is 70.

    That’s why science used to have and follow well formulated and defined rules – in order to sort beliefs of the overwhelming majority and the truth of one, justone or Tucker. Clearly, your consideration is calling to basic logic and common sense.
    Just for you – as the matter of the fact we so far have mapped only 1% of human genome but when we map 100%, even with the full human sequence in hand we still won't know:

    • Gene number, exact locations, and functions
    • Gene regulation
    • DNA sequence organization
    • Chromosomal structure and organization
    • Noncoding DNA types, amount, distribution, information content, and functions
    • Coordination of gene expression, protein synthesis, and post-translational events
    • Interaction of proteins in complex molecular machines
    • Predicted vs experimentally determined gene function
    • Protein conservation (structure and function)
    • Proteomes (total protein content and function) in organisms
    • Correlation of SNPs (single-base DNA variations among individuals) with health and disease
    • Disease-susceptibility prediction based on gene sequence variation
    • Genes involved in complex traits and multigene diseases
    • Complex systems biology including microbial consortia useful for environmental restoration
    • Developmental genetics, genomics

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So I don't think anyone is actually lying, I just they are overzealous in their attempts to support a theory with the data without fully analyzing the data in it's own right.
    Which is a proof that evolution is not science.

    That’s why science used to be such an excited game when it followed rules which not allow zealously of personal beliefs to prevail over reason and facts. It is the matter of survival of human reason and morality – to hunt evolutionists wherever they are found, to petition to ban evolution in science classes, to return science its beauty and excitement. Whatever are the motivations of evolutionists they act as cancer on the beautiful body of science and all people should deal with them like with cancer. Because science is very important for all people, all they have around them – starting from a bicycle and finishing with a space craft wouldn’t be possible without science. It does not provide us with any truth or direction in life, but it certainly makes life very interesting.

Page 35 of 52 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •