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 37 of 52 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #361
    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 justone View Post
    You fail immediately.

    First you insult intelligence of a poster, saying – don’t think, just trust evolutionists because…. they do evolutionism. It is a typical sign of a non-scientist. A physicist wouldn’t mind to explain theory of relativity to a freshman student and answer questions not doubting the intelligence of the audience, but rather his own ability to make things clear.
    Nah I didn't fail, because I think you misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear. If he wants to question and challenge evolution through experiments I have no problem with that whatsoever, in fact I would encourage it. Science is an open forum with nothing to hide, where everything is debatable.
    But if he doesn't want to do experiments or collect data to challenge evolution then I would suggest he rely on the experts, much as you would rely on a doctor for medical advice or a plumber on your houses water system. Note, this is my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    My expertise is not in a claim but it is all in my posts. Tucker’s expert thinking is as self-evident as his ability to question 96% of DNA evolutionists are trying to pull on audience everywhere all the time.
    Trying to pull? Huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    It is the #1 argument of evolutionists, ‘’because of his faith’’, they don’t how not to go personal. Infinite Chaos exactly sees because of what. He does not have to be a scientist to see that. Every decent being does not have to be a scientist to see that Tucker’s faith is quite opposite to mine. Every decent being sees that you demonstrate again how evolutionists are blinded by their fanatical faith.

    Fail.
    Evolution is faith neutral everyone know that. Science is faith neutral. The only thing evolution and science are not neutral on is creationism in a theistic sense. If a person said to me the big bang was created by a supernatural being and it let things take it course. I could not really agrue against it, I would think of it highly unlikely, but I could not say with 100% certainty that this supernatural being didn't exist.

    It might surprise you to know I have a christain girlfriend, who has a PHD in biology. Her faith doesn't bother me really. She of course knows species evolve and is an "evolutionist".
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-05-09 at 08:43 AM.
    "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

  2. #362
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The fact is that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. For instance the Pope ordered Catholics to believe in evolution. The fact is that you and evolutionists keep on trying to re-use this old pretence that this is about God vs. evolution and this is as revolting to watch like you would be re-using the same condom over and over again.

    This is Science vs. Evolution. Science has its way to take upper hand however long it make take.
    I'm not trying to do any such thing. The argument has always been God vs evolution. I can't help it if that's the case. It is what it is. Evolution may be nice to know, but it's usefulness is limited in my view. I don't think it makes a philisohpical improvement in mankind nor an technological one. Does it explain the creation of the universe? And frankly, I don't care what the Pope says, he means nothing to me. How do you explain the fact that although showing some intelligence that apes have improved themselves no further than dogs have? In fact I could argue that dogs, allowing themselves to be domesticated, have done more for "dogkind" than apes for themselves. They live among humans and are cherished, while apes are not. If man evolved out of Africa, then why don't we have pet apes now instead of dogs? I mean we have so much in common with them, right? Does the answer to that question even matter?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #363
    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 American View Post
    If man evolved out of Africa, then why don't we have pet apes now instead of dogs? I mean we have so much in common with them, right? Does the answer to that question even matter?
    Dogs weren't domesticated to be pets, they were domesticated for work. What good would a gorilla be at sheep herding, for example?

    Maybe a retrieving orangutan?

    Perhaps a guard chimp?

    I think most cases of domestication are a product of practicality. Apes are impractical as domesticated animals.

  4. #364
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Dogs weren't domesticated to be pets, they were domesticated for work. What good would a gorilla be at sheep herding, for example?

    Maybe a retrieving orangutan?

    Perhaps a guard chimp?

    I think most cases of domestication are a product of practicality. Apes are impractical as domesticated animals.
    Why? They are so smart, right?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #365
    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 American View Post
    Why? They are so smart, right?
    Smarts have nothing to do with domestication. Sheep are the dumbest animals I have ever dealt with in my entire life. They are unbelievably stupid. I've seen a whole herd of them try to drown themselves in fright before.They are domesticated animals though, and they were probably domesticated before dogs, in fact, they are probably a big reason FOR the domestication of dogs.

    A dog, which has the speed agility and physical abilities to get ahead of the herd, can prevent that. I've seen it. And they are instinctive herding animals. Just look at the hunting styles of African wild dogs for an example. The only training that a sheep dog really require is to learn how to control itself. In other words, dogs make the perfect herding animal because they already do it. All that humans did was take the natural instincts and adapt them for our purposes.

    Apes do not herd instinctively (well, chimps seem to do something similar while hunting, but it's usually entirely in trees). They are physically limited in what they can do on the ground. A dog is faster more agile and better at herding. No amount of training can overcome the physical limitations. Could an ape learn to do it? Probably. But teaching an ape to do what the dog already does instinctively is pretty stupid.

    Apes are also instinctively aggressive towards other primates. Which makes domestication all the more difficult because they are less controllable. Couple that with the dog's natural adaptability to multiple environemtns and omnivorous diet compared to the apes highly specialized habitat and diet, and you make a recipe for domestication.

    Intelligence means absolutely nothing in regards to domestication while the natural inclinations of the animals mean everything.

  6. #366
    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 justone View Post
    ‘’taking the overall we consider York radiate groundsel should be described as a new specie’’…. and give it name ‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ instead of York radiate groundsel

    OK. The article is devoted only to the defense of the opinion of the authors to call York radiate groundsel ‘’Senecio eboracensis’’ and a new spicie. Nobody has thought about that before, science need evolutionists to make an article. .
    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Let’s take a look at what is going on:

    ‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’ generate highly sterile progeny with S.squalidus.’’ [its parent]

    Let me understand, - it does generate progeny or it does not. Do I understand English correctly - A genetic descendant or offspring Progeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?. Somebody has to explain it to me. It is sterile or it is highly sterile? .
    The quote says that York Radiate cannot mate with its parent species (squalidus), neither can another hybrid variation (not species as it can crossbreed with its parent spieces in nature) - hybernicius. York Radiate can only self pollinate to reproduce.

    "Other studies have shown that S. eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due to a high level of selfing, phenological separation, sterility of products of back crosses to S. squalidus and reduced fertility of products of back-crosses to S. vulgaris."

    Top of page 376 states "A third fertile hybrid derivative was first recorded near York railway station (OS105 594 516) by R. J. Abbott and D. F. Marshall in 1979. The overall morphology of individuals in the population was intermediate between S. squalidus and S. vulgaris and plants were highly fertile"

    So here we have a fertile new species, that cannot exchange genetic material with its parents in nature and it has visible intermediate morphology between its two intermediate species

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and Senecio vulgarus exhibit a significant reduction in seed set. ''

    You just said that York radiate groundsel does not cross with S. vulgarus. Now you say it does. Somebody pinch me – it does or it does not?. Somebody has to explain it to me .
    Pinch. No it does not say that. Generation F1 of S. vulgarus is likely either another hybrid which is infertile or a mutated pollen grain. It does not have the chromosomes to become a fertile species itself BUT it can mate with S. squalidus because it has the right set, (usually even set) of chromosomes. The result is a new species called S. eboracensis, which cannot mate with any other plant than itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    York radiate groundsel is a hybrid, the parents are hybrids and their names are S.squalidus and S. vulgaris. And the article talks about the second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel and S. vulgarus, and says they do not produce offspring on the same page..
    S. squalidus is from Silicy and S. vulgaris is native to Britain. As far as i know they are not hybrids but it wouldnt matter if they were or not since they are seperate species. As for crossbreeding with one of its parent it can (albiet weaker offspring), when forced, in lab conditions, but you should know justone if you have researched such matters that this does not define a new speices. It is whether it can breed with others or not in nature without human interference.

    It cannot, due to pre-zygotic barriers. Mainly big differences between flowering times of the two species. Therefore in nature they are genetically isolated from each other.

    "There are also some prezygotic breeding barriers between York radiate groundsel and S. vulgaris that reduce the frequency of inter-taxon crossing at
    field sites to well below 1·5% (percentage of seed arising from intertaxon crosses relative to total number of seed collected; Lowe 1996; Lowe and Abbott, in review). These prezygotic isolating mechanisms include predominant autogamy of both taxa and substantial differences in flowering
    time at field sites. All of these mechanisms have been shown to drastically reduce intertaxon crossing at sympatric sites and in common garden experiments (Lowe 1996, Lowe and Abbott, inreview)."


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Even if to take that I don’t understand English, the article proves that evolutionists don’t understand what is an experiment and observation in science. Taking a limited sample from the wild and putting it under the condition that wouldn’t allow it to breed, rather than under all possible conditions, and claim that it does not breed is not how experiments are conducted.
    It can't breed in the wild because they breed at different times, it is called temporal isolation. And because they cannot swap genetic information, the two species will diverge to a level that they eventually will not be able to breed in a lab anymore. Thats it, that is speciation.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Besides of that physiology of plants is very different from physiology of life. I don’t have a pdf converter to quote easy but differences in phenology mentioned are like a woman has certain periods when it cannot get pregnant from a man and limiting experiment to this period and claiming that women do not get pregnant from men is not quite scientific.
    Ho ho ho ho, now. Your now saying in effect "Plants don't count or are seperate", your argument is starting to get shaky my friend. Plants are a part of life. I don't see how women having different periods has ANYTHING to do with speciation.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    It would be a must for a real researcher to attempt to cross the Yorker with other Senecios and show that the offspring do not occur and do not cross with his parents, that things do not come on their circle. From the descriptions in the article it is clear that it is not a case, but the opposite is true.
    Have you read it, they did that and they produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED. However in nature (where it counts), they cannot produce fertile offspring due to temporal isolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Thus, even if the article was not totally bogus claiming totally opposite things on the same page, we see that Senecios are divided into different species by authors totally frivolously, that in all of we have one and only one specie Senecio with different strains and the Yorker quite easily and joyfully mates with other Senecios. Anyone with common sense would see that Senecios are remaining to be Senecios, all of them.
    Common sense ie you right? Oh right, here we go "But GarzaUK its not turnng into a different kind of plant, like a rose". For all your bravada and knowledge it has come to the old creationist agrument of "kinds". Like I said evolution is a long process. Simply Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time.

    Also I thought were debating speciation, the creation of a new species. Now I hear grumblings of "its still Senecios". I'm agruing for the creation of a new species, not a new genus.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    This is a good example how evolutionists often try to manipulate with the uncertain definition of species to fit it to their beliefs. It is not the first and it is not the last example it is very common. But as E.coli bacteria remain e.coli bacteria in all experiments in the same way Senecio remain Senecio in this bogus paper. And BTW the article says that the “’new specie” reproduces with its parents and cousins and brothers. Let me quote from the article:
    ‘’hybernicus and ‘York radiate groundsel’’[new spicie] generate … progeny with S.squalidus.’’[parent]
    ‘’The second generation offspring of crosses between York radiate groundsel [new spicie] and Senecio vulgarus [parent] exhibit’’You don’t believe me? Click on the link and read the article. I couldn’t believe my eyes, too.
    You know my answer to this, look above. They reproduce in a lab yes. NOT IN NATURE!! Basic Biology 101 here! You can cross a pig sperm and a sheep egg in a lab for all I care and it would produce a heathly fertile hyrbid, but it is not a new species, BECAUSE IT CANT HAPPEN IN NATURE.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Hybrids are known as a dead way, but not a way of evolution. Also it is known that the conclusion that hybrids cannot mate with their parents may be quite premature like the widely spread belief caused by limited representation in experiments:
    Hybrids, can be a deadway, but not always, as the paper shows. Hybridisation is part of Speciation, and I gave you an example of it. Natural selction is only part of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ‘’Several female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[7] Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.
    There are reports that a mule in China produced a foal in 1984.[8][9]
    In Morocco, in early 2002, a mare mule produced a rare foal.[7]
    In 2007 a mule named Kate gave birth to a mule son in Colorado.[10][11] Blood and hair samples were tested verifying that the mother was a mule and the colt was indeed her offspring.’’
    Well done that is a ~ 0.0000001% success rate, 60 foals in the last 500 years. Is it enough to blend mules into their parents species or a healhty popualtion? Nope. Mules are a deadend.

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I am sorry, scientists, you've really made me cry, but I am afraid to call this particular hybrid which is a product of other hybrids a new specie and evidence for evolution would be somewhat premature if not totally bogus.
    It is a new species because it does not breed in nature with its parents or any other species, it is genetically excluded. It is evidence of speication.

    Also it is noticable you said SCIENTISTS, not EVOLUTIONISTS. This is not about Science vs Evolution at all justone!! This about about your faith isn't it, you have a vendetta against science in general. You don't give a damn about the scientific method. Didn't you say in one post you wouldn't buy a house near a scientist? You hatred must be terrible.


    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    I remember I have 2 posts unanswered, I will, but first I had to make sure that it is clear to everyone that evolutionists are lying in their propaganda that speciation has been observed, as well as why do they have to do so.
    You STILL haven't answered my question. Why is the scientific community (atheistic and religious) lying about evolution?? Stop trying to avoid it justone, have the courage of your convictions.
    Last edited by GarzaUK; 05-05-09 at 11:29 AM.
    "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. #367
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,410

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I'm not trying to do any such thing. The argument has always been God vs evolution. I can't help it if that's the case. It is what it is. Evolution may be nice to know, but it's usefulness is limited in my view. I don't think it makes a philisohpical improvement in mankind nor an technological one. Does it explain the creation of the universe? And frankly, I don't care what the Pope says, he means nothing to me. How do you explain the fact that although showing some intelligence that apes have improved themselves no further than dogs have? In fact I could argue that dogs, allowing themselves to be domesticated, have done more for "dogkind" than apes for themselves. They live among humans and are cherished, while apes are not. If man evolved out of Africa, then why don't we have pet apes now instead of dogs? I mean we have so much in common with them, right? Does the answer to that question even matter?

    1. Whether or not religious literalists believe evolution is in conflict with a belief in God has nothing to do with the validity of evolution as a theory or for that matter, a fundamental law of biology.

    2. As to the "usefulness" of evolution. It is one of the two fundamental laws of biology and is the fundamental basis for all modern life sciences.

    3. What improvements should a chimp make? They are perfectly adapted to their environments. In fact, their ancestors out competed us in the jungles which forced our ancestors to move to the African savanna. Essentially, we have adapted (improved) to a life on the savanna as hunter / gatherers, while they adapted (improved) to a life in the tropical forests. Throw a group of humans out into the tropical forests with no clothes, no tools, and let them compete against those apes and see which ones will need "improvement".

    4. The level of intelligence possessed by the great apes is an impediment to domestication. Making them pets would be more akin to enslavement than anything else.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 05-05-09 at 05:00 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #368
    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?

    GarzaUK, I don’t have time these days to answer to all this long ….. of yours. I still have Ikari in the line. I will try to get to main points which may be interesting for Tucker and IC, but as far as to the time I have today, please, please, try to understand and answer the simple question – you know the procedure, please follow it, please –

    How do you and the authors of your bogus article know that S. squalidus and S. vulgaris are parents of York Radiate?

  9. #369
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    I dont really like chicken much.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  10. #370
    User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-12-09 @ 05:37 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    There is no option for "I don't know" and I really need one!

    Tim

Page 37 of 52 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... 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
  •