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 41 of 52 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #401
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean like the data the demonsrtates conclusively that hyracotherium, one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey, three distinct species?
    Can you show me some peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that conclusive evidence outlining the specific mutations?

  2. #402
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Can you show me some peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that conclusive evidence outlining the specific mutations?
    Can you type "google.com"? I'm not describing some abstract bit of arcania, here, I'm putting up textbook stuff, easily accessible on the 'net, and not subject to debate. You could at least learn the basics of the science before charging out to challenge it, right?

    So, no, I'm not going to post links to hyracotherium, once called eo hippus. Nor am I going to post links to known horse atavisms that demonstrate it's earlier heritages as a multi-toed horse, I'm merely going to state that the occasional horse has more than one toe on a foot, and you can find that, too.

  3. #403
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yup. Mistakes don't happen on this end. Evoltion is sound science and observed fact.

    I notice the people denying evolution aren't telling us what they believe did happen.
    I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution.

    Now do you see why I asked you to restate?
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  4. #404
    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 Lightdemon View Post
    I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution.

    Now do you see why I asked you to restate?
    No.

    Fix your version.

    My version works fine.

    Over thousands of years, the forest turned to savannah. Over those thousands of years, the forerunners of humans and chimps either lived in forest regions that didn't change, and thus there was little selective pressure driving change in those animals, or they lived in areas drying up, so that sequential generations of faced increasingly stronger pressures that selected for traits that enhanced survival, and in those animals, the traits were first bipedalism so the little bastards could run from tree to tree faster, could raise their eyes above the grass to see farther, and to provide a minimal surface area for heating by solar radiation and a maximimal area for re-radiating bodily heat and convection, not to mention the gradual loss of hair and increase in the number of sweat glands.

    And that's because the environment changed first. The monkey didn't start shedding hair, getting taller, and running to the savannah where it could do marathons, no. The changed environment forced the selection of a new species.

    It was a gradual process, but so was the environmental change. Unless you're fond of Velikovsky, there's no reason to assume the environment changed rapidly.

  5. #405
    User Thoreau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    09-17-09 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    102

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    We evolved from a common ancestor to apes. We share 98% similarities in DNA, there is one pair of Chromosomes that separate us and a successful blood transfusion can be performed using ape blood.

    If creationist nonsense is snuck into public education what is next? Flat earth theory, stork theory of reproduction? Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence and a fossil record, intelligent design is not, and therefore cannot be taught alongside an actual scientific theory.
    Last edited by Thoreau; 05-07-09 at 10:22 PM.

  6. #406
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Can you type "google.com"? I'm not describing some abstract bit of arcania, here, I'm putting up textbook stuff, easily accessible on the 'net, and not subject to debate. You could at least learn the basics of the science before charging out to challenge it, right?

    So, no, I'm not going to post links to hyracotherium, once called eo hippus. Nor am I going to post links to known horse atavisms that demonstrate it's earlier heritages as a multi-toed horse, I'm merely going to state that the occasional horse has more than one toe on a foot, and you can find that, too.
    LOL. You think I don't know what it is. How cute. I didn't ask for a description of hyracotherium, which is all I'll get from google. I asked you to support your claim regarding this magical conclusive evidence.

    It wasn't because I am unaware of hyracotherium.

    In fact, I did this precisely because I know about hyracotherium.

    Your claim for conclusive evidence that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey" is pretty asinine for one reason and one reason only:

    Hyracotherium went extinct, oh, about 40 million years before those animals even came into existence.

    That kind of makes it impossible of that one species to have "mutated" into those three species, doesn't it. Unless they lasted in 40 million year long suspended animation.

    SOOOOO, that would probably make "conclusive" evidence of your claim a bit impossible for me to find, since what you described is literally impossible.

    Anyways, I think you should probably take a refresher course on your "basics".

  7. #407
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    LOL. You think I don't know what it is. How cute. I didn't ask for a description of hyracotherium, which is all I'll get from google. I asked you to support your claim regarding this magical conclusive evidence.
    A) They're called "fossils". You can find them at your local museum, in your backyard, and you can find photos of them on the internet.

    B) Since hyracotherium DNA does not exist, it's doubtful you'll be able to find substantive reasearch on specimens thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Your claim for conclusive evidence that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey" is pretty asinine for one reason and one reason only:

    Hyracotherium went extinct, oh, about 40 million years before those animals even came into existence.

    That kind of makes it impossible of that one species to have "mutated" into those three species, doesn't it. Unless they lasted in 40 million year long suspended animation.
    This is what you use instead of logic?

    Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?

    Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.

  8. #408
    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
    Good Lord. The species in question can produce successfully with one parent IN A LAB.
    What species can? What Lord?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    As each generation gets corssed it gets more and more compatable, like genetic blending, until the Senecio eboracensis becomes exactly like Senecio vulgaris.
    Exactly, - the process can go backwards. In evolution it does not. But anyway, how do you know it the Senecio eboracensis does become exactly like Senecio vulgaris, I guess it is a guess again?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    However in nature due to the natural distributation of the two species (S. eboracensis is more clumped and therefore more likely to mate with others of its kind), S. eborcensis and S.vulgaris reproduce at different seasons and other factors means that they only have a 1% chance of reproducing in the wild, not a good precentage for eborcensis to blend in with its parent, in fact at these low odds the two species will genetically gradually seperate.
    Science does not know ‘’only’’, “good’’. S. eborcensis and its parent S.vulgaris DO reproduce and it is not established that S.vulgaris is a parent.
    They do reproduce. Contrarily to the impression your link and you try to make. In spite of the obvious barriers.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    They are cheating? Give me evidence to back up your claims. And how do they no produce positive results? Because you say so? Because you have a hunch? Because you don't like what it says?
    If a footballer is fined for cheating, there has to be EVIDENCE for the cheating.
    The evidence of you cheating is given to the audience. When you say ”only”, ‘’good’’ in application to counting it is just an example of cheating. When you say that they are parents when no positive identification was made and experiments did not confirm it is another example. Let the audience decide.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Again ALL YOU HAVE is your own opinion. Its like me saying scientists think differently, but I think the moon is made out of cheese.
    The sample clearly does not represent all possibilities available and it assumes the static environment of the wild.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    If lab conditions count justone, we have already observed lots of new species. They don't,
    I did not limit my question to nature only. They may count, may not.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    all the speciation lab work with fruit flies only shows that speciation is possible, not that it happens. We have to look to nature for answers.
    It either happens or it does not. And, yes, we all look for the same kind of speciation as it is has been attempted to achieve with flies during 150 years of experiments.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    What do you call a group of individuals in the natural world who cannot mate with anyone else but themselves. They cannot share genetic information with anyone else and sustain a population with them. That is a species. That is Senecio eborensis.
    Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. But let’s say it cannot and I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids. Our ancestors were experimenting with hybridization for thousands of years. Lysenko and Mychurin, did too. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko]Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] And in spite of the propaganda one shouldn’t deny that they all achieved impressive results. In all of all Lysenko was a pretty good scientist.

    Species used in evolutionary “’theory”’ have to have evolutionary meaning. That is such and so that I wouldn’t have an opinion. If evolution, then an emerging specie has to have a new amount of (DNA) information not available in his parents and in order not to observe devolution it has to gain more information than his parents have, or to be more complex. As far as evolution is concerned all Senecios are the same specie, - with all different forms of it and all possible hybrids which are known to be a dead end. So speaking evolution we rather have different forms of the same specie and hybrids when the latter are not more but rather less complex and have a lesser content of information (which is absolutely obvious). It is obvious, that asking the question I and everyone else were looking for speciation in evolutionary meaning but not for all possible meanings, not for a plant and manipulation with the definition of speciation. In microbiology they call it strains, you can use forms or something.



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    If you accuse us of cheating, then show me evidence that we are wrong. Proper It is not the first specation event we have, thats why there is not mention of it being the first one.
    It is the first one as wiki hints used as an example of evolution. You have ignored a whole list of more important facts. It is not the 1st one occurring as I stated and state. You are cheating again.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Not in nature. Funny species you have if they cannot mate sucessfully in nature
    Quoting 1. and 2. you reply to 2. only and ignore 1. It is cheating. You are using nature frivolously. You should say in the wild.

    ‘’Crosses were made between individuals of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’ I guess you mean artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’?

    What would make one suggest that if they can reproduce in lab they cannot reproduce in the wild I don’t know. What is the meaning of the experiment where I wouldn’t know
    The plants were artificially synthesized and forced from the start. Following your logic I have to say that it is also an undeniable proof that S. squalidus’’and S. vulgaris are not parents in the wild, but only in the lab when forced.
    ’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, - [I guess they have searched ALL the wild I want to see how] - and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

    1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.

    ’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low ‘’ BUT RECORDED!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    No they are not. WTF??? Another Plants don't count whine? Plants evolve too.
    Even if they did it does not mean that they are life and life evolves. They may be food for life and thus consist of amino acids etc familiar to life digestion system, but it does not mean that life and plants turn not each other, there is no such an observation made. (As well it does not mean that ALL 3 bacteria are life as there no observation of bacteria turning into life).


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Mathematics has hardly anything to say in biology. Biology is too chaotic to be mathematical.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory]Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Mathematics deals with chaos from the day one. Actually it is the main goal of mathematics since the day one - to deal with chaos.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Fantasies? Suppose all those transitional fossils are just in our imaginations huh? Suppose our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination?

    You are living in a dream world of your own making justone.
    The Supposition that our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination of a creationist. You can think that God made our 2nd chromosome of 2 ape chromosomes, but I want to see it occurring.


    all those transitional fossils are Fantasies.





    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    A fact without evidence is like a limp dick...usless.
    I would never know what evolutionists mean as evidence? A fact is not an evidence for them… it counts.
    Last edited by justone; 05-07-09 at 11:34 PM.

  9. #409
    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 Lightdemon View Post
    I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution.

    Now do you see why I asked you to restate?
    I have demonstrated many times that each evolutionist has his own version of evolution. Only this fact is sufficient to prove that evolution is a religion, a personal phylosophy.

  10. #410
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    A) They're called "fossils". You can find them at your local museum, in your backyard, and you can find photos of them on the internet.

    B) Since hyracotherium DNA does not exist, it's doubtful you'll be able to find substantive reasearch on specimens thereof.
    So you admit that your claims of "conclusive evidence" are basically just lies you made up.

    Here I thought you would actually try to defend the comments, but instead you just admit that your claims of conclusive proof MUST be lies because

    A. It is WELL known the fossil record is incomplete.

    B. Without DNA evidence, or a complete fossil record, there can be nothing that is "conclusive" evidence of ANY mutations. Could easily be hybridization or polyploidy. You don't know. No one knows.






    Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?
    Clearly, then, you fail reading comprehension 101. I never said anything remotely close to a statement that conclusive.

    I said that there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of what you claimed.

    But even still. The gap is 40 million years. You didn't claim that "Teh fiossil record would suggest that hyracotherium is most believed to be the common ancestor of X Y & Z animals." Had you actually said that, you would have A. been correct that this is the common belief. B. Not had any point with regards to my post.

    But instead, you claimed that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey"

    Let me show you again, REAL big this time:

    one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey

    One species "mutating" into three is what your claim is. Conclusive evidence of this no less.

    Show me that a mutation changed hyracotherium directly into a donkey, another that turned hyracotherium directly into a horse and a third mutation turned directly hyracotherium into a zebra because your claim is not common ANCESTRY, it's common PARENTAGE.

    Because for ONE species to become all three, it must have been a direct jump. Meaning three "mutations" on one species to create three separate species, but NOTHING MORE. No steps along the way.

    But it didn't go that way, did it?

    No. All evolutionists will AGREE that this is not a direct line relationship. It's convoluted pathway with multiple branches. Branches that include animals like the rhino.

    what you can't tell me that the mutations were random or natural selction. That's just guesswork. Educated guesswork, but still just guesswork.

    You can't possibly tell me that hypridization or polyploidy were not the cause of this speciation. You can't tell me it was not some heretofore unconceived method. Nobody can.

    What you have primarily failed to comprehend, even though it's been stated repeatedly, is that I don't deny evolution. I believe some form of evolution occurred. Since I'm an atheist, I am not trying to promote "god" induced from of evolution like intelligent design either.

    I'm interested in promoting good science. Where the data is taken in and looked at reasonably and without bias. Where preconceived notions get kicked to teh curb if the data suggests that it should.

    I'm something you've never encountered before. I'm not trying to disprove evolution's existence, I'm trying to improve evolutionary theory. Right now it is flawed. mostly because people who don't understand what they are talking about promote it as set in stone fact that all things evolve through random mutations and random selection. We've already got evidence in this thread that not all things evolve this way.

    So far, we have no definitive evidence that anything evolves that way.

    What we have is a logical induction based on many different pieces of data collected. But no direct observations of random mutations or natural selection.

    But remember, we DO have direct observations of a DIFFERENT mechanism at work. Right there. Before our very eyes.

    Why deny that which we KNOW exist for that which we THINK exists?



    Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.
    The next post of mine you actually understand the point will be the first. Think about that before you run your mouth.

Page 41 of 52 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... 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
  •