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 43 of 52 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #421
    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
    Oh did you? And you are the authority of such matters justone?
    A typical argument of an evolutionist – and who are you?
    - Who are you to tell me?
    - And who are you to tell me?

    As I told many times, I do not have to be an authority to establish the obvious fact that evolutionists use morphology as a measurement. It is what you do, I just point to the fact that you do.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    How so? Come on justone explain your rejections. Or are you authority of such matters lol? Whatt you say is 100% correct and we should take it faith you are?
    I stated ‘’Proposed is not established or observed’’. I do not need to explain that this statement is true to anybody except evolutionists, and it is evident to anybody except evolutionists that nothing can be explained to evolutionists if they ask for explanation of such a simple truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    They do genetic tests of maternal and paternal relationships. The same method they use in the court of law.

    Really well you better get all the convicted murderers and rapists out the prision then. As well as the finanicial relief for fathers. This is the test they use in the court of law.
    As I told many times, Neither your link, nor my investigation ever shows that your statement is true, but only the opposite can be deducted.



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    And I noticed you conviently didn't mention ISSR.
    I do not have time or intention to go through all BS you wish to post. I did not have to because I quoted the results of ISSR and as it was evident from the quote they did NOT establish parenthood, but ->

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    And even with these limitations RAPD is still pretty damn accurate.
    -> were still pretty damn accurate, as I told many times,

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    No scientist on a paper will ever say 100% definitely A is related to B, that is because science doesn't prove anything, just gathers evidence in favour of a theory. Proof is a mathematical term, not a scientific one.
    Then what are DNA tests for courts for?

    As I told many times, It all starts from the fact I have demonstrated so many times, - evolutionists do not know, do not understand, do not follow rules of science from the very start, starting from Darwin. They bring confusion to most simple things as they have no ability to understand most simple things. Indeed science by its nature does not make true statements, it does not establish any truth. When you read on your calendar that the Sun will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am it is not a 100% definite and true statement. There is no logical proof for the statement that if it was raining/shining for the last n days then it will rain/shine/rise tomorrow to be true. It is a proposition - on the base of observations of the sun in the past it is proposed that it will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am as the proposition is 100% proven by mathematical calculations coming to the number 4.53 and there are no observations of the past or mathematical proofs related to this or that observation that would result in a different number, a different proposition. Science does not gather evidence, it is not an evidence related activity, it is an empirical EXPERIMENTAL activity, it starts from gathering observations of a phenomena (occurrences of the sun rising) and finishes with occurrences of phenomena.

    As I told many times, This is the core difference between science using the inductive method to make propositions, and evolution or philosophy using the deductive method to establish the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Search all the wild? It only occurs around York.
    ?????????
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    0.13%? Oh yeah that sucess rate could pull S. erborensis back towards its parent. Rememeber your mule stat? Except in this case S. erborensis is fertile with itself. It is a species.
    Mule stats is noticeably different. As I told many times, you have not established the number dividing successful from unsuccessful. You change order and float the point 0.1 to 0.000001 at will just to fit your beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Can 1.46% blend S. eborensis back together with its parent S. vulgaris? Meanwhile the 98.34% are mating which other and getting more genetically distant from its parent.
    How the same plant duplicating the same genetic information is getting more distant from the same plant? And whatever is the answer, - as I asked so many times, -what observation does confirm such a suggestion?



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

    Any you were wrong in all 7 of them, congrats. .
    Another cheating, - it takes consideration of all the 7 AS THEY ARE submitted before making congrats. You did not do a single one out of 7 yet

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    And you have yet to say are why we cheat and lie!! You strangely keep avoiding that question, I wonder why? Oh yeah your a conspiracy theorist. The whole scientific community is lying to the whole world for reasons justone refuses to tell or can't.
    You are pulling the same worn out ad hom a strawmen fallacies and again and again and again and again. You are –reusing the same condom again and again and again. How many more times?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Oh yeah from Christain creationists I'm sure do lots of math in biology. About odds isn't it? Of course they have to assume evolution is random, which its not. If mathematics can predict biology lol, then it should have no problem predicting the weather 50-100 years into the future. Creationists are the most dishonest people, even churches and their fellow christains turn their back on them.
    I gave you a concrete reference to them doing math. You have not made a word related to the reference and the facts but went into you usual violent assault on religion of other people. As well you have completely ignored my reply to your statement about evolution and mathematics. For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice that, then nobody notices that. I wonder how much Ikari is blinded by his hatred and if he can see what I wanted to demonstrate to him. Ikari, where are you?

    Now let’s go to meaningless insults and insinuations evolutionists always use as the main argument:
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post


    You persist in waving good scientific data away with a wave of the wrist.
    With a wave of the wrist? For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice detailed arguments, quotes and facts I have been submitting, then nobody notices?



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You don't give a facts to back up your claims, you have only rhetoric.


    You don't have any empirical evidence.
    I have been considering mostly YOUR evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You won't even try to repeat these experiments to disprove them.
    I have assumed that the quoted sources of yours report their experiments as they should, and I have no evidence telling me that I should think otherwise and not to trust them.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You are a hack.
    Because I trust your sources?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Its like trying to convince a 9/11 truther than Islamic terrorists did it.
    As I asked many times, how many times have you already used this line?
    Last edited by justone; 05-08-09 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #422
    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
    Yes it can go backwards. S. eborensis could undergo a mutation of a dominat allele which will make it reproduce at the same time of year as its parent S. vulgaris and they blend back together.

    It is more likely due to very low crossover rate in the wild between the two ~1% that they will "go their own ways" genetically.

    Once again it evolution is not a mathematic model, life is so unpredictable like the weather that is hard to make prediction of sorts.
    So your prediction is as good as mine? I think your prediction would be 99% better than mine if self priming hybrids were observed to branch into different species.
    If evolution is so unpredictable, then it does not have any logic, any laws in it, it is no law, no theory of nature, no science, because science itself is based on the belief that we can sort out happenings of nature. BTW weather is highly predictable. For instance it is easy to predict that winter temperatures will follow autumn temperatures for quite a long period of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    But we do know that in the here and now, S. erorensis is a species in itself due to massive reproductive barriers between it and its parents.
    You have been missing or ignoring points again and again and again. I had established the barriers with an example of pregnant women from the start. I pointed that considerations of possible dynamic of the barriers were avoided/ignored in the consideration of the experiment. I pointed that you cannot say they do not mate with parents when parents were guessed out and when they did mate with guessed out parents. I pointed that the experiments were – since I had no contrary facts – scientific and were reported in scientific way, while the conclusions made were bogus and contradicting to the findings of the experiments and were partially based on no experiments needed to make them. I pointed that however frivolously you want and I allow you to call the Yorker a new specie it is not a speciation related or leading or suggesting evolution, but it is rather a dead end which has been proven to be such by all natural and lab experiments observed by humans and scientists. I pointed that it was NOT an observation of speciation in the evolutionary meaning as I, of course, was asking for, that you cheated again. Even some evolutionists saw it was not.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    I have provided sufficent genetic evidence that they are related. If you want to challenge that, I suggest you get down to your local lab and get experimenting.

    Did I challenge? I addressed your genetic evidence, - did I challenge that it was true?

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Thats how you challenge a theory. Through experimentation. Until then its just hot air your giving me.

    You will probably say to be "your experiments are not proper science", but then you will turn the theory of evolution on its head so much more easily right?
    How many times I have to repeat?
    I pointed and assumed that the experiments were – since I had no contrary facts – scientific and were reported in a scientific way, while the conclusions were bogus and contradicting to the findings of the experiments and were partially based on no experiments needed to make them, and were frivolous and bias; that however frivolously you want and I allow you to call the Yorker a new specie it is not a speciation related or leading or suggesting evolution, but it is rather a dead end which has been proven to be such by all natural and lab experiments observed by humans and scientists.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You imply that words mean I'm cheating. Surely the only cheating can be done in the experiments. The genetic evidence is there for everyone to see, yes let them decide.
    Most hybrids created are sterile and therefore not species.
    Try to understand, you have to reply to my statements as they are submitted. You never do. I said: 1. Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. 2. “I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids.”
    You answer: ‘’2. Most hybrids created are sterile and 1. therefore not species.’’

    You have not refuted but confirmed my statement and you have contradicting your own idea of species

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    No it doesn't have to gain DNA just a change of it. The organism with the most DNA is the Ameoba which has 10 times the genome of a human. Hardly the most complex creature ever.
    You don’t understand. Complex or more information is not what DNA is longer. How many times did Tucker try to explain such a simple thing to you?
    You type a long sentence which is not only all meaningless and disconnected from reality, but also you repeat yourself, reuse the same condom again and again. The more times you repeat your self, the less info your sentence provides. I on other side type a short sentence which is not only related to greater facts and includes them, but also makes TC and IC think and spur to action, as it is loaded with info and of a greater complexity or greater potential or enthalpy or inner energy, or ability to do work than yours.

    It is obvious that any plant or animal capable of mating with other plants or animal has more info and more complex than a plant or animal which sterile or highly sterile or self reproducing, as it is absolutely obvious that Adam and Eve couple has a LOT more info, complexity, enthalpy, inner energy, ability to do work than Adam and John or Eve and Mary couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    No Senecios are a genus, not a species. If you above statement is correct, then all cats in the world are the same species, all bears are the same species, etc.
    It is not a manipulation of the def of speciation, allopolyploidy, autopolyploidy and hyrbidisation can be legimate speciation events. In fact wheat was created this way.
    As I stated many times you make it legitimate at will, even if it makes no sense and has no measurable. And as it has no objective measurable it allows all kinds of manipulation. Ask Ikari if you don’t believe me.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    No I wasn't. S. eborensis and S. vulgaris cannot mate sucessfully in the wild because they cannot sustain a population or genetic drift towards the parent species.

    Speciation can only happen in the wild. We can artifically breed them but thats not part of evolution or nature, thats us making **** happen.
    It either happens or does not, the cause is of a secondary importance. If you create evolution in a lab, it is still evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Again genetic tests of RAPD and ISSR confirm the parents are those two, I can't believe you won't accept a scientific method that is used by the court of law today.
    Let me repeat the 5th time, - if the same method was used in the court of law I would believe. I quoted that it was not, I quoted the results of your authors – it was clear they couldn’t submit such conclusions in the court for a positive identification.
    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Random sampling is the best one we have got. If a big batch of S. eborensis X S. squalis comes up the science will be self-corrected if the data suggests it should. Science is self-correcting after all. Until that S. eborensis (though the lab results of S. eborensis X S. squalis show very little probabiltiy of that happening due to very very low sucessful corssovers in a lab) is a new species.
    I did not question random sampling. I did not question the result of the tests. I questioned many other things including – very little, very low, but not random sampling.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Yes again I say, the crossover in the wild between S. eborensis and s. vulagris is so low it cannot maintain a genetic drift back towards the parents species. They are destined to drift away from each other if anything. Therefore it can only be classed as a seperate species.

    All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species.

    You said speciation did not occur, I have showed otherwise.
    And you have proved by making logical conclusion: ‘’All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species’’ that I still have to wait until your possibility turns into reality. I am not questioning what is more possible or what is less possible and what is “highly”’ improbable. I am asking – what is?
    And I see what is – I see no observation of speciation in evolutionary meaning.
    Last edited by justone; 05-08-09 at 01:21 PM.

  3. #423
    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
    Until it can predict the weather, I will take interest in mathematics predicting evolutionary theory.
    Mathematics does not predict, it describes. Since as you admit there is no math in evolution it is no more valid guess than a prediction of weather for the next year in my town. I never questioned how much valid it is I just pointed that it is a baseless and meaningless guess. I also pointed that it does not have measurable required even by such a distant from science and die hard evolutionist as Ikari.



    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    If were not once apes how can we have two ape chromosomes fused together. In fact if we are made in the image of God, why does God have two ape chromosomes fused together? And why would he put two ape chromosomes fused together in the first place in a human? Does he have a sense of humour
    God by definition has the most perfect sense of humor. You are a God’s creature and a living proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    I want to see your version of creation occuring. But I don't see it do I?
    Creation is not science. I form no hypothesis when I follow rules of science. In science however logical is the conclusion that gods move the sun and however many people agree with it and however nobody has a better explanation, I have to see gods moving at least a stone, before I even consider a possibility of them moving the sun.

    And knowing that I am a Christian creationist you should be aware of my version, it is the same as for all Christian Creationists – Newton or Mendel or the priest/pastor of your nearest Christian church.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    You berate evolution for that hardly having any observational evidence, yet you subscribe to an idea with NO observational evidence at all. lol lol. Wow, just wow.
    Wow, just wow. I have not been questioning evolution as hardly having any evidence, moreover I respect people who believe in evolution and I know that they base their beliefs on empirical evidence and logic. But when you are attacking my beliefs based on evidence and my logic, I have to demonstrate that your logic fails miserably. I have to demonstrate that you’re a blind fanatic forcing your system of beliefs on others in most dishonest and indecent ways.


    Quote Originally Posted by GarzaUK View Post
    Yeah of course they are, the half reptile - half bird fossil is a fantasy, the fish with limbs fossil is a fantasy as well I take it? And you have the nerve to call scientists dishonest?
    I don’t call anybody dishonest, I prove. In all of all now you ignore most of my points, and dance in circles repeating and reciting and derailing to fossils.

    It is all derailed and going in circles. I listed reasons why your link is not an observation of speciation in evolutionary meaning , you went in circles as usual.

  4. #424
    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 think the bolded is where we are having the misunderstanding.

    The way I see it, if the environment changes, the level of competition between species also changes. The competition itself is the catalyst for change/adaptation. The environment is auxiliary, though a factor nonetheless.
    Actually, it was the environment. Ain't no chimps living on the savannah. They went extinct in those areas. So it wasn't interspecies competition, it was merely environmental pressures culling out those least fit to survive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Arrogance is unneeded.
    It's always needed.

  5. #425
    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
    So you admit that your claims of "conclusive evidence" are basically just lies you made up.
    Nope. Try reading what was written, stop putting words in people's mouths. Just in case no one's told you, they notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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
    No. Facts do not require defense. You need to show they're not facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    A. It is WELL known the fossil record is incomplete.
    It is well known the fossil record is complete enough to link the horse, the ass, and the zebra to hyracotherium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Guess what? Evolution is defined as the change in genome of a line of organisms over time. doesn't say how those changes have to occur.

    Since I'm not going to waste any more time reading your post, tell me, have you stated your theory of where species come from since you reject the proven science and facts of evolution by natural selection?

    Are you going to state your understanding of what "really" happened, or not?
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 05-08-09 at 02:13 PM.

  6. #426
    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
    Nope. Try reading what was written, stop putting words in people's mouths. Just in case no one's told you, they notice.
    Really?

    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?
    That's what you wrote. It's a lie or a profound inability to comprehend what "conclusive evidence " is. We have strong evidence to suggest that this is the case, but without DNA evidence, it is pure conjecture.

    No. Facts do not require defense. You need to show they're not facts.
    Facts require proof. I never questioned the veracity of your "facts" so much as I question your capacity to make that judgment.

    Guess what? Evolution is defined as the change in genome of a line of ornanisms over time. doesn't say how those changes have to occur.
    Then why did you say you havd "conclusive evidence" of "mutations"?

    You can't even follow what you yourself have written, how can you expect to follow what someone else has?

    Since I'm not going to waste any more time reading your post, tell me, have you stated your theory of where species come from since you reject the proven science and facts of evolution by natural selection?
    Why would I repeat myself simply because you are an idiot?

  7. #427
    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
    Really?
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why would I repeat myself simply because you are an idiot?

    Way to go with the rules, dude.

    How's about if you actually state what you think happened, now?

  8. #428
    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
    Way to go with the rules, dude.
    I break so feew rules that occasionally it's worth it to call someone what they are.

    How's about if you actually state what you think happened, now?
    Again, why would I repeat myself?

  9. #429
    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?

    Tucker, as the matter of fact too many of enlightened evolutionists do not believe in natural selection. It comes from the undeniable observations and conclusions made on the base of laws discovered by Christian Creationist scientist Gregor Mendel. Enlightened evolutionists know that environment has nothing to do. So they try to plug evolution into the genetic drift and random mutations. Let’s say you and your wife are new species. You can eat only apples and survive in range of temperatures from 0F to 20F. If I feed you pears and raise T to 20.001F you will die. But as you reproduce you may get a great-grandson with a mutated, drifted genome which would allow him to withstand 20.001F. As Tuckers fill up the area there is an increasing chance that genetic drift and random mutations will produce a Tucker#200000154 pair that would digest pears as well as apples. As soon as other Tuckers run out of apples they die or migrate to another area when Tucker#200000154 pair keeps on reproducing and feeding on pears. Something like that. Just to let you know that only living in the most rural wilderness evolutionists believe in natural selection today. Just to make your choice of evolutions richer.

    But choose your poison carefully, what tastes good for me may cause allergies for you.
    Last edited by justone; 05-08-09 at 02:23 PM.

  10. #430
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You're talking a lot of **** for a guy who believes in maximum liberty.
    Yes I believe in the privatization of education but that is not the reality as of right now. Unless you make enough to throw $10,000 at a private educator, or have enough time to home school your own child then public school is the only other option. I believe that when I have kids I will have them be educated at public schools and talked to them about what they learned and why it is or is not correct.

    I was taught all kinds of bull through out public education and had to hear a lot of hard line socialist and Marxist opinion. I am not exaggerating, I had a history teacher in highschool that said Adam Smith make her sick and Communism is the greatest political theory. Then the history class after that I had a hard line socialist teacher who taught from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the US" and talked about how this or that service or product should be publicized and how the revenue should go to government social services. This system is bad enough, we do not need creationist fairytales also snuck into the curriculum alongside with Marxist and socialist fairytales.

    Yes I would prefer that each school be private and decide their own curriculum and I choose the one that is science based and the market will choose those that have the proper education.
    Last edited by Thoreau; 05-08-09 at 02:30 PM.

Page 43 of 52 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... 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
  •