Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I'm Not Convinced


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

Maybe chimps are superior to humans. After all, one of them got into space before any of us humans did ;) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    63

  • Dhampir

    17

  • Ouroboros

    17

  • Legion

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I can't tell if you think really highly of human beings or really lowly of everything else. Either way...I think you're wrong sir.

 

I think humans are not evolved from chimps.

You are correct, humans did not evolve from chimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orangutans are extraordinary escape artists. They say if you give a gorilla a screwdriver, it won't know what to make of it. Whereas a chimp will use it for everything but its intendend purpose. An orangutan, however, will use it to dismantle its cage and escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absoultly right, humans did not evolve from chimps. One more time, OK? HUMANS AND CHIMPS SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR THAT BOTH SPECIES DESCENDED FROM!!!!

 

:grin: Alright then. MY ANCESTOR ISN'T NO CHIMP! That is the point marty. Chimps may have the same DNA, qualities, etc; but they aren't my descendants, they aren't human. To say the are from, branched, ancestry, etc; would mean they are us, and we are them, right? Why do you think they are descended, and not evolved? I always understood that to be the basis for evolution of man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo let’s try to get a bit more general here. Let’s try to get away from monkeys and apes and consider the “forces” at work in evolution.

 

Do you agree with these two assertions?

 

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo let’s try to get a bit more general here. Let’s try to get away from monkeys and apes and consider the “forces” at work in evolution.

 

Do you agree with these two assertions?

 

1) Organisms reproduce with heritable variation.

2) Many more organisms are born than will survive to reproduce.

 

 

Yes to both, Legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool Yoyo. Well to my mind these two things together necessitate evolution. Let us take a concrete example.

 

When we get an infection we have bacteria living in us, on us. And they are constantly reproducing with heritable variation. Each new bacterium is unique. And in this way they explore different ways to be a bacterium.

 

Now when we take an antibiotic we are killing many bacteria. This means that many of them are dying before they get a chance to reproduce.

 

But because some of them are different (through heritable variation) the chances are increased that some of them will have a resistance to our antibiotic. Thus they evolve.

 

In this way I think evolution is kind of like learning. Trial (heritable variation) and error (selection, death before reproduction.)

 

Is my reasoning sound? Have I left something out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool Yoyo. Well to my mind these two things together necessitate evolution. Let us take a concrete example.

 

When we get an infection we have bacteria living in us, on us. And they are constantly reproducing with heritable variation. Each new bacterium is unique. And in this way they explore different ways to be a bacterium.

 

Now when we take an antibiotic we are killing many bacteria. This means that many of them are dying before they get a chance to reproduce.

 

But because some of them are different (through heritable variation) the chances are increased that some of them will have a resistance to our antibiotic. Thus they evolve.

 

In this way I think evolution is kind of like learning. Trial (heritable variation) and error (selection, death before reproduction.)

 

Is my reasoning sound? Have I left something out?

 

 

I understand this concept Legion, but how does it connect to human evolution? For example, what about the Indians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand this concept Legion, but how does it connect to human evolution? For example, what about the Indians?

Well, I don't understand the question about Indians, but these forces are at work on every organism.

 

Our distant distant ancestors reproduced with heritable variation. And many more of them were born or conceived than survived to reproduce. Thus they evolved.

 

It's just trial and error writ large. And through it species change or learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand this concept Legion, but how does it connect to human evolution? For example, what about the Indians?

Well, I don't understand the question about Indians, but these forces are at work on every organism.

 

Our distant distant ancestors reproduced with heritable variation. And many more of them were born or conceived than survived to reproduce. Thus they evolved.

 

It's just trial and error writ large. And through it species change or learn.

 

I mentioned Indians, because up until this land was discovered, there were Indians, and people thought the world was flat. A lot of evolution's basis is based on findings from Africa, Europe, right? So, what about the Mayans? What did they evolve from, Apes? In, Americas? Did we evolve to civilized ''humans'', able to hunt, eat, etc; when all the land was connected?

 

Are Indians less evolved creatures than the 'humans' that came in ships, guns, shelters, abilities far superior to them? What about today's primitive tribes, cultures? Are they the little apple on the tree? Did they not evolve the same way? They still use 'sticks' to hunt, etc? Make sense Legion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm Yoyo. Well I was thinking about evolution as it occurs in organisms. But I suppose some case could be made for cultural evolution. I think that’s what you may be talking about.

 

I have heard some argue that there really is no such thing as “races” of men. The current dominant theory is that all people came out of Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm Yoyo. Well I was thinking about evolution as it occurs in organisms. But I suppose some case could be made for cultural evolution. I think that’s what you may be talking about.

 

I have heard some argue that there really is no such thing as “races” of men. The current dominant theory is that all people came out of Africa.

 

I take history into consideration, as well as the cultural outlook when I look into evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned Indians, because up until this land was discovered, there were Indians, and people thought the world was flat. A lot of evolution's basis is based on findings from Africa, Europe, right? So, what about the Mayans? What did they evolve from, Apes? In, Americas? Did we evolve to civilized ''humans'', able to hunt, eat, etc; when all the land was connected?

 

Are Indians less evolved creatures than the 'humans' that came in ships, guns, shelters, abilities far superior to them? What about today's primitive tribes, cultures? Are they the little apple on the tree? Did they not evolve the same way? They still use 'sticks' to hunt, etc? Make sense Legion?

Dear Yoyo, you seriously need to pick a few more books to read! :HaHa:

 

The Indians, Mayans, etc didn't evolve on their own, they transitioned from Asia over Alaska, probably about 20-30,000 years ago. The modern human evolved long time before that. So we're not talking about a few thousand years back when it comes to relationship with the chimps. Our common ancestor probably lived like 500,000-1,000,000 years ago. That's a lot of years.

 

It is believed some study showed that the nomads we have living in the northern part of Sweden are related to the American Indians, and the only way that is possible is if they migrated.

 

LONG BEFORE the white man set foot on American soil, the American Indians, or rather the Native Americans, had been living in America. When the Europeans came here, there were probably about 10 million Indians populating America north of present-day Mexico. And they had been living in America for quite some time. It is believed that the first Native Americans arrived during the last ice-age, approximately 20,000 - 30,000 years ago through a land-bridge across the Bering Sound, from northeastern Siberia into Alaska. The oldest documented Indian cultures in North America are Sandia (15000 BC), Clovis (12000 BC) and Folsom (8000 BC)

 

Although it is believed that the Indians originated in Asia, few if any of them came from India. The name "Indian" was first applied to them by Christopher Columbus, who believed mistakenly that the mainland and islands of America were part of the Indies, in Asia.

From Native American.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Yoyo, you seriously need to pick a few more books to read! :HaHa:

 

The Indians, Mayans, etc didn't evolve on their own, they transitioned from Asia over Alaska, probably about 20-30,000 years ago. The modern human evolved long time before that. So we're not talking about a few thousand years back when it comes to relationship with the chimps. Our common ancestor probably lived like 500,000-1,000,000 years ago. That's a lot of years.

 

It is believed some study showed that the nomads we have living in the northern part of Sweden are related to the American Indians, and the only way that is possible is if they migrated.

 

LONG BEFORE the white man set foot on American soil, the American Indians, or rather the Native Americans, had been living in America. When the Europeans came here, there were probably about 10 million Indians populating America north of present-day Mexico. And they had been living in America for quite some time. It is believed that the first Native Americans arrived during the last ice-age, approximately 20,000 - 30,000 years ago through a land-bridge across the Bering Sound, from northeastern Siberia into Alaska. The oldest documented Indian cultures in North America are Sandia (15000 BC), Clovis (12000 BC) and Folsom (8000 BC)

 

Although it is believed that the Indians originated in Asia, few if any of them came from India. The name "Indian" was first applied to them by Christopher Columbus, who believed mistakenly that the mainland and islands of America were part of the Indies, in Asia.

From Native American.com

 

Right, this is my confusion. Science has their dates, and history has their dates. Right? I don't pay much attention to dating in any sense other than cultural dating. Do I make sense Hans? I feel like dates are suggested than fit evolution's scale, and other scientific theory. Don't get me wrong here, It's fun to read, and talk about, but as a person that believes God made humans, it doesn't fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, this is my confusion. Science has their dates, and history has their dates. Right? I don't pay much attention to dating in any sense other than cultural dating. Do I make sense Hans? I feel like dates are suggested than fit evolution's scale, and other scientific theory. Don't get me wrong here, It's fun to read, and talk about, but as a person that believes God made humans, it doesn't fit?

 

I don't see why not Yoyo. You could still say God made humans and still say evolution is a fact. Why should God's creative abilities be just something out of nothing? Why not gradual modification over time? Do you really think humans are made out of dust like the Bible says? Please think outside the box, Yoyo.

 

It would be helpful if you would make a study of carbon dating methods and radioactive isotopes. I am sure Hans can explain this better than I can, but I have read up on both.

 

Even the Catholic church accepts evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Catholic church accepts evolution.

 

That man evolved from primates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell if you think really highly of human beings or really lowly of everything else. Either way...I think you're wrong sir.

 

I think humans are not evolved from chimps.

No one ever said humans evolved from chimps. We share a common ancestor. Humans, chimps and bonobos are thought to share a common ancestor.

 

That being said you could read Richard Dawkins's Magnum Opus called The Ancestor's Tale. Talk Origins has a good primer on evolution.

 

Or you could go here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4010

 

Also, humans fall within the Animal Kingdom. We are as follows:

 

Scientific classification

Domain: Eukaryota

 

Kingdom: Animalia

 

Subkingdom: Eumetazoa

 

Phylum: Chordata

 

Subphylum: Vertebrata

 

Class: Mammalia

 

Subclass: Theria

 

Order: Primates

 

Superfamily: Hominoidea

 

Family: Hominidae

 

Subfamily: Homininae

 

Tribe: Hominini

 

Subtribe: Hominina

 

Genus: Homo

 

Species: H. sapiens

 

Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Catholic church accepts evolution.

 

That man evolved from primates?

 

 

Yes, that is what evolution says. Not modern chimpanzees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, this is my confusion. Science has their dates, and history has their dates. Right? I don't pay much attention to dating in any sense other than cultural dating. Do I make sense Hans?

The problem is that cultural methods of dating was extremely subjective back in the old days. They had to guess, and since the art of writing is a very young art, we can't trust that to report everything that happened for thousands and thousands of years before. Just think about your own life. Can you remember things in the past, but still not be sure which years it was or date? So would a man in the stoneage, before writing was invented, be much better in deciding date and time? Even the calendar was very rough back then.

 

So where does it leave us? Well, it sure sounds like scientific methods that can be replicated seems more reliable. Of course they can't give any exact dates either, but they are more likely to get closer to it.

 

And if you wonder if the world is older than 6,000 years, there are--in my opinion--very convincing arguments that it is.

 

I feel like dates are suggested than fit evolution's scale, and other scientific theory. Don't get me wrong here, It's fun to read, and talk about, but as a person that believes God made humans, it doesn't fit?

Astronomy and physics does not try to fit their timescales to evolution. It's also interesting that theories of a very old Earth and Universe existed long time before Darwin. It is a false accusation of Creationists when they claim that Darwin is the cause of the "old age" dating. I don't remember the scientists right of the hat, but I could look it up, and show to you that Christian scientists were suggesting, based on evidence in nature, that the Earth was much older than 6,000 years.

 

Let me ask you: do you believe in Pythagora's theorem? If you do, Supernova 1987a is evidence that the Universe must be older than, at least, 168,000 years. Because that event occurred that long ago, and it's based on triangulation and timing of the observed event here in 1987. Even if you manipulate the speed of light backward, forwards, up, down, and three degrees to the left, the end result is still: extremely old event. The only way to make that event to have occurred within 6,000 years is to place that supernova in our backyard, which I would have noticed... or actually, no one would have noticed because we all would have been dead if that was the case. The only way to explain that event is: it occurred that long ago.

 

The Hubble telescope captured images from the deep field, and those stars (galaxies) are some 13 billion light years away. And the only way we got those beams of light entering the lenses of the Hubble today, is because those photons have traveled for 13 billion years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning humans in places like the Americas, you need to understand that there is evidence going back about 15,000 years for human settlement. There is also evidence for migration from the Bering Strait southwards. When you look at a geographic representation of human genetic diversity the picture becomes clearer.

 

15_1.gif

 

It appears at least to support the "out of Africa" theory, that the species as we know it developed in central Africa and migrated outwards from there. The degrees of genetic diversity drops the further out human populations go.

 

outofafrica208.jpg

 

This of course is extrapolated from all we know of genetics, history and anthropology. So which seems more likely, that humans spontaneously appeared around the globe, or that they had a point of origin and that separation and migration account for the spread and genotypic/phenotypic differences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example: you and I are related, but you didn't evolve from me, neither did I evolve from you. But we share a common ancestor. In your case it would be Adam, right? The same with chimps and us, going backwards in time, there would be a pre-human, pre-chimp, which is the same one.

 

Or to a creationist, God made apes/chimps similar to human beings? Not connected in any way. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one ever said humans evolved from chimps. We share a common ancestor. Humans, chimps and bonobos are thought to share a common ancestor.

 

A chimp isn't shared from me, because I believe God made that chimp,ape, whatever, alone, and us separate from them. So, to say we are 'ancestors' of any primate is to say we 'the human race' evolved from primate,.. to human beings. Split, branched , whatever..Evolved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to all.

 

If we share similar things(Aids, viruses, etc) with some forms of primates; then could our male sperm pregnant a female primates egg? Or backwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absoultly right, humans did not evolve from chimps. One more time, OK? HUMANS AND CHIMPS SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR THAT BOTH SPECIES DESCENDED FROM!!!!

 

:grin: Alright then. MY ANCESTOR ISN'T NO CHIMP! That is the point marty. Chimps may have the same DNA, qualities, etc; but they aren't my descendants, they aren't human. To say the are from, branched, ancestry, etc; would mean they are us, and we are them, right? Why do you think they are descended, and not evolved? I always understood that to be the basis for evolution of man?

I think you should read a couple of good books or watch a few good movies on the subject of evolution. Chimps do not have the same DNA as humans or either they would be human or we would be chimps. Chimps are not our descendants and we did not evolve from chimps. However, if you believe in the Divine, then you are correct that they are us and we are them because whatever comes from the Divine, or the Great Mystery, is related to the Divine. But humans continue to evolve. Homo Sapiens are just one step in our evolution. At one time, we shared this planet with as many as five other human-type people, among them were the Neanderthals and Cromagnons. For whatever reason, homo sapiens did not become extinct when the other groups did. This planet enjoys life, and humans are not important in this scheme because life will continue here long after humans are extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it better to believe we came from dirt+magic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.