hereticzero Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 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? Our DNA is not the same and is not compatible with apes to procreate. It could be done in a lab artificially but doubtful in the wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 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? We didn't evolve from primates. We ARE primates. That being said, I really believe this whole thread is disingenuous. Why? Because you're way to smart to be saying such stupid things-- They aren't all stupid mind you, but a lot of them are. Whenever someone answers a half decent question you have, you counter with some silly, half thought out response. Even a cursory look at the science of evolution can answer most of these silly statements you make. Why are you asking us when there are many more places specifically geared toward the questions you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Or to a creationist, God made apes/chimps similar to human beings? Not connected in any way. Right? I find it very hard that God would intentionally plant identical faulty proteins in both human and chimp DNA. It's like a programmer would create two different programs, but intentionally plant the exact same bug in both of the programs. What would be the reason? The reason why humans can't produce C-vitamins is because the gene is broken. It produces a non-functional C-vitamin only. We are carrying around a vitamin that is not absorb by anything or used for anything. And it's evident that this gene once did produce C-vitamins, because it is the same one, and in the same place, as the gene in other animals where it works. So it's very clear, this is a gene that was broken once. And secondly, the chimps got the exact same faulty gene. Why would God intentionally create a part of software that doesn't work, and do it totally identical in only two beings? Statistically speaking, it is a very strong evidence for our relationship, and if God did this intentionally, then he wanted the scientists to believe and find this proof of evolution. Which means, God is intentionally deceiving the scientists. So, why would he do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 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? We ARE Primates~!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 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? I misspoke earlier. Not only did we evolve from primates, we are primates now. Evolution is more like a bush than a tree. What do you mean when you say "us separate from them" in what way? As others have said, you really need to do some reading and research on the subject of evolution, yoyo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Or to a creationist, God made apes/chimps similar to human beings? Not connected in any way. Right? I find it very hard that God would intentionally plant identical faulty proteins in both human and chimp DNA. It's like a programmer would create two different programs, but intentionally plant the exact same bug in both of the programs. What would be the reason? The reason why humans can't produce C-vitamins is because the gene is broken. It produces a non-functional C-vitamin only. We are carrying around a vitamin that is not absorb by anything or used for anything. And it's evident that this gene once did produce C-vitamins, because it is the same one, and in the same place, as the gene in other animals where it works. So it's very clear, this is a gene that was broken once. And secondly, the chimps got the exact same faulty gene. Why would God intentionally create a part of software that doesn't work, and do it totally identical in only two beings? Statistically speaking, it is a very strong evidence for our relationship, and if God did this intentionally, then he wanted the scientists to believe and find this proof of evolution. Which means, God is intentionally deceiving the scientists. So, why would he do that? Because the magick sky god knew he would create oranges!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yes, YoYo. Go to Talk Origins or your local library. Evolution is fascinating!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 It could be done in a lab artificially but doubtful in the wild. Has it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Because the magick sky god knew he would create oranges!!! LOL Has it? No, because it is unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I like the fact that Yoyo is asking questions. Some have suggested that his posture is not sincere. But I am not yet convinced of that. Yoyo may be ignorant of some facts, but I don't believe he's stupid. And ignorance can be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Or to a creationist, God made apes/chimps similar to human beings? Not connected in any way. Right? I find it very hard that God would intentionally plant identical faulty proteins in both human and chimp DNA. It's like a programmer would create two different programs, but intentionally plant the exact same bug in both of the programs. What would be the reason? The reason why humans can't produce C-vitamins is because the gene is broken. It produces a non-functional C-vitamin only. We are carrying around a vitamin that is not absorb by anything or used for anything. And it's evident that this gene once did produce C-vitamins, because it is the same one, and in the same place, as the gene in other animals where it works. So it's very clear, this is a gene that was broken once. And secondly, the chimps got the exact same faulty gene. Why would God intentionally create a part of software that doesn't work, and do it totally identical in only two beings? Statistically speaking, it is a very strong evidence for our relationship, and if God did this intentionally, then he wanted the scientists to believe and find this proof of evolution. Which means, God is intentionally deceiving the scientists. So, why would he do that? Why not? If God is omni whatever, then He can do whatever, right? As far as deceiving the scientists, Who is deceived? They are the closest resemblance to a human being, and scientists just confirmed their similarity through science. But...since evolution of a human is a 'theory'; then it's expounded into fact by evolutionists (such as it's been in this thread), that humans are ancestors of primates. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yoyo, I am curious. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution has happened. What would it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Has it? No, because it is unethical. Why is it not ethical? If these are our ancient ancestors, then we should have rights to see if a modern female can be pregnant by male sperm, and vise versa? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Has it? No, because it is unethical. Why is it not ethical? If these are our ancient ancestors, then we should have rights to see if a modern female can be pregnant by male sperm, and vise versa? Right? I don't see how that follows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 We didn't evolve from primates. We ARE primates. I am YoYo, not primate. Science says I'm primate, and some here, but that doesn't mean I'm a primate. I will tell you why I feel this way, and with such confidence. No other creature can disagree with whatever category science labels them. I can, because I am different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 But...since evolution of a human is a 'theory'; then it's expounded into fact by evolutionists (such as it's been in this thread), that humans are ancestors of primates. Right? In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is unproven--an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science, however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say "theory"). Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory--i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Han...2437/theory.htm The theory of evolution is much more than "just a theory" in the common use of the term. The word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of actual experimentation and/or observation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled. In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. http://www.notjustatheory.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yoyo, I am curious. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution has happened. What would it take? At this point in research, and study of it. A time machine and a video camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 As others have said, you really need to do some reading and research on the subject of evolution, yoyo. Science says we have 'branched, become ancestry, part of' the primate species, and that we are primates. I say we are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 As others have said, you really need to do some reading and research on the subject of evolution, yoyo. Science says we have 'branched, become ancestry, part of' the primate species, and that we are primates. I say we are not. Primates are not a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Yoyo, I am curious. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that evolution has happened. What would it take? At this point in research, and study of it. A time machine and a video camera! Well if that's true, then I don't see very much point in continuing on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. [/b] http://www.notjustatheory.com/ I understand that, then it becomes a scientific fact. We are not even near that type of formation of evolution of mankind. Chemistry and physics theories are much different than that of human evolution. Now, evolution in general, yes I do think we have evolved into what we have today. But...I contend that I am not classified as any primate, even though science says I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well if that's true, then I don't see very much point in continuing on here. We continue on because thats all we know to do, if we didn't continue on challenging every notion in life, as we should too with the Bible; then we are the Gods. Because there is nothing else to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 But...I contend that I am not classified as any primate, even though science says I am. Um... Goddamn. Primate IS a classification, therefore if science says you are classified as a primate, then you're classified as a primate. Whether you ARE a primate or not (you are) is a different matter entirely. And again, primate is not a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 We continue on because thats all we know to do, if we didn't continue on challenging every notion in life, as we should too with the Bible; then we are the Gods. Because there is nothing else to comprehend. Yoyo you've said that you would require a time machine to be convinced. So what am I supposed to do now? I have no time machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 We continue on because thats all we know to do, if we didn't continue on challenging every notion in life, as we should too with the Bible; then we are the Gods. Because there is nothing else to comprehend. Yoyo you've said that you would require a time machine to be convinced. So what am I supposed to do now? I have no time machine. Something of absolute certainty then Legion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts