I'm Not Convinced

[Abiyoyo]

Something else you're not getting. The type of classification under which "primate" falls does not mean "similar enough to interbreed". It can happen that way, but it is by no means a given. That's why we have the more specific classification "species", which does mean among other things, "similar enough to breed". Well, in the animals that reproduce sexually anyway.

 

So, then we are different, and no other creature compares to our physical structure and makeup, right?

[Vomit Comet]

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.

 

The Laplanders?

[Dhampir]

I guess not. We must also not be mammals, since there are animals that are mammals. We must not be bi-pedal either. Or air breathing, because those would make bases for comparison.

[Abiyoyo]

No one can tell me they don't have some capability to reason, invent and learn.

 

I agree. I just don't think that's how we got to be us, the human race; by increasing our knowledge, physical structure changes, eventually looking, acting, reasoning, the way we do. I mean, did we drink some special water or something?

[Ouroboros]

The Laplanders?

Correct. I think they did a DNA comparison to establish it, but I could be wrong, and if so I'll attribute it to false memories.

 

No one can tell me they don't have some capability to reason, invent and learn.

 

I agree. I just don't think that's how we got to be us, the human race; by increasing our knowledge, physical structure changes, eventually looking, acting, reasoning, the way we do. I mean, did we drink some special water or something?

Something did happen. Like a couple of mutations... and increased challenges which favored certain mutations over others.

[Abiyoyo]

The Laplanders?

Correct. I think they did a DNA comparison to establish it, but I could be wrong, and if so I'll attribute it to false memories.

 

Isn't that debated though? That early Indian Americans, are of this dissent, via the Beringia bridge during the last ice age?

 

The Bering Strait has been the subject of scientific speculation that humans migrated from Asia to the North American continent across a land bridge formed by lower ocean levels in the distant past exposing a ridge beneath the ocean. At periods when the oceans were lower, such as when glaciers locked up vast amounts of water, the exposed ridge would have allowed humans to simply walk from Siberia to Alaska, thus populating North and South America thousands of years ago.(1999). World History: Patterns of Interaction.

[Guest end3]

God made us out of dirt? If you need a time machine and a video camera to establish this basic fact, there is nothing else we can say.

 

 

Oooze is what I recall last time I was listening......ooze being dirt with water (Spirit)? And the proof thing.....gheez folks, he asked for proof just like you asked for God to appear before you and give you an answer....

 

 

wow....

[mwc]

The point is because most humans would consider that unethical. Why? I am told that I am an animal, mammal. So, why does ethics have to do with humanity scientifically?

So you've simply wanted to build a strawman? Well done I suppose. It's unfortunate that you are unwilling to grasp the simple concepts that put before you and only respond with this specious argument. If you had not you would be able to understand that humans are humans and chimps are chimps. There is nothing suspicious going on here.

 

There is nothing strange being said by anyone when they say that at some point in the past the two species shared a common ancestor, there was a "split" and from that point on we were separate, but still related. They adapted to their conditions and like we adapted to ours. Our brains obviously took a turn theirs did not so we can deal with higher level thought than they can (so far as we know at this time).

 

Let me put this to you another way. There was once a group of people that lived in the mountains. They didn't know it but the mountain was really a volcano. One day it started to erupt. So most left before they were all wiped out. Some decided to go to the sea. Some decided to go inland. Those who lived by the sea built boats, nets and became adept at sailing and fishing. Those who went inland tamed horses, built carts and learned to dig wells and hunt for food. This is simplistic example. A "cultural" evolution if you like but it demonstrates the issue. The chimps that you originally posted about came from one branch (ie. the ocean branch) and we are from the other branch (ie. the inland branch). We're related, tracing back to the original mountain group, but once we parted ways we had the new environments to help shape things from then on.

 

mwc

[mwc]

And the proof thing.....gheez folks, he asked for proof just like you asked for God to appear before you and give you an answer....

 

 

wow....

You're right he was. I guess that makes us hypocrites, doesn't it? Shame on us. Except YoYo says:

Why not? If God is omni whatever, then He can do whatever, right?

So we're not asking for the impossible like YoYo is asking from all of us. We can't give him the "proof" he's looking for (the time machine and video camera) but we're told by him (and basically everyone else) that "god" can do anything, which includes our meager request, but simply will not. If I had what YoYo asked for I most certainly would do it.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

So you've simply wanted to build a strawman? Well done I suppose. It's unfortunate that you are unwilling to grasp the simple concepts that put before you and only respond with this specious argument. If you had not you would be able to understand that humans are humans and chimps are chimps. There is nothing suspicious going on here.

 

Nice. Thanks mwc.

 

There is nothing strange being said by anyone when they say that at some point in the past the two species shared a common ancestor, there was a "split" and from that point on we were separate, but still related. They adapted to their conditions and like we adapted to ours. Our brains obviously took a turn theirs did not so we can deal with higher level thought than they can (so far as we know at this time).

 

As far as the chimps, it is because of the size of their brain, smaller; so the 'split' suggestion doesn't really work out with the chimps. Perhaps so with others.

 

Let me put this to you another way. There was once a group of people that lived in the mountains. They didn't know it but the mountain was really a volcano. One day it started to erupt. So most left before they were all wiped out. Some decided to go to the sea. Some decided to go inland. Those who lived by the sea built boats, nets and became adept at sailing and fishing. Those who went inland tamed horses, built carts and learned to dig wells and hunt for food. This is simplistic example. A "cultural" evolution if you like but it demonstrates the issue. The chimps that you originally posted about came from one branch (ie. the ocean branch) and we are from the other branch (ie. the inland branch). We're related, tracing back to the original mountain group, but once we parted ways we had the new environments to help shape things from then on.

 

I understand your point mwc. My question is simple, Why can't we mate the closest of our 'ancestors' with humans? Answers have been from, why would we do that, to it's not ethical, to it's not naturally possible, yet in a lab it is. So, the proof is in the pudding so to speak, none. It's a guess that some historians don't even accredit, with the Berlin strait. The reason I think that, is because science is different from history, yet they sometimes work together, or are apart of each other. History says they are scientific suggestions, at least by the American Indians; yet science says it's an obvious fact.

 

Who is right? Are the history researchers siding with creation, or are they just stated fact, I see more fact :wink:

[Dhampir]

There is nothing strange being said by anyone when they say that at some point in the past the two species shared a common ancestor, there was a "split" and from that point on we were separate, but still related. They adapted to their conditions and like we adapted to ours. Our brains obviously took a turn theirs did not so we can deal with higher level thought than they can (so far as we know at this time).

 

As far as the chimps, it is because of the size of their brain, smaller; so the 'split' suggestion doesn't really work out with the chimps. Perhaps so with others.

Are you retarded, or just playing stupid? Didn't I tell you earlier to stop drawing conclusions after everything you're told? Is it really so difficult to grasp that as we adapted to our different environmental pressures, our brains grew and took on new complexities, whereas the chimps brains didn't grow so much, and took on different complexities? Chimpanzee is our closest non-human relative genetically. It HAS been shown.

 

Look, this isn't funny anymore. If you're really serious about this, STOP playing stupid. In the mean time Go here and look this shit up for yourself.

[Abiyoyo]

There is nothing strange being said by anyone when they say that at some point in the past the two species shared a common ancestor, there was a "split" and from that point on we were separate, but still related. They adapted to their conditions and like we adapted to ours. Our brains obviously took a turn theirs did not so we can deal with higher level thought than they can (so far as we know at this time).

 

As far as the chimps, it is because of the size of their brain, smaller; so the 'split' suggestion doesn't really work out with the chimps. Perhaps so with others.

Are you retarded, or just playing stupid? Didn't I tell you earlier to stop drawing conclusions after everything you're told? Is it really so difficult to grasp that as we adapted to our different environmental pressures, our brains grew and took on new complexities, whereas the chimps brains didn't grow so much, and took on different complexities? Chimpanzee is our closest non-human relative genetically. It HAS been shown.

 

Look, this isn't funny anymore. If you're really serious about this, STOP playing stupid. In the mean time Go here and look this shit up for yourself.

 

 

[Guest end3]

And the proof thing.....gheez folks, he asked for proof just like you asked for God to appear before you and give you an answer....

 

 

wow....

You're right he was. I guess that makes us hypocrites, doesn't it? Shame on us. Except YoYo says:

Why not? If God is omni whatever, then He can do whatever, right?

So we're not asking for the impossible like YoYo is asking from all of us. We can't give him the "proof" he's looking for (the time machine and video camera) but we're told by him (and basically everyone else) that "god" can do anything, which includes our meager request, but simply will not. If I had what YoYo asked for I most certainly would do it.

 

mwc

 

thanks mwc,

 

I am confused (most likely)....I am understand God to have allowed satan to be in charge for a time?.....and would this effect evolution perhaps?

[Abiyoyo]

Look, this isn't funny anymore. If you're really serious about this, STOP playing stupid. In the mean time Go here and look this shit up for yourself.

 

I'm stupid because you can't answer my direct question? That's crazy Dhampir, I respected you a little more than that. I don't call you stupid, when you ask a question about God, that is difficult to answer. I try to at least explain my reasoning, which is usually left alone, or make fun of.

 

So, maybe you should read up on the Bible, find out some things; because, as you say to me, obviously you haven't researched because you don't get it.

 

Now doesn't that statement sound stupid.

[Dhampir]

Look, this isn't funny anymore. If you're really serious about this, STOP playing stupid. In the mean time Go here and look this shit up for yourself.

 

I'm stupid because you can't answer my direct question? That's crazy Dhampir, I respected you a little more than that. I don't call you stupid, when you ask a question about God, that is difficult to answer. I try to at least explain my reasoning, which is usually left alone, or make fun of.

 

So, maybe you should read up on the Bible, find out some things; because, as you say to me, obviously you haven't researched because you don't get it.

 

Now doesn't that statement sound stupid.

Oh, cry, cry. I'm sorry if I think you're too smart to be honestly offering such inane returns to what you're being told. The stuff we're giving you is the most basic stuff you can have on this subject, and all you do is throw it back at us with some snappy conclusion based on next to nothing. I'm not actually accusing you of being stupid, I'm accusing you of being disingenuous to some degree. Notice I leave room to continue this in a different fashion if there's any part of you that honestly wants to know. The requirement is that you cease being what I can only conclude is willfully disingenuous.

[Dhampir]

Incidentally, I did directly answer your question

[florduh]

It occurs to me that if it hasn't already been done, there should be a collection made of the most bizarre threads.

 

Competition would be fierce, but this thread has to make the top ten.

[Abiyoyo]

Something else you're not getting. The type of classification under which "primate" falls does not mean "similar enough to interbreed". It can happen that way, but it is by no means a given. That's why we have the more specific classification "species", which does mean among other things, "similar enough to breed". Well, in the animals that reproduce sexually anyway.

 

Fair enough Dhampir. You answered my questions.

[mwc]

Nice. Thanks mwc.

You're welcome. I think it was accurate.

 

As far as the chimps, it is because of the size of their brain, smaller; so the 'split' suggestion doesn't really work out with the chimps. Perhaps so with others.

In your next quote, where you say you understand my point, you must be lying.

 

I understand your point mwc. My question is simple, Why can't we mate the closest of our 'ancestors' with humans? Answers have been from, why would we do that, to it's not ethical, to it's not naturally possible, yet in a lab it is. So, the proof is in the pudding so to speak, none. It's a guess that some historians don't even accredit, with the Berlin strait. The reason I think that, is because science is different from history, yet they sometimes work together, or are apart of each other. History says they are scientific suggestions, at least by the American Indians; yet science says it's an obvious fact.

 

Who is right? Are the history researchers siding with creation, or are they just stated fact, I see more fact :wink:

How does any of this have to do with the original issue? You're trying to turn this into some sort of moral/ethical debate. It's not.

 

At this question you start something new. You want to lump it in, wait for some answers, then jump out and yell "Aha! Gotcha!" But there is no "gotcha" moment here. This is the same type of mess where people try to lump the big bang together with abiogenesis and evolution all in one so they can show how it doesn't work. Well, of course not. They're different. They may have some overlap and similarities but that makes no difference. They are different nonetheless. Any "gotchas" are unfounded and based only on ignorance.

 

Since you're so insistent on this question I'll give you my answer. The reason we cannot mate with them is because they are not human. I'm fairly certain I've made that point before now but I guess it bears repeating. We are related to them but we are not them. They are not us. Could we do it in a lab? I doubt it. Not without modifying a few things first so that the genetic material would be compatible. Then we have the question of "Why would we do that?" Just to see if we could? Well, that leads to the question of ethics. People did do things "just because they could" in the not too distant past (about 100 years ago actually). It led to some interesting experiments and some devastating problems. Rules of ethics came into play. So if a child were conceived it would have to be aborted but that would leave the question as to whether or not it would have truly been a viable half breed so then we'd want to bring it full term. Doing so would then give us this possibly half breed "thing" that would more than likely be rejected by both kinds so that would be unethical. It's best to leave that undone. It serves no benefit other than some idle curiosity.

 

Going further, based on your other comments, this falls quite flat when compared to stem cell research, which is more than an idle curiosity but has been demonstrated on lab animals to show a positive benefit in curing real life ailments such as paralysis. The research indicates that other disorders will also be treatable using this technique as well. If it actually delivers only a fraction of what it appears to promise it will be a very worthwhile endeavor.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I am confused (most likely)....I am understand God to have allowed satan to be in charge for a time?.....and would this effect evolution perhaps?

How would I know?

 

Let me answer you this way. If your "god" designed numerous processes in order to run his "kingdom" (lets call this the universe). Lets say he makes a process to run the stars and all that. The atoms and all that. The electromagnetic stuff and all that. You know. All the things you see when you look around, right? Then he builds this thing that we call "evolution" to run us (and plants and stuff really but we'll just say us and animals).

 

Anyhow, he builds all these nifty little processes then puts old Satan in charge. Why does Satan have the ability to monkey around with any of these systems? And if he does why would he only mess with "evolution?" To trick people? Well, if he actually messed with it, and so what we're seeing is what happened (no matter who did it) then our observations are correct and that is the reality of the situation. You see? If the "devil" altered evolution so we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. If "god" did something so we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. If natural, no one did anything, evolution just happened and we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. That's the deal.

 

So if the "devil" did it that doesn't matter. It still happened.

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

I am confused (most likely)....I am understand God to have allowed satan to be in charge for a time?.....and would this effect evolution perhaps?

How would I know?

 

Let me answer you this way. If your "god" designed numerous processes in order to run his "kingdom" (lets call this the universe). Lets say he makes a process to run the stars and all that. The atoms and all that. The electromagnetic stuff and all that. You know. All the things you see when you look around, right? Then he builds this thing that we call "evolution" to run us (and plants and stuff really but we'll just say us and animals).

 

Anyhow, he builds all these nifty little processes then puts old Satan in charge. Why does Satan have the ability to monkey around with any of these systems? And if he does why would he only mess with "evolution?" To trick people? Well, if he actually messed with it, and so what we're seeing is what happened (no matter who did it) then our observations are correct and that is the reality of the situation. You see? If the "devil" altered evolution so we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. If "god" did something so we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. If natural, no one did anything, evolution just happened and we're related to chimps then we're related to chimps. That's the deal.

 

So if the "devil" did it that doesn't matter. It still happened.

 

mwc

 

I can live with that, but the point being, there rests the possibility that satan is allowed to change the original to suite his end....evolution. No?

 

I would not consider Heaven to be in an evolving state. You? Nor the Garden of Eden?

[Guest Marty]

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!!!!

 

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?

 

Chimps are not my ancestors or descendants either! I wrote in huge capitols because I am at a loss as to why such a simple idea is impossible for xtians to comprehend.

 

Oh, wait, I do know why...Willful Ignorance. Nevermind

[Guest Marty]

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.

 

Who are you to claim to be smarter than every scientist on the planet, yet you cannot grasp even the simplest ideas concerning evolution? You haven't a clue as to what the evidence of evolution is, yet you declare it is wrong?

[Guest Marty]

Look, this isn't funny anymore. If you're really serious about this, STOP playing stupid. In the mean time Go here and look this shit up for yourself.

 

I'm stupid because you can't answer my direct question? That's crazy Dhampir, I respected you a little more than that. I don't call you stupid, when you ask a question about God, that is difficult to answer. I try to at least explain my reasoning, which is usually left alone, or make fun of.

 

So, maybe you should read up on the Bible, find out some things; because, as you say to me, obviously you haven't researched because you don't get it.

 

Now doesn't that statement sound stupid.

 

You must be stupid yoyo. There is no other explanation for your responses in this post, other than you post without reading anything anyone has said to you. You tell us the only evidence you will accept is impossible evidence, and then wonder why we get frustrated and bow out of the "discussion". It's not really a discussion though, because you are throwing red herrings around like a monkey throws shit around his cage, and trying your hardest to argue a strawman, and not evolution.

 

And most people here HAVE read the bible, so stop it with that shit, OK? You've been here long enough to know that. Someone tells you you need to read a few books to bring your scientific literacy up to at least a 3rd grade level, so you feel the need to retaliate and tell us to read the bible to learn something. There is nothing to learn in the bible, we know that, and deep down you know that too. But since I have to go take a shit right now, I think I will use my bible as toilet paper tonight...

[Scorpion]

I understand your point mwc. My question is simple, Why can't we mate the closest of our 'ancestors' with humans?

 

Actually, that's a good question. I haven't heard of humans mating with chimps, but I have heard of mules.

 

Confused? Don't be.

 

As you may or may not know, a mule his the crossing of a donkey with a horse. Now, the horse and the donkey are two seperate species, which means that they can't produce viable (non-sterile) offspring. But they are so closelly related they can can produce hybrid offspring, the mule, which is sterile.

 

Other animals can also mate with their closest relatives, evolutionary-wise. Dog-wolf and pig-boar matings come to mind. All are different species, but they can produce hybrid offspring!