I'm Not Convinced

[Dhampir]

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!

 

That is true, but if I'm not mistaken, the process of mule breeding is a completely human endeavor-- that is, mules aren't bred without human intervention. Like Bananas. What would be the purpose of breeding humans with chimps? What ethical justification would there be for subjecting such an offspring to the life it would most likely lead?

[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?

Again you're asking something I really can't answer. This is something I no longer believe in. But I'll do my best.

 

Based on what you've said I could say "yes" that Satan is allowed to alter "the original to suite his end" but what is his end? Lets go ahead and look at what you ask next. You don't see the "Garden of Eden" to be in an evolving state. So you don't consider it to have be altered to "suite his end." But it's widely accepted that Adam, Eve and their kids (except for possibly Cain) were just like us (albeit with huge ears...if you read my thread on that ). So when we trace backwards through the thread of time we would "hit the wall" at this point, the "Garden of Eden" point, instead of moving through it to the common ancestry point (and beyond) as we do today. This would be because all the animals, the "common ancestor," the "other branch" of primates and the human branch would all co-exist in the GoE and this would be at a point prior to Satan initiating his "evolution." In order for this "plan" to work he would not only have to initiate evolution but go back a re-work a lot of history to that point as well. Seems a lot of effort (and I was under the impression that time travel was not on his list of abilities). But then again I don't know what the "end" is so maybe it is plausible?

 

As for the evolving state of heaven. I'm not sure how you'd determine such a thing. Do you? Though I'm thinking that if the angels were created to do the will of "god" and then a group of them turned against "god" you might say that they "evolved" a will of their own. Perhaps "free will" was not by design but by evolution? "God" did not care for this mutation and cast it aside. Only the non-evolved angels were allowed to remain.

 

mwc

[Vomit Comet]

They think that Cro-Magnons might have bred with Neanderthals here and there.

 

Good Lord, how drunk and desperate would a caveman have to be!?

[PitterPatter]

My forehead is probably red from all the face-palms. Thanks YoYo's brain. Ugh.

 

Sometimes I wish that when people said, "Evolution is just a theory!" they'd just fall off the Earth...since gravity is "just a theory" too.

[PitterPatter]

What point is there supposed to be here?

 

Since we are classified as primate, and accepted in the scientific world as having evolved from them, via the evidence and data; Should we have the right to make one of our modern 'ancestors' pregnant by human sperm, or eggs, ..or vise versa?

 

Sounds like you're justifying rape dude...

[Guest Marty]

That is true, but if I'm not mistaken, the process of mule breeding is a completely human endeavor-- that is, mules aren't bred without human intervention. Like Bananas. What would be the purpose of breeding humans with chimps? What ethical justification would there be for subjecting such an offspring to the life it would most likely lead?

 

A race of slaves to perform manual labor?

[Abiyoyo]

They think that Cro-Magnons might have bred with Neanderthals here and there.

 

Good Lord, how drunk and desperate would a caveman have to be!?

 

My forehead is probably red from all the face-palms. Thanks YoYo's brain. Ugh.

 

Sometimes I wish that when people said, "Evolution is just a theory!" they'd just fall off the Earth...since gravity is "just a theory" too.

 

What point is there supposed to be here?

 

Since we are classified as primate, and accepted in the scientific world as having evolved from them, via the evidence and data; Should we have the right to make one of our modern 'ancestors' pregnant by human sperm, or eggs, ..or vise versa?

 

Sounds like you're justifying rape dude...

That is true, but if I'm not mistaken, the process of mule breeding is a completely human endeavor-- that is, mules aren't bred without human intervention. Like Bananas. What would be the purpose of breeding humans with chimps? What ethical justification would there be for subjecting such an offspring to the life it would most likely lead?

 

A race of slaves to perform manual labor?

 

What does ethics have to do with science right? We are all animals, so lets be the animals we came to be. I say screw all the fluffy, duffy, ethical hogwash and lets do some.. real science Do I hear an Amen?

[PitterPatter]

Other animals clearly have better ethics than you do...

[Legion]

What does ethics have to do with science right?

I imagine you’re being somewhat facetious here Yoyo. I think there are many experiments we could do, and that would tell us a lot about humans, but that we shouldn’t do.

[Abiyoyo]

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

 

Well, good. We are of the same mind then.

 

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?

 

But.. I thought we agreed.

 

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.

 

I am not arguing evolution, I am arguing humans classified as primates by scientists. I am arguing anything, or anyone that suggests they are our oldest relatives, ancestry. You know, ...like the encyclopedia.

 

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...

 

And I have about the evolution of man. I use my evolutionary printouts to wipe my crack when I doo too

[Ouroboros]

What does ethics have to do with science right? We are all animals, so lets be the animals we came to be.

Seems like you're playing on the typical misunderstanding of what ethics and morality is. If you pick up any philosophical book about morality and ethics, you will see that the author us reason and logic to conclude what it is and what it is not. They don't use emotional arguments, but they use reason.. As humans, yes, we are different than the animals, because we have the ability to talk and communicate ideas. And as such we will construct ethical systems based on reason, and these systems most of the time makes perfect sense. So ethics is fundamentally based on reason.

 

But on the other hand, before the idea of a cross-breeding between human and chimp is considered, you have to think about how people feel about it, and how they will react. They will not react pleasantly, nor will they consider it natural. It doesn't matter if it is natural or not, because society is founded on people, not science. People have emotions, and they feel things that are irrational. You have to account for that when you make up moral policy. It's not enough to just use a scientific fact, and then go ahead without any further considerations. So ethics also have to account for emotions.

 

Ethics is on its way back into both science and business. You will see it grow as a concern, sharply, the next coming 10-15 years.

 

Besides, the Genesis can be interpreted to actually support Evolution.

[Legion]

I do a great chimpanzee impression.

 

I wonder why it's so easy to do.

[Abiyoyo]

What does ethics have to do with science right?

I imagine you’re being somewhat facetious here Yoyo. I think there are many experiments we could do, and that would tell us a lot about humans, but that we shouldn’t do.

 

Yeah kinda, it's the point of it. Why aren't we gonna do these experiments?, because as Hans said earlier; the majority will say no. Because we are ethical people. Science is science, and sometimes people just swear by science, but science can't explain everything. I am debunked because I believe God made me, put out as stupid. Dirt +magic

 

It's only fair that sometimes the scales lean the other way. The only thing that is factual is that which is factual. Agree?

[Abiyoyo]

Ethics is on its way back into both science and business. You will see it grow as a concern, sharply, the next coming 10-15 years.

 

Besides, the Genesis can be interpreted to actually support Evolution.

 

I agree. Which means there is a point where science has to stop, correct?

[Abiyoyo]

Other animals clearly have better ethics than you do...

 

[Legion]

I get the impression that you're not interested in a serious discussion about this Yoyo. And if so, I think it's somewhat sad. I mean, I think evolution actually paints a grand picture of life here on Earth. We've all been struggling to survive for about 4 billion years. And we the living are all the proud winners of that struggle.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah kinda, it's the point of it. Why aren't we gonna do these experiments?, because as Hans said earlier; the majority will say no. Because we are ethical people. Science is science, and sometimes people just swear by science, but science can't explain everything.

That's right, science can't explain everything, but what it does explain, it explains it well. Just because science can't explain quantum entanglement, it doesn't mean it can not explain the relationship between mass, velocity, and energy. You can't drop 100% of what science do explain, just because science can't explain 100% of everything that exists. Just because science can't tell you the exact number of stars, it doesn't mean it doesn't work when it's used to create plasma TVs.

 

I am debunked because I believe God made me, put out as stupid. Dirt +magic

That's right. Genesis and Evolution agrees. We come from Earth. The only difference is that Genesis claims that humans have a spirit, a god given divine nature, which is only given to us. But for me, that divine nature is: reason. So use it well.

 

It's only fair that sometimes the scales lean the other way. The only thing that is factual is that which is factual. Agree?

And it's factual that you and I only have a 99% match of DNA. Either only one of us are human, or both of us, or human quality is simply not defined in DNA.

[Abiyoyo]

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!

 

Thank you. It's not that far fetched, until morals, ethics come in to play on the human side.

 

 

That is true, but if I'm not mistaken, the process of mule breeding is a completely human endeavor-- that is, mules aren't bred without human intervention. Like Bananas. What would be the purpose of breeding humans with chimps? What ethical justification would there be for subjecting such an offspring to the life it would most likely lead?

 

To see if the baby would be blonde haired, or red haired Be like Gremlins

[Abiyoyo]

I get the impression that you're not interested in a serious discussion about this Yoyo. And if so, I think it's somewhat sad. I mean, I think evolution actually paints a grand picture of life here on Earth. We've all been struggling to survive for about 4 billion years. And we the living are all the proud winners of that struggle.

 

Hey legion, and all. I am not trying to dilute science, I am just suggesting that in this situation of science, I disagree with science. I think life has evolved on earth, that obvious. It's the notion of the human, and it's evolution, from whatever it evolved from; that's my disagreement.

[Ouroboros]

I agree. Which means there is a point where science has to stop, correct?

Yes, I think there are times science needs to be held back. It's not as simple to say, "just because we can, we will." Some things would be okay to do, but it's just not the right time. Society has to adjust too, so over time we probably will do the experiments we dread today. It's like copyright protection on digital media, there's always a way around it. There's always a way to hack something. And unfortunately, the same goes for science. There's always someone who will figure out a way to do something we--as society--is not ready for yet. An example is genetic modifications of crops. We don't know the ramifications yet for some of the changes to the DNA, and there's no computer system today which could simulate the effects either. I think we need to learn more before we start using a technology like that. The same is probably true for nano tech in 10 years.

[Ouroboros]

To see if the baby would be blonde haired, or red haired Be like Gremlins

You know, I suspect hypertrichosis is a dormant gene from our ancestor pre-human-ape. What other explanation can there be? Considering that it's a rather complex gene for hair-growth, so it's not just a copy-error mutation, but rather an inactive gene which gets switched on.

[Legion]

It's the notion of the human, and it's evolution, from whatever it evolved from; that's my disagreement.

Yoyo, I don't want to come across as better than thou. I have an ego just like everyone else. But I would suggest that it is your sense of pride and specialness that prevents you from accepting that humans have evolved. People see the word "evolution" and think "monkey". I understand. Nobody wants to be made a monkey.

 

But we have been and are still subjected to the same forces which have driven evolution since that mysterious beginning of life on Earth some 4 billion years ago.

[Abiyoyo]

That's right, science can't explain everything, but what it does explain, it explains it well. Just because science can't explain quantum entanglement, it doesn't mean it can not explain the relationship between mass, velocity, and energy. You can't drop 100% of what science do explain, just because science can't explain 100% of everything that exists. Just because science can't tell you the exact number of stars, it doesn't mean it doesn't work when it's used to create plasma TVs.

 

I agree.

 

And it's factual that you and I only have a 99% match of DNA. Either only one of us are human, or both of us, or human quality is simply not defined in DNA.

 

Good thought. What do you think, is DNA the defining factor of humans?

[Ouroboros]

Good thought. What do you think, is DNA the defining factor of humans?

Not alone. DNA is part of being human, but not the only factor to become a human. We are born, learn to walk, talk, eat, think, we learn to vote, drive car, get married, etc. It all is part of being human, and there's no precise definition.

 

Just consider that there are babies born with XXY DNA, or XYY, or chimeras, or mosaic defects. There are so many genetic defects and to define human only based on the "perfect" DNA won't work. And also thinking again about that you and I do not share a 100% match in DNA. So DNA is only the starting point. A certain concept of similarity, and then the definition grows out from there and includes experience and environment too.

 

If DNA was the only factor, you as a Christian would have a problem too, because then you would rely on a physical factor to define what a human is. To you--I assume--the idea of a spirit or soul is contributing to being a real human, right? So DNA can't be the only thing, for neither of us.

 

And think about Genesis this way, it says God took dirt and made humans, and then he breathed into it. See it as an allegory for Evolution leading to the first humanoids, homo sapiens, and God breathed then into that evolved creature. If you allow yourself for Theistic Evolution, then suddenly you will start finding the Bible does not contradict it. The Genesis story is supposed to be read as a story about humanity, not historical individuals. Adam and Eve are the representative concept of mankind. God as the giver of intelligence, language, reason, and expressions of morality. Then evolution was God's tool to get there, and not a stumbling block for your faith. Right?

[Abiyoyo]

You know, I suspect hypertrichosis is a dormant gene from our ancestor pre-human-ape. What other explanation can there be? Considering that it's a rather complex gene for hair-growth, so it's not just a copy-error mutation, but rather an inactive gene which gets switched on.

 

The wolfman! Maybe Hans.