| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 07:42:28 PM |
|
|
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
Can you demonstrate your Jehovah-of-the-Watchtower in the act of creation?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 10:25:25 PM |
|
|
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it that
you would think would count as a demonstration?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
25 Jun 2007 10:50:31 PM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:46789e66$0$1187$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant
to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what
the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well
known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: "Those working in
this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions
that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.
So there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations."
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor
.. either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it that
you would think would count as a demonstration?
Genes are the strongest indicator that we are related. But maybe I'm
reading the question wrongly since I see a flame is starting over
creationism or whatever. I read that as asking: WHAT was that common
ancestor? Was it hairy? Perhaps it was not! What did it look like? We
have no idea. We can't just assume it looked more like a chimp - because
other primates have also evolved over the millions of years. We can know
what the first H sapiens that were in the Middle East sort of looked like
because we have their skulls and bones. They weren't an African or Negro
type, that's for sure. Not even CLOSE to that type. That used to be widely
known, not kept a secret. Were we cross mating with Neandertals? Bones say
yes. Genes - well, they don't know enough about genes YET to really
determine any of it, but the bones surely do show that in some places, as
Wolpoff points out. Stringer even had to admit that there was mating at
least in that one place. Heh. What about with H. erectus? Maybe Wolpoff
is right. We know that Australians were there 60 thou years ago. The last
I saw of one Ameridian site in S. America - the furthest date they could get
was 56 thou years ago. So then.... So then, H Sapiens had to have gotten
into the middle east a lot earlier than some of those later dates they come
up with.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
20 Jun 2007 04:20:57 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it that
you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
20 Jun 2007 08:38:00 AM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:Zj6ei.3337$Zh6.2060@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant
to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what
the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well
known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in
this field have so little evidence upon which to base their
conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their
conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the
interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor
.. either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it
that you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
So the examples of creatures between current man and ape are not enough?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
20 Jun 2007 09:49:35 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:Zj6ei.3337$Zh6.2060@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant
to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what
the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well
known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in
this field have so little evidence upon which to base their
conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their
conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the
interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor
.. either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it
that you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
So the examples of creatures between current man and ape are not enough?
not according to the scientific method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
21 Jun 2007 05:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 9:49 am, ZilentKnight
not according to the scientific method.
If you ever could demonstrate that you actually *understood* the
scientific method, that would be a breakthrough. Hint: It's not
whining about evolution in news groups, and never *ever* supporting
your assertions.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
21 Jun 2007 06:02:54 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:49 am, ZilentKnight
not according to the scientific method.
If you ever could demonstrate that you actually *understood* the
scientific method,
If you understood the scientific method, you would know why evolution as
the origin of man doesn't pass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
21 Jun 2007 08:51:24 PM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:ysDei.4363$lY5.2213@trnddc07...
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:49 am, ZilentKnight
not according to the scientific method.
If you ever could demonstrate that you actually *understood* the
scientific method,
If you understood the scientific method, you would know why evolution as
the origin of man doesn't pass.
But a magical fantastical supernatural CREATION does? Do tell........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Flintknapper" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
06 Jul 2007 05:34:02 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:Zj6ei.3337$Zh6.2060@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant
to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what
the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well
known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in
this field have so little evidence upon which to base their
conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their
conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the
interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor
.. either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it
that you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
So the examples of creatures between current man and ape are not enough?
OK, how about this. The face of God. A pair of eyes, a pair of nostrils,
and a mouth.
Don't forget, that many ancient creatures did not possess these features.
Were we placed here on Earth, only to wear it out, and then be
transported to the next world (to ruin)? Sorry, JW, but that makes us
sound more like roaches than the children of God.
Besides, if I have to wear a suit and a nazi haircut in Heaven, then I
shall not be going. I've seen your pamphlets. Just look at Jesus's hair
and beard. What tripe! I doubt that he'll be there either.
Have fun!
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
08 Jul 2007 12:24:14 AM |
|
|
On Jul 6, 5:34 am, Chip Flintknapper <nob...@home.us> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:Zj6ei.3337$Zh6.2060@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPan...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9...@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant
to show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what
the unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well
known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: "Those working in
this field have so little evidence upon which to base their
conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their
conclusions. So there never seems to be any stability in the
interpretations."
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor
.. either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it
that you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
So the examples of creatures between current man and ape are not enough?
OK, how about this. The face of God. A pair of eyes, a pair of nostrils,
and a mouth.
Don't forget, that many ancient creatures did not possess these features.
Were we placed here on Earth, only to wear it out, and then be
transported to the next world (to ruin)? Sorry, JW, but that makes us
sound more like roaches than the children of God.
Besides, if I have to wear a suit and a nazi haircut in Heaven, then I
shall not be going. I've seen your pamphlets. Just look at Jesus's hair
and beard. What tripe! I doubt that he'll be there either.
Have fun!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You have all got to be kidding on this one! Cambridge University
announced on May 8th, we have no DNA ties with any Neanderthal,
Hablus, Erectus, or any other ancient form that was similar to us.
Why, we have to wait, but no kin. As for J.W., here is how you get
rid of them. They come to your house, ask them if they believe in
serving in the armed services. They will say no. Then you scream at
them that your brother, an uncle, and two cousins are laying out in
their graves with their lives cut short so that they can stand freely
on my porch and tell me this *****, they died for the your right to
free speech!! Get the hell out of here you bunch of cowards! Works
everytime.
As for the coming into your house, breaking up your marriage (come
on, she had some say in that one.) burning your keepsakes. In
Oklahoma, that's called, "They needed the alumium bat." defense. Not
good enough for the "He needed killing." defense, but the aluminum bat
defense would work fine. Keep laughing at them. K.W.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
20 Jun 2007 08:01:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:20:57 GMT, ZilentKnight
<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ZmYdi.2873$Zh6.381@trnddc04...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Kathy" <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote in message
news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Yes
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
Richard Leakey's position is the man descended from apes .. another
alternative is that man and apes both descended from a common ancestor ..
either way, we evolved from an ape-like creature.
Can this be demonstrated?
There is a wealth of evidence to support common ancestry. What is it that
you would think would count as a demonstration?
Manpanzee.
I give you:
Bushmanzee
http://www.bushorchimp.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- TROLL ALERT - jabbers impersonating other posters again!!!!!!!!! |
19 Jun 2007 01:47:26 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" IMPERSONATED by jabriol/Antonio L Santana <Kathy9045@boomail.com>
wrote in message news:N5Pdi.2827$Zh6.600@trnddc04...
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.210.146 (Verizon) is Antonio L Santana aka
JABRIOL!
Passing as a woman now Antonio?
<snip same old pro-creation BS>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wombat" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 10:25:52 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun, 13:28, Kathy <Kathy9...@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated:
How recently? Is there a small chance this is out of context? From
where did you lift this quote.
Wombat
"Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob. OConnor" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 01:52:47 PM |
|
|
"Wombat" <trigby@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1182266752.389388.80550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Jun, 13:28, Kathy <Kathy9...@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated:
How recently? Is there a small chance this is out of context? From
where did you lift this quote.
Jabbers is passing as Kathy. He copies and pastes all this stuff from
either pro-creation sites or the Watchtower CDs. The WT is famous for
misquoting, quoting out of context and using really old anti-evolution
information. The most recent plagiarized stuff Jabriol posted here was from
1982. Notice he's nymshifting with a frenzy these past 2 days, to bypass
your killfiles and hide what he does from the elders in his congregation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 02:22:22 PM |
|
|
"Rob. O'Connor" <rco954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4678260a$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Wombat" <trigby@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1182266752.389388.80550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Jun, 13:28, Kathy <Kathy9...@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated:
How recently? Is there a small chance this is out of context? From
where did you lift this quote.
Jabbers is passing as Kathy. He copies and pastes all this stuff from
either pro-creation sites or the Watchtower CDs. The WT is famous for
misquoting, quoting out of context and using really old anti-evolution
information. The most recent plagiarized stuff Jabriol posted here was
from 1982. Notice he's nymshifting with a frenzy these past 2 days, to
bypass your killfiles and hide what he does from the elders in his
congregation.
Your point...... Play again?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 11:46:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:28:45 GMT, Kathy <Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Not really. Modern man *is an apelike creature. In fact, they are so
apelike that they may actually be apes. What's wrong with being an
ape? It seems like a fine thing to be. What would you rather be?
Richard Leakey, director of the National Museum of Kenya, and well known
in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this
field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that
it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions. So
there never seems to be any stability in the interpretations.”
What evidence do you have that conflicts with these unstable
interpretations and what conclusions would your evidence lead you to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob. OConnor" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 01:59:23 PM |
|
|
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46780568.956717096@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:28:45 GMT, Kathy IMPERSONATED by criminal
jabriol<Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Not really. Modern man *is an apelike creature. In fact, they are so
apelike that they may actually be apes. What's wrong with being an
ape? It seems like a fine thing to be. What would you rather be?
Jabriol (liar, slanderer, plagiarizer) aka Kathy was told by the WTS that
man, even those as low as he is (impersonating real posters, threatening
people, telling the raped they deserved it, the depressed should commit
suicide etc) are special creations by the Watchtower god
Jehovah-the-almighty. Being in the family of Apes is not acceptable to
Jehovah's Witlesses. How then does jabriol find his criminal activity
acceptable? Tis a mystery...............
<brevity snips>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 02:23:02 PM |
|
|
"Rob. O'Connor" <rco954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4678278f$0$1350$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46780568.956717096@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:28:45 GMT, Kathy IMPERSONATED by criminal
jabriol<Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Not really. Modern man *is an apelike creature. In fact, they are so
apelike that they may actually be apes. What's wrong with being an
ape? It seems like a fine thing to be. What would you rather be?
Jabriol (liar, slanderer, plagiarizer) aka Kathy was told by the WTS that
man, even those as low as he is (impersonating real posters, threatening
people, telling the raped they deserved it, the depressed should commit
suicide etc) are special creations by the Watchtower god
Jehovah-the-almighty. Being in the family of Apes is not acceptable to
Jehovah's Witlesses. How then does jabriol find his criminal activity
acceptable? Tis a mystery...............
<brevity snips>
And............ ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Flintknapper" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
06 Jul 2007 05:06:23 AM |
|
|
Rob. O'Connor wrote:
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46780568.956717096@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:28:45 GMT, Kathy IMPERSONATED by criminal
jabriol<Kathy9045@boomail.com> wrote:
From all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books,
and from museum displays, it would seem that the evidence is abundant to
show that modern man evolved from apelike creatures. That is what the
unwary public generally believe. But is this really the case?
Not really. Modern man *is an apelike creature. In fact, they are so
apelike that they may actually be apes. What's wrong with being an
ape? It seems like a fine thing to be. What would you rather be?
Jabriol (liar, slanderer, plagiarizer) aka Kathy was told by the WTS
that man, even those as low as he is (impersonating real posters,
threatening people, telling the raped they deserved it, the depressed
should commit suicide etc) are special creations by the Watchtower god
Jehovah-the-almighty. Being in the family of Apes is not acceptable to
Jehovah's Witlesses. How then does jabriol find his criminal activity
acceptable? Tis a mystery...............
<brevity snips>
As a matter of fact, I have a special dislike for JW's. They came into
my house while I was at work, broke up my marriage, and burned all of my
keepsakes. I should have shot them, and they know it. It happened 32
years ago, but it seems just like yesterday.
I suppose that they justify themselves about the same way as that
ignorant Calif did when he had the library at Alexandria burned.
Doesn't matter now, but they really shouldn't be involved in any
scientific discussion at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The HIgh Priestess" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 01:03:54 PM |
|
|
Well, we could go one step further. The Masons did a wonderful job of
human evolutionary scientific research (is that grammatically
correct?)
Anyway, they found that we are also very close, in size, stature, and
DNA composition to the neandrathal man. Who is our cousin somehow,
but at the same time has less of a DNA match than apes.
I find it hard to believe that we descended from Apes. If that were
true, then why haven't the apes figured out how to speak, write,
walk?
If we look at the evolution of animals, humans, plants, the one that
remains constant is change. We change based on how the environment
changes. There is no way possible that the same apes that we
supposedly descended from remained the same while we magically
adapated.
Any thoughts?
The HP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
25 Jun 2007 10:50:31 PM |
|
|
"The HIgh Priestess" <nycshortie72@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182276234.990573.25710@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Well, we could go one step further. The Masons did a wonderful job of
human evolutionary scientific research (is that grammatically
correct?)
Anyway, they found that we are also very close, in size, stature, and
DNA composition to the neandrathal man. Who is our cousin somehow,
but at the same time has less of a DNA match than apes.
Too soon and not enough samples to correctly assess Neandertal DNA. Wolpoff
thinks H sapiens mated with Neandertal - and the bones back that up very
well.
I find it hard to believe that we descended from Apes. If that were
true, then why haven't the apes figured out how to speak, write,
walk?
Because they didn't, they evolved/adapted differently. All mammals share an
ancestor. Can humans do what dolphins do? Are cats like dogs? Well, NOT
ANYMORE - and that's what evolution is. Once upon a time, there was a
species. A whole lot of ***** happened (HEH). That species is gone. It's
descendents (all the mammals) are NOW - all very different. They evolved.
If we look at the evolution of animals, humans, plants, the one that
remains constant is change. We change based on how the environment
changes. There is no way possible that the same apes that we
supposedly descended from remained the same while we magically
adapated.
Any thoughts?
You are citing evolutionary theory. Sure, ALL the creatures (humans,
chimps, gorillas, - i.e., tailess primates) descended from some ape-like -
ok, that expression is a problem, something is not being conveyed. ALL
descended from A PRIMATE ancestor, they adapted, evolved, changed. ALL
have. Humans are primates. Chimps are also primates. OK? We have no idea
what that common ancestor was. And there wasn't just one common ancestor.
Chimps, gorillas, humans have one common ancestor. Then again, that
ancestor AND monkeys and so forth have a common ancestor. That species that
was the common ancestor no longer exists. It's gone. We also, further
back, share an ancestor with cats and dogs and dolphins and ...., all
mammals. Go back further. We share an ancestor with worms.
The HP
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
02 Jul 2007 11:23:39 PM |
|
|
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> wrote crazynessnews:b20gi.981$tj6.19@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Can humans do what dolphins do? Are cats like dogs? Well, NOT
ANYMORE -" -- snip
This is how evolutionists form their theory. lol.
S
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
02 Jul 2007 11:26:41 PM |
|
|
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> wrote more crazyness
news:b20gi.981$tj6.19@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
oh, and he goes on: "and that's what evolution is. Once upon a time, there was a
species. A whole lot of ***** happened (HEH). That species is gone. It's
descendents (all the mammals) are NOW - all very different. They evolved."
...
So simple & magical, imagine it, there you have it!
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
04 Jul 2007 09:45:42 PM |
|
|
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dqOdnYr8dPSOTRTbRVnzvQA@telenor.com...
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> wrote more crazyness
news:b20gi.981$tj6.19@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
oh, and he goes on: "and that's what evolution is. Once upon a time,
there was a
species. A whole lot of ***** happened (HEH). That species is gone. It's
descendents (all the mammals) are NOW - all very different. They
evolved."
..
So simple & magical, imagine it, there you have it!
S
Oh, get off it. There is absolutely nothing magical about it - unless you
are too damned stupid to understand something when I said it so obviously.
It's surely not simple like that, but I was making it funny (as in - TIME TO
LAUGH ANYONE?) It's clear that you don't understand evolutionary theory at
all - and in order to understand it in the first place, you need to
understand advanced biology. OK?
Lemme explain it then, really simple - using human populations. You start
out with a village of people. Some have some slant to their eyes, some have
more roundness. And so forth. Get the idea? The slant start to select
other slant - the round start to select other round. This keeps going on
with the slants selecting slantier and slantier and the rounds selecting
rounder and rounder (eyes). Finally, two pretty visibly distinct groups -
one slant eyed, the other round eyed, decide to split up and move away from
each other. They KEEP away from each other so long that each group forgets
where they started out, they forget that there is even another group.
Thousand of years later - when these groups get into making voyages, they
bump into each other and they notice: HEY - what is this? Why, this must
be another race! And if they were apart for so long that they are NO LONGER
cross fertile? "Hey, you guys must be another species."
GET IT? Many things cause adaptations to happen - but the group has to
sexually select in favor of those that they perceive are MOST adapted - or
they might perish.
People get the very wrong idea (the anthropomophic fallacy, I call it) that
the common ancestor of Pan and Homo must have looked more like a chimp.
WRONG. The common ancestor of Homo/Pan and even Gorilla was probably NOT as
prognathic and probably tended toward MORE bipedality than chimps or
gorillas do. That ancestor may not have been a knuckle walker at all. Why
would I say that? Because DUH - they found the god damned fossils and imo,
made the wrong assumptions based on their anthropomorphic biases. It's
obvious that either African humans were distinctly different from the H.
sapiens in the middle east (the H. Sapiens in the middle east were NOT
prognatic, but Negroes ARE prognathic) - or they were one group and the
Negro group developed that prognathism in about 200,000 years or so.
Now, is you are a creationist, then you better quickly harken to what your
holy book says about Ham's people (STAY AWAY from them!). HA.... If you
are a creationist, then you believe in magic. There is absolutely NOTHING
magical about adaptations - or about natural and sexual selection. Here -
if blonde blue eyed people decided to mate with ONLY other blonde blue eyed
people - you'd soon have a very large population of ONLY blonde blue eyed
people. OK? Simple?
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
09 Jul 2007 03:05:16 AM |
|
|
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:qXYii.3805$Od7.3434@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dqOdnYr8dPSOTRTbRVnzvQA@telenor.com...
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> wrote more crazyness
news:b20gi.981$tj6.19@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
oh, and he goes on: "and that's what evolution is. Once upon a time, there was a
species. A whole lot of ***** happened (HEH). That species is gone. It's
descendents (all the mammals) are NOW - all very different. They evolved."
..
So simple & magical, imagine it, there you have it!
S
Oh, get off it. There is absolutely nothing magical about it - unless you are too damned stupid
to understand something when I said it so obviously. It's surely not simple like that, but I was
making it funny (as in - TIME TO LAUGH ANYONE?) It's clear that you don't understand evolutionary
theory at all - and in order to understand it in the first place, you need to understand advanced
biology. OK?
Lemme explain it then, really simple - using human populations. You start out with a village of
people. Some have some slant to their eyes, some have more roundness. And so forth. Get the
idea? The slant start to select other slant - the round start to select other round. This keeps
going on with the slants selecting slantier and slantier and the rounds selecting rounder and
rounder (eyes). Finally, two pretty visibly distinct groups - one slant eyed, the other round
eyed, decide to split up and move away from each other. They KEEP away from each other so long
that each group forgets where they started out, they forget that there is even another group.
Thousand of years later - when these groups get into making voyages, they bump into each other and
they notice: HEY - what is this? Why, this must be another race! And if they were apart for so
long that they are NO LONGER cross fertile? "Hey, you guys must be another species."
GET IT? Many things cause adaptations to happen - but the group has to sexually select in favor
of those that they perceive are MOST adapted - or they might perish.
But the rest is imagined, how these humans would be elephants or something
that looks more like humans - easyer on the eyeballs?, I don't know what makes
those assumptions tick in evolutionary minds, but it sure is easy to imagine so
there it is.
People get the very wrong idea (the anthropomophic fallacy, I call it) that the common ancestor of
Pan and Homo must have looked more like a chimp. WRONG. The common ancestor of Homo/Pan and even
Gorilla was probably NOT as prognathic and probably
theres a word I don't really take as serious proof , *probably* makes for just about *anything* to
be possible.
tended toward MORE bipedality than chimps or
gorillas do. That ancestor may not have been a knuckle walker at all. Why would I say that?
Because DUH - they found the god damned fossils and imo, made the wrong assumptions based on their
anthropomorphic biases. It's obvious that either African humans were distinctly different from
the H. sapiens in the middle east (the H. Sapiens in the middle east were NOT prognatic, but
Negroes ARE prognathic) - or they were one group and the Negro group developed that prognathism in
about 200,000 years or so.
Now, is you are a creationist, then you better quickly harken to what your holy book says about
Ham's people (STAY AWAY from them!). HA.... If you are a creationist, then you believe in
magic. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about adaptations - or about natural and sexual
selection. Here - if blonde blue eyed people decided to mate with ONLY other blonde blue eyed
people - you'd soon have a very large population of ONLY blonde blue eyed people. OK? Simple?
adaptation is fine, going from ameba to humans or anything is crazy.Even biologically
and fossile wise, there's not enough .. actually counter evidence (they're there in their
finished forms, all in their current forms).
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
09 Jul 2007 12:33:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:05:16 +0200, "~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote:
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:qXYii.3805$Od7.3434@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dqOdnYr8dPSOTRTbRVnzvQA@telenor.com...
"Comm" <comm@nospam.com> wrote more crazyness
news:b20gi.981$tj6.19@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
oh, and he goes on: "and that's what evolution is. Once upon a time, there was a
species. A whole lot of ***** happened (HEH). That species is gone. It's
descendents (all the mammals) are NOW - all very different. They evolved."
..
So simple & magical, imagine it, there you have it!
S
Oh, get off it. There is absolutely nothing magical about it - unless you are too damned stupid
to understand something when I said it so obviously. It's surely not simple like that, but I was
making it funny (as in - TIME TO LAUGH ANYONE?) It's clear that you don't understand evolutionary
theory at all - and in order to understand it in the first place, you need to understand advanced
biology. OK?
Lemme explain it then, really simple - using human populations. You start out with a village of
people. Some have some slant to their eyes, some have more roundness. And so forth. Get the
idea? The slant start to select other slant - the round start to select other round. This keeps
going on with the slants selecting slantier and slantier and the rounds selecting rounder and
rounder (eyes). Finally, two pretty visibly distinct groups - one slant eyed, the other round
eyed, decide to split up and move away from each other. They KEEP away from each other so long
that each group forgets where they started out, they forget that there is even another group.
Thousand of years later - when these groups get into making voyages, they bump into each other and
they notice: HEY - what is this? Why, this must be another race! And if they were apart for so
long that they are NO LONGER cross fertile? "Hey, you guys must be another species."
GET IT? Many things cause adaptations to happen - but the group has to sexually select in favor
of those that they perceive are MOST adapted - or they might perish.
But the rest is imagined, how these humans would be elephants or something
that looks more like humans - easyer on the eyeballs?, I don't know what makes
those assumptions tick in evolutionary minds, but it sure is easy to imagine so
there it is.
People get the very wrong idea (the anthropomophic fallacy, I call it) that the common ancestor of
Pan and Homo must have looked more like a chimp. WRONG. The common ancestor of Homo/Pan and even
Gorilla was probably NOT as prognathic and probably
theres a word I don't really take as serious proof , *probably* makes for just about *anything* to
be possible.
tended toward MORE bipedality than chimps or
gorillas do. That ancestor may not have been a knuckle walker at all. Why would I say that?
Because DUH - they found the god damned fossils and imo, made the wrong assumptions based on their
anthropomorphic biases. It's obvious that either African humans were distinctly different from
the H. sapiens in the middle east (the H. Sapiens in the middle east were NOT prognatic, but
Negroes ARE prognathic) - or they were one group and the Negro group developed that prognathism in
about 200,000 years or so.
Now, is you are a creationist, then you better quickly harken to what your holy book says about
Ham's people (STAY AWAY from them!). HA.... If you are a creationist, then you believe in
magic. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about adaptations - or about natural and sexual
selection. Here - if blonde blue eyed people decided to mate with ONLY other blonde blue eyed
people - you'd soon have a very large population of ONLY blonde blue eyed people. OK? Simple?
adaptation is fine, going from ameba to humans or anything is crazy.Even biologically
and fossile wise, there's not enough .. actually counter evidence (they're there in their
finished forms, all in their current forms).
S
Some people still think the idea of a non-flat earth crazy.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
20 Jun 2007 10:58:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:03:54 -0700, The HIgh Priestess
<nycshortie72@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, we could go one step further. The Masons did a wonderful job of
human evolutionary scientific research (is that grammatically
correct?)
Anyway, they found that we are also very close, in size, stature, and
DNA composition to the neandrathal man. Who is our cousin somehow,
but at the same time has less of a DNA match than apes.
I find it hard to believe that we descended from Apes. If that were
true, then why haven't the apes figured out how to speak, write,
walk?
Because they're different types of apes. We are the hairless, bipedal
type that are capable of abstract thought. Some apes knuckle walk,
some don't. Some brachiate, some don't. Some speak and write, some
don't. We all smell bad though...
If we look at the evolution of animals, humans, plants, the one that
remains constant is change. We change based on how the environment
changes. There is no way possible that the same apes that we
supposedly descended from remained the same while we magically
adapated.
The ancestor we share with living apes is now extinct. They remained
the same and met their fate, we "magically" adapted.
Any thoughts?
The HP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gods Creator! HTML & TEXT" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
19 Jun 2007 08:59:54 PM |
|
|
The HIgh Priestess wrote:
Well, we could go one step further. The Masons did a wonderful job of
human evolutionary scientific research (is that grammatically
correct?)
Anyway, they found that we are also very close, in size, stature, and
DNA composition to the neandrathal man. Who is our cousin somehow,
but at the same time has less of a DNA match than apes.
I find it hard to believe that we descended from Apes. If that were
true, then why haven't the apes figured out how to speak, write,
walk?
If we look at the evolution of animals, humans, plants, the one that
remains constant is change. We change based on how the environment
changes. There is no way possible that the same apes that we
supposedly descended from remained the same while we magically
adapated.
Any thoughts?
The HP
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
Anyone who does not already understand that, is called... Stupid.
Maybe.... I could sell them another god or... two.. ??/
God's Creator!
( Sorry, I don't forgive *****! )
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : ---> http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Flintknapper" |
|
| Title: Re: ape-men? -Richard Leakey- |
06 Jul 2007 04:54:53 AM |
|
|
The HIgh Priestess wrote:
Well, we could go one step further. The Masons did a wonderful job of
human evolutionary scientific research (is that grammatically
correct?)
Anyway, they found that we are also very close, in size, stature, and
DNA composition to the neandrathal man. Who is our cousin somehow,
but at the same time has less of a DNA match than apes.
I find it hard to believe that we descended from Apes. If that were
true, then why haven't the apes figured out how to speak, write,
walk?
I would suppose that they are still using telepathy, a power that we
have lost.
As far as walking goes, it may be that a quadruped without the need for
tools can cover more distance; he is certainly stronger and more aware
of his enemies nearby presence.
Why should he need to read or write? History to him is the generation
before and after him, not the discovery of the original protein strand.
Ask the ape, not me. But this may be why there is so much "lost"
history. Also, because of glacial scouring, a lot of physical evidence
would have been lost as well.
If we look at the evolution of animals, humans, plants, the one that
remains constant is change. We change based on how the environment
changes. There is no way possible that the same apes that we
supposedly descended from remained the same while we magically
adapated.
Any thoughts?
The HP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
