| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2003 08:29:22 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
16 Oct 2003 02:10:27 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Jabbers is a fucking idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
16 Oct 2003 04:52:39 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:D2Cjb.133292$xx4.23572356@twister.neo.rr.com...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Jabbers is a fucking idiot.
and you are an example of poor education. Your teachers should have their
paycheck docked. And you should be sterilized. And this way your "attitude"
gene would be removed from the human species...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
16 Oct 2003 05:51:41 PM |
|
|
"cabriole" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:HqEjb.365455$p36.3671054@news.easynews.com...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:D2Cjb.133292$xx4.23572356@twister.neo.rr.com...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science definition, Jabbers is a fucking
idiot.
and you are an example of poor education. Your teachers should have their
paycheck docked. And you should be sterilized. And this way your
"attitude"
gene would be removed from the human species...
Interesting thing for someone who claims not to believe in evolution to say.
Very Orwellian. Special Creation, just some are more special than others.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
16 Oct 2003 09:34:53 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<HqEjb.365455$p36.3671054@news.easynews.com>...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:D2Cjb.133292$xx4.23572356@twister.neo.rr.com...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Jabbers is a fucking idiot.
and you are an example of poor education. Your teachers should have their
paycheck docked. And you should be sterilized. And this way your "attitude"
gene would be removed from the human species...
No, he's demonstrating good genes. He's expressing an instinctive
response to a threat to the tribe, a danger to civilization. You.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 04:48:43 PM |
|
|
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0310161834.6f892ff3@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<HqEjb.365455$p36.3671054@news.easynews.com>...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:D2Cjb.133292$xx4.23572356@twister.neo.rr.com...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Jabbers is a fucking
idiot.
and you are an example of poor education. Your teachers should have
their
paycheck docked. And you should be sterilized. And this way your
"attitude"
gene would be removed from the human species...
No, he's demonstrating good genes. He's expressing an instinctive
response to a threat to the tribe, a danger to civilization. You.
sure, I am a danger..sure....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
19 Oct 2003 02:30:22 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<%sZjb.3114188$Bf5.424912@news.easynews.com>...
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0310161834.6f892ff3@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<HqEjb.365455$p36.3671054@news.easynews.com>...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:D2Cjb.133292$xx4.23572356@twister.neo.rr.com...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Jabbers is a fucking
idiot.
and you are an example of poor education. Your teachers should have
their
paycheck docked. And you should be sterilized. And this way your
"attitude"
gene would be removed from the human species...
No, he's demonstrating good genes. He's expressing an instinctive
response to a threat to the tribe, a danger to civilization. You.
sure, I am a danger..sure....
Perhaps you're right. "Danger" is an exageration. He's just reacting
to something distasteful.
--- kermit
For any new lurkers who may wonders at our hostility toward what seems
to be the usual Creationist anti-science twaddle, you should know that
this ersatz human is dispicable. For evidence, google "jabriol" and
"rape".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
16 Oct 2003 10:39:46 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes) provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition, fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 09:02:29 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes) provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition, fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 12:53:24 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale,
This is a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "up" in
evolution. A bacteria is adapted to its own environment. People and chimps
and mosquitoes are adapted to theirs. If the environment changes, then they
may go extinct.
they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
There are many conjectures as to why other hominids died out. Generally, if
species share the exact same environment, then one or the other will
eventually predominate. If they can find separate niches, each species may
specialize and survive. Though it is still conjecture as to why other
hominids died out, it is not conjecture that they once existed. Their
fossils can be viewed in many world museums.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 05:00:29 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:J0Wjb.1921$0k5.485265514@twister1.starband.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology
and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For
many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read
expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of
man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues
are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys."
Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of
science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale,
This is a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "up" in
evolution. A bacteria is adapted to its own environment. People and chimps
and mosquitoes are adapted to theirs. If the environment changes, then
they
may go extinct.
they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
There are many conjectures as to why other hominids died out. Generally,
if
species share the exact same environment, then one or the other will
eventually predominate. If they can find separate niches, each species may
specialize and survive. Though it is still conjecture as to why other
hominids died out, it is not conjecture that they once existed. Their
fossils can be viewed in many world museums.
an honest reply. you could argue the example of the bear and africa. there
are no bear in africa, but they exist on almost every other continent. I am
not sure about australia.. the koala is not a bear.
Never the less there is only one inteligent advance species.. uh human I
guess, who are self aware. I guess other homonids would be self aware,
surely the neanderthal was.
It seem, by your agrument, that the more advance intelligent species, will
wipe out on purpose the less intelligent one's correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phylter" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
18 Oct 2003 10:30:32 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> astounded us with:
news:1EZjb.3114616$Bf5.424716@news.easynews.com:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:J0Wjb.1921$0k5.485265514@twister1.starband.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology
and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis
between modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the
homonid family. Some individuals will refuse to refer to
themselves as apes. For
many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with
artists' renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary
transitions between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors?
Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often
read
expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors
of
man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their
colleagues
are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved
from apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The
common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in
popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys."
Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind?
Because today's living world has nothing in it to support the
idea. As mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between
humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family,
yes there is a 98% genetic match with the bonobo Then again human
have over 50% match with a banana. Hence, since the living world
does not provide a link between man and ape (semantics here
people, per definition of
science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the
fossil record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale,
This is a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "up"
in evolution. A bacteria is adapted to its own environment. People and
chimps and mosquitoes are adapted to theirs. If the environment
changes, then
they
may go extinct.
they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still
in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate
forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we
see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it
seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more
advanced "links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have
become extinct, but not the lower apes?
There are many conjectures as to why other hominids died out.
Generally,
if
species share the exact same environment, then one or the other will
eventually predominate. If they can find separate niches, each species
may specialize and survive. Though it is still conjecture as to why
other hominids died out, it is not conjecture that they once existed.
Their fossils can be viewed in many world museums.
an honest reply. you could argue the example of the bear and africa.
there are no bear in africa, but they exist on almost every other
continent. I am not sure about australia.. the koala is not a bear.
There are no (known) native bears in Australia. The koala is a marsupial,
as are kangaroos. It could be argued that if there are kangaroos, why are
there koalas. Then of course, we can introduce tree-kangaroos into the
mix. With kangaroos that climb trees, surely there is no place for koalas.
Obviously, they all descended from proto-marsupials, just as we descended
from a much earlier ancestor.
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "no-way" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
18 Oct 2003 08:15:31 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:1EZjb.3114616$Bf5.424716@news.easynews.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:J0Wjb.1921$0k5.485265514@twister1.starband.net...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology
and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis
between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For
many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with
artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary
transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read
expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of
man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues
are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved
from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys."
Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a
98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a
link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of
science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the
fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale,
This is a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "up"
in
evolution. A bacteria is adapted to its own environment. People and
chimps
and mosquitoes are adapted to theirs. If the environment changes, then
they
may go extinct.
they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
There are many conjectures as to why other hominids died out. Generally,
if
species share the exact same environment, then one or the other will
eventually predominate. If they can find separate niches, each species
may
specialize and survive. Though it is still conjecture as to why other
hominids died out, it is not conjecture that they once existed. Their
fossils can be viewed in many world museums.
an honest reply. you could argue the example of the bear and africa. there
are no bear in africa, but they exist on almost every other continent. I
am
not sure about australia.. the koala is not a bear.
Never the less there is only one inteligent advance species.. uh human I
guess, who are self aware. I guess other homonids would be self aware,
surely the neanderthal was.
It seem, by your agrument, that the more advance intelligent species, will
wipe out on purpose the less intelligent one's correct?
That is one reasonable conjecture, but it is not the only one. What is known
is that there were more than one species of hominid, sometimes more than one
at a single point in time (e.g. humans and Neanderthal). Now there is only
one. This is not unusual in the history of life.
Of course, not knowing every detail of evolution in no way impinges on the
overall evidence for evolution. Indeed, we can't possibly know all the
details.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Edward" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 11:40:18 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com...
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
This is a very common misconception about Evolutionary theory, and one not
held just by creationists, so I can't accuse you of a straw-man argument.
Unfortunately, the popular press tends to "simplify" things to the point
where they are sometimes just dead wrong -- and Evolutionary Theory isn't
the only victim by a long shot.
Evolutionary Theory (ET) does not posit that evolutionary change (EC) will
produce "better" critters (plants and virii are included, but let's just say
"critters" for shorthand). EC will produce critters better suited for an
existing niche, OR able to better exploit a new niche. In the former case,
the new breed will either wipe out the old breed entirely, or it will force
the old breed into a more marginal niche. In the latter case, the new breed
will simply take over the new niche and leave the old breed alone. There may
of course be some overlap, but probably not to the point of wiping anyone
out. But there's plenty of room for situations where the old breed will
continue to exist.
However, note also that EC does not necessarily produce more complex
critters (that's another misunderstanding of what ET predicts). Parasites
are an excellent example of EC producing a simpler critter in order to
exploit an available niche. Animals whose eyes or wings atrophy because
they're no longer needed in the new niche is a good example of
simplification. It's really a case of "whatever works".
Also, regarding your argument about "intermediate forms", there are plenty
of extinct and still extant forms that can readily be argued to be
intermediate forms. However, the usual creationist argument is to ask for
the inter-intermediate forms, and if some are produced, to ask for the
inter-inter-intermediate forms. This continues until no more can be
produced, then the creationist crows in triumph, "See! No intermediate
forms!".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
18 Oct 2003 09:53:27 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?
Here it is again, Jabriol so the world is reminded that you know this
is out there but continue to lie about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
This is the talk.origins transitional fossils FAQ which summarizes the
work of scientists that has been published in peer-reviewed science
journals. the article contains over 70 references many of which are
to professional journals such as _Nature_, _Paleobiology_,
_Paleontology_, and _Science_. I didn't see any references in there
to creationist letters published in _New Scientist_, so I'm afraid
you'll have to rough it a bit.
Here's the horse transition FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
which summarizes the evidence and includes references to papers in
professional journals such as the _Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology_. Get it now?
Evolutionary theory holds
You haven't ever had the slightest clue what evolution is about or you
wouldn't continue to post this pigshit after having been repeatedly
told the answers. Why ask if you are not willing to or are incapable
of learning?
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving.
In the environment they faced at the time, but environments change
just as organisms do, Moron, and an organisms that is better suited in
environment 'A' may well be inferior when the environment changes to
'B' that some other organism is better suited to. I know this is far
too complex for the better educated creationist, but it's a fact of
life that you will have to evolve to cope with because right now, you
and your "kind" are in serious danger of extinction.
Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence,
Because they do not compete with humans to be the first to post
idiotic clueless trash on the Internet, which is your niche.
but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?
Are you aware of how many species of primate are living, and have
lived in the past? Every one of them is some sort of intermediate
form. The ones that are alive today are the ones that better competed
*in specific environments*. That's why they're here, imbecile. Of
course, that doesn't explain your continued existence....
Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
Yes, if they could not compete in the envronment in which they found
themselves. Get it now? I doubt it.
And now to the rest of your worthless diatribe...
First of all, Per today science defintion,
Do you mean "definition"?
Men are Ape's
You are using the possessive there. We are ape's what - ancestors?
descendants? cousins? dance partners? Or do you mean we are apes
(plural, rather than possessive)?
And once again you are clueless. We are Homo, they are Pan. We
should be generally grouped with them, but we are not them (that's why
they have different *scientific* names), since both we and they
evolved on different pathways from a common ancestor. That's assuming
you go with what all the evidence shows. If you are a complete
crackpot, you assume (on zero evidence) that we were created.
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis
Do you mean "distinguish"?
between modern man (homo spaiens)
Do you mean homo sapiens?
from it
Do you mean "from its"? In any case you've used the wrong grammatical
construction. Try "and" instead, or omit "between".
ancestors in the homonid family.
Do you mean hominid?
[snipped useless banter doubtlessly plagiarized from some decades old
article for which Jabriol yet again offers not a shred of a reference]
So when you find a fossil that has a clear mix of ape and human
features, Jabriol, what do you call it? If you think evolution
occurred and you find a fossil like this in the right place in the
fossil record, then it's highly suggestive that it is a link on, or
offshoot from, the path between ape-like ancestors and modern humans.
What does a creationist like you call a fossil that has a mix of human
and ape features? What? What do you call it when you find a
succession of such fossils in the record, progressively becoming less
ape-like and more human as we get closer to modern times? What do you
call it, Jabriol? What?
Many people use the term Homonids.
They're idiots. People who actually know what they're talking about
use the term "hominids".
Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana.
Jabriol lies yet again. According to his favorite magazine, _New
Scientist_, in answer to a letter (which Jabriol thinks are
peer-reviewed science papers), it was revealed that this 50% match was
actually an assessment of genes that fulfil the same kind of
functions, *not* to an exact match, base pair for base pair, of fifty
percent of genes that constitute the genome.
Since all living things need to perform many of the same functions
(intake nutients such as food, water, and oxygen), expel waste, and
breed and grow, it is entirely unsurprising that we share similar
kinds of genes with other organisms. This does not mean those genes
are precisely the same, and it is in fact evidence of evolution and
not a "colossal hole" in the Theory of Evolution as Jabriol continues
to lie. Once again his chronic ignorance is revealed by the one who
reveals it best - Jabriol himself.
Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Well I would think a 98% match in genes pretty much supplies that
link! Duhh! Actually the 98% is another misleading statistic, but
more detailed examination has revealed a 95% match, and other
examinations have revealed that not only do we share a startling
amount of our DNA with chimpanzees, we also share mistakes in the DNA
- a fact that can only be explained by evolution, not by creation and
certainly not by so-called intelligent design:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This article was written by Edward Max, Jabriol - a medical doctor and
PhD, who supports it with references to peer-reviewed papers - get it?
Alternately, Jabriol, how do *you* explain that we are closer,
genetically, to chimpanzees than they are to the other great apes?
That we are closer to chimpanzees than the Indian elephant is to the
African elephant? That we are closer to chimpanzees than the red-eyed
vireo is to the white-eyed vireo? That we are closer to chimpanzees
than two species of camel are to each other?
How do *you* explain the difference distribution that we see in
sequencing the gene that produces protein Cytochrome C in different
organisms? Differences increase the further down the evolutionary
path you get away from humans.
See Douglas Theobald's article on it at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
supported by many references.
As Theobald states, "2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c
protein sequences...is...larger than the number of atoms in the
visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are
virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two
different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome
c protein sequences."
Number of differences in Cytochrome C between humans and:
Chimpanzee 0
Rhesus monkey 1
Rabbit 9
Duck 11
Rattlesnake 14
Tuna 21
Moth 31
Yeast 45
Organisms do share much of the sequence, but (as you can see above)
with increasing differences which match the theoretical progression of
evolution. This is evidence of evolution, not of creation or design.
What do you call it when you find a fossil that has pretty much a
50-50 mix of reptile/dino and bird features, Jabriol? Was it
intelligently designed to confuse evolutionists or is it in fact an
example of a potential transitional form that would lie on the path
from reptiles/dinos to birds?
Still waiting on that **LIST** of these supposed "colossal holes" in
the Theory of Evolution. You do *know* what a **LIST** is, don't you?
Failure to supply a list in response to this request is a direct and
open admission to the world that there is no such thing. Get it?
Note that cluelessness does not a list make, neither does ignoring a
request or snipping a request. All of these things constitute a
public admission of defeat.
Note also that comparisons of modern reptiles to modern birds does not
constitute a hole of any sort since no evolutionist has ever claimed
that modern reptiles gave rise to modern birds. Get it?
If you claim you have posted a **LIST** of these holes, then supply a
reference or repost it here. I know that's an alien concept to you,
but failure to do this will constitute a public admission by you that:
1. There is no list and
2. You cannot make such a list and
3. You have lied about posting such a list in the past and
4. Your claim that there are colossal holes in the Theory of
Evolution is a lie.
Get it now?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
19 Oct 2003 08:13:30 AM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310181853.1dd97387@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?
Here it is again, Jabriol so the world is reminded that you know this
is out there but continue to lie about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
ah once again, the unpeered review documents that real scientist ignore
because it is unpeered reviewed...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
19 Oct 2003 09:31:49 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:_5wkb.6352588$cI2.901956@news.easynews.com...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310181853.1dd97387@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?
Here it is again, Jabriol so the world is reminded that you know this
is out there but continue to lie about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
ah once again, the unpeered review documents that real scientist ignore
because it is unpeered reviewed...
Perhaps you missed the references to the actual scientific literature. You
can find the references here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
19 Oct 2003 03:55:14 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<_5wkb.6352588$cI2.901956@news.easynews.com>...
Here it is again, Jabriol so the world is reminded that you know this
is out there but continue to lie about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
ah once again, the unpeered review documents that real scientist ignore
because it is unpeered reviewed...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
This is yet more evidence of the only coping mechanism Jabriol has for
"dealign with" material that he cannot handle.
This is proof positive of how completely lacking in clues Jabriol is
since he yet again has conveniently ignored the relevant passage in
which I made it quite clear that those specific articles in
talk.origins archives are summaries which reference many peer-reviewed
papers.
This is also proof positive of what a hypocrite Jabriol is. He posts
blather, ***** and bogus trash with not a single reference to any
peer-reviewed papers whatsoever while hypocritically demanding
peer-reviewed articles from others.
Obviously Jabriol is the reason the Bible scribes wrote: "Jesus wept".
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
19 Oct 2003 06:16:24 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310191255.7d491dc5@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:<_5wkb.6352588$cI2.901956@news.easynews.com>...
Here it is again, Jabriol so the world is reminded that you know this
is out there but continue to lie about it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
ah once again, the unpeered review documents that real scientist ignore
because it is unpeered reviewed...
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP
This is yet more evidence of the only coping
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNIP snip snip snip=====
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
22 Oct 2003 08:52:07 PM |
|
|
There's a huge freight train coming your way. I've tried my best to
get you out of the way of it, but you are too arrogant to listen and
too congenitally stupid to learn.
Sayonara sucker.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
23 Oct 2003 04:41:28 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310221752.1aff0eb@posting.google.com...
There's a
snip . . . . . . . .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
29 Oct 2003 09:29:31 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<cWXlb.3517968$Bf5.483696@news.easynews.com>...
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310221752.1aff0eb@posting.google.com...
There's a
snip . . . . . . . .
If you think you're somehow annoying me by this cowardly and
hypocritical behavior, you're more clueless than I already know you to
be. What a warped being you are that you make such an empty effort to
actually post a snip rather than ignore it completely.
How terrified of the truth you are, and how little faith you have in
your god that you run like a little boy thinking you can hide behind
these snips. But you cannot hide your cowardice, cluelessness, lies
and fraudulent postings from the world, Jabriol. There's a freight
train coming right at you. Get ready.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
30 Oct 2003 09:48:27 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0310291929.5237f837@posting.google.com>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<cWXlb.3517968$Bf5.483696@news.easynews.com>...
"Budikka" < > wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0310221752.1aff0eb@posting.google.com...
There's a
snip . . . . . . . .
If you think you're somehow annoying
Snip!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
02 Nov 2003 12:24:52 AM |
|
|
If you think your rank cowardice and hypocrisy can somehow overshadow
the glaring fact that you have yet again failed to competently and
adequately deal with these questions that have been accumulating since
August, you are more seriously braindead than the Internet community
already thinks you are. These questions will never go away and will,
I guarantee it, hound you tirelessly until you deal with them.
1. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that regardless of what it is
classed as and regardless of whether it was or was not in the line to
birds, the archaeopteryx had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of
reptile/dino and bird features and therefore represented an example of
a potential intermediate stage.
2. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that the okapi is pretty much
what a transitional giraffe would have looked like.
3. I am *still waiting* for you to explain what would prevent
something akin to a mouse changing 300 genes over 60 million years to
become either human or a modern mouse.
4. I am *still waiting* for you to acknowledge that no evolutionist
has ever claimed that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles and
that argument from incredulity addressing this non-issue, no matter
how ancient it is, does not constitute a "colossal hole" in the Theory
of Evolution.
5. I am *still waiting* for you to acknowledge that creationist
letters published as a courtesy (or maybe as a source of amusement) in
_New Scientist_ are *not* the equivalent of peer-reviewed science
papers, no matter how ancient and misguided they are.
6. I am *still waiting* for you to post a **LIST** of these "colossal
holes" in the Theory of Evolution that you have been lying about since
August.
7. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that the informally
peer-reviewed talk.origins archive is a valid reference, especially
when the articles to which I have repeatedly refered you are
themselves replete with references, many of which *are* to
peer-reviewed material.
8. I am *still waiting* for you to realize what a pathetic hypocrite
you are to demand peer-reviewed material of others when you have
offered not a single peer-reviewed reference yourself - in fact, all
you essentially do offer is unreferenced and plagiarized argument from
incredulity.
9. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that the article you offered
as a reference for your claim that 75% or human DNA is the same as
that of the banana actually stated that *up to* 30% *may be* similar.
10. I am *still waiting* for you to offer even one useful reference
for your subsequent and previous claims that we are: 1. 90% identical
to a banana in our DNA, 2. 60% identical to a banana in our DNA, and
3. 50% identical to a banana in our DNA.
Any reply that does not respond competently (note, snipping or running
away are not considered to be adequate, or even intelligent responses)
to these questions will be a direct and open admission to the world
that you cannot answer them and that each of the threads you started
in which these and many other questions *still* remain unanswered boil
down to nothing but putrid hot air.
Such a reply will also prove you a hypocrite since you tiresomely
charge others with failing to answer your questions while running like
a headless chicken away from questions posed to you by others.
What are you trying to do? Emulate St. Peter by denying Christ in
your cowardice? People like you are the reason Jesus wept, Jabriol
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 10:45:01 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes) provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition, fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
Not if we're the evolved survivors of those ape-men people.
BTW, how do you explain the mexican wolf boys?
http://www.mexicancircus.com/images/wolfboys.jpg
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 04:51:31 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:re30pv4ga3s9mh3u55393n71itt67pjcao@4ax.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
Not if we're the evolved survivors of those ape-men people.
I see, so all intermediate forms just died out.. couldn't cope.. and the
chimp, gorilla and organgutan could..
BTW, how do you explain the mexican wolf boys?
http://www.mexicancircus.com/images/wolfboys.jpg
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
are they another species of human?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
18 Oct 2003 08:43:48 AM |
|
|
jabriol <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
Not if we're the evolved survivors of those ape-men people.
I see, so all intermediate forms just died out.. couldn't cope.. and the
chimp, gorilla and organgutan could..
Not quite. If you actually understand evolution, you'd realize that
every living animal is an intermediate form of life. Guess you're too
stupid to get that part of it, or maybe just too stubborn in your
rejection of evolution.
BTW, how do you explain the mexican wolf boys?
http://www.mexicancircus.com/images/wolfboys.jpg
are they another species of human?
They're human of course, but apparently the gene or genes
which control hair growth are changed so that all their hair follicles
produce longer hair instead of being suppressed as is considered
"normal" for most humans. A mutation, or a throwback to what humans
used to look like, or something else?
For those who believe all mutations are detrimental, the wolf boys
seem to be doing just fine as far as surviving and making a living.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L Perez" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
30 Oct 2003 04:46:54 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0310170602.13becdb7@posting.google.com>...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:<sZyjb.1747$bq.399476754@twister1.starband.net>...
"JaBrIoL" < > wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310160529.59db3a53@posting.google.com...
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes) provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition, fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms? Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in
existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?
hmm, my guess is that it's because the theory of evolution was
invented and supported by men who were too haughty and egotistical to
give God the glory for His creation. The missing link will never be
found because it doesn't exist. There is no link between Mankind and
extinct (or existing) species of apes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 03:28:46 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"JaBrIoL" < > wrote:
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys." Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes) provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition, fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?
Every form is "transitional".
You are the "transition" between your parents and your offspring.
Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving.
Incorrect. There is no "up".
Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence,
but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?
Why bother with "inferior apes"?
Why not suggest that the amoeba, which are *way*
down on the evolutionary ladder, should be extinct?
[We are, after all, "superior" to them.]
Why not? Because the premise that evolution is a monotonic
and monolithic increasing scale is simply incorrect.
Of course, you already know that.
Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 05:05:54 PM |
|
|
"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6215668a.0310171228.705f75ae@posting.google.com...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote:
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology
and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For
many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read
expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of
man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues
are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys."
Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics here people, per definition of
science,
man is a monkey... uh ape or homonid), it was hoped that the fossil
record would.
Actually, genetic evidence (such as viral inserts and pseudo-genes)
provide
definitive validation of the theory of Common Descent. In addition,
fossil
evidence is completely consistent with Common Descent.
ok, then consider another aspect of the equation, or another
viewpoint.. what about transitional forms?
Every form is "transitional".
You are the "transition" between your parents and your offspring.
I see. so per defintion, there was only one species of humans since Lucy,
yet
there are other species of same genus of the animal kingdon... why would
that be?
Evolutionary theory holds
that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more
capable of surviving.
Incorrect. There is no "up".
brach out for the better then.. it seems only homonids gor smarter as time
progress, or is this an error as well?
Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence,
but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms,
which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?
Why bother with "inferior apes"?
why not? do they not share a common ancestor with men?
Why not suggest that the amoeba, which are *way*
down on the evolutionary ladder, should be extinct?
You contradict your self.. if there is no "up" there should be no "down".
[We are, after all, "superior" to them.]
Why not? Because the premise that evolution is a monotonic
and monolithic increasing scale is simply incorrect.
Of course, you already know that.
Today we see
chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem
likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced
"links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become
extinct, but not the lower apes?
no answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian F. King" |
|
| Title: Re: Tarzan of the Apes, Cheetah of the Humans |
17 Oct 2003 09:00:47 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:
"Brian F. King" <brianfking@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote:
First of all, Per today science defintion, Men are Ape's
However many people, including educators simplify the terminology
and
in some instances the term "ape-man" is used, to distinguis between
modern man (homo spaiens) from it ancestors in the homonid family.
Some individuals will refuse to refer to themselves as apes. For
many
years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike
humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists'
renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions
between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary
scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read
expressions
such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became
Man."
some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of
man
should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues
are
not so exacting. Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from
apelike ancestors." And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular
speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are
defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys."
Many
people use the term
Homonids.Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to
document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because
today's living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As
mentioned before there is an enormous gulf between humans and any
animals existing today, including the ape family, yes there is a 98%
genetic match with the bonobo Then again human have over 50% match
with a banana. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link
between man and ape (semantics h | | | | | |
