[_ Old Earth _] Evolution insinuates bestiality

[Heidi]

The notion that apes are our ancestors insinuates the fact that humans and apes can interbreed. The ability to interbreed is part of the definition of a species. So scientists saying that we are part of the ape family means that we can interbreed. Offspring are produced by sexual relations between its parents. So saying humans come from apes presupposes bestiality. The theory of evolution is a classic example of the prurients mind of men. :

 

[reznwerks]

The notion that apes are our ancestors insinuates the fact that humans and apes can interbreed. The ability to interbreed is part of the definition of a species. So scientists saying that we are part of the ape family means that we can interbreed. Offspring are produced by sexual relations between its parents. So saying humans come from apes presupposes bestiality. The theory of evolution is a classic example of the prurients mind of men. :

I didn't think we had to go over this again. Apes are not ancestors of man. Man is a species unto himself . He is a hominid and the last of five species. He is very similar to apes and chimps in DNA makeup. However it is not possible to breed between an ape or a human because even though very close genetically their are very differnent chromosomes. It never fails to amaze me if there is one subject that arouses the emotions of Christians it is sex, either too much , too little, wrong partner, and now it's beastiality. LOL

 

[Heidi]

The notion that apes are our ancestors insinuates the fact that humans and apes can interbreed. The ability to interbreed is part of the definition of a species. So scientists saying that we are part of the ape family means that we can interbreed. Offspring are produced by sexual relations between its parents. So saying humans come from apes presupposes bestiality. The theory of evolution is a classic example of the prurients mind of men. :

I didn't think we had to go over this again. Apes are not ancestors of man. Man is a species unto himself . He is a hominid and the last of five species. He is very similar to apes and chimps in DNA makeup. However it is not possible to breed between an ape or a human because even though very close genetically their are very differnent chromosomes. It never fails to amaze me if there is one subject that arouses the emotions of Christians it is sex, either too much , too little, wrong partner, and now it's beastiality. LOL

Sorry, but you contradict other evolutionists who say we are in the ape family.

So if it isn't possible for apes and humans to mate, then how can they possibly be our ancestors? :o I recently saw a TV documentary called "From Ape to Man." Are you disagreeing with them that humans came from apes? If not, then you are forgetting that offspring come through mating, my friend. So please explain how humans came from animals without sexual relations between them? :o

 

[Quid]

Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes share the same ancestor. Congratulations on seeing a show with a title. I saw a show called Godzilla. I think we should all pray for Japan now after that horrible attack they suffered.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Heidi...

I really cannot believe you still do not understand the concept of common ancestry and genetic drift after the hundreds of attempts by people, Christian or nor, to correct your strawman version of it.

Sigh....

What the heck...I'll take one more stab.

YOU believe that from one family, Noah, through the disperal of the people at Babel that microevolution occurred, correct? Let's assume Noah looked like modern-day middle-eastern people. You believe that those who went to Africa developed darker skin, and those who moved to the east developed almond-shaped eyes, right? Ok.

Now, you know that two africans generally cannot create a non-dark skinned child. You also know that two people with almond-shaped eyes cannot create an non-almond-shaped eyed child.

We agree. You see genetic drift has created isolated populations different from the original (Noah), whereas their offspring are seperate and distinct from the offspring of others. Both the dark-skinned Africans and the almond-shaped eyed east Asians have unique characteristics from both each other and the common ancestor who looked middle eastern, how does not have almond-shaped eyes or dark skin. You see, three different races. And we both agree that genetic drift and isolation can create three distinct population from one common ancestor population.

That is how it works, and how the common ancestor is different from the resulting generations. We have not disagreed yet.

If you throw in a few million more years, until the genetic drift between the east Asians and the Africans cannot reproduce, due to the buildup of genetic differences. Then the middle eastern people die out or evolve in a different direction. If that would have occured, you would have seperate and distinct species, and the common ancestor would be gone. Only in the case of human ancestry, there were more than one of these events, branching a few species away, but still close enough to trace a common ancestor not too far away.

I know you disagree with the last paragraph, but hopefully you understand the concept, since you also agree that it occured on at least one level.

 

[jwu]

The ability to interbreed is part of the definition of a species. So scientists saying that we are part of the ape family means that we can interbreed.

A "family" in that context is a group of species. Only those in the same species can interbreed, but they cannot interbreed with the members of other species of that family of species.

 

[sheseala]

I recognize this type of posting.

I'm thinking there's a problem with the definitions of species and family.
A family is made up of a group of species that all share the same characteristics. Gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are all apes, but they cannot interbreed. It's like saying tigers, cougars, lions, and house cats are all cats. They are not the same species because they do not interbreed.

Why some people say humans are apes is because their definition has terms that would aslo decribe humans. If, say, your definition of an ape includes something about arm to leg ratios, lacking language with syntax and such, then it would not include humans. I don't think "ape" is a very technical term.

Also, a chimp-like ape did not give birth to a human, things just do work that way. It's like saying people just gave up speaking Latin one day and decided to speak French.

 

[Heidi]

Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes share the same ancestor. Congratulations on seeing a show with a title. I saw a show called Godzilla. I think we should all pray for Japan now after that horrible attack they suffered.

You proved my point exactly. You are saying that whoever mated with an ape to form a human was an ancestor common to humans and apes. Therefore you are claiming that apes are our ancestors because one of the parents of humans was an ape. You of course conveniently neglect to say what this creature was that mated with an ape to form a human, nor did you explain where that creature came from and how it got traits common to human beings. The ape is around today but not this creature whom you have yet to identify.

You also have not shown how a creature called our "common ancestor" can breed a species so different from itself as to be given a new name; "homo sapiens." No animal has done this in recorded history.

You also contradict other evolutionists who were on the show "From Ape To Man." So it appears that evolutionists themselves are confused about evolution or there wouldn't be so many contradictions. But I do agree with you on one thing; any show that claims that apes are our ancestors is as fictional as "Godzilla."

 

[Quid]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

 

[Heidi]

Heidi...

I really cannot believe you still do not understand the concept of common ancestry and genetic drift after the hundreds of attempts by people, Christian or nor, to correct your strawman version of it.

Sigh....

What the heck...I'll take one more stab.

YOU believe that from one family, Noah, through the disperal of the people at Babel that microevolution occurred, correct? Let's assume Noah looked like modern-day middle-eastern people. You believe that those who went to Africa developed darker skin, and those who moved to the east developed almond-shaped eyes, right? Ok.

Now, you know that two africans generally cannot create a non-dark skinned child. You also know that two people with almond-shaped eyes cannot create an non-almond-shaped eyed child.

We agree. You see genetic drift has created isolated populations different from the original (Noah), whereas their offspring are seperate and distinct from the offspring of others. Both the dark-skinned Africans and the almond-shaped eyed east Asians have unique characteristics from both each other and the common ancestor who looked middle eastern, how does not have almond-shaped eyes or dark skin. You see, three different races. And we both agree that genetic drift and isolation can create three distinct population from one common ancestor population.

That is how it works, and how the common ancestor is different from the resulting generations. We have not disagreed yet.

If you throw in a few million more years, until the genetic drift between the east Asians and the Africans cannot reproduce, due to the buildup of genetic differences. Then the middle eastern people die out or evolve in a different direction. If that would have occured, you would have seperate and distinct species, and the common ancestor would be gone. Only in the case of human ancestry, there were more than one of these events, branching a few species away, but still close enough to trace a common ancestor not too far away.

I know you disagree with the last paragraph, but hopefully you understand the concept, since you also agree that it occured on at least one level.

Sorry, but it is who you does not understand the principle that when 2 humans breed over and over again in the same family, that only re-enforces the traits within that family. And that is precisely why incest has now become taboo because with the billions of people in the world, we now have choices to breed outside our immediate family whereas in Noah's day, they did not. Thus, people whose skin is slightly darker than whites will keep breeding offspring with darker and darker skin.

But as people spread throughout the world, particularly after the tower of Babel, much more numerous characterisitics begin to develop in offspring, thus causing a wider variety of traits in people. When a Chinese person mates with a white person, their offspring is a combination of the 2. And if that offspring mates with a black person, their offspring will also be less Chinese than their grandparents. But when dark-skinned people keep breeding within their immediate family, that will only re-inforce dark skin. And that is how the blacks of Africa became darker than the whites and Chinese who are scattered over the whole earth.

This is all explained in Genesis. The sons of Ham are still located around the Middle east and Africa whereas the sons of Japheth scattered around the rest of the world which is why they are much more diversified than Africans.

But to say that humans came from animals suggests nothing other than bestiality, period.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

Heidi...I see you read this thread so I assume you saw my post. If not, please go back and take a look.

Please don't dodge my post. Do you believe that the different physical characteristics around the world distinct from a common ancestor could arise as a result of genetic drift, time and isolation? After all, that's what the bible says happens, right?

 

[Heidi]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

Heidi...I see you read this thread so I assume you saw my post. If not, please go back and take a look.

Please don't dodge my post. Do you believe that the different physical characteristics around the world distinct from a common ancestor could arise as a result of genetic drift, time and isolation? After all, that's what the bible says happens, right?

No, I don't. Otherwise, humans could produce offspring with wings.

As I just explained, the biblical account enforces the notion that when 2 humans mate, their offspring will contian the genes from both parents. The farther away people got from Adam and Eve in their ancestry, the less they looked like them. And the bible gives no description of Adam and Eve. For all we know, one of them could have been black, and the other could have had slanted eyes. :

 

[Quid]

Then how do you explain new mutations in DNA? Small ones. No one's saying there has to be a drastic change all at once except for you.

 

[Heidi]

Then how do you explain new mutations in DNA? Small ones. No one's saying there has to be a drastic change all at once except for you.

A mutation can only occur from characteristics already present in a cell. Completely new characteristics like cognition, the ability to be completely bi-pedal, form complex analyses, build bridges, form spiritual concepts, etc., that have nothing to do with the characteristics in a cell cannot suddenly appear. And that is why humans cannot produce offspring with wings, beaks, tails, etc. This is an elementary principle of reproduction. They are only possible in science fiction books and movies which come from the imaginations of men.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

Heidi...I see you read this thread so I assume you saw my post. If not, please go back and take a look.

Please don't dodge my post. Do you believe that the different physical characteristics around the world distinct from a common ancestor could arise as a result of genetic drift, time and isolation? After all, that's what the bible says happens, right?

No, I don't. Otherwise, humans could produce offspring with wings.

As I just explained, the biblical account enforces the notion that when 2 humans mate, their offspring will contian the genes from both parents. The farther away people got from Adam and Eve in their ancestry, the less they looked like them.

If that were true, carried through to today, we would each look wildly different from each other, since we are farther from Adam and Eve than those a while back (these races and characteristics have been documented for thousands of years).

By your theory, since we are twice as far away from Noah as during Jesus' time, one would think you couldn't even recognize the similarities between two humans given your "less they looked like them" theory.

And the bible gives no description of Adam and Eve. For all we know, one of them could have been black, and the other could have had slanted eyes. :

I only used two examples. There are also to the relatively short and squatty Inuit, the red-skinned Native Americans, the blond and blue-eyed Swedes, and countless other microcultural physical features. They could not have had them all.

Do you deny microevolution? From what I have read from the lion's share of creationists the above scenario describes how races arose.

Are you saying that after Bable, God seperated people by races? He sent all the black people one direction with a language, native americans another, whites another and so on? Are you claiming that God not only confused the langauges, but also seperated us by color?

Otherwise, how do you get them all to the same place by physical characteristics, since they are all equidistant from Noah?

 

[Heidi]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

Heidi...I see you read this thread so I assume you saw my post. If not, please go back and take a look.

Please don't dodge my post. Do you believe that the different physical characteristics around the world distinct from a common ancestor could arise as a result of genetic drift, time and isolation? After all, that's what the bible says happens, right?

No, I don't. Otherwise, humans could produce offspring with wings.

As I just explained, the biblical account enforces the notion that when 2 humans mate, their offspring will contian the genes from both parents. The farther away people got from Adam and Eve in their ancestry, the less they looked like them.

If that were true, carried through to today, we would each look wildly different from each other, since we are farther from Adam and Eve than those a while back (these races and characteristics have been documented for thousands of years).

By your theory, since we are twice as far away from Noah as during Jesus' time, one would think you couldn't even recognize the similarities between two humans given your "less they looked like them" theory.

And the bible gives no description of Adam and Eve. For all we know, one of them could have been black, and the other could have had slanted eyes. :

I only used two examples. There are also to the relatively short and squatty Inuit, the red-skinned Native Americans, the blond and blue-eyed Swedes, and countless other microcultural physical features. They could not have had them all.

Do you deny microevolution? From what I have read from the lion's share of creationists the above scenario describes how races arose.

Are you saying that after Bable, God seperated people by races? He sent all the black people one direction with a language, native americans another, whites another and so on? Are you claiming that God not only confused the langauges, but also seperated us by color?

Otherwise, how do you get them all to the same place by physical characteristics, since they are all equidistant from Noah?

Sorry, but you neglect the simple fact that we will all still have the traits of a human being just like all the birds have the same traits as other birds even though they can look vastly different. And we do look vastly different. Some people have dark black skin, others yellow skin, others red skin, some have light blue eyes, some have dark brown eyes, some have blond hair, some brown, etc. But we will always have human traits and not the traits of dogs, tigers, or fish.

I'm saying that color is always re-enforced with in-breeding. And most races do breed within their race.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Heidi, I will again repeat my question.

I laid out a plausible scenario (one most YECs state actually occured) about how you can get two populations with distinct characteristics from one common ancestor, who is also different.

Do you agree that that is a plausible occurance, as I laid out in my first argument?

I am not talking species, I am not talking "kinds". Simply whether or not time and genetic drift can create two distinct populations from a third (and distinct) common ancestor. Yes, they all remain the same species, and no they don't have any dog, tiger or fish traits. Simply different races.

My scenario was completely biblical, and is reflective of the exact arguments I have heard from other YECs about what happend after Babel, so I am curious why you have an issue with it.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, I will again repeat my question.

I laid out a plausible scenario (one most YECs state actually occured) about how you can get two populations with distinct characteristics from one common ancestor, who is also different.

Do you agree that that is a plausible occurance, as I laid out in my first argument?

I am not talking species, I am not talking "kinds". Simply whether or not time and genetic drift can create two distinct populations from a third (and distinct) common ancestor. Yes, they all remain the same species, and no they don't have any dog, tiger or fish traits. Simply different races.

My scenario was completely biblical, and is reflective of the exact arguments I have heard from other YECs about what happend after Babel, so I am curious why you have an issue with it.

The problem is, Thinker man, that your premise is faulty. Therefore your explanations and conclusions will also be faulty and meaningless. You first have to make sure your premise, that a primate can be an ancestor of a human being, is even possible. Part of the definition of a species is that those within each species are all capable of interbreeding with each other which of course, primates and humans are incapable of doing. Therefore, no primate can be an ancestor of a human being because mating and breeding is what causes offspring and ancestors. So trying to fit a square peg into a round hole will cause faulty conclusions. :

 

[Quid]

A mutation can only occur from characteristics already present in a cell. Completely new characteristics like cognition, the ability to be completely bi-pedal, form complex analyses, build bridges, form spiritual concepts, etc., that have nothing to do with the characteristics in a cell cannot suddenly appear. And that is why humans cannot produce offspring with wings, beaks, tails, etc. This is an elementary principle of reproduction. They are only possible in science fiction books and movies which come from the imaginations of men.

Not all at once in most cases, no. However, over millions of years, small changes accrue. And yes, new information is added. That's why it's called a mutation.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Heidi...I am really trying to be patient!

Please reread my post. It has NOTHING to do with primates or seperate species.

Here is a quote of what I said!!!

I am not talking species, I am not talking "kinds". Simply whether or not time and genetic drift can create two distinct populations from a third (and distinct) common ancestor. Yes, they all remain the same species, and no they don't have any dog, tiger or fish traits. Simply different races.

I am NOT debating the theory of evolution here. I am only debating whether or not two seperate populations (of the same species!!!) can come about from a third and distinct population.

I repeat, this scenario is claimed by almost all creationists I have met. I am not claiming any new species. The dark-skinned Africans can still breed with and are the same species as the almond eye-shaped east Asians, okay?

If any part of my scenario (which again, has nothing do to with species!) is faulty, tell me exactly why. Otherwise, agree it is a plausible scenario.