[_ Old Earth _] How many mutations...

[Quid]

For your help, Heidi. Humans are both apes and primates. Both.For proof of my claim, I have this and this. Two links to a reputable site.

Can you understand that much? Science classifies them as the same thing. Science. Unless you could bring forth proof otherwise, that definition stands. Should you, however, then you may want to alter those articles too, since they strive to be as accurate as possible.

 

[Heidi]

Re: facts

lies about evolution, with a ":wink:"

please don't tell lies, heidi. thanks.

Then please tell me what evolutionists do believe. Rezenworks says that evolutionists don't believe that man descended from apes or primates right there in print. So which is it? :o The lies in this theory are so numerous that they can't remember the first lie! But that's what happens when people tell a lie. The have to tell a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th lie to try to explain the 1st lie until they forget what the 1st lie was in the first plce! But if the premise of evolution were true, then there would be no contradictions. Zero. So again, what do evolutionists believe? :o

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Re: facts

lies about evolution, with a ":wink:"

please don't tell lies, heidi. thanks.

Then please tell me what evolutionists do believe. Rezenworks says that evolutionists don't believe that man descended from apes or primates right there in print. So which is it? :o The lies in this theory are so numerous that they can't remember the first lie! But that's what happens when people tell a lie. The have to tell a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th lie to try to explain the 1st lie until they forget what the 1st lie was in the first plce! But if the premise of evolution were true, then there would be no contradictions. Zero. So again, what do evolutionists believe? :o

Reznworks is being imprecise(indeed, taxonomically speaking he is incorrect), though you've read more into what he said than is there. All he said was that we were not descended from the apes. What he meant was that we're not descended from apes that we see around today. There is nowhere in direct(read that as parents and grandparents) your family tree a bonobo, chimp, gorrila, orangutan, etc.

Taxonomically speaking we ARE apes and we our ancestors were apes. Not the apes of today, but still what we would call apes.

 

[Heidi]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions:

-How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history?

-And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal?

Look at how evolutionary theory has ''changed'' its ideas over the last few decades.
I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

Exactly. It's just like telling a lie. Then one has to tell a second lie to explain the first one, then a 3rd, 4rth, until pretty soon they forgot what the first lie was! And that is why some evolutionists say we came from apes, others don't. They say we came from primates. Some say there was a common ancestors, others say it was strictly mutation. But if any of their theories were true, they wouldn't need to change their stories.

 

[Loren Michael]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions:

-How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history?

-And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal?

Look at how evolutionary theory has ''changed'' its ideas over the last few decades.
I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

could someone elaborate on this? it seems kind of baseless.

 

[Heidi]

[quote="follower of Christ":d217f]

I still haven't received an answer to these questions:

-How many mutations had to occur in each subsequent generation of ape offspring for them to turn into human beings as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history?

-And what are the odds of all of those mutations happening to one animal?

Look at how evolutionary theory has ''changed'' its ideas over the last few decades.
I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

When the theory of evolution first came out, they claimed this happened over thousands of years. Then later it was 2,000,000 years. The later it was 10,000,000 years. They also thought they had found 3 missing links but found out the skulls were not what they had wanted them to be. They also said that we came from apes. But now say that we came from primates. So what do you suppose they'll say tomorrow? :o One thing is for sure; it will be a lot different than what they said yesterday and today. Therefore, puttinng your faith in scientists is putting your faith in shifting sand. Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sorry you don't believe him there either.

could someone elaborate on this? it seems kind of baseless.[/quote:d217f]

 

[Quid]

You know, when medical science first started, those crazy "doctors" were letting blood and using leeches. Many used cocaine as a medicine in the early twentieth century. There have even been instances where they've left objects in a person's body after surgery. And the so called medical "science" is constantly changing every day. Don't fall for the false promises of scientists! Stay away from hospitals! Don't use aspirin! The bible doesn't mention anything about medical science therefore it's the Devil's work!

 

[Loren Michael]

[quote="follower of Christ":299b4]
Look at how evolutionary theory has ''changed'' its ideas over the last few decades.
I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

could someone elaborate on this? it seems kind of baseless.

When the theory of evolution first came out, they claimed this happened over thousands of years. Then later it was 2,000,000 years. The later it was 10,000,000 years. They also thought they had found 3 missing links but found out the skulls were not what they had wanted them to be. They also said that we came from apes. But now say that we came from primates. So what do you suppose they'll say tomorrow? :o One thing is for sure; it will be a lot different than what they said yesterday and today. Therefore, puttinng your faith in scientists is putting your faith in shifting sand. Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sorry you don't believe him there either. [/quote:299b4]

i was interested in the bit about this:

I think that some are starting to realize the timeframes and the mathmatical odds arent adding up.

sorry i didn't make myself clear the first time. with respect to the first part that you answered, science is always in a constant state of flux as new information is gleaned.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Heidi,

I feel sorry for you here, I honestly do. You are totally convinced that you have this down, but something has taken you miles off track.

First, you have some simple definitions confused. For one primates are simple upright walkers or at least have a trend toward upright stance, two mammary glands and so on, the primate ORDER. Apes and humans are both of that order.

Man could not possibly evolve from the ape of today. Evolution involes the 'changing' of the plant or animal to a new life form or entity. Homo erectus is no longer with us because that species died out and 'evolved' to another humanoid type. It seems to me that the most recent major development was between the neanderthal and another species, whose name escapes me, and one died out and the strain that became sapien survived. One of the learned who have been posting here will have that in memory.

I think you have been developing your understanding of evolution from only creationist(denominational) scourses. I think it would benefit you to browse thru a suitable textbook of the subject from an accredited university. Remember that Darwin was one of the first writers on this subject, science has cleaned and polished this from observation and further research since the days of Darwin.

There is no doubt that you have questions concerning evolution the way you describe evolution. If it was the way you describe it, I would have doubts too.
The real story is not threating at all to the creation story of the bible and it is not difficult to reconcile with Genesis at all, for me anyway.

Good luck

noble6

 

[Heidi]

Hi Heidi,

I feel sorry for you here, I honestly do. You are totally convinced that you have this down, but something has taken you miles off track.

First, you have some simple definitions confused. For one primates are simple upright walkers or at least have a trend toward upright stance, two mammary glands and so on, the primate ORDER. Apes and humans are both of that order.

Man could not possibly evolve from the ape of today. Evolution involes the 'changing' of the plant or animal to a new life form or entity. Homo erectus is no longer with us because that species died out and 'evolved' to another humanoid type. It seems to me that the most recent major development was between the neanderthal and another species, whose name escapes me, and one died out and the strain that became sapien survived. One of the learned who have been posting here will have that in memory.

I think you have been developing your understanding of evolution from only creationist(denominational) scourses. I think it would benefit you to browse thru a suitable textbook of the subject from an accredited university. Remember that Darwin was one of the first writers on this subject, science has cleaned and polished this from observation and further research since the days of Darwin.

There is no doubt that you have questions concerning evolution the way you describe evolution. If it was the way you describe it, I would have doubts too.
The real story is not threating at all to the creation story of the bible and it is not difficult to reconcile with Genesis at all, for me anyway.

Good luck

noble6

Sorry, but there are many inconsitencies in your post. First of all, how have humans changed since the beginning of recorded history? :o We have changed no more than apes have changed since the beginning of recorded history. So why do you assume that all this drastic changing from primates to humans all happened before there were any witnesses? :o That's a little too convenient to be believable, my friend. There's about as much proof for that as there are that aliens came and deposited human beings on this earth before there were any witnesses. And there is zero proof that animals and people change that much since there have been witnesses!

Secondly, cats and dogs both have mammary glands, 4 legs, 2 ears, 2 noses, 2 eyes, whiskers and a mouth and they are separate species which cannot interbreed, nor are they in the same family. Yet they have more in common with each other than primates and humans do! So why do scientists say we are in the same family as apes? Do you think that just because people say something then that makes it true? :o Sorry, but again, calling a human an ape or primate doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant even though we share common characteristics of plants like needing to eat, drink, reproduce and grow.

And as for browsing textbooks, I have studied textbooks about evolution for over 30 years and the contradictions are still the same. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole no matter how many books are written about it!

Animals are simply incapable of producing offspring of another species with whom they cannot breed. That is an elementary principle of biology that evolutionists either do not understand or try to lie about. It's one or the other, my friend.

 

[Frost Giant]

Nope. You still have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution doesn't say animals breed with animals from another species.

 

[Quid]

Secondly, cats and dogs both have mammary glands, 4 legs, 2 ears, 2 noses, 2 eyes, whiskers and a mouth and they are separate species which cannot interbreed, nor are they in the same family. Yet they have more in common with each other than primates and humans do!

Cite? You've never given one, ever, before, but I feel it should be asked nonetheless.

 

[Loren Michael]

Secondly, cats and dogs both have mammary glands, 4 legs, 2 ears, 2 noses, 2 eyes, whiskers and a mouth and they are separate species which cannot interbreed, nor are they in the same family. Yet they have more in common with each other than primates and humans do!

Cite? You've never given one, ever, before, but I feel it should be asked nonetheless.

she's part of the scientific dadaist movement. completely freeform, total nonsense, a complete travesty of scientific norms, and incomprehensible to anyone who isn't in on the joke.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Heidi,

Sorry, but there are many inconsitencies in your post. First of all, how have humans changed since the beginning of recorded history?

Here we go again.Recorded history is but a tiny blip in the entire time since the beginning.

We have changed no more than apes have changed since the beginning of recorded history.

Who cares, again that is a miniscule portion of the time involved in evolution of species.

So why do you assume that all this drastic changing from primates to humans all happened before there were any witnesses? That's a little too convenient to be believable, my friend.

This may be a shocker to you, but humans are primates and have been for quite a while. As to withnesses, go down to some museum of natural history and view some of the skeletal remains. Where do you suppose those skeletons of the Neanderthals come from?

There's about as much proof for that as there are that aliens came and deposited human beings on this earth before there were any witnesses. And there is zero proof that animals and people change that much since there have been witnesses!

And what about those fossil remains of Neanderthals? Do you deny they exist or what are you trying to say?

Secondly, cats and dogs both have mammary glands, 4 legs, 2 ears, 2 noses, 2 eyes, whiskers and a mouth and they are separate species which cannot interbreed, nor are they in the same family. Yet they have more in common with each other than primates and humans do!

Again I will tell you that humans ARE PRIMATES. Dogs and cats can not interbreed and that is a given. Now that would be a killer blow to the evolution idea IF and I repeat IF it had anything to do with evolution , but it doesn't.Have you got that now? Evolution is much slower that interbreeding would produce. As I said learn what evolution is first.

So why do scientists say we are in the same family as apes? Do you think that just because people say something then that makes it true? Sorry, but again, calling a human an ape or primate doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant even though we share common characteristics of plants like needing to eat, drink, reproduce and grow.

You are truly messed up in this family bit. As lay people we often use improper terms in this area. 'Family' is a classification a ways up the ladder.
I'll explain as well as I can and hopefully one of the educated in this field will come in and fine tune.

A human is of the SPECIES sapien, the GENUS homo, the FAMILY homidae, the ORDER primates, the CLASS mammal, the PHYLUM chordate and the KINGDOM animal.

A chimpanzee is in the same KINGDOM...animal, the same PHYLUM chordate, the same CLASS mammal and the same ORDER primates then at the FAMILY level they branch off to pongidae and they differ from humans.

So if a scientist said we are in the same FAMILY as apes he would be wrong, a lay person could easily make that mistake about FAMILY instead of saying apes and humans are both primates

Animals are simply incapable of producing offspring of another species with whom they cannot breed. That is an elementary principle of biology that evolutionists either do not understand or try to lie about. It's one or the other, my friend.

This evolutionist understands it very well. However, this evolutionist knows it has little to do with the evolutionary process. You have made this up or accepted it from someone else and by gum you can find evidence to refute it. Which would be fine if you were right in the first palace, but you're not.

The species of human and ape have evolved FROM some earlier forms of primates.

I'll now deliver the final blow to your arguments just because I can.

You mentioned that man hasn't changed in recorded history.

We have changed no more than apes have changed since the beginning of recorded history.

No matter how long ago you feel that may be it is on your shoulders to explain the massive changes in mans ancestors that the fossilized skeletons show..fossils of these .

Homo habilis, homo rudolfenis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo heidlelbergenis, Neanderthals and us.

Please explain why there are massive changes there. Then calculate the time required to produce those changes because you say no change since recorded history.

noble6