An atheists world (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No monkey to human?

Lucy? Java man? Neanderthal man? Homo erectus?

No monkey ever gave birth to a human. No Neanderthal did either. No Homo erectus ever gave birth to a Homo sapiens. For the millionth time (and I am trying to help you here), if you tried to understand what evolution actually says it would be a lot easier to debate it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,162
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,537.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No monkey ever gave birth to a human. No Neanderthal did either. No Homo erectus ever gave birth to a Homo sapiens. For the millionth time (and I am trying to help you here), if you tried to understand what evolution actually says it would be a lot easier to debate it.
That's because the trail isn't really a trail, it's a huge gap -- a "missing" link.

In other words, H. ergaster can't give birth to a H. sapiens, because there are about a thousand (think grayscale here) other ancestors that came between them.

This is one of the pieces of rhetoric that prompted my Daisy Chain Challenge.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In other words, H. ergaster can't give birth to a H. sapiens, because there are about a thousand (think grayscale here) other ancestors that came between them.

So you do know what it means then. Kudos for you! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
But evolution says they did happen......it just took a millions years but it did happen.

Human features did not appear in our monkey ancestors. They only showed up in the ancestors between us and our common ancestor with other apes.

I mean, you do have Lucy don't you, as a prime example?

Like I mentioned above, Lucy has a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, not monkey and man.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Davian said:
On some topics, I accept that they are accurate. It depends on the subject, and on the evidence. Your point?

Yet you believe what is on the papers of a textbook based written evidence, yet you yourself have not done the research yourself.

That is called "Faith".

What is that drug AVET always talks about? It was something that caused a lot of birth defects.

Do you think the women would have taken it had it been written down?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
or a dinasaur giving birth to a bird

or a monkey giving birth to a human

That is not what evolution teaches. No monkey ever gave birth to a man. Just as no chihuahua ever gave birth to a Great Dane. But both dogs can trace their lines back to a wolf species that was domesticated by early man.

What evolution teaches is that a large population of proto-primates split into two and speciation began. during and after speciation, one group started looking and acting more and more momkey-like, while the other started looking more and more ape-like, and their tails got shorter and shorter until they had no visible tail at all. During this time, both groups split into more and more species, the one eventually producing all of the different monkeys we know today, and the other producing the lesser apes and the greater apes. In each case, each split produced new species that did not interbreed with any of the other species.

At one point, one branch of lesser apes gave rise to a larger breed of ape. Some of these apes left Africa and ended up in the islands off of Southeast Asia. These would eventually become orangutans. Another branch became too large to live comfortably in the trees, and eventually became gorillas. The third group started the changes that would result in chimpanzees. But there were two more splits. One group reached the edge of the rainforest and lived on the plains by day returning to the trees only for safety while sleeping, while the other stayed in the jungle, eventually becoming chimpanzees and bonobos. The group on the plains eventually moved deeper, giving up the safety of the trees of the jungle. Theylearned to use tools, and to change the environment to fit them, even as the environment continued to change them. The population split a few times, resulting in several new species. But only one species survives today, Homo Sapiens.

Chimpanzees and Man are classified as two separate genera, mostly as a concession to Christians who cannot accept that we are so closely related. By rights, by all of the markers we use to determine genus, we should be the same genus. Our DNA is much closer than that of different species in other genera, even some that can still be interbred. That suggests that a human/chimp hybrid might at least be theoretically possible. Not that any ethical researcher would seriously explore testing that idea.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,162
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,537.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yep. Australo- means southern, as in Australia. So they are southern apes which refers to their discovery in southern Africa.

Just out of curiosity, and I've always wondered this:

Why was Nebraska man called Hesperopithicus haroldcookii, and not Australopithecus haroldcookii?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
No monkey ever gave birth to a human. No Neanderthal did either. No Homo erectus ever gave birth to a Homo sapiens. For the millionth time (and I am trying to help you here), if you tried to understand what evolution actually says it would be a lot easier to debate it.

1. Cladistically we can be viewed as part of the "monkey" clade, though it isn't a very specific term. Technically we are members of the Haplorhini Suborder. Aron-ra has often argued so in his videos. Of course no modern monkey population ever evolved into humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorrhini

2. It is possible that H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens, though it would not be technically correct to say that a H. erectus gave birth to a H. sapiens, since populations evolve, not individuals.

3. There is some Neanderthal DNA in humans, therefore there was some cross-mating between them. However, you are correct that Neanderthal did not evolve into H. sapiens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Split Rock said:
1. Cladistically we can be viewed as part of the "monkey" clade, though it isn't a very specific term. Aron-ra has often argued so in his videos. Of course no modern monkey population ever evolved into humans.

2. It is possible that H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens, though it would not be technically correct to say that a H. erectus gave birth to a H. sapiens, since populations evolve, not individuals.

3. There is some Neanderthal DNA in humans, therefore there was some cross-mating between them. However, you are correct that Neanderthal did not evolve into H. sapiens.

Explain the evolution of a praying mantis, since the male enjoys sex once.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Just out of curiosity, and I've always wondered this:

Why was Alaska man called Hesperopithicus haroldcookii, and not Australopithecus haroldcookii?

I think you mean "Nebraska Man." You continue to be overly concerned with names... why is that?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WOW.... is this really a conundrum for you? I'm not even sure what your issue with this is... he reproduces before he is killed.

You know what that reminds me of?

Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.