What proof would you need?

[RickG]

Yet another poster that just likes to see himself post with nothing to say apparently.....

Kind of hard to discuss anything with a person avoids actual discussion. Instead you engage in Gish Gallops, and either cite unsupported science or references to legitimate science that does not support your claims, hoping no one will either catch it or call you on it.

I say chimps and gorillas should not be in the Homininae group. Refute me if you can, with support rather than useless opinion

You can say all you want, nevertheless the biological classification says you are wrong. Great Apes are species in the biological family Hominidae, which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

However, the classification of them is not without controversy, but not in the sense you would probably envision it.

Here's an example:

http://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS/2002/Acta HPa/4657.pdf

 

[Jazer]

and clearly you have not.

Just shows what you do not know. We studied Greek mythology in school. I also had a class on Ancient History that mostly covered Egypt at the time. Now I study a lot of the Ancient history dealing with the middle east. Everything that is known about history shows the Bible to be true.

 

[Jazer]

Oh, you mean some religious people were forced to change religions or die 1,000 years ago (not 1,200 as you say)?

I was talking about when the Normans converted to Christianity and settled in Normandy around 800 ad.

I see you continue to insult people every chance you get. Can I ask what objective it is you have in that? You come here to talk to people then you insult them so they put you on ignore and do not want to talk to you.

 

[Fastener]

I was talking about when the Normans converted to Christianity and settled in Normandy around 800 ad.

The Normans didn't settle in Normandy they were from Normandy that's why they were called Normans.

 

[Jazer]

The Normans didn't settle in Normandy they were from Normandy that's why they were called Normans.

They were from Norway. They were a group of young people that were looking for land to grow food on. They did a bit of plundering along the way. Then they worked out a deal with the French for some land no one was using at the time. I am decended from a man who was given some land there and he had 12 sons. Some of his sons then had to go out and join the army so they could be given some land to grow food and raise a family. Because the land he had was not enough to support all of his sons and their familys.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Just shows what you do not know. We studied Greek mythology in school. I also had a class on Ancient History that mostly covered Egypt at the time. Now I study a lot of the Ancient history dealing with the middle east. Everything that is known about history shows the Bible to be true.

Uh huh. So why did you connect Thor with Greek mythology if you actually know anything about it?

 

[Jazer]

Uh huh. So why did you connect Thor with Greek mythology if you actually know anything about it?

Wy did I connect mytholgy with the Greeks? Because I had studied Greek Mythology. I actually did not know about Norman mythology. I am interested now though because right now it looks like I am of Norman decent. The Bible talks about: "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.". "Renowned" means: widely honored and acclaimed; fame. So we still hear some of the stories today from people like Thor and his hammer.

 

[Astridhere]

Kind of hard to discuss anything with a person avoids actual discussion. Instead you engage in Gish Gallops, and either cite unsupported science or references to legitimate science that does not support your claims, hoping no one will either catch it or call you on it.
Too bad every shred of supportive research I have provided here is from your own evolutionary researchers. That sort of silliness and misreprsentation will get you nowhere.
You can say all you want, nevertheless the biological classification says you are wrong. Great Apes are species in the biological family Hominidae, which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.
Well then demonstrate it instead of providing vagueness and misrepresenting me as not being able to support my view. You are the one that has just been demanding specifics. Too bad you cannot meet the standard you set for others. The name of that game is hypocrisy.
However, the classification of them is not without controversy, but not in the sense you would probably envision it.
Thanks for the link. 2002 is a little old. However I am not talking about homonids in general. This link does not address anything I said. We already know you evos have no idea what a human trait is seeing as bipeds have been around for at least 8my and likely much longer.
Here's an example:

http://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS/2002/Acta%20HPa/4657.pdf

The link does not address anything I put forward as a challenge. Neither does anything you said.

I have been here for weeks and cornered a couple of you evos that have fled. I have demonstrated that your researchers, despite anything I or you may provide as support, do not know what they are talking about eg the humanity in Lucy and most supposed human traits not being human traits at all. I have also demonstrated how the data, as biased as what it is in its evolutionary interpretations, supports creation better than it does evolution. eg human metatarsel predates the only fossil you have, Afarensis, that cannot of had human feet. This is about interpretation of the data. Mine is as good as evolutionists.

As many of the replies are so simplistic eg "Mankind is an ape", I will use another strategy to demonstrate evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and your taxonomy is not evidence of anything and evolutionary researchers make it up as they go along; while manitaining the actual data is more supportive of the creation of mankind then the evolution of mankind

Your link supports this to some degree already. Thanks. It speaks to changes in the definition of species. This link you provided is support of my claim that evolutionists make it up as they go along like any good storyteller. The previous is falsified or contradicted and a new definition or story ensues. This is the basis of your psuedo science.

I have put up a challenge. I have chosen Homininae and suggested that neither you or your researchers have any idea why mankind remains in there with chimps.

I say there is ample DNA evidence to suggest mankind does not belong in any class with chimps or gorillas for that matter.

So if you guys want to be so simplistic as to suggest your taxonomy makes mankind an ape, prove it!

Bipedalism, reduced pelvis, shortened arms, mean nothing as many ancient apes had these. DNA demonstrates mankind is dissimilar enough to chimps that they should be separated. Any one that suggests a chimp looks more like a human than an orangutan must be blind.

So that leaves the brain. Even your researchers agree the brain is likely the only non homoplasic trait they can follow, for now anyway. This is why I spent weeks on the skull only to be told what about the pelvis etc...which means nothing. I am happy to go there again and represent the fact that erectus skulls are just ape skulls and no more human than a female Bornean orangutan etc etc etc.

Now demonstrate why chimps should be included in homininae with mankind. If you cannot then you simply cannot defend your science. Maybe someone else can but you cannot......

 

[cupid dave]

Just shows what you do not know. We studied Greek mythology in school. I also had a class on Ancient History that mostly covered Egypt at the time. Now I study a lot of the Ancient history dealing with the middle east. Everything that is known about history shows the Bible to be true.

Did you study Ancient Greek and Roman History yet?

The Renaissance marked the reappearance of that ancient Greek and Roman Culture which Christianity had "wounded" and driven underground, when all the European world was forced to tear down the mythological gods and the books were burned in Alexanderia during the 1000 year reign of just Jesus in that Dark Ages of Monasticism.



Rev. 20:3 And cast him, (this dragon, the subtle cultural system of exploitative sexual mores, that old serpent, cultural Paganism), into the bottomless pit (of time), and shut him, (Satan), up (1000 years so as to inhibit the culture of libidinal freedom and sexual excess), and set a seal, (the Cross), upon him, that he (could not maintain that pagan, astrological/mythological promiscuous religious subculture that) no more (with his pagan culture), ...
... till the thousand years (of the Dark Age of Monasticism) should be fulfilled (and the Renaissance of the Beast of ancient Greek and Roman culture begin again):
and after that, (in a Renaissance), he must be loosed (to open the adolescent subculture of ever increasing sexual permissiveness) a little season (of @ 500 years).

 

[Fastener]

I was talking about when the Normans converted to Christianity and settled in Normandy around 800 ad.

The Normans didn't settle in Normandy they were from Normandy that's why they were called Normans.

They were from Norway. They were a group of young people that were looking for land to grow food on. They did a bit of plundering along the way. Then they worked out a deal with the French for some land no one was using at the time. I am decended from a man who was given some land there and he had 12 sons. Some of his sons then had to go out and join the army so they could be given some land to grow food and raise a family. Because the land he had was not enough to support all of his sons and their familys.

So they were not Normans before they settled in Normandy, if they were from what is now Norway they were Vikings.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Wy did I connect mytholgy with the Greeks? Because I had studied Greek Mythology. I actually did not know about Norman mythology. I am interested now though because right now it looks like I am of Norman decent. The Bible talks about: "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.". "Renowned" means: widely honored and acclaimed; fame. So we still hear some of the stories today from people like Thor and his hammer.

Huh? What are you talking about? Someone mentioned Thor and you started talking about Greek mythology. If you have studied Greek mythology, one would expect you to know which gods belong there and which do not. Also note that the Normans were christian, and Thor is a Germanic god. I have no idea where you want to go with the "men of renown" stuff.

 

[Jazer]

Huh? What are you talking about?

Never mind, it is not important. I avoid the subject because I do not think people will understand where I am coming from. It is a little more easy to talk about the Bible and how to apply that to our life today.

 

[CabVet]

The link does not address anything I put forward as a challenge. Neither does anything you said.

I have been here for weeks and cornered a couple of you evos that have fled. I have demonstrated that your researchers, despite anything I or you may provide as support, do not know what they are talking about eg the humanity in Lucy and most supposed human traits not being human traits at all. I have also demonstrated how the data, as biased as what it is in its evolutionary interpretations, supports creation better than it does evolution. eg human metatarsel predates the only fossil you have, Afarensis, that cannot of had human feet. This is about interpretation of the data. Mine is as good as evolutionists.

As many of the replies are so simplistic eg "Mankind is an ape", I will use another strategy to demonstrate evolutionists do not know what they are talking about and your taxonomy is not evidence of anything and evolutionary researchers make it up as they go along; while manitaining the actual data is more supportive of the creation of mankind then the evolution of mankind

Your link supports this to some degree already. Thanks. It speaks to changes in the definition of species. This link you provided is support of my claim that evolutionists make it up as they go along like any good storyteller. The previous is falsified or contradicted and a new definition or story ensues. This is the basis of your psuedo science.

I have put up a challenge. I have chosen Homininae and suggested that neither you or your researchers have any idea why mankind remains in there with chimps.

I say there is ample DNA evidence to suggest mankind does not belong in any class with chimps or gorillas for that matter.

So if you guys want to be so simplistic as to suggest your taxonomy makes mankind an ape, prove it!

Bipedalism, reduced pelvis, shortened arms, mean nothing as many ancient apes had these. DNA demonstrates mankind is dissimilar enough to chimps that they should be separated. Any one that suggests a chimp looks more like a human than an orangutan must be blind.

So that leaves the brain. Even your researchers agree the brain is likely the only non homoplasic trait they can follow, for now anyway. This is why I spent weeks on the skull only to be told what about the pelvis etc...which means nothing. I am happy to go there again and represent the fact that erectus skulls are just ape skulls and no more human than a female Bornean orangutan etc etc etc.

Now demonstrate why chimps should be included in homininae with mankind. If you cannot then you simply cannot defend your science. Maybe someone else can but you cannot......

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it will not make it true. I thought lying was a sin. Saying that humans are not hominids is a blatant lie. It's like saying gold fish are not fishes, or whales are not cetaceans, or horses are not equines.

 

[Astridhere]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it will not make it true. I thought lying was a sin. Saying that humans are not hominids is a blatant lie.
You have completely confused yourself. I did not say humans are not homonids, brains.

I stated bipedalisn is no longer a criteria for any defining criteria in homoninae. In fact you have no reason to put chimps or apes together at family rank with mankind either because the two are sufficiently and obviously different. Additional to all the other differences I have spoken previously, sophisticated language, abstract thought and higher reasoning ability alone takes mankind out of any comparison with any ape....

It's like saying gold fish are not fishes, or whales are not cetaceans, or horses are not equines.
No it is more like saying coelecanth the walking fish is not walking anywhere and never was.

It does not matter how many times I post my support none of you can refute me and defend mankind being in with chimps anywhere.

It takes the nonsense of your algorithms to defy observation and put mankind in a taxon with chimps, while orangs are an out group. Any child can see an orang and chimp are more similar to each other than either is to mankind. Pick the odd one out is a simple childrens quiz.

All you can offer is simplistic responses like this one above..which effectively..means absolutely nothing...

If I am wrong then put up something more substantial than your humble opinion and simplistic response.

I have posted research to back my claim. You have provided woffle.

I win....

Evolutionists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story....and you are proof of it..

 

[cupid dave]

It does not matter how many times I post my support none of you can refute me and defend mankind being in with chimps anywhere.

It takes the nonsense of your algorithms to defy observation and put mankind in a taxon with chimps, while orangs are an out group. Any child can see an orang and chimp are more similar to each other than either is to mankind. Pick the odd one out is a simple childrens quiz.

All you can offer is simplistic responses like this one above..which effectively..means absolutely nothing...

If I am wrong then put up something more substantial than your humble opinion and simplistic response.

I have posted research to back my claim. You have provided woffle.

I win....

Evolutionists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story....and you are proof of it..

A theory does not mean some irrefutable proof has been accomplished, neither in this discussion concerning the theory of evolution or any other theory.

What it means is that intelligent resonable and logical people have hooked threads together to make a case before the juries of the world opinion.

That the world has found evolution viable and believable is the case.

Yhay argu,ent is over and the jury is no onger out.

Should you give us some new pieceof evidence that the case be reopened, then you win.

As it now stands, the Bible hav have zero evidence for how God accomplished the creqtion of modern man.
They do not even have one verse which hints at how God accomplished the task.

So, what you have right now is zero for an argument about the process utilized and a plea that the case be reopened without any grounds for that.

 

[Astridhere]

A theory does not mean some irrefutable proof has been accomplished, neither in this discussion concerning the theory of evolution or any other theory.
Why do you bother coming to forums. You obviusly do not want to debate. All you want to do is squark like an old chook and say "evos are right because they said so".
What it means is that intelligent resonable and logical people have hooked threads together to make a case before the juries of the world opinion.
I do not need to hook threads together. For heaven sake I can't even get a straight reply from any of you to one simple challenge in one thread.
That the world has found evolution viable and believable is the case.
So did all these brilliant minds suggest they had irrefuteable evidence for knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, Junk DNA..all of which proved to be delusional. So much for the juries of the world....
Yhay argu,ent is over and the jury is no onger out.
So this is your reply is it. Can you apprecite how pathetic this reply appears? How about putting some evidence where your mouth is...
Should you give us some new pieceof evidence that the case be reopened, then you win.
I do not need to provide you anymore than I am providing. You and others here cannot even meet this simple challenge let alone take on a more complex one. You need to tell me why the heck anyone should believe they are an ape by providing more substance that because someone said so.

I haven't even started playing with you yet. Just wait until I start running the humanized afarensis into you that is no longer human. We will really have fun then....I expect you will totally ignore this also and say that you are right because someone said so, with no ability to articulate any refute, the same as now.
As it now stands, the Bible hav have zero evidence for how God accomplished the creqtion of modern man.

You also have zilch evidence how a living factory poofed into existence either. The name of the game is hypocricy. I believe the power of God can create and poof into existence. You believe in the power of dead and lifeless elements that can poof themselves into existence. I believe I have the upper hand.
They do not even have one verse which hints at how God accomplished the task.
No more than you lot can poof life into existence after 150 years of trying. A creator sounds more plausible than complex factories poofing into existence by themselves...
So, what you have right now is zero for an argument about the process utilized and a plea that the case be reopened without any grounds for that.
Listen pal. Bla bla never meant anything and still does not today. You should not be on a debating thread if all you want to do is say "they said so" and that is the level of your credibility and ability to defend yur science

Lovey as you can see this is a debating thread. If you think you can just put up this kind of vague "because they said so" in reply to me, then effectively there is no use your posting here.

I have put up challenge in relation to one classification. I have provided support from data provided by evolutionary researchers. Obviously in a post space I am not going to cover your entire mess. If you are unable to defend one small area of your evolutionary theory, how much more unlikely it will be for you to defend your psuedo science holistically if we stayed here for months.

I have already demonstrated that common interpretations that are irrefuteable mean nothing because you are still recovering from the knucklewalking debarkle you evos shoved in creationists faces for decades.

So either put up or shut up....Because "they said so" is the sort of reply I'd expect from a 10 year old and I am not here to debate children that are unable to speak with science behind them.


Mankind are not apes. I have a clear case that demonstrates we are not. We do not fit into homininae and we are miles apart for apes. What's more I haven't just woffled about this like you do. I have actually put up some research in support of my mouth. Your pseudo science is a sham. You are not an ape and mankind does not belong in homininae with chimps and gorillas. You cannot demonstrate that we are apes obviously because you cannot mount a refute for yourself. You cannot justify why mankind should be be placed with a chimp in any class eg homininae.

You can offer no reply to one simple challenge and I therefore win hands down..with you lot here anyway...

 

[CabVet]

It does not matter how many times I post my support none of you can refute me and defend mankind being in with chimps anywhere.

It takes the nonsense of your algorithms to defy observation and put mankind in a taxon with chimps, while orangs are an out group. Any child can see an orang and chimp are more similar to each other than either is to mankind. Pick the odd one out is a simple childrens quiz.

All you can offer is simplistic responses like this one above..which effectively..means absolutely nothing...

If I am wrong then put up something more substantial than your humble opinion and simplistic response.

I have posted research to back my claim. You have provided woffle.

I win....

Evolutionists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story....and you are proof of it..

You have posted no research. Here, let me do it for you:

Do you understand what taxonomy is? How about cladistics? Now show me one phylogenetic tree of the family Hominidae, built with actual data (DNA or otherwise) that excludes humans.

As for your "I win" comment, I have one thing to say:

 

[CabVet]

You keep saying that we are so different from Chimps, therefore we cannot be in the same taxonomic category. Can you identify on the figure below which are chimp skulls and which are human?

 

[Astridhere]

Cabvet says
You keep saying that we are so different from Chimps, therefore we cannot be in the same taxonomic category. Can you identify on the figure below which are chimp skulls and which are human?

There is no point going on to anything else until you give evidence against what I have already provided.

I have given you phylogenic research to suggest mankind clades with the orang. I have provided a plethora of differences and now you want to move on and you haven't even addressed the first issue yet.

Once you demonstrate that there is some basis for classifying mankind as an ape in the class of homininae and why mankind is classed as being closer to a chimp than an orangutan, we can move on. However you will need more than "they said so".....

What you are doing is a typical strategy for the gobsmacked evolutionist. They are unable to competently debate an issue so they start asiding and asking every unrelated question in an effort to diguise their ignorance. As my previous post said we will discuss that after we deal with the first challenge.


When we get to skulls I will require proper fossils or at least their reconstruction and identify what they are so I can reasearch them and if they are recons of colocated or displaced pieces, juvenilles etc. These sketches are meaningless and often misrepresent the actual fossil. These sketches belong in comic books.

For now are you conceding that you are unable to demonstrate why mankind is classified as an ape and resides with chimps in homininae?

 

[CabVet]

Here are a few characters that apply to all of the family Hominidae:

Hominids range in weight from 48 kg to 270 kg. Males are larger than females. Hominids are the largest primates, with robust bodies and well-developed forearms. Their pollex and hallux are opposable except in humans, who have lost opposability of the big toe. All digits have flattened nails. No hominid has a tail, and none has ischial callosities. Numerous skeletal differences between hominids and other primates are related to their upright or semi-upright stance.

All members of this family have large braincase. Most have a prominent face and prognathous jaw; again, humans are exceptional most likely due to neoteny. All are catarrhine, with nostrils close together and facing forward and downward. The dental formula is the same for all members of the group: 2/2, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3 = 32. Hominids have broad incisors and their canines are never developed into tusks. The upper molars are quadrate and bunodont; the lowers are bunodont and possess a hypoconulid. The uppers lack lophs connecting labial and lingual cusps and thus, in contrast to cercopithecids, are not bilophodont.

Hominids are omnivorous, primarily frugivorous or folivorous. All but humans are good climbers, but only the orangutan is really arboreal.
Members of this family are well-known for the complexity of their social behavior. Facial expression and complex vocalizations play an important role in the behavior of hominids. All make and use nests. Hominids generally give birth to a single young, and the period of parental care is extended.