Big contradictions in the evolution theory

[Carico]

Carico - once again.

Do you accept that French evolved from Latin?

I'm assuming you do, because there isn't a linguist or philologist alive who wouldn't agree that it did.

Was there a Latin speaker whose children spoke French? No, Latin speakers' children always spoke Latin, and French speakers' children always speak French, n'est-ce pas?

If you were to be able to hear the language spoken by a Latinised Gaul of 350AD, and all the generations after him right up to Pierre in Brittany today, you would not be able to find a point where the language changed. Each generation's language would be virtually identical to that before it. Each would speak effectively the language of their parents.

And yet if you compare the Latin of 350AD side by side with the French of today, they are totally different, mutually incomprehensible languages.

Example:

Latin: Amo caseum
French: J'aime le fromage

This is an analogy. Latin speakers are analogous to our ape-like ancestors of five million years ago, and French speakers are analogous to modern humans. Do you get the point? At no point does the development of French from Latin require:

(a) A Latin speaker having children with someone speaking a different language
(b) A Latin speaker having children who speak a different language

Similarly, evolution does not require

(a) A species breeding with a different species
(b) A species giving birth to a different species

Since you seem to struggle with analogies, I've used boldand italics to help you identify the analogous elements.

Now are you finally going to abandon these ridiculous straw-man based objections? I do not see how you can hold onto them and claim any kind of honesty.

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction. Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are. So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes. Then why not call us all apes instead of humans? Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today? And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species! Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species! It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do. They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species. Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does. They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

 

[sidiousmax225]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction. Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are. So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes. Then why not call us all apes instead of humans? Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today? And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species! Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species! It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do. They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species. Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does. They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

Homo-sapien is the scientific classification for humans, apes is the general description.

Um, Carico, we aren't the same species as modern apes, we are merely the same in that we have opposable thumbs, foward facing eyes, etc, this was explained earlier. Modern apes are one branch of the evolutionary tree, we are another. It's not a work around because 2 different species can't mate, seeing as how evolution doesn't even say that, or need that, in order to happen.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction.

There is no contradiction, Carico, you've completely missed the point.

Apes do not become humans in a single generation.
Say it with me, now:
Apes do not become humans in a single generation.

Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are.

Way to miss the analogy twice.

You cannot be this dense, can you? You must be trolling on purpose.

So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes.

Pretty much so.

Then why not call us all apes instead of humans? Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today?

We do. Humans are in the same family as apes. Calling us "humans" is simply a more specific classification.

An example (which you'll probably ignore):

We see three animals walking down the street: I call them "poodle," "doberman," and "beagle."
You call them "dogs."
Yet we're both right. How is this possible?

And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

You truly refuse to listen, don't you?

An analogy (which you'll probably also ignore):

Why are there British people today if Americans came from the British?
Because not every Brit came to America.
In the same vein, not every ape evolved.

Populations evolve, but populations are not the same as entire species.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species! Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species!

Humans and apes are not the same species; we are, however, the same family.

A Biology 101 lesson (which I KNOW you'll ignore)

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do.

It's a no-brainer that you have different genes than I do. Just not as many differences as an ape.

They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species. Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does.

People such as yourself, Carico. You've been repeating the same lies in thread after thread.

Or are you simply too full of yourself to learn anything? Can the great Carico ever be mistaken?

They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

The Bible mentions zoos?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Carico, say it woth me, now:

Humans and apes are NOT the same species.

How can you make this claim with a straight face when you don't even know what a species is?

 

[MartinM]

Humans and apes are NOT the same species.

Apart from the apes which are human, that is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Apart from the apes which are human, that is.

True, but this has proved thus far beyond Carico's desire and/or ability to comprehend.

Need to start simple.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction. Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are. So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes. Then why not call us all apes instead of humans? Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today? And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

"Apes" are not a species. They are a group of species, which include us, so we do call humans apes today, the same way we call St Bernards canines.

We are not saying that human beings are the same as apes, any more than St Bernards are the same as canines; they are a subset of canines - all St Bernards are canines, but not all canines are St Bernards. All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.

We use the term "hominid" to refer to those species in the fossil record that are considered to be on the human ancestral line, rather than the line leading to other extant apes. But it's not like some ape had children that were hominids instead of apes! It's rather that one population gradually, over many generations, developed those features which we consider diagnostic for hominids, just as one population of Latin speakers gradually over many generations started to speak a language we call Old French. But these hominids are a sub group of apes. They were still apes. There is no contradiction, unless you try to claim that "hominid" and "ape" are mutually exclusive groups, whereas they aren't - the one is a subset of the other.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species!

Not true. Humans are Homo sapiens. This is our species. Chimpanzees are Pan troglodytes. That is their species. Different. Again, "ape" is not a species, any more than "dog" is a breed of dog, or "saloon" is a make and model of car.

Your problem seems to be that you see these categories in a flat organisation, where one belongs to one or another, but they are not - they are hierarchical categories, where the members of any category are also de facto members of the parent categories.

Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species! It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do.

Mostly the same, but some important differences, yes. Evolution never claims otherwise.

They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species. Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does. They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

No-one, anywhere, is claiming that we are the same species as any other ape. For the third time, "ape" is not a species - it is a group of species.

Perhaps this will help - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Remember - Pan troglodytes is a species. Gorilla gorilla is a species. Homo sapiens is a species. "Ape" is not. All those three species - and others besides, are apes.

 

[AirPo]

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

Perhaps it hasn't ever been explained to you before, but there is no such thing as "the missing link." That's just a creationnist fantasy.

Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from?

Perhaps it hasn't ever been explained to you before, but there is no such thing as "superior genes." That's just a creationnist fantasy.

To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?

Certaintly you can, especially if you are a creationist fond of fantasy.

Where is the evidence of this?

You don't need evidence if you are making up stories.

So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes?

Her parents

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents,

The only people saying that are creationist.

then why are her parents still around today?

They're not. They're just as dead as she is.

Try paying attention.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Perhaps it hasn't ever been explained to you. What you are arguing against is creatolution, the creationist version of evolution. I do agree though, that it must be embarrassing to find out that you have been talking about is a complete creationist fantasy.

 

[Jet Black]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction. Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are. So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes. Then why not call us all apes instead of humans?

Carico, perhaps you have me on your ignore list, but I have told you a number of times that humans are still apes, because we have all the characteristics that make apes, as ween in my signature.

Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today? And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

again, we are apes - the ant analogy is an excellent one, because when referring to specific species of ants, we refer to them by their names. but we can collectively talk about all the different species of ants as ants, just as we can talk about all the different species of apes - and that includes humans, as apes.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species!

no, you are not understanding carico. Humans are not the same species as the other apes - we are homo sapiens. Apes are a family, the Hominidae, not a species. the family contains many species.

Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species!

no it doesn'T carico, you are just not understanding.

It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do. They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species.

nobody is claiming that we are the same species as the other great apes, and nobody is claiming that the Pan and the Pongids are all one species either. there are a number of species of Gorilla and Chimp.

Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does.

indeed, just like all your declarations about evolution are not true just because you say so.

They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

humans are a subset of apes. we are a particular species of ape, just like Pan Paniscus is another species of ape, and Gorilla Gorilla is another species of ape.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

True, but this has proved thus far beyond Carico's desire and/or ability to comprehend.

Need to start simple.

If I'm right in what I'm getting from Carico, she can't comprehend:

Sets and subsets
Hierarchical classification

Now, most primary school children grasp both these by the time they're seven. They cope with cats being animals, but not all animals being cats. They know that:

Cats have four legs
My dog has four legs
Therefore my dog is a cat

is wrong.

Carico tries to make us think she can't reason at this level. Now, I think that's willful ignorance, because the grammatical structure and generally good spelling of her posts pretty much eliminates the other possibility, which is a room temperature (in Celsius, not Farenheit) IQ.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes?

Sorry can I just check, you think ”Apes” is a species? A single Species?

That anyone can be that ignorant of Zoology is rather astounding. Have you ever considered suing your old School?

Ghost

 

[comana]

Then why do they call the offspring of apes different names like "homonids" and "homo sapiens" if they are the same species as apes? They call the offspring of apes today, apes. So please explain that contradiction. Latin-speakers are still called humans just like French speakers are. So you're saying that human beings are the same as apes. Then why not call us all apes instead of humans? Even different "subtypes" of ants are still called ants! So why not call humans apes today? And again, the notion that we have survived our "ancestors" is blatantly untrue because apes are still around today. So the evolution theory is hogwash.

Since it is quite obvious that species cannot interbreed, evolutionists try to get around this by simply claiming that apes and men are the same species! Hah! That's like saying we came from dogs simply by claiming that dogs & humans are the same species! It is a no-brainer that apes have different genes than humans do. They think they can try to make it true that men came from apes simply by claiming we are the same species. Sorry, but declaring that something is true does not make it true, even though many people are under the illusion that it does. They are fooling no one but themselves. Even children can see that apes are in the jungle or in zoos where man put them and humans rule over them like the bible claims.

What is your mental block against reading any of the well thought out responses to you?

The apes species you see alive on this planet today are not our ancestors. Humans are a species of ape, chimpanzees are a species of ape, gorillas are a species of ape. All different species of ape.

Is that simple enough?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

What is your mental block against reading any of the well thought out responses to you?

The apes species you see alive on this planet today are not our ancestors. Humans are a species of ape, chimpanzees are a species of ape, gorillas are a species of ape. All different species of ape.

Is that simple enough?

I am starting to wonder if anyone has ever bothered to explain taxonomic classifications to Carico. We are all so bussy being bemused by why she doesn't get it we never stopped to ask if anyone ever explained it.

Ghost

 

[danaman5]

Carico, is there a single species called "Ape"?

 

[notto]

Apes and Humans can both grow beards so they must be the same species.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Apes and Humans can both grow beards so they must be the same species.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Not wanting to be a killjoy but perhaps you should try harder to resist in this instance. Something hit me about Charico today, and Marie has crystallised the thoughts for me. No one who is just plain dishonest would come here for the level of abuse Carico gets. I think she genuinely does not understand (I know, I know, I was one of the first to dismiss her as just a liar, but I now think I was wrong).

I think we are overloading her with information and we are doing a poor job o breaking it don into manageable chunks. Earlier today she asked me some questions with what seamed like a genuine curiosity.

Problem is every time she sticks her head above the parapet she gets bombarded with posts, many of which are long and rambling (I know my posts can be) others of which are mocking and insulting. Combine the two and she must get frustrated, angry and emotional, not the best conditions to be in when trying to understand a bunch of verbose windbags like us.

I know she can be frustrating, but I for one am going to try and be more patient and see if that helps her understand our points. She may never agree with evolution, but at least she may understand what evolution is not claiming.

Ghost

PS. Sorry to talk about you in 3rd person as if you arn't here Carico.

 

[Deamiter]

Not wanting to be a killjoy but perhaps you should try harder to resist in this instance. Something hit me about Charico today, and Marie has crystallised the thoughts for me. No one who is just plain dishonest would come here for the level of abuse Carico gets. I think she genuinely does not understand (I know, I know, I was one of the first to dismiss her as just a liar, but I now think I was wrong).

I think we are overloading her with information and we are doing a poor job o breaking it don into manageable chunks. Earlier today she asked me some questions with what seamed like a genuine curiosity.

Problem is every time she sticks her head above the parapet she gets bombarded with posts, many of which are long and rambling (I know my posts can be) others of which are mocking and insulting. Combine the two and she must get frustrated, angry and emotional, not the best conditions to be in when trying to understand a bunch of verbose windbags like us.

I know she can be frustrating, but I for one am going to try and be more patient and see if that helps her understand our points. She may never agree with evolution, but at least she may understand what evolution is not claiming.

Ghost

PS. Sorry to talk about you in 3rd person as if you arn't here Carico.

I need to spread around some reps before repping Ghost again!

I can't speak for Carico, and I don't know him personally (except from posts on this board) so I can't really comment on his motives. However, I know there are dozens, if not hundreds of creationists who would honestly like to know the truth, and don't intentionally want to misrepresent evolution.

Of course, it's much easier and much more appealing to respond to insults than to go through technical arguments that are often incomplete. Add to that the fact that Carico (or others like him) may not have been to school for a formal education for decades and may only get background information from popular creationist books... It's not a condusive situation to learning by far!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I agree with DJ_Ghost and Deamiter to a point. However, I'd say that Carico agrivated the problem by leveraging her confusion as an attack on the ToE.

It's one thing to be ignorant or confused about something and ask questions, but it's another to claim that something is false because you are confused. It's like if I went to a physics forum and claimed that QM was contradictory and confusing, that this is embarrassing for physics and physicists should see the "truth"... well, what kind of reaction should I expect?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree with DJ_Ghost and Deamiter to a point. However, I'd say that Carico agrivated the problem by leveraging her confusion as an attack on the ToE.

It's one thing to be ignorant or confused about something and ask questions, but it's another to claim that something is false because you are confused. It's like if I went to a physics forum and claimed that QM was contradictory and confusing, that this is embarrassing for physics and physicists should see the "truth"... well, what kind of reaction should I expect?

The problem is Carico's not confused, she's doing it on purpose. No human being could genuinely be this confused and function in today's society without professional supervision.

Notice how selective Carico is in her threads: She only responds to posts containing ideas she can misrepresent, only quotes when she can mine it, only uses the loosest, most twistable words, and passes on the rest, like ti doesn't exist.

She's selective and intelligent, like a good predator. She sees a weakness in language, and attacks it with semantics.

 

[notto]

I know she can be frustrating, but I for one am going to try and be more patient and see if that helps her understand our points. She may never agree with evolution, but at least she may understand what evolution is not claiming.

That approach has been tried. Got nowhere.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1831929-how-did-apes-evolvle-into-humans.html