Do Apes Shave?

[LittleNipper]

This would hardly make him a Santa Claus.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What I am saying is simply that we are not related to oragutans. We are not related to chimp. There is more to consider then DNA. That is not the only factor that makes humans human and apes apes. Billy goats grow beards. My observation is that the apes that are suppose to be our closest living relatives (according to the evolutionist) do not grow a beards. Oragutans are not our closest living relatives according to evolutionists and THEIR DNA standards. Butterbeans do not grow beards either...

And you do, of course, recognise that we've shown you that your butterbean source was a lying git?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This would hardly make him a Santa Claus.

Not the right kind of beard, right?

 

[LittleNipper]

Then there is not even any percieved justice in Christianity.

Ed

The justice is that ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. GOD provided HIS Salvation. Your work is to accept it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Not the right kind of beard, right?

I must admit that the critter has hair all over his body. My brother-in-law has hair on his back. But, I am speaking of a growing beard. If a guy lets his wiskers alone, they will eventually reach to his belt. Our little monkey friend will always look about the same. I'm not sure if apes have hair or fur----actually, I not sure if my brother-in-law has hair or fur... He is human though...

 

[Nymphalidae]

Butterbeans must contain antigen "A"...

Please tell me you aren't serious. What part of "plants don't have blood" don't you understand?

 

[Tomk80]

Why is it that apes and monkeys have no beards or mustaches. Apes do not seen to be into body art or body piercing either. This is just an observation. Beards have been around seemingly since Adam and yet I see no connection with primates. Come to think of it, I've seen no ape sporting the "Tarzan" look. After supposed "millions" of years of cavemen hanging around with apes, apes still are not into sporting clothing. In fact, they (unlike us) do not even seem to understand the idea of modesty. It would seem that apart from a few similarities in form, that is where the similarities end. They are animals-----we are humans.

LittleNipper, I've quoted your OP for you, for convenience. For every reader it will be clear that your main intelligable argument, amidst all the rubbish, is that facial hair is an important feature that humans have and apes don't. Your claim was that apes do not have facial hair. You have been shown apes with facial hair. You have been shown to be incorrect. Will you now do the honest thing and admit you were wrong in this? Please, be honest for once. I don't think that this is too much to ask.

 

[LittleNipper]

And you do, of course, recognise that we've shown you that your butterbean source was a lying git?

No, you showed me that Butterbeans do not have blood and they do not walk. And evolutionist is not going to try to prove that humans evolved from Butterbeans, because he is not looking for the truth----he only wants his logic to be accepted...

 

[Nymphalidae]

No, you showed me that Butterbeans do not have blood and they do not walk. And evolutionist is not going to try to prove that humans evolved from Butterbeans, because he is not looking for the truth----he only wants his logic to be accepted...

Humans didn't evolve from butterbeans.

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, I've quoted your OP for you, for convenience. For every reader it will be clear that your main intelligable argument, amidst all the rubbish, is that facial hair is an important feature that humans have and apes don't. Your claim was that apes do not have facial hair. You have been shown apes with facial hair. You have been shown to be incorrect. Will you now do the honest thing and admit you were wrong in this? Please, be honest for once. I don't think that this is too much to ask.

I want you to show me that humans have a closer DNA relationship to Orangutans then they do with chimps. Put up or shut up.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, I got all the way to page 5 and still don't see answers to the questions that could put the question to rest. For some of you here that are "scientists" either literally or able to easily access scientific information. How does the DNA of the butter bean compare with the DNA of humans. We have seen accusations that this is false, but where is the evidence that says it is false or true? Can anyone help? My web search wasn't very helpful.

 

[Tomk80]

I want you to show me that humans have a closer DNA relationship to Orangutans then they do with chimps. Put up or shut up.

For what reason? Your logic completely alludes me here.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I want you to show me that humans have a closer DNA relationship to Orangutans then they do with chimps. Put up or shut up.

I want you to actually interact with evidence that is presented contrary to your opinion, both scientific and scriptural, instead of ignoring it out of hand.

 

[LittleNipper]

Humans didn't evolve from butterbeans.

Very smart indeed.... Shussssssssssh, now listen... I'll let you in on a secret.... Humans didn't evolve from apes either, but keep it to yourself. Especially,
while in PUBLIC SCHOOL. You may be accused of making Children think.

 

[AirPo]

Very smart indeed.... S****st, now listen... I'll let you in on a secret.... Humans didn't evolve from apes either, but keep it to yourself.

Everyone knows that. Execpt creatioinists.

 

[razzelflabben]

So littlenipper HAS been on this site, his last login was about 3 hours ago. I have to assume he has read all this since he has logged into this site. I guess he is to chicken to post again, but i have every intention of bumping this until he has the guts to say something here. To bad people like him dont actually research things, he might not find himself in a spot like this if he posted truths instead of his river of lies. But i guess when you are a YEC, it really dosent make a difference if it is true, as long as it sounds good.

You know, I was going to stay out of this, but I must say this one thing. When littlenipper posted the part about the butter beans, I read his words and they said, he had heard. That is not the same thing as saying that it is fact.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please tell me you aren't serious. What part of "plants don't have blood" don't you understand?

They have sap. Some people are called saps. There must be an evolutionary connection there. It just has not been observed. Oh, that's right--- evolution has not been observed either.

 

[AirPo]

They have sap. Some people are called saps. There must be an evolutionary connection there. It just has not been observed. Oh, that's right--- evolution has not been observed either.

Sure it has, would you like an example?

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, I got all the way to page 5 and still don't see answers to the questions that could put the question to rest. For some of you here that are "scientists" either literally or able to easily access scientific information. How does the DNA of the butter bean compare with the DNA of humans. We have seen accusations that this is false, but where is the evidence that says it is false or true? Can anyone help? My web search wasn't very helpful.

Why would we answer that question in the first place? Really, it was clearly just a cop out from Littlenipper that has nothing to do with the OP. And it was his claim, not ours, so it is his obligation to back his statement up with some reputable sources. If Littlenipper wanted to talk about butterbeans, he should have started a thread on butterbeans, not on facial hair and fashion.

Now, this aticle might provide some background on his claim. Most probably it stems from a book from a YEC named Gary Parker, who claimed that human blood antigen A was most closely related to butterbean Antigen A. According to the article:

Blood Antigen A --
This is one of the molecules that determine blood types.
They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars
attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar
configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein
sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against
the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high
concentration. Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are
identical or nearly identical to those of humans. Having
no blood, butterbeans obviously have no blood antigens.

and:

[NOTE: The current edition of Parker's Creation: The Facts of Life is
a revised edition published in 1994. In that revised edition, this claim for all
the molecules listed above has been removed, except for the chicken tear enzyme,
lysozyme. That claim is described in more detail later in this article.]

So not only does Littlenipper's claim appear to be false, it even appears to be retracted by the original guy who claimed it. Furthermore, on the chicken enzyme lysozyme (in a preemptive strike so Littlenipper won't start claiming more nonsense based on it):

The only ICR claim about lysozyme that Schadewald was familiar with had
been Gary Parker's claim that chicken lysozyme is more similar to human
lysozyme than is chimpanzee lysozyme. However, Awbrey and Thwaites have shown
that this is not true, since human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical and
chicken lysozyme differs from both by 51 out of 130 amino acids. Their
conclusion was that either Parker was totally ignorant of the facts or he
thought that 51 is less than zero.

 

[Tomk80]

They have sap. Some people are called saps. There must be an evolutionary connection there. It just has not been observed. Oh, that's right--- evolution has not been observed either.

I can only say one thing after reading this. 'Wow'