How did apes evolvle into humans?

[mikeynov]

What you suggest here is rote learning, dogmatic repetition and propagandistic mind-control on the same level Madison Avenue sells American enterprise or the ex-Soviet Communists used to indoctrinate people.

Lighten up, will ya' and try to think with your own brain instead of someone else's for a change.

What I'm suggesting is basic biology and demonstrably true.

That neither you nor Carico even understand the subjects you criticize speaks volumes about your character.

This isn't a matter of opinion - what I'm suggesting is actually what's being proposed. Not acknowledging that, when you know better, is dishonest. Is it okay to lie for God? Because my impression based on reading posts by you and Carico is that, seemingly, it is.

 

[john crawford]

John, you know very well what I said.

Do you know what I said, though.

 

[mikeynov]

No individual evolution = no evolution.

I explained this. Evolution operates at the level of the population. If you don't understand this, you need to enroll or re-enroll in introductory biology.

I don't see why my explanation was so complicated. I tried to explain it in simple terms. But the reply I'm getting is "no that's wrong," without any actual analysis of what I'm saying.

Every counter-argument that's been presented (e.g. Carico saying that replicative errors can't account for new genes/genetic material) is demonstrably wrong. But that doesn't seem to bother the resident creationists.

 

[L'Anatra]

Lighten up, will ya' and try to think with your own brain instead of someone else's for a change.

How ironic!

It is you, handwaver, who has been shown to be incapable or unwilling to think with his own brain. These are the facts. Project much?

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

You apparently believe that a primate "just turned into a human being" without explaining how. Sorry, kokopop, but offspring don't "just appear." They come from the DNA of their parents. And until you understand basic reproduction, neither will you be able to uderstand deeper matters.

That wasn't what I was referring to. My problem is that you ignore people's explanations or claim they haven't explained it at all. It is one thing to state you don't believe their explanation or think it is flawed, but you won't even budge that much, simply stating their isn't one despite pages and pages and pages of testimony to the contrary.

 

[nvxplorer]

The Lord saves all unbelievers who ask for His help, as He did me.

Well, the fact you responded to my post kinda tells me the Lord ain't hearing my pleas.

 

[anunbeliever]

This is an interesting article:
http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/DaCapo.html
Great apes have 48 chromosomes and man has 46. This section is particularly intriguing

The connection between chromosome number and speciation is one kind of re-arrangement that is well known among plant breeders. They’ve known for a long time that by simply increasing the number of chromosomes typical of a species – a phenomenon called polyploidy – that it was possible to obtain a new variety with different characteristics...But while polyploidy is fairly common among plant species, it’s rarely found among animals...Instead, the chromosome re-arrangement most often exhibited in animal species is translocation. This is when non-homologous chromosomes break and exchange parts: one of the two chromosomes in pair A exchange a part with one of the two chromosomes in pair B. If the break in the respective chromosomes occurs near their ends and the long parts are joined together, the short segments sometimes contain so little genetic information that they may be lost. This gives the appearance of two chromosomes having been fused together. This is what happened in our own ancestry, and is the mechanism responsible for the origin of man.

I have reproduced a small part of the diagram given in the article [The editor has redrawn this with limitations in part attributable to the low quality of his copy of Gift of Fire.], showing the human second chromosome on the top, and two chimpanzee chromosomes on the bottom. It is patently obvious that the human second chromosome was created by translocation, or a fusion if you prefer, of two chimpanzee chromosomes. Or to be more precise, that the human second chromosome was created by a translocation of two chromosomes in an animal that was ancestor to both man and chimpanzee.

The sequence of events probably took place something like this. About five million years ago a translocation like that described above occurred in a pithecine male who was the controller of a harem of females. Rather than having 48 chromosomes, which was normal for his species, he had 47. When he mated with members of his harem, who possessed the usual number of chromosomes, half of his offspring would have had 48 chromosomes and half would have had 47. If some of those with 47 chromosomes mated among themselves, or were back-bred to their father, one quarter of their offspring would have had 48 chromosomes, one half would have had 47, and one quarter would have had 46. Those with 46 were the prototype of the new genus Homo. But at this stage they were not yet a new species. At most they can be thought of as a new chromosomal race., probably with great phenotypic difference from their fellows, but still not yet a new species. That had to wait for the appearance of one of the chromosome inversions discussed above. This inversion also probably occurred in a male with a harem and was transmitted in much the same way as the translocation. In this case, however, crosses between individuals with the inversion and those without produced only a few offspring, while matings between inverted chromosomes continued to be fertile, as did those without the inversion. This was the first step in breeding isolation. Suddenly, almost overnight, a new species came into existence.

 

[Praxiteles]

No individual evolution = no evolution.

Lying for God.

 

[gunglepus]

I'm simply trying to find out how apes evolved into human beings. Animals are produced by the fertilized egg of their parents. So how did apes produce human beings? "over time" explains nothing. It does not explain how 2 apes can produce a "homonid". So how did humans evolve from apes? Again, apes are breeding apes today and humans are breeding humans. So how did the fertilized egg of 2 apes produce a species so different from an ape that it was given a new name? Where did the "homonid" come from? Is there anyone here who has an answer to that question?

Todays apes and humans shared a common ancestor. Chimps and humans are especcially close in genetics, and yet there are differences in the number of chomosomes (Chimps have 48 and humans 46) . The Missing chimp chomosome is found embedded in another chomosome complete with telomeres. (look that up, you might learn something).

This common ancestor is dated back to about 6 million years ago by differences in human and chimp genetics. Separated populations do diverge and change, especcially when subjected to different selection forces. The ancestors of humans left the forest for the savanah. The first thing they developed was an upright posture and the foot. The Brain size difference came much later.

Homos sapiens is about 150-250,000 years old. At one time there were many co-existing homo species such as homo neanderthalis. From Mitochondria DNA our seperation from homo neanderthalis is dated to about 600,000 years ago.

We were so succesful that we wiped out all other homo species. Nice folk. No wonder we have wars.

 

[Osiris]

Of course I was speaking figuratively
No change in the "signature" of the original
No change in the "signature" of the copy

Actually there is... in copy machines, the copy will get darker the farther you go away from the original. If you keep doing it for a long time, the copy will be a black piece of paper. Making the farthest copy much different than the original.
Evolution would be the same, although us(humans) and ancestral primates(from which we evolved) may not be the same species, we are in fact related because we derived from their copies.

 

[Elduran]

Well, I've finally decided that Carico and A4C are willfully ignorant enough for me to just block them and not miss out on any meaningful debate.

Congrats guys, you made my "ignoramus" list!

 

[Carico]

Well, I've finally decided that Carico and A4C are willfully ignorant enough for me to just block them and not miss out on any meaningful debate.

Congrats guys, you made my "ignoramus" list!

See! This completely throws out your theory of survival of the fittest! After millions of years, I, an ignoramus, came along. You have proven my point beautifully!

 

[Heather S.]

No. All it proves is that even in this day and age, when biologists know more than ever about life and it's fascinating processes, there are still some ignorant people that are so weak-minded that they must cling desperately to a literal interpretation of their Bible.

Sad, but true. Are you going to even make an attempt at refuting my earlier points in this thread? You've done a great job of completely ignoring the information presented to you.

Heather

 

[Carico]

No. All it proves is that even in this day and age, when biologists know more than ever about life and it's fascinating processes, there are still some ignorant people that are so weak-minded that they must cling desperately to a literal interpretation of their Bible.

Sad, but true. Are you going to even make an attempt at refuting my earlier points in this thread? You've done a great job of completely ignoring the information presented to you.

Heather

Sorry but when the information constantly contradicts itself, no sane person could accept it is fact. I guess you are one of those who'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. But I'm afraid by then, it will too late to change your mind. But it's no skin off my back. It's your soul that's at stake, not mine. You've chosen your fate.

 

[Freodin]

Sorry but when the information constantly contradicts itself, no sane person could accept it is fact. I guess you are one of those who'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. But I'm afraid by then, it will too late to change your mind. But it's no skin off my back. It's your soul that's at stake, not mine. You've chosen your fate.

How are you able to know that the information contradicts itself, when you are constantly misrepresenting what other people state?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sorry but when the information constantly contradicts itself, no sane person could accept it is fact. I guess you are one of those who'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. But I'm afraid by then, it will too late to change your mind. But it's no skin off my back. It's your soul that's at stake, not mine. You've chosen your fate.

Right. So God places us in heaven or hell according to whether we're creationists, then?

This gets worse and worse.

 

[Heather S.]

So if someone is an evolutionist, they are going to hell? If that is so, then I am afraid that most of the world will go to hell. That includes most Christians.

 

[Carico]

Right. So God places us in heaven or hell according to whether we're creationists, then?

This gets worse and worse.

Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both. You cannot both say you believe Jesus is telling the truth and that he is lying at the same time. It's one or the other. Jesus says he was with his Father in the beginning when man was first created. That's why Genesis uses the word; "we" when describing who created the world. And Genesis was written thousands of years before jesus walked on the earth! The Jews and all anient people will confirm that. If you believe Christ's words in the bible, then why would you not believe Genesis? If you only believe part of the bible, then how do you know which parts are true and which are not? Just a guess?

So yes, those who believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, will go to heaven. Those who don't will not go to heaven. Jesus has shown the world he has the power from God to know about how man was created & heaven & hell. You have not.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I do believe Genesis (see the Mutations thread). I don't interpret it the way you do.

 

[Heather S.]

It's one or the other. Jesus says he was with his Father in the beginning when man was first created.

Yes. And? That does not contradict evolutionary theory. ToE does not have anything to do with the origin of life. For all I care, your god could have created pink and purple unicorns to his heart's content. It doesn't matter how you believe life started. Theistic evolutionists believe that your God DID create man, but he did it through evolution. It's not a hard concept.

That's why Genesis uses the word; "we" when describing who created the world.

No. Actually it uses the word "we" because in ancient times, using a plural pronoun to refer to a single deity was a symbol of great power. The god of the Bible (especially of the Old Testament) was meant to be portrayed as huge and all-powerful. That is why the words "we" and "us" are used.

If you believe Christ's words in the bible, then why would you not believe Genesis?

Christ taught that lying was a sin. You lie constantly about the Theory of Evolution. If you believe in Christ's words in the Bible, why do you feel compelled to lie about the belief of the people here? So I guess I'll see you in Hell with me.

Heather