How did apes evolvle into humans?

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Mechanical Bliss:

"Since you are incapable or unwilling to admit the errors in your argument, surely you must admit that this is nothing but a form of ad hominem/poisoning the well."

Those are illogical conclusions on both counts.

"Whether or not the theory of evolution is racist has nothing to do with its veracity."

That' s true to the same extent that other supremacist views are true.

"You are fishing for a justification for an emotional knee-jerk reaction and using loaded language to do it.

How do you know? Did you personally experience an "emotional knee-jerk reaction" to what you perceived as "loaded language?"

 

[john crawford]

Wow... you're not even trying anymore, are you?

No comment. Illogical post.

 

[Freodin]

That's just a racist theory, Karl. Louis Armstrong wasn't related to any extinct Australopithicine apes in Africa. He was an All-American jazzman. Just because some of his ancestors may have likely been born in Africa doesn't mean that he was a descendent of a non-human species of apes. To imply such a thing is the result of subscribing to, and believing in neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, Karl.

THIS is an illogical post.

Louis Armstrong was black. Some of his ancestors did indeed come from Africa.
I am not black.

Is this statement racist? No, it is a simple observation.

Now I am white and Louis isn´t. Yet, according to your hypothesis, we both are descended from Adam and Eve. Were the black or white? Is it racist to state that black are descended from non-blacks? Or that whites are descended from non-whites? No, it isn´t - or at least you would deny that it is.

Now I am white and Louis isn´t. Yes, according to our hypothesis, we both are descended from a pouplation of extinct Australopithicine apes. And in the same way that your theory of blacks and whites in not racist, our theory of apes and humans is not racist.

 

[A4C]

It has been scientifically proven that given the pairing of 2 certain pigment signatures withinn (I think) 5 generations every pigment offspring could be produced. This means that it is possible that mankind began with just one male and one female.

 

[Fly4Him]

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).
answersingenesis.org Docs 263.asp

 

[mikeynov]

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).
answersingenesis.org Docs 263.asp

Please don't read me, you may find the information I contain unsettling.

 

[Sphere]

Sorry, but your explanations are contradictory and blindsighted. But I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. And I guarantee the experience won't be a pleasant one.

You just threw in the towel. Ultimately, the conversation degrades to a "believe or burn". How many more abhorrent comments could you possibly make in this thread? Let's find out.

Sorry but when the information constantly contradicts itself, no sane person could accept it is fact.

You do not know that information to say that it contradicts yourself. Educate yourself and perhaps people here will take you seriously.

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.

To see such filth written by a creationist should surprise me, but I find it just delicious. Whatever god you think you're helping, you're doing more harm than good. Shame on you.

You cannot both say you believe Jesus is telling the truth and that he is lying at the same time.

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.

Right, because the bible and jesus said evolution was false. Nonsense, like the rest of it. You're making it up as you go along. Get back to preaching fire and brimestone from your god who loves us.

 

[Jet Black]

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

Unfortunately there is significant fossil evidence, as has been demonstrated in the post above. interestingly, the creationists cannot make up their minds as to which fossils are human and which are ape[sic]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

 

[Jet Black]

crawford appears to have forgotten that racism is discriminatory by definition.. I fail to see how saying "Louis armstrong and I have an ancestor that is not human" is racist anymore than saying "some of my ancestors are black and lived in africa" is racist.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

QUOTE=Karl - Liberal Backslider

"According to mainstream evolutionary theory, I (white British male) am just as closely related to Australopithecus as Louis Armstrong was."

That's just a racist theory, Karl. Louis Armstrong wasn't related to any extinct Australopithicine apes in Africa. He was an All-American jazzman. Just because some of his ancestors may have likely been born in Africa doesn't mean that he was a descendent of a non-human species of apes. To imply such a thing is the result of subscribing to, and believing in neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, Karl.

How exactly is pointing out that I am related to Australopithecus in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent as Louis Armstrong racist?

Racism would be saying "Louis Armstrong is MORE closely related to Lucy than I am"

What is this? Inability to read for comprehension or just playing silly buggers?

 

[dr.p]

The fact of common descent in human ancestry is not in dispute. It is only a question of which common ancestors we descended from. Biblical Adam and Eve or African Eve and her highly imaginative, speculative and mythical consort.

Thank you, but the context of my post isn't about the common ancestor of HUMANS, but of HUMANS AND APES.

 

[dr.p]

That's just a racist theory, Karl. Louis Armstrong wasn't related to any extinct Australopithicine apes in Africa. He was an All-American jazzman. Just because some of his ancestors may have likely been born in Africa doesn't mean that he was a descendent of a non-human species of apes. To imply such a thing is the result of subscribing to, and believing in neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution, Karl.

THIS is an illogical post.

...

(edited because inner-quote messed up somehow)

 

[Nightson]

"Whether or not the theory of evolution is racist has nothing to do with its veracity."

That' s true to the same extent that other supremacist views are true.

Umm, even if the theory of evolution is racist, which it isn't, seeing as it says we all came from a common ancestor, as opposed to saying for example that white people arose from some other primate which would be ridiculous, it still doesn't actually prove that the theory of evolution is false. Supremacist views aren't wrong just because they're supremacist views, they're still wrong of course, just for different reasons. The theory of evolution however is neither racist, supremicist, or been proven wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

Racism would be saying "Louis Armstrong is MORE closely related to Lucy than I am"

racism would be "Louis is inferior because he is more related to Lucy than I. neither of which is correct, since we are both equally related, and even if he were more closely related, then there would still be no justification for claiming inferiority.

 

[dr.p]

This:

just looks like the modern-day version of this:

Which is kind of confusing, considering the new "common ancestor" spin being put on it.

 

[Ellethidhren]

I did not bother to read the answers logged on this post due to lack of time tonight, but I can tell you that EVOLUTION is the greatest lie ever given to man.
Ask your teachers about the moon dust level after you read this article.

Man was created. Genesis 1:1 is the truth.

 

[Nightson]

Well the difference is that the modern one is to show the fact that gradual transitions of a slight sort occur and are readily apparent. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the form most closly resembling the common ancestor is one of the ones in the middle, and it splits off both ways. I could be wrong, I don't have the specifics of each fossil.

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

Ask your teachers about the moon dust level after you read this article.

I think I need to start a running tally of the number of times the moon dust level argument gets completely refuted.

 

[Jet Black]

Which is kind of confusing, considering the new "common ancestor" spin being put on it.

well the common ancestor bore more morphological similarity to other great apes than it did humans. so what is your point. oh with the skulls, ignoreing #1 which is just there for comparison, how do you think they are ordered?

 

[Elduran]

I did not bother to read the answers logged on this post due to lack of time tonight, but I can tell you that EVOLUTION is the greatest lie ever given to man.
Ask your teachers about the moon dust level after you read this article.

Man was created. Genesis 1:1 is the truth.

You should ask a real scientist about the moon dust argument some time, you will find that your article is completely mistaken.