• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How did apes evolvle into humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
L'Anatra said:
I'm starting to wonder if you're not racist, John. You talk about it all the time.

Being interested in, and concerned about, evolutionist theories of multiple human races or species, doesn't necessarily or automatically qualify or characterize one as a racist, considering the following evolutionist concern:
African Eve theory only partially accounts for the ancestral origins of the current human race since theoretical evolutionists claim she is only the ancestral "mother" of all living persons today because they can’t seem to account for the ‘fathers’ of her many racially diverse children. In order to account for modern racial diversity, evolutionist theory must assume that African Eve had fertilized sexual intercourse with several racially diverse males of either other racial groups or ‘species’ from Africa.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
john crawford said:
The dino=bird theory of evolution is just as bad as the ape=man theory since there is no fossilized evidence of either. The important thing to remember about theoretical evolutionism is that extinct species of dinosaurs, birds, apes and humans have no civil rights, but living members of the current human race do.

Any creationist can file a civil lawsuit against theoretical racism being taught in public schools. Whether they eventually win their case or not will depend on how many similar lawsuits have been filed.

Oh won't somebody think of the prokaryote?!!??

hlovejoy4fs.gif


Nice appeal to emotion there, but you have nothing backing up any of your statements. Not only that, your logic is horrible. If every white person filed lawsuits to keep minorities segragated, do you think that they will win their cases?

It's so sad to see people lie and deceive for Christ.

Transitional fossils of birds and dinos
http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dinobirds29yr.gif
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
African Eve theory only partially accounts for the ancestral origins of the current human race since theoretical evolutionists claim she is only the ancestral "mother" of all living persons today because they can’t seem to account for the ‘fathers’ of her many racially diverse children. In order to account for modern racial diversity, evolutionist theory must assume that African Eve had fertilized sexual intercourse with several racially diverse males of either other racial groups or ‘species’ from Africa.

John, why do you keep telling lies about the theory of evolution. This comment alone disqualifies you from speaking about the subject. It is simply absurd to make comments like this. You really should read some more books on the subject. It is clear that you have some strange misconceptions about the subject that could be cleared up with a bit of research.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Tomk80 said:
john crawford said:
BWAHAHAHAHA. John, really. What you are saying here is so utterly stupid it just blew up a series of irony meters. And I didn't even connect them yet! I need read no further. You have no idea what you are talking about, both when it comes to what evolution entails and when it comes to what racism entails.

lol, if I call everyone the same, including me, I'm a racist. :D lol. Okay, this is really the funniest thing I've read all day and it probably is the funniest thing I'm gonna read the rest of the day. And that's saying a lot, because I was planning on reading Terry Pratchett's 'Good Omens' tonight.:D

Your argument is basically with Christian professor of Bible, theology, and apologetics, Marvin L. Lubenow's thesis as stated and demonstrated in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," not me.

Of course, if you wish to discuss or debate the differences between the racial diversity of the human race and the different species they are divided into by human evolutionists with me, feel free.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
Tomk80 said:
Your argument is basically with Christian professor of Bible, theology, and apologetics, Marvin L. Lubenow's thesis as stated and demonstrated in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," not me.

Did Lubenow make this claim or is this just something you made up out of thin air? If it was Lubenow, get your money back.

evolutionist theory must assume that African Eve had fertilized sexual intercourse with several racially diverse males of either other racial groups or ‘species’ from Africa.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
I honestly think John is racist. His argument continues to create some imaginary link between Africans and monkeys.

Imagine if he was giving his speech at a university full of African American biologists. How well do you think they would take it that you link their studies to the racial oppressions their people have been through? Do you think that if evolution was truly racists, why would African Americans even support it?

Just for fun, link to some famous African American biologists, as well as many other African American scientists.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mcbrown/display/faces.html
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
RoboMastodon said:
john crawford said:
Let's see...
Humans...
Animalia (we are animals)
Chordata (we are chordates)
Mammalia (we are mammals)
Primates (we are primates)
Hominoidea (we are apes)
Hominidae (we are great apes)
Homo (we are homonids)
sapiens (we are humans)

yup... we're apes.

As exemplary a case of scientific racism as might be expected of, and demonstrated by, most ideological supporters and proponents of the racial theory of the human race's biological descent from non-human primates in Africa.

By arbitrarily classifying all human beings under the superficial and artificial racial taxons of hominoidae and hominidae, theoretical evolutionists think they can racially subdivide human beings and their 'human' ancestors into sub-human sub-divisions and classifactions of humanity based on racist notions and theories of human evolution from non-human African ape ancestors in Africa.

Ho, ho, ho. That's like believing in Santa Clause. It serves a purpose.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
john crawford said:
By arbitrarily classifying all human beings under the superficial and artificial racial taxons of hominoidae and hominidae
And here we have it.
Mr Crawford has demonstrated that he knows more than all the biologists in the world.

Truly, they are all idiots who are not worthy of the title scientist

After all, since their classifications are based on mere whim, mere personal convenience, or possibly by random chance (do they flip a coin?), then they are all truly unworthy of being called scientists

Bravo Mr Crawford. I expect that with your far superior insight, biologists across the world will hang their heads in shame


/joke
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
John, why do you keep telling lies about the theory of evolution. This comment alone disqualifies you from speaking about the subject. It is simply absurd to make comments like this. You really should read some more books on the subject. It is clear that you have some strange misconceptions about the subject that could be cleared up with a bit of research.

My research reveals that African Eve couldn't have sired the human race all by herself and must have had some male sexual partners. Since theoretical evolutionism has completely failed to identify the race or species of those male sexual partners, creationists like Lubenow and myself are fully entitled to question the racial validity of African Eve theory.

Do you know who the 'father' of the current human race is? If so, please let us know since I'm sure we will all be grateful for the 'scientific' information about both the 'mother and father' of the human race.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
john crawford said:
Did Lubenow make this claim or is this just something you made up out of thin air? If it was Lubenow, get your money back.

evolutionist theory must assume that African Eve had fertilized sexual intercourse with several racially diverse males of either other racial groups or ‘species’ from Africa.

Who was African Eve's husband then, or was she even married? How do you know she didn't bear the children of several different men who may have been of different racial backgrounds or of an entirely different and separate species?

Since theoretical evolutionists don't know the answers to these questions, how could you, I or anyone else "scientifically" know who our common ancestors were without just blindly believing and trusting in some theory of human evolutionism or divine creation?
 
Upvote 0

Tazi

Regular Member
Feb 22, 2005
3,081
14
BC Canada
✟25,797.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jet Black said:
the male that mated with Mitochondrial Eve was a human. we know this categorically.

Who on earth is Mitochondrial Eve? That sounds a little strange..How do you know categorically there was a mitochondria named Eve? Did she introduce herself?

For the record, I dont believe man evolved from apes. Im sure some things evolved and changed but isn't ape DNA a little different from humans? That means they aren't of the same family...
 
Upvote 0

Grengor

GrenAce
May 10, 2005
3,038
55
36
Oakley, California
✟26,498.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Republican
Um, for the record, we didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor, but were about 98% identical in DNA to chimps, though I'm reading something that says its 99.4%, though there's so much information in that .6 percent. But total, we're extremely close in relation.
 
Upvote 0

Tazi

Regular Member
Feb 22, 2005
3,081
14
BC Canada
✟25,797.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Grengor said:
Um, for the record, we didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor, but were about 98% identical in DNA to chimps, though I'm reading something that says its 99.4%, though there's so much information in that .6 percent. But total, we're extremely close in relation.

Close but no cigar... :wave:
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
Tazi said:
Who on earth is Mitochondrial Eve? That sounds a little strange..How do you know categorically there was a mitochondria named Eve? Did she introduce herself?
Mitochondria are organelles in each cell of your body that contain a little bit of their own DNA. sections of this DNA do nothing, and mutate at the standard background rate. Now the interesting thing about mitochondria, is that they are only inherited along the female line i.e. all of your children will have only your mitochondria, and none of my children will have mitochondria since I am male, they will all have my partner's mitochondria. now what this means is that all people alive will have their mitochondria from the one woman somewhere in the past who had an unbroken female line (statistically there will only be one, I'm not going to go into the maths here) and by looking at all the slight differences in the mitochondria in the people today, we can work out how long ago she lived. We cannot do this with most of the nuclear DNA, since it is all mixed up between parents as a result of sex - with the exception of the Y chromosome which is only inherited along the male line. we can do a similar analysis with the Y chromosome and find a "y chromosome adam") incidentally these two are not contemporaries - the lived thousands of years apart. Granted Mt Eve will have had children with a human male, but none of his genetic legacy is "obvious" anymore, since the only thing that we can actually determine that we got from eve, is her mitochondria.
For the record, I dont believe man evolved from apes.
Apes are mammals with forward pointing eyes, opposable thumbs, flexible fingers, no tails and so on. so we are by definition apes.
Im sure some things evolved and changed but isn't ape DNA a little different from humans?
That means they aren't of the same family...

only slightly, there are a couple of percent difference between us and the most similar of the other apes - the chimpanzees. Gorillas are a bit more different, and Orang Utan are more different still. What is interesting are many of the similarities between humans and the other great apes, such as we all share broken genes that are broken in exactly the same way, i.e. the vitamin-c-synthesis gene is broken in all great apes in the same way (though there are additional mutations on top) and we share many olfactory (smell) genes that are broken in the same way, and in a pattern that matches the raw percentage genetic similarities. The banding patterns of the chromosomes has also changes slightly, and again, the differences match the raw percentages. we share Endogenous retroviral sequences (this is when a virus enters your DNA, breaks and remains there) in the same loci as the other great apes (the same position is very important, as the odds of two organisms having an ERV inserted in the same place is billions to one) and again, in a pattern that matches the similarities. While we are different to chimps, both chimps and sumans are equally as different to Gorillas. and while the three of us are different, we are all equally as different as to Orang Utan - again this matches the percentage difference.

sorry if this is all alot of info, and sorry if you don't understand it all - please don't feel overwhelmed by it, and if you have any questions, just ask. I don't mind answering :) for a more detailed look at some of this stuff, here is a longer post I made on this:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10751034&postcount=9
 
Upvote 0

yombalula

Active Member
Jul 21, 2005
59
1
74
✟187.00
Faith
Tazi said:
For the record, I dont believe man evolved from apes. Im sure some things evolved and changed but isn't ape DNA a little different from humans? That means they aren't of the same family...

Chimps are closer in ther DNA to man then they are to any other animal, including Gorillas, and orangutans. They are so close that some scientists have proposed putting then in Genus Homo.

Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes while man has 23. But within human chromosome 2 is found the chimp's 2p and 2q

So according to the evidence, we and the chimp are very closely related
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.