Looking for all the missing links

[Astridhere]

Dover Soul says

You only think like that because of how you were raised, you imagine that you have a relationship with an ? I don't know what you imagine it is, but I know [and you must know deep down] that it is a relationship with your imagination, why? because there is nothing there other than what you imagine is there, to say that something is there is to delude yourself.

You may think what you like. You have resorted to sidewinding now. Can you or can you not, offer a definition of 'human'?

The answer is ...YOU CANNOT!

So I guess you think that a child raised with dogs is not human, a child not told about Gods while being raised is not human, I had heard that people believed in Gods but I had no idea why or even how they managed to do it, it was beyond my imagination, I remember trying to understand why they would even need to do it.

The definition of anything is about majority, not exceptions. You are now resorting to being silly for the sake of having something to say regardless of the fact that your comment has not progressed this point.

Once upon a time being human was tied to bipedalism. Well that's out the window now. Now evos have no definition of what it is to be human. You do not have a morphological descriptor nor a genetic one that has any application in differentiating mankind from other beasts.

Evolutionists have no idea what it is to be human. They make it up as they go along in flavour of the month style, don't you?

Hence my definition is better than anything you have to offer so far.

You can refute me on this point only by offering an applicable definition of human. All asides are testimony that in reality evolutionists have no clue what it is to be classified as human.

 

[Astridhere]

According to many Christians on here, I clearly don't understand god otherwise I would be a believer!
Can you demostrate that a chimp cannot understand such a concept?


I don't live in a group.
This is not being silly, humans can live alone.


Not at all.
Nothing I said implies to the truth of evolution - you are mistaken.Clearly we are different from other apes - on that we have no argument.
genetic evidence suggests that they are our strongest living relative.
If I can't do it, why don't you do it so I can pick holes in yours?
You have already stated tha you are not happy with any 'evos' definition, so you have already stated that you would refute it before I have written it.
People will pick holes in any definiton, there is no need to imply a bias.
If 'evo' is the only box to which you can assign me, then maybe you should stop looking at people's labels and look at people.
What a suprise, a religious person with a superiority complex!


Better educated people than me have already made good definitions which you have already rejected - I reject yours for many reasons, the main one of course is that it requires an understanding of god.
This is a ludicrous basis for defining a human being, and I supsect that you know this.

Well you had best produce one of these 'good definitions' because I have never ever seen one. They only exist in your imagination and on your wish list.

You seem to feel that straining any point gives you some sort of come back. Well it doesn't. You know what a ghost is regardless of your belief in them. Regardless the majority of the human race have higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. This is what makes us human and differentiates mankind from other primates.

The bottom line is that you have no definition of human. Hence mine outdoes yours because you have none.

 

[juvenissun]

Could a human and a chimp be positively identified by DNA analysis?
If so, can we see the "transitional form" of DNA among apes?

Do we have enough data to answer my question? I doubt it.

 

[Guy1]

Could a human and a chimp be positively identified by DNA analysis?
If so, can we see the "transitional form" of DNA among apes?

Do we have enough data to answer my question? I doubt it.

I believe we call the form Lucy, if I'm not mistaken. Happy?

 

[Freodin]

There is no support for that statement.

Not quite correct. I just didn't give support for this statement...

 

[Split Rock]

Could a human and a chimp be positively identified by DNA analysis?
If so, can we see the "transitional form" of DNA among apes?

Do we have enough data to answer my question? I doubt it.

Yes, one can distinguish chimp DNA from human DNA. There are enough differences that are characteristic. What do you mean by "transitional form" of DNA ??

 

[SkyWriting]

Wrong!

Animals have been seen to risk their own lives and even die for members of the ame species, and others.

Animals on the whole also react and choose.

The reason that there is actually so little to seperate us from other animals is...... wait for it........... WE ARE ANIMALS!

It's fun to claim that with capitols to make it proof. You must be right.

 

[Jazer]

but I know [and you must know deep down] that it is a relationship with your imagination, why? because there is nothing there other than what you imagine is there, to say that something is there is to delude yourself.

This is reasonable. IF there is NO God, then what people "imagine" to be God must be a product of their imagination. So good Science would demand that we put this to the test. First of all the Bible is 100% accurate. That would mean when the Mighty Casey steps up to Bat he hits 100%. Second of all does not science have the same imagination? Then why are they not even in the same ball park when it comes to accuracy? The Bible has remained true and unchanged for 3500 years. Science tends to be outdated in 3 years time. Even my explaination of the Bible, based on Science well be outdated in three years. Yet the Bible after 3500 years has remained consistant, steadfast and truth. You can depend on the Bible. Our Religious traditions do not always hold up so well. The earth is older then 6,000 years. Noah's flood was a "local" flood and not a world wide flood. Yet the Bible remains steadfast and true, even if new information in Science helps us to have a better understanding of the Bible. The Bible is new for each generation and each generation finds that the Bible can be applied to them. That is why the Bible is the Living word of God.

 

[verysincere]

NailsII wrote: The reason that there is actually so little to seperate us from other animals is...... wait for it........... WE ARE ANIMALS!
​

It's fun to claim that with capitols to make it proof. You must be right.

It's fun to claim that capitals give you something to claim about---so that you can ignore the rest of the post which provided valid reasoning which you couldn't refute.

It is indeed fascinating that so many people hate being called animals. Of course, they tend to hate being called APES even more!

Richard Dawkins' GOD DELUSION documentary has an interesting scene where shortly after his interview of Ted Haggard (pre-scandal), he and his crew were in the parking lot packing up to leave. Suddenly, Haggard drove up to them in a rage and started yelling at them to "get off my property or I'll have you arrested!" and "You called my children animals!" Dawkins was baffled by that but later on he decided it was simply because he had expressed his affirmation of the theory of evolution at some point in the interview. I guess Haggard thought about evolution for a while and realized the implication: Humans are animals! I bet he would have really hit the ceiling if Dawkins had said that humans were a type of ape!

You can watch the incident at:
The God Delusion (Root of all Evil) - YouTube

[The entire documentary is quite interesting. Whether one agrees with the documentary or not, there's a lot in it to help one understand a common perception of religion and why it can be dangerous.]

.

 

[Guy1]

First of all the Bible is 100% accurate.

No

That would mean when the Mighty Casey steps up to Bat he hits 100%.

I don't know who Casey is but this sounds like some made-up batter. Nobody can hit 100% (Then again I know nothing of sports so I could be wrong).

Second of all does not science have the same imagination?

Yes, but science actually tests it's imagination to see how much of it is plausible.

Then why are they not even in the same ball park when it comes to accuracy?

Let me rephrase the question into something more accurate: Why is the bible not in the same ballpark as them when it comes to accuracy?

The Bible has remained true and unchanged for 3500 years.It's neither true nor unchanged.

Do you read up on biblical history? Council of Nicea, council of Trent, then that one splinter religious group a king had formed when he wanted to get a divorce, translations, many other political motivations ...

Science tends to be outdated in 3 years time.

Often less than that. It depends what you're talking about really.

Even my explaination of the Bible, based on Science well be outdated in three years.

It was outdated several hundred years ago.

Yet the Bible after 3500 years has remained consistant, steadfast and truth.

So you deem stoning adulterers to be acceptable?

You can depend on the Bible.

It's true. If you want to know how to be a good person one must go to the bible to find out exactly what not to do to other people.

Our Religious traditions do not always hold up so well. The earth is older then 6,000 years. Noah's flood was a "local" flood and not a world wide flood.

So you're not even listening to your own book at this point?

Yet the Bible remains steadfast and true, even if new information in Science helps us to have a better understanding of the Bible.

It does not help that actually. It just kinda tramples over almost anything that's said in the bible without even trying

The Bible is new for each generation and each generation finds that the Bible can be applied to them. That is why the Bible is the Living word of God.

No and no. Though if you can find us the ToE in the bible that would definitely convince a lot of people.

(My apologies to verysincere for my language relating to the bible. I don't know about yours, but the one they're reading clearly does not like reality.)

 

[verysincere]

Will you grow up and quit acting like a child? Having a conversation with you is like being on the playground in grade school. That is why I left public school to get away from nonsense like this. That is why the Principal and Director of my high school excaped Germany before the Holocaust. To get away from what went down in Germany. That is why our Dorm Father Pole Volted over the fense to get out of that concerntration camp he was in.

So the Principal pole vaulted his way out of Nazi Germany because there was too much childish behavior going on. Hmmm. I think you might want to talk with him again sometime. Somehow I think you missed the reason why he "excaped"!


.

 

[Jazer]

I bet he would have really hit the ceiling if Dawkins had said that humans were a type of ape!

Actually it is Evos that have the problem, because they do not want to accept that Humans cook their food and Apes do not cook their food. Humans do not need a strong jaw bone and jaw muscle the way Apes do. Humans do not need to spend so much time and energy to digest their food. Humans have less disease because cooked food is more healthy to eat. The people that claim raw food is better then cooked food are wrong. Unless your on a diet, because raw food is more difficult to digest. So Mr Sincere, did the common ancestor that Humans are said to have evolved from eat meat or just veggies? Did Erectus and Neanderthal cook their food?

 

[Jazer]

So the Principal pole vaulted his way out of Nazi Germany because there was too much childish behavior going on.

It was our Dorm Father. I think he was angry because the guard knocked one of his eyes out with the butt of his rifle. He told other people, he never told me that stuff. But I was in good enough with him that on Friday night he would let me and a few others watch a movie on his little TV set in his room. We would order Pizza. TV's were rare back then.

I was there when he told the Pole Vault story. He did not tell me the story, he told my friend Mike. You can ask Mike, the school still has a bit of a community going on Facebook. About 20 of us are still in contact with each other. Our Principal is still alive in his 90's and living in Flordia. I have not been there, but others have gone to visit him. He was our teacher for Ancient History. We used James Breasted's book for our text book. So this is the man that got me interested in the study of Ancient History back in 1968.

 

[verysincere]

Actually it is Evos that have the problem, because they do not want to accept that Humans cook their food and Apes do not cook their food.

Yes, evolutionary biologists are very upset and confounded by the fact that humans cook food and OTHER APES do not.

It has been a big issue for many years.


.

 

[Jazer]

3500 years? OK if you say so, you know a lot of the stories in the Bible were taken from even older books and older stories.
But you already knew that didn't you?

Yes, Moses was raised the Son of a Pharaoh. So he had the best education you can get at that time. Moses used Papyrus, but the experts say that he copied from clay tablets. After he left Egypt he was taught by his father in law Jethro. Abraham also had the best education you could get at the time he was alive. Although the final verdict is not yet in, we can be reasonably sure that Amenhotep II was the pharaoh of the Exodus. The common person was said to be more of a slave back then. But when you excavate the city of the labors that did the building, they had a good life. Very nice homes with lots of pottery and all the latest fashions and styles. There was a lot of good stuff on their trash pile that was just out of style and not wore out like you find with more poor people. So the Hollywood version of Egypt at the time may not be as accurate as more current research & study shows. If you remember your Bible. The Jews at the time in Egypt were making bricks. They were told that they were going to have to provide more of their own materials for the bricks. They complained that would reduce them to slave labor. So Moses went to the Pharaoh to plead their case. He said he was sent by God and did not really want to go. But took his brother Aaron along to help because he had problems with his speech. After they left Egypt they complained because they said their life in Egypt was better then the life they then had living out in the desert.

Amenhotep II pharaoh of the Exodus was said to be very athletic.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, one can distinguish chimp DNA from human DNA. There are enough differences that are characteristic. What do you mean by "transitional form" of DNA ??

If so, can we define human by a few precise descriptions which characterize human DNA?

I don't know. Can each species of animal (include human) be defined (identified) by its DNA characters? So that if we check the DNA samples, we can tell this one is taken from a monkey and that one is from a horse.

My guess is not, even I don't know why. Do we have something like the horse gene, the monkey gene, and the human gene?

 

[verysincere]

So that if we check the DNA samples, we can tell this one is taken from a monkey and that one is from a horse.

Yes. Genomic scientists can do so.

Your "guess" that they cannot was a guess that was wrong.


.

 

[Jro]

If so, can we define human by a few precise descriptions which characterize human DNA?

I don't know. Can each species of animal (include human) be defined (identified) by its DNA characters? So that if we check the DNA samples, we can tell this one is taken from a monkey and that one is from a horse.

My guess is not, even I don't know why. Do we have something like the horse gene, the monkey gene, and the human gene?

I'm actually involved in a project doing just that. You can use microsatellite analysis to distinguish between species. It's not foolproof, but then, neither are our species concepts.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/5867.full

Cool paper using msat analysis for cryptic species differentiation.

 

[NailsII]

If so, can we define human by a few precise descriptions which characterize human DNA?

I don't know. Can each species of animal (include human) be defined (identified) by its DNA characters? So that if we check the DNA samples, we can tell this one is taken from a monkey and that one is from a horse.

My guess is not, even I don't know why. Do we have something like the horse gene, the monkey gene, and the human gene?

DNA is DNA - it is just a chemical which forms long, stable chains.
Virtually every species does have genetic sequences that are unique to them.

 

[Split Rock]

If so, can we define human by a few precise descriptions which characterize human DNA?

I don't know. Can each species of animal (include human) be defined (identified) by its DNA characters? So that if we check the DNA samples, we can tell this one is taken from a monkey and that one is from a horse.

My guess is not, even I don't know why. Do we have something like the horse gene, the monkey gene, and the human gene?

Jro answered the question better than I could have. (BTW microsatellite DNA are non-coding short repeated sequences). There is no specific "horse gene" rather, one can find certain markers that are unique to horses, just like with different human groups.