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.
Plato called that "inside" that life or spirit, the "form" of the creature. Other philosophers call it the "idea" or the "essence" of the creature. ("Essence" means "being".) Is that what you mean by "kind"?
you say this because if you did not your theory would be wrong, because you use speciation as an examble though it does nothing for your theory. How would a monkey have sex, and how is it different then a humans, Where may i ask is the fossils of a huminod with all hair and only part upright, the bones neccary for walking consistently. none, You have to change all the charictoristic of all animals at the same time for it to ever work well enough for there to be a chance for reproduction. This is not possible at all. your theory is dead. Do apes have the same sex organs as us, and use them the same, and how did they mutate this correctly so to reproduce. I dont think any mammals have external sex organs like we do. Any change even slight with this would be a reproduction disadvantage. or am i way off here.gluadys said:But no one is saying that, Jay. We all recognize that gorillas, humans, and chimps are different species. But they are all in the same family, while monkeys are a different family.
No, monkeys, gorillas, chimps and humans do all belong to the same class. We belong to the class called mammals---along with a lot of other mammals like bears, horses, armadillos, etc. We all belong to the same order (called Primates) along with gibbons, lemurs and tarsiers.
We belong in our own species, but we do not belong in a separate class of our own, because we have mammalian traits that put us in the mammal class.
You mean the fossil hominids? We have plenty of them.W Jay Schroeder said:Where may i ask is the fossils of a huminod with all hair and only part upright, the bones neccary for walking consistently.
More or less, yes. Though I don't think the great apes are into piercing them like we are ... Prince Alberts, ouch ...Do apes have the same sex organs as us, and use them the same,
Um, then apparently you don't know much about mammals.I dont think any mammals have external sex organs like we do.
It's safe to say that you're way off.or am i way off here.
your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course. If you need it to fit your thinking you will make it fit. Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside. And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. Why would this happen if it doesnt with them. This would be a disadvantage for us would it not, so a bad mutation survived that is supposed to be weeded out by natural selection. Also a female would have to change correctly as well at the same time. slow change cant help because once there is a slight disadvantage it can not reproduce. And both genes from both male and female have to been simialr or it wont form anything. which is why we cant mix sex cells with different animals and get some wierd animal. The only thiing sexually similar between us and animals is it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and the male gives the female his sperm and the two make one. You all simplify it to work. you never take into account all the steps and functions reguired to do one thing, breath, concieve, pump blood, expell waste, ect. They all work together not seperate. So they have to evolve together, which is impossible even slowly.Dennis Moore said:You mean the fossil hominids? We have plenty of them.
More or less, yes. Though I don't think the great apes are into piercing them like we are ... Prince Alberts, ouch ...
Um, then apparently you don't know much about mammals.
It's safe to say that you're way off.
Your opinion has been shown to be faulty before. Remember when you said there couldn't be any half-fish/half-amphibians or half-amphibian/half-reptiles? You kept saying that even after I showed some to you!W Jay Schroeder said:your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course.
And if you don't want it to, it won't. But are you willing to test it?If you need it to fit your thinking you will make it fit.
Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside.Yes.
Except that we have seen that some apes have very deep, long-term relationships with their lovers.And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. Why would this happen if it doesnt with them.
It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.This would be a disadvantage for us would it not, so a bad mutation survived that is supposed to be weeded out by natural selection. Also a female would have to change correctly as well at the same time. slow change cant help because once there is a slight disadvantage it can not reproduce. And both genes from both male and female have to been simialr or it wont form anything. which is why we cant mix sex cells with different animals and get some wierd animal.
There is no difference between you and animals, because humans ARE animals! And incidentally, many animals, even including some vertebrates, reproduce asexually.The only thiing sexually similar between us and animals is it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and the male gives the female his sperm and the two make one.
No it isn't, obviously, or things like Dachshunds and Shi-tzus could never have been bred from wolves. Can't you be right about anything ever?You all simplify it to work. you never take into account all the steps and functions reguired to do one thing, breath, concieve, pump blood, expell waste, ect. They all work together not seperate. So they have to evolve together, which is impossible even slowly.
How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place. the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man. Oue skulls now look different from each other. Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that. they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.Aron-Ra said:Your opinion has been shown to be faulty before. Remember when you said there couldn't be any half-fish/half-amphibians or half-amphibian/half-reptiles? You kept saying that even after I showed some to you!
And if you don't want it to, it won't. But are you willing to test it?
Whatever. with there lovers is hardly the right term maybe mates but not lovers. just the type of tricky wording useily used. Their is no passion or love invovled with ape sex. Simplified againYes.
Except that we have seen that some apes have very deep, long-term relationships with their lovers.
whatever again, sorry i'm not perfect like evolutionist are.It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.
Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not, I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts. I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies, well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.There is no difference between you and animals, because humans ARE animals! And incidentally, many animals, even including some vertebrates, reproduce asexually.
I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human. how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together. No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.No it isn't, obviously, or things like Dachshunds and Shi-tzus could never have been bred from wolves. Can't you be right about anything ever?
MarkT said:To see it from my point of view it's best to begin at the beginning. You have to imagine or hypothesize a kind, a sort, a large division like a phylum or a class of animals that were created and imagine a number of families within the kind.
Only you can't sort by morphology this time. You have to sort by the way things move ie. swim, fly, swarm, crawl, walk on all fours, walk on two feet and then you can sort by the appearance of the characters that allow them to move about.
But for the purpose of establishing bloodlines and relationships, you have to begin with the kind.
You can't just sort by characters.
A kind is a distinct sort, a division, the original group that all members of it's kind belong to but it doesn't mean they are all related by blood. A kind is just a division.
The family would be the original parent population, I think.
The outward appearance is the reflection of the inward animal; the spirit or life of the thing. You have to imagine its' kind and then you can apply the principles of speciation.
And then you can figure the parent population represented 100% of the gene pool and characters are lost through speciation and natural selection. You start with 100% and lose characters and abilities. Animals fill a niche. Animals go extinct over time.
But monkeys are related to chimps by blood. You can see it in their movements, in what they eat, in their faces, in their bodies, in their feet, in their habitat, in their ability to climb trees and hang onto branches, in the sounds they make.
They can't be related to humans who walk on two feet, who can think logically and rationally, who can invent and create, who don't have a thing about them that looks like it was inherited from the monkey-kind.
MarkT said:Also, I think the distinction that species (by definition) can't breed is a phony one. It seems too contrived. Obviously they don't or can't for some reason. I don't know why but I suspect it has more to do with mutation than speciation.
MarkT said:Essentially the idea of an invisible form is implied but I wouldn't take Plato's idea literally for animals. It would apply to people however.
For animals, I just mean the life of the kind.
It occurs to me, as life is in the blood, you might examine the blood of an animal to see if a blood relationship exists.
It's obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Nor, obviously, did you spend any time at all studying the links. My opinion, of course.W Jay Schroeder said:your fossils of huminods was rather amussing and shows the lenght of stupidity to which evolutionist will go to. My opinion of course.
What are you babbling on about? Do you now purport to be an expert in ape sex, too? And are you as knowledgeble in ape sex as you are in evolution?Well i did not want to go into great detail on the matter, but do they have the penis like ours that is not covered as thiers is. As in not covered with flesh and always on the outside. And a slight change from this would cause reproductive disadvantages. Apes do not really court a mate do they and they are not one mate bound, sadly we are not either but this explains all the stds that are out there. [and on and on and on ... ]
What is a "quess"? For that matter, what is an "assumtion"?W Jay Schroeder said:How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place.
Wrong.the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man.
Assuming here you mean "ape" and "human," well .. yeah. That's what evolution does.Oue skulls now look different from each other.
Belies an incorrect understanding of evolution.Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that.
Wrong again.they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.
Wrong. Or do you deny that you're a mammal?Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not,
Fallacy. Animals are not defined by their use of instinct. Evolution does not classify humans as animals based on instinct. Once again, you do not understand what you're talking about.I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts.
None of which is used to define "animal" or "non-animal."I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies,
Obviously, and obviously.well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.
If you knew anything about evolution, you wouldn't ask such strange questions. The only assumption and imagination I see at work here are in your perception of evolution--for your perception of evolution certainly isn't based on knowledge or science.I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human. how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together. No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.
You can't, which is why creationism is unsupported. Evolution on the other hand is not an assumption, but the result of considerable study of many many supportive facts, something creationism has none of.W Jay Schroeder said:How do prove something wrong that is just a quess or assumtion in the first place.
That's like trying to decide if you want to go to Paris or France. Paris is in France, and men are in the larger taxonomic category called apes. In fact, the word, "hominid" literally means "great ape". It also means "humanoid". Get a clue.the fossils of huminods is either a ape or man.
No they don't. For example, which one is this?Oue skulls now look different from each other.
I already did explain that in the case of fish-amphibians, and I just posted another explanation of it for amphibian-reptiles. But why don't you explain to me how someone can be half-American and half-Californian. Because that's about what you have with the ape-man claim.Explain to me how you can have a half this and half that. they share traits but its still one or the other, same know as before.
Wrong again, of course. Are all you positions based on ignorance propelled only by prejudice? Must you paint yourself as better than everything else? Bonobo sex has been observed to be quite passionate. But I wasn't even talking about sex. I was talking about love and relationships. I specifically had in mind Koko's mourning for her lost "mate" Mike.Whatever. with there lovers is hardly the right term maybe mates but not lovers. just the type of tricky wording useily used. Their is no passion or love invovled with ape sex. Simplified again.
The point is that your ignorance is deliberately maintained.It is not only clear that you don't know what you're talking about, it is very clear that you don't want to know what you're talking about.whatever again, sorry i'm not perfect like evolutionist are.
If you can read, then you should have read where I explained what an animal is, which proved that you are one. You still have instincts. Other animals can love, and reason and build, and some of them can even understand language and symbols. Being able to create fantasies is a requirment of creationists. But you can still be an animal whether you fantasize or not. And many other animals obviously do fantasize, and you can see that in the noises and movements they make when they're sleeping. Now get over yourself and learn something. You are an animal by every definition of the word.Whatever, if you want to be a animal be one I'm not, I clearly show signs that I'm not an animal because i do not live by instincts. I also love and can read and write and reason and build and have a creative imagination to create fantasies, well maybe iI cant spell. I can go on.
Can you mix Californians and Americans? Does anyone even know what would result if a human inseminated a chimpanzee? Could modern humans have interbred with Australopithecines, if they were still around? Probably!I was refering to mixing dogs and cats or a ape and human.
Because not all apes are human, but all humans are apes. There is no, repeat NO, significant difference in morphology, physiology, or genetics between us and fossil apes or chimpanzees.how may i ask could ape be like a human with out all the right things evolving together.
Obviously not. Nothing I wrote of in my thread was assumed or imagined. Yes there are gaps between every two items of evidence. But with creationism, there is nothing but gap, a complete void without any substance of any kind. That is not the case with evolution, and our perspectives aren't driven by prejudice or fear like yours are. We also tend to be right about somethings sometimes, where you've never been right about anything yet.No I may noit know everything about the theory but i know what is assumption and imagination.
That point could be argued 2 different ways. You are just looking at it from a different perspective than Schroeder. Sorry that you can't see over your own.
MaynardGKrebbs said:Yes, but one side is backed up by reason, logic, and all lines of evidence while the other has only personal incredulity and primitive myths that have already been falsified. Obviously one perspective is right and one is wrong.......
Tashena said:Honestly, I believe that it takes more effort in believing that we evolved from something trillions of years ago than it is to believe that a loving God sent his son to be the savior of the world. Like I said.... it can be argued 2 different ways
MaynardGKrebbs said:Yes, but one side is backed up by reason, logic, and all lines of evidence while the other has only personal incredulity and primitive myths that have already been falsified. Obviously one perspective is right and one is wrong.......
JohnR7 said:You are deceived, there are a lot more myths in science than what your willing to admit. Also, myths of science continue to prevail long after they have been falsified and shown not to be true.
Gracchus said:You're projecting again, JohnR7.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?