Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

shinbits · Jan 29, 2006

I love how civil and mature this thread got all of a sudden!

Off topic, I love these types of debates, where it's with intelligent and level headed people.

Tomk80 said:
If we find evidence of this fusion (and we did), we have reason to believe common ancestry is correct.

Okay. If you or someone here could just paste a link showing, that evidence of this has, in fact, been found, then we can end this debate.

But if there is no evidence, then evolution still remains unproved.

Thank you.

Army of Juan · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
But if there is no evidence, then evolution still remains unproved.

If there was no evidence then it wouldn't be taught in schools or be considered the cornerstone of biology, and yet it is.

Edx · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
then evolution still remains unproved.

Why do you keep using that word, "prove" ?

gluadys · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
I love how civil and mature this thread got all of a sudden!

Off topic, I love these types of debates, where it's with intelligent and level headed people.

Okay. If you or someone here could just paste a link showing, that evidence of this has, in fact, been found, then we can end this debate.

But if there is no evidence, then evolution still remains unproved.

Thank you.

Try this

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html

Tomk80 · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
I love how civil and mature this thread got all of a sudden!

Off topic, I love these types of debates, where it's with intelligent and level headed people.

Okay. If you or someone here could just paste a link showing, that evidence of this has, in fact, been found, then we can end this debate.

In the quiet thread there are two posts that are very relevant in this regard.
Post #16 is written by scigirl and details the evidence for the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans.

Post #9 is a very good post written by Jet Black that treats some further evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other apes, namely chromosome banding patterns, endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) and transposons.

But if there is no evidence, then evolution still remains unproved.

Thank you.

Why do you keep using the word 'proved'? It has been explained to you in detail in previous posts why that word doesn't apply to anything done in science. Why are you ignoring those explanations? If you want to maintain a civil debate, it helps if you give people an indication that you actually read their posts.

shinbits · Jan 29, 2006

gluadys said:
Try this

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html

Okay. This link gives a lot of useful info on what evolution believes.

This link is very well done.

Before I go, I just have one quick concern, as ffar as what's mentioned in the link:

Evidence that human chromosome #2 resulted from the fusion of two chimp chromosomes
by Edward T. Babinski

So, evolution actually does assert that man evolved from apes?

Moreover, you can align the banding patterns of all the human and chimp chromosomes side by side and see how closely they match up (with the exceptions of simple inversions and translocations of particular bands). Even the two chromosomes in the chimp match up, band for band, when placed beside the longer fused chromosome #2 in human beings

For the longest time, many evolutionists have replied to the fact that there's nothing to link apes to humans in the fossil record, with the statement that we don't come from apes, but share a common ancestor.

So.......
Does evolution in fact, believe this?

On several other evolution threads, some evolutionists often say creationists who challenge the "man from apes" thing, and make a point with it, just don't understand that it simply shows common descent, not that we came from them.

This link says we come form apes, other creationists say "it's just common ancestry".

Which one is it?

ImmortalTechnique · Jan 29, 2006

humans ARE apes. the common ancesor we share with monkeys, gorillas, and OTHER APES was ALSO AN APE. we are NOT descended from any current species of primate (besides humans)

shinbits · Jan 29, 2006

ImmortalTechnique said:
humans ARE apes. the common ancesor we share with monkeys, gorillas, and OTHER APES was ALSO AN APE. we are NOT descended from any current species of primate (besides humans)

humans are primates, yes, but we are not apes.

The same way cheetahs are felines, but they are not tigers, which are also felines.

Elduran · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
humans are primates, yes, but we are not apes.

The same way cheetahs are felines, but they are not tigers, which are also felines.

Look up the biological definition of an ape and tell us what excludes humans from the taxenomic classification "ape". It will be quite enlightening.

gluadys · Jan 29, 2006

shinbits said:
humans are primates, yes, but we are not apes.

The same way cheetahs are felines, but they are not tigers, which are also felines.

In exactly the same way as cheetahs and tigers are both felines, chimpanzees and humans are both apes.

In exactly the same way as felines and canines are both carnivores, apes and monkeys are both primates.

Welcome to the nested hierarchy of common ancestry.

shinbits · Jan 29, 2006

Human beings aren't apes. Apes don't walk upright. Humans do.

anyway....

it seems no one on this thread wants me to use the word "proof".

Okay, I'll oblige.

Since there is no proof, but evidence that maybe humans DNA possibly came from some ape;

The fact that there are no human transitionals found is a huge concern.
Let's put this in perspective; If humans evolved over millions and millions of years, and we can't find even ONE fossil that links humans to apes, then this is something important to consider.

Nightson · Jan 30, 2006

shinbits said:
Human beings aren't apes. Apes don't walk upright. Humans do.

Take at look at Jet Black's signature first.

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

You did in fact name one of the things that distinguishes us from apes, but it doesn't mean we aren't still apes, it just means we're also humans.

Nightson · Jan 30, 2006

shinbits said:
The fact that there are no human transitionals found is a huge concern.
Let's put this in perspective; If humans evolved over millions and millions of years, and we can't find even ONE fossil that links humans to apes, then this is something important to consider.

If these aren't transitional, it should be easy to draw the line between human and ape, can you tell me which skulls are human, and which are ape?

Hint: A is a modern chimpanzee skull and N is a modern human skull.

Elduran · Jan 30, 2006

shinbits said:
Human beings aren't apes. Apes don't walk upright. Humans do.

Nightson said:
Take at look at Jet Black's signature first.

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

You did in fact name one of the things that distinguishes us from apes, but it doesn't mean we aren't still apes, it just means we're also humans.

And this is precisely why I suggested looking up the actual definition of "ape". Shinbits: you have shown that you're not interested in learning, just spouting out rubbish. However, if you would like to show otherwise, please take the definition above and demonstrate where humans would be excluded from the category "ape".

Here's your problem, just to simplify things. Science has a clearly defined definition of what an ape is. You have a definition of what an ape is. Unfortunately your definition is incorrect, and science therefore disagrees with you.

shinbits · Jan 30, 2006

ape (āp)

n.

1. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
2. A monkey.

Dannager · Jan 30, 2006

shinbits said:
ape (āp)

n.

Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

A monkey.

Unfortunately, you seem to be using an out-of-date definition that most dictionaries have not gotten around to correcting yet. The family Pongidae is no longer used in biology, and has instead been replaced with the Hylobatidae and Hominidae families, the latter of which includes humans. For more information on the modern definition of "ape", please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape.

Schroeder · Jan 30, 2006

NamesAreHardToPick said:
You shouldn't rather you should continue to read what I said and you'd understand what I meant by "won."

you won because you say science says there is solid evidence. of course i would not agree it is solid evidence.

Actually, no. My assertion was not saying "evolution is true because I say so." Rather I am stating that if one is to argue about evolution they should realize that the theory - if true - is supported by evidence, not appeals to authority.

a guess that is true. all hindges on whether it is "true" but it cant be proven and possible never can so it is based on what you wish to accept i guess.

Fallacy of non-sequitur.

is this just a way to avoid. how is it. some of us need to now why or how in more detail, but not to much.

This is either a lie or ignorance. Organisms change all the time, rather you claim that is only limited on the small scale. However, given the fact that we've seen evolution happen on say, the genus level, I'd really need to see solid evidence to say it can't happen otherwise.

Yes change, but when you put evolution in instead of change it makes it seem to support the theory, when it does not.

I have yet to say that. Rather if you are looking for a transition, look no further than the platypus. Even Creationists get tripped up on that one (as do some scientists). It doesn't really fit a solid category.

it has a category, there just isnt many left around. doesnt prove anything at all.

And how do you not know the organisms today aren't the transitions anyway? How do you know a reptile isn't the transition and something else is the actual organism. You're guilty of a huge fallacy of assumption because you are assuming that today we have solid groups of organisms and we should find transitions between them.

thats easy to say you could say that forever. so the assumtion goes both ways very easily.

Bugs. I swear, they are everywhere.

i was just curious i didnt know one way or the other.

Wow, I don't think I expected you too. But good job on letting that OP swing way over your head.

it didnt.

Ding-a-ling-a-ling. Nylon bug, the mutated T-Receptor cell in the CD4 gene of homo sapiens sapiens, E.Coli, etcetera.

the nylon bug does not prove evolution theory at all, or the others. it mere change, but they havent changed the species at all. just because it helps it survive doesnt mean it will help it reproduce better just give it a better shot at it.

I would say not being able to get HIV is a beneficial mutation. I would say being able to absorb a material which you were not able to absorb before is beneficial. I'd say HIV has mutated very beneficially toward itself (HIV superbug anyone?) in the fact that it can get around our medicine.

but dont you have to have a problem or another mutation that is harmfull in some way for you to not be able to get HIV, if not way do we not give this to ALL people so we can be imune from HIV. no viruses change not evolve they adapt, to survive but do they really change into something higher, or evolve into a non virus organism then onto something else. dont think they do.

I'm thinking the same thing. Maybe you should catch up, no?

i might if i have time, but it seems to be the same old stuff.

Elduran · Jan 30, 2006

shinbits said:
ape (āp)

n.

Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

A monkey.

Try looking up the biological definition instead, which is what I originally suggested. In fact, don't bother, it'a already been posted here from Jet Black's signature. Just for further clarity:

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

mark kennedy · Jan 30, 2006

Elduran said:
Try looking up the biological definition instead, which is what I originally suggested. In fact, don't bother, it'a already been posted here from Jet Black's signature. Just for further clarity:

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

Jet did not tell you about the Cerebellum or the frontal lobes did she. She did not mention the other genetic and anatomical differences and the definition is highly subjective anyway. The issue is not whether or not we have things in common with apes but whether or not we have a common ancestor, which we don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

LittleNipper · Jan 30, 2006

Has anyone ever considered what the skull of a 600 year old man might look like? And if not-----why not?

Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Disruptive influence

Legend

Well-Known Member

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Disruptive influence

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

Veteran

Disruptive influence

Natura non facit saltum

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency