Humans DID NOT come from Apes????

reply to post by KaginD


tink thaat's intresting, look for the others with 23.

Just something to point out, though not Directly related, I think it provides a clue, look up the origins of domesticated dogs, they are all from the same ancestor from Chihuahua to Great Dane, they are all the same.......

Ever tried to have a pet (pure bred) Wolf ?????

Originally posted by thedigirati

Ever tried to have a pet (pure bred) Wolf ?????

I've never seen a wolf. But this guy has:
www.therocknrolldogtrainer.com...

Evolution is one of the hokiest theories ever. It is also typically presented as a "bait & switch". It can be proven that evolution, at least on a certain scale, does happen, and that's the "bait". The theory that life as we know it today evolved from a single celled organism; that is the "switch".

You see things like this all time. For example, someone might say "Evolution is just a theory", and someone else will holler "No, evolution is a fact!" Another pet response is "Gravity is also just a theory!"

This is classic bait & switch. Again, evolution is indeed a fact, but the theories about what it has accomplished are simply theories. The same goes for gravity. Gravity is a fact, but the theories surrounding how it works are of course, theories.

I believe that evolution is limited to the information present in the gene pool for any given type of organism, and for each type of organism, if you could go back in time far enough, you would find an original of each type that was coded by someone. I don't believe that any complex design happens without direction.

Then we have abiogenesis which is even more hokey than the theory of evolution. The idea that the building blocks of life can be assembled into life, complete with a metabolism and reproductive capability, with nothing more than random, undirected, mechanismless energy is absurd. Disassemble anything you have at home, and then hit it with any form of random energy you want, and see if it reassembles itself. Do it with something incredibly simple even, such as a bottle and a cap that are separated from each other. See if you can get the cap to screw itself onto the bottle. Use electricity, wind, set it out in the sun ... whatever. Now try it with something a lot more complex, like say, a completely disassembled gun. However, a little directed energy makes it easy. Your brain directs your muscles in specific manners of motion and you can assemble anything given the proper knowledge and capabilities. Secular science would have you believe that random, undirected processes completely lacking in intelligence, can invent far more impressive things (e.g., life) than humans (who have intelligence as a means of directing energy) can.

So anyway, I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, nor do I believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Apes evolved from apes, and humans evolved from humans. None of the evolution has resulted in anything more complex; but rather, it has resulted in various specializations and an overall loss of information due to mutations, bottlenecks, etc. All of the variations have come from various combinations of the information in the original gene pool of any given kind of organism (i.e., no new information has been generated through evolution).

You can get a poodle from a wolf, but you can never get a wolf from a poodle. The wolf has enough information in its gene pool to create all of the known types of domestic dogs (either through artifical or natural selection), but each of those types of domestic dogs only has a specialized slice of the wolf's information. Evolution is a means of splitting and reordering existing information, not a means of generating new information (new information comes from intelligence).

reply to post by xion329alpha


Umm.. this is my first time here, my beau keeps telling me what a great site this is so I thought I'd look around.
Anyway my question for you is
Why do you think humans are a cross between pigs and I belive you said apes. (It might have been monkeys, but you know what you said.. LOL)

I dont understand any of the maths in this thread so far, what Ive gathered so far is that primates have 24 PAIRS of DNA (or whatever) and we have 23 PAIRS, because one of the pairs merged together? what happened to the merged one? where did that go?

24 PAIRS = 48 single units

If two of those 48 merge to become 1, then that leaves us with 47 single units

47/2 = 23.5


Im probably missing the obvious and Id appreciate it if someone could explain how the pair that supposedly 'merged' got removed from the equation completely?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I would recommend watching the viedos on the subject regarding the merged chromosome pair.

Briefly, a single pair of chromosomes merged with another pair of chromosomes to make a single chromosome pair, this makes a total of 24 minus 1 which equals 23 full pairs of chromosomes. It has been proven as there are markers which inidcate the merging. (which otherwise would not be there)

Thus, it is a fact that we previously had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that it is possible that we evolved from a common ancestor. Of which one branch become the great apes as we know them today and another became Homo Sapiens after a series of evolutionary steps (which we DO have evidence of).

To sum this up and answer the original and subsequent questions:

1. It is mathematically possible for the chromosomes to have merged and leave 23 full pairs.

2. It is reasonable to assume that we decended from the same common ancestor as the modern apes which we see today, the common ancestor being neither an ape or a human.

3. There is no physical proof of modern species being found alongside dinosaurs or any other period in time. There is massive of evidence of species from different time periods being seperated by geological sedimental layers which are being found all the time. Not one of these fossils or remains has contradicted the theory of evolution.

4. A scientific theory is the testable ideas of someone who has previously created a hypothesis which has so far been scientifically proved right and has undergone rigorous testing by peers. Religion is not a testable theory, it is a hypothesis.


I hope this helps and clears some of the misty haze surrounding this subject.

I personally, (i'm sure you can tell) am leaning towards evolution as an area which gives me the most answers about my most important questions.

I find religious dogma a weak attempt to give absolutes which don't comfort me in the slightest. I try not to discount the whole idea of creation, however, it becomes more and more unlikely in the face of the findings which have surfaced over the last 6000 or more years. I hope that, either way, we find a truth which is provable and certain.

peace to all.

If you are really sensitive I wouldn't post anything about religion or politics. They will tear you to shreds on here. They are extremely passionate bout that.

Originally posted by MaximRecoil
Evolution is one of the hokiest theories ever. It is also typically presented as a "bait & switch". It can be proven that evolution, at least on a certain scale, does happen, and that's the "bait". The theory that life as we know it today evolved from a single celled organism; that is the "switch".

You see things like this all time. For example, someone might say "Evolution is just a theory", and someone else will holler "No, evolution is a fact!" Another pet response is "Gravity is also just a theory!"

This is classic bait & switch. Again, evolution is indeed a fact, but the theories about what it has accomplished are simply theories. The same goes for gravity. Gravity is a fact, but the theories surrounding how it works are of course, theories.

I believe that evolution is limited to the information present in the gene pool for any given type of organism, and for each type of organism, if you could go back in time far enough, you would find an original of each type that was coded by someone. I don't believe that any complex design happens without direction.

Then we have abiogenesis which is even more hokey than the theory of evolution. The idea that the building blocks of life can be assembled into life, complete with a metabolism and reproductive capability, with nothing more than random, undirected, mechanismless energy is absurd. Disassemble anything you have at home, and then hit it with any form of random energy you want, and see if it reassembles itself. Do it with something incredibly simple even, such as a bottle and a cap that are separated from each other. See if you can get the cap to screw itself onto the bottle. Use electricity, wind, set it out in the sun ... whatever. Now try it with something a lot more complex, like say, a completely disassembled gun. However, a little directed energy makes it easy. Your brain directs your muscles in specific manners of motion and you can assemble anything given the proper knowledge and capabilities. Secular science would have you believe that random, undirected processes completely lacking in intelligence, can invent far more impressive things (e.g., life) than humans (who have intelligence as a means of directing energy) can.

So anyway, I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, nor do I believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Apes evolved from apes, and humans evolved from humans. None of the evolution has resulted in anything more complex; but rather, it has resulted in various specializations and an overall loss of information due to mutations, bottlenecks, etc. All of the variations have come from various combinations of the information in the original gene pool of any given kind of organism (i.e., no new information has been generated through evolution).

You can get a poodle from a wolf, but you can never get a wolf from a poodle. The wolf has enough information in its gene pool to create all of the known types of domestic dogs (either through artifical or natural selection), but each of those types of domestic dogs only has a specialized slice of the wolf's information. Evolution is a means of splitting and reordering existing information, not a means of generating new information (new information comes from intelligence).

I like your thinking sir and it screams commonsense! I agree that to look at the ape and suggest that humans came from them is an insult to the senses. The problem with 'Science' is that its money driven and money serving so there will always be a 'motive' that needs to be served even at a personal level. When I hear a scientist use the word 'pseudoscience' then I know he being threatened and it’s his way to retaliate from his own lacking science.

Things change and we alter but even looking for the 'missing link' shows the uselessness of our modern science. When I hear of eminent scientists in the Cancer fighting world having based their entire life’s work on cancer cell samples that where not even the correct ones. Then I tar each with potentially same incompetent brush and treat each new ‘breakthrough’ with the pinch of salt and listen for the ‘cure’ that never comes!

reply to post by MaximRecoil


Regarding abiogenesis, "life" did not come into existence with any remotely complex capabilities. Proto-life was incredibly primitive compared to what we observe in the world today. Not only this, but it took over a billion years of evolution just to come up with primitive forms of algae. So do not speak like these things happen over night.

www.talkorigins.org...

Also, if evolution is only limited to what is currently in the gene pool for a particular species, are you saying mutations do not occur???? Furthermore, please explain what the function of vestigial structures are, since according to you, they are not an artifact of evolutionary change.

I would also like to say one more thing (not directed to the person I am responding to in particular).. Many people on here act like the scientists doing research are some how bias (and/or lying). This is a completely absurd assertion, since science is NEUTRAL. Simply because it does not conform to what YOU believe does not make it suspect.

Originally posted by Phage
For about the 1 million two hundred thirty third thousandth time:
Humans did not evolve from apes.

Humans and apes have a common ancestor.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Phage]

yep

we came from Caveman

im amazed ppl dont know this LOL

if evolution is so bunk,

how do diseases become resistant to our medicines?

how do bugs become resistant to our pesticides?

how come when a man and woman get it on, and have a kid, that the kid looks slightly different than their parents?

Can anyone say Genetic Mutations? Hence evolution.
seriously you guys need to think about this for a minute.

oh forget the OP's fragile sensitivities and realize that if hes in a genetics class, then that means he's likely had at least a basic biology class that covers genetics and basic dna and would realize how basic chromosomes work.

I mean seriously.. his math didnt work out and he went from 24 to 22 becuase he mixed up pairs with individial strange.. BUT AT THE SAME TIME using the same fractured logic never never batted an eyelash at something having an odd unmatched pair? duuuuh Duuuuh DUUUUUUUUH!

Well as far as god go's people need something or someone to believe in if its god well ok, But is there a god or is it just a story from the past just like all stories from the past? All religions have a book they call bible or whatever, these books were fist told to families and past on the there families then generation after generation. the books were written many times over with each story it had to change just like people tell you something and when you repeat it it always comes out different , so how can religion be the way it was. To me its stories that has been handed down over and over again and changed each time . Everything in the bible and books can be explained today just by using a little common sense.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

Regarding abiogenesis, "life" did not come into existence with any remotely complex capabilities. Proto-life was incredibly primitive compared to what we observe in the world today. Not only this, but it took over a billion years of evolution just to come up with primitive forms of algae. So do not speak like these things happen over night.

www.talkorigins.org...

All life is complex. Simply the ability to reproduce and metabolize indicates a certain degree of complexity. Man can not create life from inorganic matter, which speaks volumes in itself.

Also, if evolution is only limited to what is currently in the gene pool for a particular species, are you saying mutations do not occur????

Did you read my post or just skim it? I said this:

"None of the evolution has resulted in anything more complex; but rather, it has resulted in various specializations and an overall loss of information due to mutations, bottlenecks, etc."

Mutations are a corruption of existing information, and information loss is the result.

Furthermore, please explain what the function of vestigial structures are, since according to you, they are not an artifact of evolutionary change.

"According to me" huh? Go ahead and point out where I said the thing which you are claiming I said. I won't hold my breath, because your statement here is in fact, a straw man. BTW, "vestigial structures" are indicative of a loss of information, not new information. This would fall under the category of evolution, which I have already said is something that does happen. Evolution is not a new concept, and was certainly not discovered by Darwin or any other scientist. Animal breeders have been using artificial selection for thousands of years to guide evolution. This does absolutely nothing to prove that life as we know it today evolved from single-celled organisms. Again, it is bait & switch, i.e., "Look, here is an example of evolution so that means evolution is responsible for such and such." The second part of the sentence can not be extrapolated from the first.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
if evolution is so bunk,

how do diseases become resistant to our medicines?

how do bugs become resistant to our pesticides?

how come when a man and woman get it on, and have a kid, that the kid looks slightly different than their parents?

Can anyone say Genetic Mutations? Hence evolution.
seriously you guys need to think about this for a minute.

"Bait & switch" alert. You've mentioned examples of evolution (not all of which have anything to do with mutations BTW); and evolution is fine and dandy and has been common knowledge for thousands of years. However, your examples do not in any way establish that what is commonly referred to as "The General Theory of Evolution" is true.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by MaximRecoil]

Originally posted by xion329alpha
I personally believe humans are a cross between pigs and chimps.

Then what are you a pimp?

I believe that human beings are related to the apes and monkeys. We are obviously mammals as they are and share many internal and external organs and structures. You don't need to venture near genetics, or listen to the religionist types or the evolutionist types to understand this. A child can see this. I don't know that I agree human beings and apes had a common ancestor, but I can see we have a close relationship of some kind. I favor the idea that we are genetically modified creatures who had some ape or hominid as a base form.

Originally posted by the_watcher

what pray tell me does science have to say about the fact that when humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian.. and why do we humans carry a reptillian gene.. did we pick this up from walking with the dinos..

I'll tell you the honest truth here.

I have not run across this in any official scientific journal. It seems vaguely familiar to some hoax about how human babies seem to look like various animals, at various stages of development, within the mother's womb, but, as stated earlier, it was a proven hoax.

I will do some research and see what I can find. Now that you bring it up I'm actually quite curious about this.

alright brother,
i haven't forgotton your question.. i have a slow connection and it take me quite a while to get things done.. well that said now onwards..

i couldn't find the specific information i was looking for so i reverted to google.. i must admit it is a great weapon in our armoury as investagators.
the first article i would like to refer you to is from cosmos magazine..

Humans ear bones began as reptile jaws

Part of the human ear evolved from jaw bones of our reptilian ancestors, according to a new mammal fossil find.

Three tiny bones found in the middle ear of all mammals are widely thought to have evolved from bones that in reptiles form part of the lower jaw. However, no fossil demonstrating the transition were known until now.

Researchers reported today in the British journal Nature that Yanoconodon allini, a newly-unearthed ancient mammal from China, has ear bones that appear to be at an intermediate stage.

Painstaking anatomical studies in the early 1900s suggested that the middle ear bones of mammals and the jaws of reptiles share the same origin. "We can trace this developmental process in developing mammalian embryos," said Luo. "In the early embryonic stage of modern mammals, the middle ear was still attached to the jaw. Later, the middle ear becomes separated from the jaw, and … starts the adult function

so if you want to follow the story clik here..

now i have a few more links but i will add them to this post once i check how relevent they are to our conversation..

daz__