Caricos theories of evolution and other such stuff
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
- Status
Humans are apes. Just another kind.
It's surprising that anyone would bother to deny this. Descent with modification. Quantitative theory. Hey, Carrico, do your children look exactly like you or somewhat like you, and somewhat like the animal you bred them with? Case closed.
Or maybe HR is right and this is just a goading troll.
Hey, let's elect Palin and McCain. That'll help!
It's surprising that anyone would bother to deny this. Descent with modification. Quantitative theory. Hey, Carrico, do your children look exactly like you or somewhat like you, and somewhat like the animal you bred them with? Case closed.
Or maybe HR is right and this is just a goading troll.
Hey, let's elect Palin and McCain. That'll help!
If you have to look up a definition of human and ape, then you prove my point that you have no clue what the difference is between them. And since you think it's nonsense that each animal breeds its own kind then I can see why you can't distinguish between fact and fiction. But since you don't know, here's what the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus defines as a human; "Of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines."
Here is their definition of an animal: "A living organism which feeds on organic matter, one with specialized sense organisms and a nervous system, and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. Such an organism other than a human being." So since you don't know the difference between humans and animals, then I can see why you think my posts are nonsense.
So I suggest you visit a zoo sometime, or better yet, visit the children's department of your local library and look at picture books of animals and humans. Then you can also find out what each of them breeds.And until you do so, you aren't qualified to talk about basic biology. The ignorance among evolutionists is astounding.
Idiot, that is a strawman argument, since no one ever suggested that a human was born to an ape.
Again, here's what the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus defines as a human; "Of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines." That means ALL animal and ANY kind of ape.
Here is their definition of an animal: "A living organism which feeds on organic matter, one with specialized sense organisms and a nervous system, and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. Such an organism other than a human being."
So sorry but calling a human an ape doesn't make it possible for apes to turn into humans.
But if you want to call a human an ape, then you're free to do so. But all that means is that humans have always come only from humans, not another animal as creationists have always known. So either way, you defeat the theory of evolution...and by your own words, no less.
That isn't science, it's a dictionary. Humans come from humans, but humans weren't always the same as they are now.
evolution (ěv'ə-l'shən) Pronunciation Key
The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness—they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized.
The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness—they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized.
Note that this idea started with Gregor Mendel, a Christian monk.
Yup. The dictionary also defines the "science" of phrenology even though it's a proven myth.
So once again, until you know the difference between humans and animals then you'll never know what each of them breeds. :roflmao:So instead of seeing scientists as infallible gods, I suggest you get out of science books and observe reality so you can begin to learn about the birds and the bees.
Then the Oxford definition is simply imprecise. Humans are animals. Sorry. :shrug:
Again, imprecision. You're also arguing from false propositions.
So sorry but calling a human an ape doesn't make it possible for apes to turn into humans.
Ah, sorry: it actually does, with minor alterations over generations. What do you want me to say?
I don't see scientists as infallible gods, but you have not yet pointed out the fallacy. How did the different breeds of animals come about? If you have a better explanation, I would like to hear it. Unfortunately, "God did it" has no supporting evidence, other than an ancient book.
Yup. The dictionary also defines the "science" of phrenology even though it's a proven myth.
So instead of seeing scientists as infallible gods
Ha! Shall we take lessons now from the fallible followers of infallible gods?
I don't think he's going to learn.
Well your way certainly isn't working! But nevertheless, you'll continue to put your faith in fallible human scientists who will continue to say; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true." Then when you die, you'll be as much in the dark about the truth as scientists will be when they die. Then when all human beings die, the words of scientists will be a thing of the past. No one will ever again hear the theories of scientists that change with the seasons. They'll be a chasing after the wind.
But who cares? As long as one can pretend they're gods, what does it matter if they're deluded by them? So say most people whose contact with reality is so fragile that they doubt their own perceptions of reality that they don't know the difference between humans and animals or what each one breeds. Those people can be easily duped by anything a scientist says and will thus look as foolish as scientists do when they have to change their stories again.
If you ever have to get treatment for a disease, you would appreciate the benefits of science. If we only followed the Bible, people would still be living as in the Middle Ages. Science is working great. Ever see a picture of a nuclear explosion?
Domesticated dogs have been TAMED by humans! They didn't mutate from a frog or some fictitious animal. Again, this is another example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. But like I said, the imagination is considered evidence in science.
They came from wolves.
So when has anyone ever witnessed a wolf breeding a chihuahua? :bugeye: So again, you're using your imagination again.
Do you know why humans cross-breed dogs or other animals? Because they know that only mating and breeding produces hybrids, not genes just changing on their own from one generation to the next by the same species. So no, animals don't "evolve" into other animals over time. They are produced by the mating and breeding between their parents. Once again, that's BASIC biology.
Look how dogs have changed significantly due to people only breeding the ones which showed a change toward what was wanted.
This is similar to evolution. If it weren't the humans picking the traits, it would be nature, by way of natural selection (that is of course if us humans didn't go out of our way to keep alive all the dogs).
I doubt you even understand how evolution is proposed to work.
Anyone else fancy telling me that a Labrador has always been that way?
Go learn what evolution really is and maybe you can comment on it.
- Status