Did you ever think those were variations within the graptolite and ammonite syngameons, duh?
Last edited:
Intelligent Design....?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
It does require this, and most of this comes from genetics, otherwise we didn't come from a monkey-like ancestor....is this what you're saying now?
If it doesn't require this then intelligent design is a very relevant and probable explanation...
My statement was erroneous, but I'm simply going from my memory of biology in high school, biology is not my major or anything, the only real error was me saying that species C must have come from species A when I should've said that both species C and A have a common ancestor from which they were both derived...Ophiolite said:
Yes ok, this still doesn't really contradict what I've said.....its no wonder that so many new evolution theories are springing up in light of nothing making sense....Ophiolite said:
You see Chimpanzees and Humans have about 40 million base differences...that means that according to genetics there should be many many species in between Chimpanzees and Humans but thats not what we're finding...
Why is it dumb? Because its true? All of a sudden atheists and evolutionists don't need any real evidence of a common ancestor between humans and monkeys, they just rely purely on genetics....Ophiolite said:
Here's the evidence:
genetic similarity - Chimpanzees and humans are about 96% or 97% similar to humans genetically, this should logically mean they both derived from a common ancestor which is probably ape-like....
Eoanthropus - Hoax propounded by evolutionists when they couldn't find a missing link (even though they should've found one) just for the purpose of fitting things into the evolution theory....
Australopithecus africanus & Ramapithecus - Use to be considered as missing links but new studies find that they are almost completely ape-like...
And thats about all the evidence...most of it is purely genetic....there should be many many different species in between chimpanzees and humans shouldn't there? I mean they have more than 40 million base differences...Why aren't they finding anything? The current explanation, well all the evidence just vanished...anything to avoid that the missing link simply doesn't exist.....hahahahahahahahahahaha
"Not a viable hypothesis" Ophi? They're ammonites and graptolites, where's the hypothesis?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You are the one presenting a skeletal hypothesis that states that observed evolution in ammonite sutures in the Jurassic is a reflection of variations of syngameons. I am saying such an explanation (you know a hypothesis is a kind of explanation, do you?) lacks credibility.
They're still ammonites, right?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Modern evolutionary theory requires nothing. The theory provides explanations of the rules, it does not make the rules. The theory has determined what those rules are.
An understanding of those rules, which the theory has determined (not required) enables us to say that we came from a monkey-like ancestor. [I still get really pissed off with this obssession about the evolution of humans. The vast majority of biologists have only an amateur's interest in the evolution of humans. They are far more concerned with the evolution of horned toads, or dahlias, or fruit flys. This obssession with human evolution is a diagnostic feature of creationists or anyone called Leakey.]
Thank you for acknowledging the point. My concern is that you duplicate the core of the point here by saying 'my only real error', as if it was a minor transgression. Rather like saying 'I'm sorry officer, but all I did was insert the blade between his fourth and fifths ribs with fatal results.' The difference between the two statements is vast and highly significant. That you seem not to understand the gulf, or its importance, is what concerns me.
Lots of thing make sense. The beauty of science is that the more we learn the more we discover we do not know. This does not mean the old knowledge is wrong, but that it becomes refined and improved, in detail. That was the case with punctuated equilibrium.
There are many species between our last common ancestor with the chimps and ourselves. Your statement is simply false..
I am not an atheist. Atheism has **** all to do with evolution. This thread is about evolution, not just the narrow, restricted, somewhat mundane study of human evolution.
Genetics provides some very good data relating to human evolution. It confirms and clarfies what we have learned from comparative anatomy, ethology and palaeontology. Observations in any one of these three fields would have been sufficient to demomstrate the reality of human evolution from primate ancestors. Together these three, along with genome analysis, simply allow us to be more precise about the details of how and when and where this occured.
The rest of your meanderings are simply that. Stylised interpretations, of misinterpretations, of biased renderings, of the truth.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
So. You do realise that there are families, genera and hundreds if not thousands of ammonite species. Please stop displaying your ignorance so publicly. It is embarassing.
"Modern evolutionary theory requires nothing and explains rules determined by the theory."
That's just great Ophi.
And Ophi, don't you think it's natural that humans would be curious about human origins?
That's just great Ophi.
And Ophi, don't you think it's natural that humans would be curious about human origins?
Ammonites have always been ammonites, right?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
curious, yes. Obsessed, no. And not to the exclusion of all the other life forms, which is where the vast majority of the evidence is to be found.
But the "evidence" about humans should be "right under our nose."
And you're gonna hang your hat on "modern evolutionary theory requires nothing and explains rules determined by the theory?" What a fantastically bizarre notion.
And you're gonna hang your hat on "modern evolutionary theory requires nothing and explains rules determined by the theory?" What a fantastically bizarre notion.
Are you curious IAC? Or have you decided that God did it, and any other theory is nonesense?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Why is it bizarre that science should attempt to explain the rules that govern how the universe works? Do you think that Einstein or Newton made gravity or inertia? Did the early helionists make the earth move around the sun?
Look, there's a pattern here. You keep trying to tell genetics and evolution and Darwinian theory and so forth what they are saying, and you keep getting it wrong.vital said:
You keep generating falsehoods, getting them corrected, and not stopping to consider that if you are generating falsehoods you aren't actually arguing anything.
Before you can argue reasonably against something like a bedrock scientific theory you have to understand it. You cannot argue against Darwinian theory unless you can talk about it without generating false claims about it every three sentences.
There do not have to be many, many species in between Chimps and Humans, "according to genetics". That assertion is false. Someone who understood genetics and/or Darwinian theory would not have asserted that.
And if there did have to be, then our failure to find them means very little. (We have few fossils of apes of any kind except hominid. Their usual preferred habitats don't preserve bones well, for one thing).
IAC:
Much is known about human origins, especially "recent" history (last few million years). We have some excellent fossils tracing human ancestor species back to Australopithecus afarensis.
The fossil evidence is marvellously explained by the wonderful theory of evolution.
Much is known about human origins, especially "recent" history (last few million years). We have some excellent fossils tracing human ancestor species back to Australopithecus afarensis.
The fossil evidence is marvellously explained by the wonderful theory of evolution.
James R,
Can we please have a separate evolution sub-forum? Then we could move the endless stupid “evolution is wrong” threads started by loser dumbass creationists into their own special forum. The Biology forum is pretty effectively ruined by these "special" people and they deserve their own "special" sub-forum on this site. It can be convincingly argued that these fools are not discussing science, they are discussing pseudoscience and their nonsense does not belong on the Biology forum.
PLEASE!!!!!!!
Can we please have a separate evolution sub-forum? Then we could move the endless stupid “evolution is wrong” threads started by loser dumbass creationists into their own special forum. The Biology forum is pretty effectively ruined by these "special" people and they deserve their own "special" sub-forum on this site. It can be convincingly argued that these fools are not discussing science, they are discussing pseudoscience and their nonsense does not belong on the Biology forum.
PLEASE!!!!!!!
Yes there would go look it up...you can't magically change 40 million bases so precisely in a few mutations...