Disproving Darwin

Originally posted by Rren
Not to nit-pick (you seem to have that under control)

Thank you kindly. And here I am, doing it again.

but, if not an ape, then what would you call - or how would you describe - our last common ancestor?

If you would describe our last common ancestor as an ape, then we must describe human beings exactly the same way. The last 'common ancestor' of men and apes was surely neither - or both.

It's, as they say, close enough for jazz.

In that case there'd be lots of human-chimp (more likely, given their habits, human-bonobo) hybrids swinging through the trees. Etymology of 'jazz'.

I remain, Sir or Madam,

yours in the interests of a nit-free thread,

Scamandrius

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Rren
Not to nit-pick (you seem to have that under control)

Thank you kindly. And here I am, doing it again.

'Twas my pleasure, Sir. I'm presuming we agree that nit-pickin' is low down and dastardly, whilst calling out the picker is valorous. Obviously.

but, if not an ape, then what would you call - or how would you describe - our last common ancestor?

If you would describe our last common ancestor as an ape, then we must describe human beings exactly the same way. The last 'common ancestor' of men and apes was surely neither - or both.

Of course. Are humans not one of the Great Apes? If the aforementioned "common ancestor" is still an unknown, "ape" is close enough for government work. "'Twas a nit-pick, tried and true; a more charitable reading was appropriate" he scolds valiantly.

Etymology of 'jazz'

Learn something new everyday. Due to its "extremely low origin" I've retracted "close enough for jazz" and am now going with "good enough for government work."

reply to post by Barrere42


perhaps there were a particular set of apes that grew larger brains to survive through intelligence and left the rest of their speciese behind as they began to travel... you cant deny that we all act like animals

Originally posted by SlyCM

It's interesting that most nonscientific people intuitively dislike the idea of being animals or possibly evolving from apes, but have no issue with other scientific teachings such as physics, astronomy, geology, et cetera which are similarly supported by evidence as evolution is.

Gee could it be that evolutionists with their over zealous knee jerk response's that always assume if someone disagrees with DarwiT it is always because they are a creationist "fundie" "xtian not having the capacity to understand reason and logic. Could it be the other science you list don't come crashing the gates to ridicule anyone challenging the theory using more rhetoric than a hellfire brimstone Baptist Preacher because to them it is science and not the religion of atheism using a junk theory debunked back when haekel used the first of what would become a common occurance among these so called scientists to manufacture evidence and falsify data to fit their theory?

Could it be that it has never got much respect because it doesn't make sense to anyone because the same bunk given today to explain it has changed so often all you have to do is go back to asty's first posts on the subject, years ago, and you have more "just so" story's than you could shake a stick at, not to mention a regular practice for equivocating micro evolution to mean macro evolution but I am sure he will give you the one about how you can't have one without the other.

As to why man and apes co-exist, evolution does not work like a pillar, but rather like a tree, with branches of evolution and not just one continuous line. This is why modern evolutionary theory isn't disproved by the continued existence of, say, springtails (tiny insect like creatures).

No, evolution doesn't work at all save for seeing someone get a suntan or realize muscle growth from lifting weights, but you'll not show a transformational form that hasn't been debunked or will be sooner than they ever want to believe. It is ironic that all these living fossils just happen to be perfectly suited for their environment as to explain their un-changed stasis. While they assert their were no environmental pressures to cause such changes, they forget the fact that these creatures faced so much pressure they were thought to be extinct!

Because natural selection produces species better adapted to survival, not necessarily faster, stronger or more complex. If humans had remained on the ground, we would have found ourselves being outcompeted by gorillas or chimps in the "early days". However, with the evolution of our sapience, they are now at our mercy (read: we got guns, biotch); so extreme intelligence turned out to be more advantageous for us than did strength or speed, because we could invent things to replace or defeat strength/speed in other animals. Of course, if for some reason the environment did not favour extreme intelligence, we would have become extinct, or not evolved in the first place.

Just what was our common ancestor?

what came first, the protein or the DNA

Oh and by the way, MOST people get the idea that we evolved from apes because THAT is what Darwinists have so often claimed. I am sure if you look far back enough in the threads about this insane, debunked a million times, so dead theory it is in the advanced stages of rigormortis, you'll see that this theory and it's fundamentalists who have so much faith in this pseudo science, have changed their explanations so often, you can bet anyone of them that whatever they are telling you now,,,


they will be making excuses for

in 6 months

reply to post by KaginD


The DNA of a banana is very similar to human DNA but I am sure we did not evolve from a banana.

Sounds Familiar

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Could it be that [the theory of evolution] has never got much respect because it doesn't make sense to anyone because the same bunk given today to explain it has changed so often all you have to do is go back to asty's first posts on the subject, years ago, and you have more "just so" story's than you could shake a stick at, not to mention a regular practice for equivocating micro evolution to mean macro evolution but I am sure he will give you the one about how you can't have one without the other.

Behold, a great one cometh bearing the holy standard of Conspiriology - not to mention an uncanny resemblance to that worthy's posting style. Perhaps you were both educated at the same school?

I'm delighted to learn you've been reading my posts for years (especially since you only joined ATS three months ago), though if you're such a fan, I'm a little puzzled that you should have chosen to reply SlyCM's post with an attack on me.

There's no actual content in your post to refute, though I might point out that the theory of evolution enjoys general acceptance amongst educated people the world over, however bizarre and improbable it may appear to the churchgoing citizens of Hicksville.