Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You can not prove it happened.

Correct. That humans share a common ancestor with todays apes (and infact in an impartial classification system humans would be apes) is highly evidenced, and requires little more than objectivity to grasp.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Correct. That humans share a common ancestor with todays apes (and infact in an impartial classification system humans would be apes) is highly evidenced, and requires little more than objectivity to grasp.

Wrong. There is more kin in our DNA to Pigs than Apes. You might classify yourself as an ape, but I will not.

I look at the facts. Our DNA is not even close (with apes). Doesn't matter what we look like, what we are made up of does. The closeset "Ape" to man is a Chimpanzee, and his DNA is 2-7% at variance with ours. Gorillas are 7-10% at variance. Man is at most .03% variance with eachother. That is 3 100ths of a percent variance, or 100 to 700 percent difference in variation between man and primate. Man is not a primate.

There is no evidence that man was ever a baboon. We may act like one, but we are not one. Even Darwin could not "prove" such a theory.

This is fact, our skin is closer to that of the porcine, than the ape. But we sweat like horses. In fact we are the only two mamals that do this (sweat from our skin). Our cranial capacity is closer to that of cetaceans then apes (bigger brains). Our structure is designed to run, not climb trees. In fact we can run at 30 MPH theoretically, which is half the speed of a horse using four limbs to move. Our bodies have more in common structurally with the T-Rex dinasour, than with apes. Long of lower limb, and shorter upper limbs. Our eyes have more in common with cats than apes (we see color). Our hands are more in proportion to Racoons' "hands" than apes.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Correct. That humans share a common ancestor with todays apes (and infact in an impartial classification system humans would be apes) is highly evidenced, and requires little more than objectivity to grasp.

sounds to me, like personal prejudice with imagination than objectivity.
ummm, there is a difference between theory & fact & your opinion of what is 'high evidence'.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I am free

I am not sure what you mean by this. Is the idea of men and apes evolving from common ancestors repulsive to you?

not at all because i do not believe that is what happened so it cannot be repulsive.
actually i believe in the mermaid theory, but i am still trying to figure out how we lost the gills & our talis to swim which 'evolved' into legs without the mermaids giving birth to a human with legs. & the mermaid would have had to given birth to twins, a male & a female, or two mermaids would have had to 'evolved' about the same time- one male & one female.

of course this is just a hypothesis & i need TONS more evidence.

would you like to hear more of my theory?

something like this picture:

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Wrong. There is more kin in our DNA to Pigs than Apes. You might classify yourself as an ape, but I will not.

Really? Fascinating. Where might I read about this?

Originally Posted by Q

Man is not a primate.

Sacre Bleu!

Originally Posted by Q

There is no evidence that man was ever a baboon. We may act like one, but we are not one. Even Darwin could not "prove" such a theory.

You're pulling my leg.

Originally Posted by Q

This is fact, our skin is closer to that of the porcine, than the ape.

Is it? Can you direct me toward suitable reading material.

Originally Posted by Q

Our cranial capacity is closer to that of cetaceans then apes (bigger brains).

We have a larger capacity than other apes and so you draw the conclusion we are disimilar? Are chimps not apes on acount of their large testicles? Gorillas for their huge body size?

Yawn.

Q, humans are not only members of the order primates, they are members of the family hominidae.

Some anthropologists have argued that not only are humans apes, like the other surviving genera of hominid, but we are actually best categorised as members of the genus pans i.e. we are a species of chimpanzee. I don't know how well that theory stands up to current evidence but I can tell you Jared Diamond believed it when he wrote 'Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee'.

As regards the pig hypotheses I'm ashamed to say I'm drastically uneducated in our evolutionary relationships. The idea that we share more common DNA with pigs than chimps sounds ridiculous since phylogenetic investigations consistently place us closest to the apes.

-J

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Bandit

sounds to me, like personal prejudice with imagination than objectivity.

Sounds to me like a cheap ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Bandit

ummm, there is a difference between theory & fact & your opinion of what is 'high evidence'.

Can you tell me the difference between a theory and a fact?

How about this Bandit, when you answer my questions I'll answer any you might have. Unless, of course, you are uninterested in discussion.

[truthseeker]

Bandit, is that you with the mermaid?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Really? Fascinating. Where might I read about this?

Some anthropologists have argued that not only are humans apes, like the other surviving genera of hominid, but we are actually best categorised as members of the genus pans i.e. we are a species of chimpanzee. I don't know how well that theory stands up to current evidence but I can tell you Jared Diamond believed it when he wrote 'Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee'.

We?
now it is the chimpanzee theory.
maybe you are best categorised as a species of chimp, but i am not.
I am from a gold fish.
they sure do argue a lot over all these theories.
i think that is the same book that talks about humans, drugs & sexual selection?
i would agree with the history on human genocide & the extinction of recent animals. i think his chimp theory & 40,000 years is a bit of imagination.

but hey, a belief is a belief.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Bandit, is that you with the mermaid?

i wish Truthseeker.
i believe we came from mermaids
i mean after all, the whole evolution belief starts out that we were fish & our fins turned into arms.
eh.

[Andre']

Originally Posted by Bandit

We?
now it is the chimpanzee theory.
maybe you are best categorised as a species of chimp, but i am not.
I am from a gold fish.
they sure do argue a lot over all these theories.
i think that is the same book that talks about humans, drugs & sexual selection?
i would agree with the history on human genocide & the extinction of recent animals. i think his chimp theory & 40,000 years is a bit of imagination.

but hey, a belief is a belief.

Hey Everyone,

I read all the posts in the thread and I still have yet to see anyone talk about whether evolution over creation or vice versa. There are a lot of facts being presented, but no one has decided whether creation or evolution should take the floor. The reason why I say to do so is because I would love to know if anyone in here tries to marries the concepts and how you would do it. By no means am I religious and trying to saying evolution is divination in process, but if anyone has any theories out there I'd love to hear them. I'm a skeptic if there is ever one. I believe though that in order to have a true hypothesis biology is not the only science that should be presented. Physics is essential in deeming divinity or random chance.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Sounds to me like a cheap ad hominem.

Can you tell me the difference between a theory and a fact?

How about this Bandit, when you answer my questions I'll answer any you might have. Unless, of course, you are uninterested in discussion.

if you are expecting answers & discussion about God or the bible & creation, that is never going to happen with you & I. not this year at least.
& not real interested in atheist side of evolution either.
i guess i could pick your brain & scoff like some atheists do to creationist. if that is what you want or we can talk about cars & family & be friends.
i think you know the difference between theory & fact.
so i guess the only other thing is,

what do you believe Jaiket?
what?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Andre'

Hey Everyone,

I read all the posts in the thread and I still have yet to see anyone talk about whether evolution over creation or vice versa. There are a lot of facts being presented, but no one has decided whether creation or evolution should take the floor. The reason why I say to do so is because I would love to know if anyone in here tries to marries the concepts and how you would do it. By no means am I religious and trying to saying evolution is divination in process, but if anyone has any theories out there I'd love to hear them. I'm a skeptic if there is ever one. I believe though that in order to have a true hypothesis biology is not the only science that should be presented. Physics is essential in deeming divinity or random chance.

hi Andre. i never take this discussion serious. so dont pay much attention to me.
like the others say, the original poll should have offered another choice & that is probably why it looks so lop sided.
Yes creationists do marry the two & are there are some good ones here who have really studied it.
the problem i always see is when those who do not believe in God treat creationists like we are stupid & know nothing & are supposed to just accept every monkey theory that pops up each year.

The way i do it, i go by the bible first, then accept the evidence as it is presented. to date, science has never disproven the bible & that is where the issue is with many evolutionists.
so, it not that creationists cannot accept different aspects of evolution or even accept it as theory. there is the other side where the evolutionists refuse to & cannot accept the validity of the bible & God.
(i am sure you already know all this, so i am just rambling)

i think the whole ball of wax is essential & in all honesty i dont think anyone will ever figure it out.
Have fun & welcome.

[Andre']

Hi Bandit, thanks for the reply. Yes I agree with all you have to say. I'm very curious although if you are a memeber of Calvary Chapel, obviously because of your quote. I'm hope that I'm not prying too much, I'm just wondering because I have a few friends that are Calvary members, actually one is my cloest friend. You seem unbelieveably educated on your points that you make and it is exceptionally hard to find anyone who is truly educated and actually knows what they are debating about. I have no wish to debate you, rather I really want to know were you stand on evolution and creationism. To preface you on my attitudes, so that this isn't a one way street, I have NO NO NO idea and there is no answer. Instead I love to make the best educated arguement. I was raised Catholic and I was striving to be a BioChemist, but recently gave that up for Neuro-Psychology. I have quite the background in science and religion, being my minor was theology. You seem that you no what your talking about. Let me begin the rumination:

Where do you stand on the fossil record proving evolution (it really doesn't but...) over religion? What do you think of Cladistics as a tool of proof and do you think there are too many gaps? If you do believe that it is all fallacious do you think that you can believe in evolution and be a devote Christian?

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Wrong. There is more kin in our DNA to Pigs than Apes. You might classify yourself as an ape, but I will not.

I look at the facts. Our DNA is not even close (with apes). Doesn't matter what we look like, what we are made up of does. The closeset "Ape" to man is a Chimpanzee, and his DNA is 2-7% at variance with ours. Gorillas are 7-10% at variance. Man is at most .03% variance with eachother. That is 3 100ths of a percent variance, or 100 to 700 percent difference in variation between man and primate. Man is not a primate.

There is no evidence that man was ever a baboon. We may act like one, but we are not one. Even Darwin could not "prove" such a theory.

This is fact, our skin is closer to that of the porcine, than the ape. But we sweat like horses. In fact we are the only two mamals that do this (sweat from our skin). Our cranial capacity is closer to that of cetaceans then apes (bigger brains). Our structure is designed to run, not climb trees. In fact we can run at 30 MPH theoretically, which is half the speed of a horse using four limbs to move. Our bodies have more in common structurally with the T-Rex dinasour, than with apes. Long of lower limb, and shorter upper limbs. Our eyes have more in common with cats than apes (we see color). Our hands are more in proportion to Racoons' "hands" than apes.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Dude we are classified as apes. I used to wonder the same things you are wondering too, why do apes look so different from us (such as longer arms and short legs) when we are so close to each. Keep in mind these minute differences are not enough for us to be classified as a different family.

Since you braught up baboons why not use them as an example. Baboons if you really look at them they look like totally different animals than other old world monkeys (they look more like dogs with hands with that muzzle). So why do we classify baboons as old world monkeys? Becuase they are old world monkeys. Appearences do not matter as much as DNA.

Typical example is a domestic dog. A Alaskan Malumute looks more like a gray wolf, and yet it is closer to a toy poode. Why is this? It is because superficial features do not matter as much. They do to a certian extent but they are not the deciding factor, DNA is.

Chimps share 95%-98% of their DNA with us. Gorillas About 92%-97%, Orangutans 90%-96%. They are veru much in our family but I agree to a certian extent because of the many physical difference (although minute) we should get at least our own subfamily. But we cannot change the fact that we are apes, I don't get why Christian Creationist are so offended by this.

[Andre']

I competely agree on the DNA likenesses within primates. I can't believe that someone actually stated that we have more in common with pigs than apes, go take a course in evolution, evolution 101. The only pertinent charcteriestic that we correlate in is that we are noto-chordates, we all evolve embryonically from a notochord, which is the reason why scientists pose the question "try and dechiper what species of chordates is what at the embryonic level;" we also have blastoporic relations. Chimps are our closest cousin. We did not evolve from Chimps we share a common ancestor. We don't evolve from things, we share analogous structures with other organisms within the clade. Who ever has stated these fallacious claims please be aware that most of the features being discussed as "one's" proof of their point are phenotypic features, not indicative of speciation, only genotypic features are phylogenically considered. If facts are going to be stated about evolutionary relationships, please be researched. I certainly don't know it all, but the claims made in the thread are bogus, although it was refreshing to see silverbackman stating valid facts.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to stay on a valid level so the agrument can go somewhere.