|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A good summary of so called human evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Davidjay writes: No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats. That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that.
You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives... Perhaps your ancestors were cousins, but mine were not. In my family, my grandparents are my ancestors. My cousins are not. My cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents, but my cousins are not my grandparents. Do you seriously not understand this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Taq writes: You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor? Perhaps inbreeding could be part of the problem.
No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats. Nope, not true. Related in the way that bats (and all mammals) are related, the way cousins are related, but not ancestral the way your cousin is not ancestral (unless inbreeding).
So according to your wild unproven theory, bats are our common ancestor or are chimps also in there, or did they mate together upside down and produce right side up humans. You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives... But thanks for the chuckle, but again I must ask you to expand your thoughts more than into one sentence. Expand, explain, how our ancestors are not our relatives. Or you can say, you made a rather large MISTAKE, and clarify your LARGE MISTAKE. But do try and get those chimps back into a logical branch either before humans appeared or after, but surely not coupled together with bats. It clogs up your bel-fries.... So all of this garbage is based on false understanding of the difference between "related" and "ancestral" ... GIGO, spam in diarrhea out. For your edification (a useless exercise in futility but what the hey):
The daughter populations are related, but neither is ancestral to the other, that role falls to the Common Ancestor Population. Carrying this further:
All groups are related, but only "A" is ancestral to the others, "B" is ancestral to "C", "D", "E" and "F" while "C" is ancestral to "D" and "E" and "G" is only ancestral to "H" and "I" ... so Bats could be "I" and people could be "D" and they would be related -- by descent from the common ancestor population "A" ... which is neither primate nor bat but some early mammalid. So once again your preposterous puerile pontifications are shown to be nothing more than vapid ignorance and willful denial masquerading as valid content. Now, let the spamming and ludicrous trolling replies commence, with no relevance to this information, because that is what losers do. Enjoy PS: the purpose of trolling is to disrupt the debate and deflect it to other topics, while spewing insults to encourage angry retorts. They "win" when they accomplish this goal, so any claims of "winning" while making posts of this type is essentially an admission of trolling.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
So where did humans come from ?
People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying. So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ? My threads get shut down because apparrently I dont answer questions, so do please respond.... as there are multitudes of you HERE posting. Tell us where humans came from. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Psttt... notice the loophole that evolutionists snuck through saying there is a difference between cousins and ancestors.
When the original statement was relatives, as relatives includes parents and grandparents, and those with direct links to us. Watch out evolutionists are tricky in their wording and semantics and branching. Read carefully as they twist and turn, and evade answering questions, like who was our ancestor ? One minutes it a *** and the next minute they can;t decide, even after decades of digging in their holes and trying to artistically put together bones.. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Davidjay writes: When the original statement was relatives, as relatives includes parents and grandparents, and those with direct links to us. The original statement meant relativies as in cousins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
No relatives means relatives and not merely cousins. You cant flip flop and change meanings and definitions.
So just tell us where we humans came from ? If not from bats, as *** and *** and *** and **** suggested, do tell us where we came from... Who are our forefathers, are grandparents, back and backwards in time. For surely after all these decades one or some of you must know who are forefathers or original species was. Maybe I shall ask if we can start a NEW TOPIC on this subject. But I would ask that evolutionists answer the question rather than hiding away in silence, and sulking saying nobody understands them and their wording. Just simply tell us who are ancesters were ? Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Davidjay writes: No relatives means relatives and not merely cousins. The posters meant cousins when they used the word relatives. What matters is what the posters were trying to communicate, not what you can twist their words to mean. Our position is that bats are our cousins, not our ancestors. If all you have is semantics, then you lose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So where did humans come from ? People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying. So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ? Humans are apes that diverged from a common ancestor with Chimps, no bats in ape clades. African apes (humans, Chimps, Gorillas) are called Homininae in scientific nomenclature: Homininae descended from primates as follows:
quote: On the website each level is hyperlinked, so you can check to see if bats (chirotera) are descended from any of them (they aren't). Primates are descended from Eutheria as follows:
quote: Again, the website is hyperlinked on each level, so you can see that bats (Chiroptera) are listed near the top, that they are descendant from one of two branches under Eutheria, Laurasiatheria. You can also see that Primates are descended from the other branch, Euarchontaglires. So the last common ancestor (parent) population shared by ancestors of bats and ancestors of people was Eutheria, the parent population of the whole clade of Eutherian Mammals. I checked by clicking on the Chiroptera link and got the following:
quote: The Chiroptera clade on the paleos.com site is still under development so as a double check we can look at the whole dendrogram for Chiroptera (bats) from this site:
quote: No primates in those clades. No primates descended from the original Chiroptera common ancestor population. Bats are not ancestral to humans. Also see
quote: and
quote: Bats and humans are related via ancestry from eutheria common ancestor but neither descended from the other. The eutheria common ancestor was neither bat nor person. As you can see this is supported by consilient information on multiple websites.
My threads get shut down because apparrently I dont answer questions, so do please respond.... as there are multitudes of you HERE posting. It's not just a matter of posting something to reply to questions, it is a matter of addressing the issues raised, providing evidence to back your assertions and presenting it in a rational logical format, not making or repeating bare assertions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To reprise what I said in Message 92 previously in this thread:
quote: I can now put some names to those letters: Bats are "I" and "G" is Laurasiatheria, the first Laurasiatheria was not a bat but a parent of what becomes bats. while "A" is the first Eutheria mammals, neither bat nor primate (nor human). "D" is humans, while "C" is primates. The first primates were not humans but parents of what becomes humans. "B" is Euarchontaglires, the first Euarchontaglires were not primates but parents to what becomes primates. "B" and "G" are sister clades, neither one descended from the other, they descended independently from Eutheria. It's really quite simple. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By the way, I want to commend you on a fairly decent post. To the point, a valid question (especially given some mixup between cousin and relative).
More like this eh? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
in Proposed New Topics 'Eurachondra is 'Missing LINK'. Message 1 Davidjay writes
quote: I see no reason why we cannot continue this current discussion of the history of human and bat evolution to include this new article on tree shrews and incorporate their position in the descent into the discussion. The first question I would ask is why does Davidjay think this is (a) a problem to evolution or (b) something new. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
From Wiki:
quote: Transitional fossil - WikipediaReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
After reseaching HERE, it seems that many evolutionists deem 'Eurachondra' as our ancestors. Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews - Scientific American Blog Network We'll start with the clade name being Euarchonta rather than Eurachondra, and then go with Euarchonta being combined with Glires to make a new superfamily, group called Euarchontoglires, due to their genetic similarities.
quote: This is our basal clade common ancestor that we share with modern tree shrews (all those drawings in the article are modern tree shrews), which (like bats) are cousins rather than ancestors (or "missing links"). The page from paleos also can be reviewed:
quote: And Scandentia are the ancestors for the modern tree shrews, making Archonta our last common ancestors.
quote: We can also look scandentia up in wiki
quote: In any event, calling tree shrews a "missing link" is making the same mistake made with bats. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : finished Edited by RAZD, : more finishedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So I reread the Scientific American Article, Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews, and nowhere in the article did it say that tree shrews were ancestral to primates (and hence to people), so Davidjay's continued assertion to this effect is making the same mistake he made with bats. It's the same pattern of claim and insinuation without any apparent acceptance of corrections.
For instance in Message 93 on the Science is Revealed Truth thread earlier today he posts:
Sorry Tangle, you seem to be tangled up again... Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor. Do not switch back to a primate and confuse your branching.... So your silly chimps do not apply, they are primates, and that is a secondary mistake of yours or a theoretical branching of yours. So come on evolutionists quite switching horses in mid stream or mid branch. The "Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather." statement is clearly false and was never said by the article he refers to (but doesn't quote) nor any post in any of these threads. Repeating falsehoods aggressively and rejecting correct information is not debate. What the article says about the descent of tree shrews:
quote: It is hard to see how anyone doing even a cursory reading of the article could come to the conclusion that it says treeshrews are ancestral to humans, particularly when that picture show a clear and unambiguous cladogram with primates and Scandentia evolving separately from their Euarconta common ancestor. Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024