|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A good summary of so called human evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Davidjay writes: But it should be noted that most evolutionists here state that primates ancestor was batsmeaning in their opinion, our further back ancestor is and was bats. Davidjay can't figure out how his cousins can be his relatives while not being his ancestors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: Evolutionists cant figure out where we came from, We came from a common ancestor shared with chimps as supported by the fossil record and genetics.
But go ahead explain, how our relatives are not our ancestors. You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: Lets see what the confused evolutionists now say....Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both. False. Euarchonta includes primates, scandentia, and their common ancestor. Any clade includes all of the living species (which are cousins), any extinct side branches, and the common ancestors of those cousins.
Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both. Primates and Scandentia ARE Euarochonta, just as humans are still primates.
OK, but lets not misunderstand their artists conception of our ancestrial tree.. It isn't an artistic conception. It is an objective phylogeny based on morphological and genetic data.
Euarconta is an ancestor to us primates.. Primates ARE Euarochonta. You keep getting this wrong. Primates are Euarochonta in the same way that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. However, this doesn't mean that Chihuahuas are ancestral to Great Danes just because they are both dogs. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: No your family tree clears states that E......'s are our ancestors. No, it doesn't. It clearly states that humans ARE Euarochonta just as humans are still primates and Chihuahuas are still dogs.
Primates are labeled after and down the branch. Primates are labeled as being on the Euarochonta branch, which means they are still Euarochonta.
You say, E's are our ancestors. Where did I say that? Quote me, I dare you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Your old tree, showed E turning into primates....... It shows that primates ARE Euarchonta. They are on the Euarchonta branch which makes them Euarchonta. Primates are just a group within Euarchonta in the same way that apes are a group within primates. You need to learn how phylogenies and clades work before embarrassing yourself like this.
as in Dogs turning into Danes and Chihuahuas.... Are you saying that Danes and Chihuahuas are not dogs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Davidjay writes: The set of primates is not concentric with Euarchonta's. They are not the same... E's came before according to evolutionists. They are suppose to be our ancestors, our forefathers. Humans ARE Euarchonta because we are on the Euarchonta branch. This is the same as saying primates are a group of mammals, but not all mammals are primates. Apes are a group of primates, but not all primates are apes. Hominids are a group of apes, but not all apes are hominids. All modern humans are hominids, but not all hominids are anatomically modern humans. My word, man, this is basic biology. Were you never taught how taxonomy or cladistics works? Do you really think that Chihuahuas stopped being dogs when they started looking different from other dogs? Did birds stop being vertebrates when they grew feathers? You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were plus modifications. Humans are still hominids, still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. We never stopped being those things. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: And all our ancestors are now extinct... how convenient.. Did you think your ancestors were immortal? I don't remember any of saying that organisms are immortal.
I quess we got magic beneficial mutations which elevated us into a higher superior race than our cousin tree shrews and uncle bats and above the Euarconta organisms. You would be guessing wrong.
Pity we are not allowed to discuss this on a New Topic and discuss Missing Links.... its very embarassing for evolutionists, so I reckon that answers that question. Pity that you can't even discuss the topics of threads that you start.
Primates ancestors were Euarconta say the evolutionist... False. Evolutionists say that primates ARE Euarchonta.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: So where did humans come from ? Haven't you been taught where babies come from?
People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying. Why don't you quote their actual words?
So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ? You don't come from a branch. You are ON a branch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: Anyway Humans have not evolved, is what I say and state. You have to state, 'Humans did evolve' and then tell us who are oour ancestors were, without microscopic graphs from others being your cop out. Why do we have to state who our ancestors were? We already have genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes and other primates. We can't know for sure if any fossil has living descendants because those fossils don't carry DNA. However, that doesn't make the evidence for common ancestry go away. We don't need to name anything since we already have the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Davidjay writes: Can we therefore call it, NO NAME EVIDENCE.... You can call it "mountains of genetic evidence supporting common ancestry".
I thought after all these years, you would have pinpointed some kind of ancestry for us primates... We have pinpointed ancestry through genetic evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Davidjay writes: In other words, Razz's results or conclusions differ from other evolutionists and evolutionists do not agree and have no confirmed idea where we came from... That's not what RAZD said, nor is it what the scientists are saying. What they are saying is that they aren't sure which of those other branches are more closely related to us.
or we can rationally conclude that evolution does not agree on who our ancestors were.... All scientists agree that we share a common ancestor with other mammal species. Nothing you are pointing to casts doubt on that. The only disagreement is the precise details of which branches branched first. There is no doubt that the mammal branches join together at one time in the past.
Also note that he uses the word 'BRANCH' which evolutionists and Razz used, yet evolutionists HEREIN keep denying they ever believed in branching. The only thing we disagree with is your misrepresentation of how the branching works. You continually make the mistake of taking the species at the tips of the branches and putting them where the branches meet. That's not how it works.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024