Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[zaangalewa]

Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades

Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.

And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.

Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.

Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on the heels of their feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade

It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.

The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".

And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too. Still today are thinking lots of people they are racial superior and others are inferior. They think "Darwinism" is a kind of moral law which allow superior people to eliminate inferior people (Mass-murder on red Indians for example). But a difference of the genetical structure between a man and a man is nearly not existing. We are good survivors because we are good in cooperating. And we are good in culture because we go to school and learn something. It's by the way also somehow funny that the people who change the world, if the world is not fitting to them, think the same time they are fit, fitter, fittest. Oh by the way: I don't know where they found it - but the oldest "cake" or "bread" is 14,000 years old. They used 95 different seeds of plants for this baked goods.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.

No it doesn't. Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

 

[james bond]

It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.

No it doesn't. Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

No of course about it. You're just throwing assertions now.

This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

 

[konradv]

Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

No of course about it. You're just throwing assertions now. This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

DNA isn't voodoo. It proves the relationship.

 

[james bond]

Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

No of course about it. You're just throwing assertions now. This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

DNA isn't voodoo. It proves the relationship.

DNA are molecules. Molecular analysis show there is no relationship. What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.

 

[konradv]

Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

No of course about it. You're just throwing assertions now. This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

DNA isn't voodoo. It proves the relationship.

DNA are molecules. Molecular analysis show there is no relationship. What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.

Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship. It's those who don't believe who have no proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

Except for every shred of emprical evidence available, including DNA and the fossil record. But I guess that is why you are sitting here pulling your taffy, and scientists are out there, doing science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Molecular analysis show there is no relationship.

Shameless lie that would get you laughed out of a middle school science class.

 

[james bond]

Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.

No of course about it. You're just throwing assertions now. This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

DNA isn't voodoo. It proves the relationship.

DNA are molecules. Molecular analysis show there is no relationship. What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.

Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship. It's those who don't believe who have no proof.

It's those who believe that there's a relationship. Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything. The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches. It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change. That's why earthworms and humans have a high perecentage of the same DNA.

 

[james bond]

This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.

Except for every shred of emprical evidence available, including DNA and the fossil record. But I guess that is why you are sitting here pulling your taffy, and scientists are out there, doing science.

Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics. If it was empirical, then we'd be observing monkeys becoming transitional forms.

 

[Syriusly]

Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.

I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'),]

Social Darwinism was invented by others who abused Darwin's theories of evolution much like how the Creationists abuse Darwin's theories.

 

[Syriusly]

Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades

Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.

And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.

Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.

Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on the heels of their feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade

It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.

The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".

And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too.]

Pretty sure that Darwin was a typical racist European racist of his time.

But that doesn't change the power and essential correctness of his ideas on biological evolution.

 

[james bond]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics.

Wrong. We have decoded entire genomes now. So..oops...there goes failed creationist talking point number 2,483,904. Time to change lanes again...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

That's not what that link says. As if you read a single word of it....

 

[james bond]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

That's not what that link says. As if you read a single word of it....

Shouldn't you be the one to explain how this happens. It's laid out for you in the link.

I knew you couldn't put it together. First, we can state that both abiogenesis and its predecessor spontaneous generation have been rendered pseudoscience.

So, the hypothesis was that we came from eukaryotes. However, arround 2010, microbiologists found the archae in addition to bacteria and eukaryotes. With the discovery of archaea as the third major domain of life,.many microbiologists became more dubious of the single common ancestor theory. They were already burned by thinking we came from bacteria (spontaneous generation), so questioned the research of eukaryotes.

Some claimed the discovery of complex archaea, closest living relatives of eukaryotes, is most compatible with the symbiogenetic scenario for eukaryogenesis. Instead of bacteria, we came from archaea and eukaryotes were its predecessors like bacteria. Where eukaryogenesis fails is thinking viruses are living organisms.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

Sorry, you are wrong again.

 

[konradv]

Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship. It's those who don't believe who have no proof.

It's those who believe that there's a relationship. Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything. The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches. It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change. That's why earthworms and humans have a high percentage of the same DNA.

How can there be more molecular differences than DNA matches AND a small percentages causing large changes? You're arguing both sides of the issue. It's like you're throwing out all sorts of facts, just to see what sticks. That doesn't make for a logical argument.

 

[james bond]

Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship. It's those who don't believe who have no proof.

It's those who believe that there's a relationship. Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything. The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches. It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change. That's why earthworms and humans have a high percentage of the same DNA.

How can there be more molecular differences than DNA matches AND a small percentages causing large changes? You're arguing both sides of the issue. It's like you're throwing out all sorts of facts, just to see what sticks. That doesn't make for a logical argument.

So far, you have not been able to refute what I said. If you took a DNA test, then would you expect to see part of it show up as ape DNA? Evos tell us we have 96% to 98% DNA identical to chimps DNA. It's not observable as it does not show up. Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your DNA argument is based on statistical analysis and nothing we observe.

My molecules argument uses the similar logic, but it is observable. if you compare human DNA with chimp DNA, there are 35 million places where the molecules differ, and there are a total of 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA. That's a large number of differences. Furthermore, epigenetics shows that DNA modification is highly controlled in the genome and plays a major role in the way that many different types of genes are expressed.