Man and chimps, Darwin vs. God

[Skye]

You actually have more in common biologically with a worm than a monkey.

I do? What makes you say that?

 

(And what kind of worm are you talking about?)

[Sayonara]

Im a creationist yet im not religious.

I don't think many creationists are.

 

 

You actually have more in common biologically with a worm than a monkey.

Utter crap.

 

 

Taken at face value i dont believe survival of the survivors is a good enough theory.

I assume this is some kind of reference to natural selection. If so, there's a good chance you don't understand how it works (the principle has the advantage of making very good sense, which is handy).

Either way I don't think the survival of things called survivors is something we can question if we're going to go around calling them survivors, so I don't think we'd refer to that as a theory.

 

 

Perhaps if evolution (which implys evolving into a better creature suited to a changing environment.When in fact my knees are not too good painting these skirting boards today)was scrubbed from the records and simply called Darwinism it would be recieved better .

Firstly, while evolution is largely a response to environmental and ecological factors, evolutionary change does not necessarily mean change for the better.

 

Secondly, evolution occurs in species, across generations - not in individuals. So don't expect your knees to suddenly sprout wings or anything.

 

 

The only niggly reservations i have with it though is i wish my ancestors had given me a bigger penis

If you have any daughters, teach them to only mate with men who have big willies. And get them to pass that on to their daughters, and so on. Eventually your male descendants ought to have the biggest willies on the block.

 

Won't help you but at least selection will be doing something useful for the family line.

[philbo1965uk]

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself, you quoted utter crap to my second point that you have more in common with a worm.Unfortunately its 12.45pm im drunk but tommorrow i will give you the worms name.as for not understanding natural selection (evolution)you have chosen the wrong backside to chew.I will openly debate anything you chose regarding this subject.

[Sorcerer]

Let me guess, you read this "fact" about the worm in a book, so it must be true......

[fuhrerkeebs]

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself, you quoted utter crap to my second point that you have more in common with a worm.Unfortunately its 12.45pm im drunk but tommorrow i will give you the worms name.as for not understanding natural selection (evolution)you have chosen the wrong backside to chew.I will openly debate anything you chose regarding this subject.

 

Hahaha oh well, you are wrong. The reason most evolutionists claim that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees is because they are our closest relatives, genetically, of course. And, it is not only your lack of understanding of natural selection, but your lack of understanding in population genetics and evolution in general that causes holes in your posts. For example:

 

Im a creationist yet im not religious.I believe in god but not as an old man with grey beard.You actually have more in common biologically with a worm than a monkey.Taken at face value i dont believe survival of the survivors is a good enough theory.Perhaps if evolution (which implys evolving into a better creature suited to a changing environment.When in fact my knees are not too good painting these skirting boards today)was scrubbed from the records and simply called Darwinism it would be recieved better .The only niggly reservations i have with it though is i wish my ancestors had given me a bigger penis

 

For someone who has your kind of arrogance about your knowledge of evolution, you must have a bad memory. Evolution is no longer a Darwinian theory, but it is referred to as neo-Darwinian because Darwin did not know about, and obviously did not include in his writings, genetic drift. Given a reasonable population size, genetic drift can, and often does, have a bigger effect on evolution that natural selection. Get your facts straight before you consider yourself more knowledgeable than someone else, especially someone who has shown that they know what they are talking about, such as sayonara.

[Ophiolite]

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself, .

 

I share your surprise at Sayonara's attack on your post, or certainly at the character of the attack. That said some of your earlier statements were comtroversial without some form of substantiation. That was why I asked, and why I now repeat, 'in what way(s) do you feel evolution through natural selection is inadequate?'.

 

I trust you will be hangover free in the morning.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself, you quoted utter crap to my second point that you have more in common with a worm.Unfortunately its 12.45pm im drunk but tommorrow i will give you the worms name.as for not understanding natural selection (evolution)you have chosen the wrong backside to chew.I will openly debate anything you chose regarding this subject.

Aha! You're drunk!

 

That explains a lot.

 

 

And trust me, there are monkeys/apes that have 98% genetic similarity with humans.

 

Then again, some people I know ARE monkeys.

 

Edit: Actually, :

August 21 - Researchers from Cambridge University' date=' part of a joint British/Dutch research team, have discovered, they claim, that a mud worm found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake is a 'long lost relative' of human beings. The researchers are convinced that the worm, Xenoturbella, shares DNA with humans. The new research, reported in the journal Nature, puts humans and the Xenoturbella - whose Latin name means "strange flatworm" - together in the deuterostomes group of species, which contains the vertebrates, as well as starfish, sea urchins and certain marine worms.[/quote']

But that doesn't mean they are more related than monkeys.

[fuhrerkeebs]

Cap'n Refsmmat, you are right about the xenoturbella...it is believed to be the common ancestor amoung all vertebrates, not just humans. We are still more genetically similar to chimpanzees.

[Irken_Link]

I thought all vertabrates had their roots from marine creatures,say the early fish

[Irken_Link]

oh,wait a minute I was wrong never mind

[Sayonara]

haha i can always count on you sayonara,a word of advice when you constantly pick on someones post have the good grace to realise that someone might have just a little more knowledge than yourself,

I don't see how me posting in an open thread on a public forum implies that I don't expect a response. Please clarify as best you can.

 

 

you quoted utter crap to my second point that you have more in common with a worm.

Had you said "more in common genetically", you'd might have had something. Unfortunately you said "more in common biologically", which denotes structural, anatomical, physiological and neurological similarity.

Whether this was your intention or not, the fact remains that it is utter crap.

If you are going to argue a point in any way that makes sense, you need to be more precise.

 

 

Unfortunately its 12.45pm im drunk but tommorrow i will give you the worms name.

i) Unless it's "Gary" (or you change your claim to something that you can demonstrate) the worm's name is irrelevant.

 

ii) Your claim said "you have more in common with a worm than a monkey". To me this implies any worm and any monkey. Now we learn it's one worm. Are you comparing this to all monkey species*, all apid species, or just one monkey in particular? Do not mix quantities.

 

 

as for not understanding natural selection (evolution)you have chosen the wrong backside to chew.I will openly debate anything you chose regarding this subject.

Look around.

 

 

 

* bearing in mind that sea monkeys don't count, and neither do monkey nuts.

[swansont]

Cap'n Refsmmat, you are right about the xenoturbella...it is believed to be the common ancestor amoung all[/b'] vertebrates, not just humans. We are still more genetically similar to chimpanzees.

 

Whose contention is it that an extant species is a common ancestor to all vertebrates? What has prevented it from speciating lo these hundreds of millions of years?

[Ophiolite]

Whose contention is it that an extant species is a common ancestor to all vertebrates? What has prevented it from speciating lo these hundreds of millions of years?

 

I can't find anyone that is claiming it as ancestral to all vertebrates. It does fall into the same Group as vertebrates, the deuterostomes, which include vertebrates, hemi-chordates and echinoderms. So it shares a common ancestor with the vertebrates.

 

A few species have remained remarkably unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. The text book example given is usually the bi-valve Lingula.

 

 

Here are a couple of links on Xenoturbella, reporting on the original article in Nature.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3170245.stm

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12931184&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

 

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002847.html

[Sorcerer]

Cap'n Refsmmat, you are right about the xenoturbella...it is believed to be the common ancestor amoung all[/b'] vertebrates, not just humans. We are still more genetically similar to chimpanzees.

 

Surely you mean it is an ancestor of the common ancestor, it is just that its morphology is conserved and hence it is inferred that its DNA is highly conserved from that ancestral genotype.

[JHAQ]

I understood that the ancestral form of all chordates was the larval form of the Echinoderms which neotenised to a reproductive stage . The bipinnaria (or its first metamorphosis to ) brachiolaria larva ?

[MadMarchHare]

Hi All, i'm new here. I'd like to state for the record first, that I have by no means the scientific or mathmatical brains of some of you here - but i consider myself reasonably intelligent and like a damn good debate. I'll do my best.

 

What I find impossible to believe is that people in this modern world we live in find it easier to believe in the idea that we were all decended from ONE man who then had a nice little lady made for him from his rib. It seems infantile that a grown person would believe in this seriously. I have heard some christians saying that its not meant to be literal - in which case thank goodness!

however I just dont see how intelligent human beings feel that this is possible. I for one as a woman find the idea of being made purely for the entertainment and servitude of the man is a biiig stretch. It reeks of the time this religion was born - where women were second class citizens and they wanted them to stay that way.

[philbo1965uk]

sorry to be a dissapointment to you then,unfortunately it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt if you believe in DNA(which i believe is quite reliable) but every human being was decended from one female...her name is LUCY...but i believe shes about 3.5 million years old so dont send her a birthday card.Does that sit more comfortably with you than it being a man...which heaven forbid dont scratch my eyes out im a man....

[fuhrerkeebs]

Not necessarily...you are probably thinking of the fact that we the mitochondria we all have was originally from one women, however, that doesn't imply that we all descended from one women.

[Skye]

you are probably thinking

Guess again.

[fuhrerkeebs]

I know when he said Lucy he was referring to hominid fossil...but they've found other hominid fossils from time periods previous to Lucy, so I was assuming that he had confused his references. In fact, they've found other Australopithecus afarensis (the same hominid species as Lucy) fossils that are dated around .2 million years older than Lucy.

[Sorcerer]

I understood that the ancestral form of all chordates was the larval form of the Echinoderms which neotenised to a reproductive stage . The bipinnaria (or its first metamorphosis to ) brachiolaria larva ?

 

Argh, again...... u need to add "probably something morpologically similar to" between ...chordates was..... and ...... the larval form.

[Sorcerer]

Hi All' date=' i'm new here. I'd like to state for the record first, that I have by no means the scientific or mathmatical brains of some of you here - but i consider myself reasonably intelligent and like a damn good debate. I'll do my best.

 

What I find impossible to believe is that people in this modern world we live in find it easier to believe in the idea that we were all decended from ONE man who then had a nice little lady made for him from his rib. It seems infantile that a grown person would believe in this seriously. I have heard some christians saying that its not meant to be literal - in which case thank goodness!

however I just dont see how intelligent human beings feel that this is possible. I for one as a woman find the idea of being made purely for the entertainment and servitude of the man is a biiig stretch. It reeks of the time this religion was born - where women were second class citizens and they wanted them to stay that way.[/quote']

 

Yes, and isn't it amazing that some women are eager to beleive it!!

 

Also what about the poor women in Islamic states who have never heard of womens lib and have no choice at all....... count yourself lucky

[Sorcerer]

sorry to be a dissapointment to you then,unfortunately it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt if you believe in DNA(which i believe is quite reliable) but every human being was decended from one female...her name is LUCY...but i believe shes about 3.5 million years old so dont send her a birthday card.Does that sit more comfortably with you than it being a man...which heaven forbid dont scratch my eyes out im a man....

 

Ummmmm, mitochondrial eve and Lucy are not the same, mitochondrial eve is a hypothetical woman whos existence is deduced by looking at the variation in peoples current day mitochodrial DNA. The assumptions made are that as time goes on mutations build up and DNA diverges from a common source, now IF there was one woman that was our fore-mother then they can deduce the time she lived, it is thought to be more like 150,000 years ago. The common mtDNA source could also be accounted for by a small band of women with nearly identical mitochondrial DNA. This evidence almost begs the question, since it assumes that there was a common source then it tries to deduce how long ago that source existed. However it is a reasonable assumption considering speciation is normally caused by a bottleneck effect, thus there should be a bottleneck sometime in our recent past.

 

Lucy on the other hand was a Australopithecus aferensis skeleton which is about 3.5 million years old.

 

Edit: heres a good link that might provide you with some more detailed information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

oh... heres another one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

[philbo1965uk]

actually your quite right...apart from a little premise..but i think you gave a better answer than myself.I was only going from memory of something i had read.but i did know the link to one women so i guess i get a brownie point.

But thankyou and well done.....

[swansont]

Ummmmm' date=' mitochondrial eve and Lucy are not the same, mitochondrial eve is a hypothetical woman whos existence is deduced by looking at the variation in peoples current day mitochodrial DNA. The assumptions made are that as time goes on mutations build up and DNA diverges from a common source, now IF there was one woman that was our fore-mother then they can deduce the time she lived, it is thought to be more like 150,000 years ago. The common mtDNA source could also be accounted for by a small band of women with nearly identical mitochondrial DNA. This evidence almost begs the question, since it assumes that there was a common source then it tries to deduce how long ago that source existed. However it is a reasonable assumption considering speciation is normally caused by a bottleneck effect, thus there should be a bottleneck sometime in our recent past.

[/quote']

 

And, if I may add, note that nothing about the mitochondrial Eve scenario implies that she was the only female alive at the time. Nor does it imply that we aren't related to myriad others alive at the same time. It's a mitochondrial DNA bottleneck, not a population bottleneck.