PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Taxonomy and Apes
       What wo creationists say about iit?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do creationists deny Alpha Taxonomy?

Do creationist know what taxonomic groups are?

They don't seem to even care about it. They don't seem to see any problems with it.

Timbrx, you have only said that you didn't know much about it. But what do you think about it?

You have complained that vestigials only make sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Well, Alpha Taxonomy also makes sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Don't you agree? Why are you not denying taxas?



Apes:
What do creationists mean when they say that we're not apes?

I really have no clue. I have this urge to refute it, but don't know where to start. Haha!

Pointing out similarities and shared DNA? Somehow i don't think they'll care...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:06 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the thread "Vestigial Organs"
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=44195

This is another unfinished subject. Species and kinds.

Demon says that "species" is a clear concept in Biology. I really don't know about that, but i honestly don't care. Not about the definition in Biology. Perhaps it means that the members of a single species can mate producing fertile offspring. That's pretty clear.
In bacteria it's not that simple. I bet there are more than one criterion.

To me those criteria and definitions are consensual. And it doesn't sound very interesting.

But the creationist concept of 'kind' should be anything but consensual. They are supposed to mean something very clear and distinct. And yet i have not come across any creationist who could pinpoint separations between kinds.

There should be a finite, clear and precise number of kinds living today.

What's that number?

Ok, let's leave aside those who were not in the ark.

Coyotes, wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, thylacines kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, cats, hummingbirds, ostriches, bonobos, chimpanzees, rattlesnake, coral snake, tsukinowaguma bears, polar bears, panda bears, pandas, raccoons, legless lizards, legged lizards...

How many kinds did i mention? Where can i see the Creationist Orchard compared to the Evolutionary Tree? Where's the creationist taxonomy?

If we're right, it's a hard and tiresome process.
If they're right, it's a piece of cake.

It should be as easy as this: if two species are too similar, or if they share too much DNA, they ought to belong to the same kind.

How similar is 'too similar'? How much is 'too much'?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:28 PM on March 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp
Do creationists deny Alpha Taxonomy?

What's to deny. It's a system of classification. I think demon was referring to this type of classification when he said that everything is a species and nothing else really matters.

Do creationist know what taxonomic groups are?

I'd imagine that some do. Linnaeus was one and he invented taxonomy.

They don't seem to even care about it. They don't seem to see any problems with it.

Not sure what you mean.

Timbrx, you have only said that you didn't know much about it. But what do you think about it?

I think it is useful but limited. I'd imagine you feel the same. Alpha taxonomy I would think would be preferred by evos while baraminology would be preferred by creos. It starts with a presupposition.

You have complained that vestigials only make sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Well, Alpha Taxonomy also makes sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Don't you agree?

I agree.
Why are you not denying taxas?

Because I'm afraid of the IRS. (ha ha...huhumm...mm... sorry) It is a term that is useful when trying to convey an idea. Pictures are nice, to.

But the creationist concept of 'kind' should be anything but consensual. They are supposed to mean something very clear and distinct. And yet i have not come across any creationist who could pinpoint separations between kinds.

Which is why creos are developing barimins. Evos have co-opted taxas and we need a system that fits our presupposition.

Evolution should predict a gradual blurring of species of kinds as you go back into the fossil record until everything coalesces into one common ancestor (phyletic gradualism).

Creation would predict a species or kind suddenly appearing, going through some minor changes as they persist, or disappearing suddenly. (stasis)

What does the fossil record show? What do we see in nature?

There should be a finite, clear and precise number of kinds living today.

What's that number?

That would be a work of generations, much as taxonomy has been.

Evolution should predict a gradual morphing occurring all over the place now and in the past. Where is it? Sure, we see little variations in pockets but over all massive stability.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:48 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrxEvolution should predict a gradual morphing occurring all over the place now and in the past.


Not all over the place and not in all times.

Evolution does not proceed evenly (constant rate of change). It occurs rapidly during periods of changing environment and high selection pressures. Long periods can pass with little or no change at all. The fossil record is like a book with missing pages. It is safe to assume that there was once a whole book even if some pages are no longer extant.

We dont have the original manuscripts of the Bible. They were probably destroyed long ago. The manuscripts we do have differ from each other.. ie there are variations..  (older manuscripts of Mark, for example, do not include the last chapter with the resurrection story...  the ending we have is pretty obviously not by the same author as the rest of the book) We still accept that there were original manuscripts and that they werent 'fictions'.

If you want to refute evolution then you will need MUCH BETTER arguments and it would be better if you actually refuted evolution than all the strawmen invented by creos.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:28 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
If you want to refute evolution then you will need MUCH BETTER arguments and it would be better if you actually refuted evolution than all the strawmen invented by creos.

I thought this thread was "taxonomy and apes, what do creationists think about it?" which kind of lead me to believe that wisp was asking what creo's think about taxonomy and apes. I answered the question. If you disagree with my answer, than you show your argument. That's how discussions are supposed to work.  

Show me the strawman.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:00 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

   
timbrx
Evolution should predict a gradual morphing occurring all over the place now and in the past.





Not all over the place and not in all times.  


There's your strawman in the first line of my post.


(Edited by waterboy 3/29/2009 at 04:26 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:25 AM on March 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's to deny. It's a system of classification.
What's to deny? Well, the same as in vestigials. They are related to Evolution as a fact.
I think demon was referring to this type of classification when he said that everything is a species and nothing else really matters.
The tags don't matter. The blurry lines don't matter.
The blurriness does matter. The percentage of similitude does matter.

In taxonomy you take a bunch of species, you arrange them by relatedness (so far this is objective), and then you apply tags based upon consensual criteria.

I think it is useful but limited. I'd imagine you feel the same.
If you mean the tags, yes, they are limited and consensual. But the arrangement (the taxonomic tree of life) is extremely useful.

It's a work in progress. It will never be complete because there's more to be found than what has been found.

But anything we found can be fixed unbiasedly in the taxonomic tree.

You seem to have lots of doubts about your 'kinds'.

It's easy to us. We have separated species, or we have a single group called 'life'.
It's almost unfair. It's almost as simplistic as when you say "God wanted it that way". But that's how it is.
We know dogs and foxes share a common ancestor.

I guess some of you believe it, and some don't.

I guess none of you believe we share a common ancestor with bugs.


Just like dogs and foxes share a common ancestor, so do humans and dogs.


To justify your idea that things look alike because they have a common designer you have to make up God's ideas.
"Perhaps God likes for creatures to have faces!"

But it doesn't always happen.

(That one is a fake)

We don't know everything we'll find. But we know what we WON'T find.

We won't find a weredog.

And why not? Don't we share a common ancestor?
Yes, but our most recent common ancestor didn't look like a man or a dog.

We don't get surprised because we know what to expect.
You don't get surprised because you don't expect anything.

Alpha taxonomy I would think would be preferred by evos while baraminology would be preferred by creos. It starts with a presupposition.
Yes, but our presupposition is a scientific fact. We know how species are related.




You don't.


That's a creationist classification of hominid fossils.

You have complained that vestigials only make sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Well, Alpha Taxonomy also makes sense under the presupposition of Evolution. Don't you agree?
I agree.
Then that's your answer to your question: "What's to deny?".

Why are you not denying taxas?
Because I'm afraid of the IRS.
Hahaha!
It is a term that is useful when trying to convey an idea.
The idea that it conveys is that we're all related to every life form.
Pictures are nice, to.
I agree.

But the creationist concept of 'kind' should be anything but consensual. They are supposed to mean something very clear and distinct. And yet i have not come across any creationist who could pinpoint separations between kinds.
Which is why creos are developing barimins.
We say there are no limits. You don't show us any.
Evos have co-opted taxas and we need a system that fits our presupposition.
But facts fit our presupposition. Actually facts came BEFORE our "pre"suppositions.

Evolution should predict a gradual blurring of species of kinds as you go back into the fossil record until everything coalesces into one common ancestor (phyletic gradualism).
Gradual? Again this argument?

-Evolution says you should get gradual change.
-Says who?
-Says whoever says that living things share a common ancestor.
-I say that, and i don't say we should have gradual blurring. Take that back.
-Editorial silence.

Be better than gluteus.

Creation would predict a species or kind suddenly appearing,
All at once, don't forget.
going through some minor changes as they persist,
What's 'minor'? Learning how to digest nylon seems minor to you?
or disappearing suddenly. (stasis)
That would mean a poor design. I wouldn't predict that.

If species 'adapt', you predicted it (God gave it that tool). If it dies, you predicted it (God didn't like that creature very much).
What does the fossil record show? What do we see in nature?
Exactly what we predict.
Not what Darwin would have predicted, mind you!
We know better than him.

There should be a finite, clear and precise number of kinds living today.

What's that number?
That would be a work of generations, much as taxonomy has been.
That's my point. It shouldn't. It should be a piece of cake.
If you're right, divisions should be clear.
Does the nautilus share a common ancestor with the octopus or not?


Are these related to dolphins or not?


Is this a dolphin or not?


What about this one?


If they share a common ancestor with flipper, how come such a difference was achieved in just 6k years? How can they be so different?

If they don't, how can they be so similar?

The easiest of questions should be this one: How many elephants were embarked into the ark???

If that's hard to answer, then you lose! You can't possibly be right!

Evolution should predict a gradual morphing occurring all over the place now and in the past.
Should predict? Do you or don't you know that it doesn't?
Not all over the place. Not all the time.
Who told you that? Your sites? They're pulling the wool over your eyes, man. You shouldn't trust them.

If you find just one intentional fallacy, you should never trust them again.
They are overloaded with fallacies.
Where is it?
Certainly not all over the place.
Sure, we see little variations in pockets but over all massive stability.
Hum... The human impact on the world has been dramatic. So there should be a high rate of change.
But i doubt that it will be high enough for creatoinists.

We've been around for a very short time, in evolutionary terms.
All we could see is speciation. And we've seen it.

Just about anything is a problem for creationists.

I think answersingenesis says that the cat and the lion share a common pair of ancestors in the ark. Just 4k years ago.

Where is that fantastic rapid rate of change?
Creationism should predict that we see it all over the place!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:35 AM on March 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still want to know what you (creationists) mean when you say that we're not apes.

In what sense?

Historical?

If that's the case, why is it that you have no problems calling mammals 'mammals'?

How come taxonomy is ok, except when it comes to humans?

Why is it that you don't say that we're not mammals? Shouldn't you? Or do you?

If someone asks you if you're vertebrates or invertebrates, do you answer "I'm none"?

If you consider yourself vertebrates, again, why not apes?
If you don't, why do you put the rest of the animals in the same bag, if they are separate kinds as well?

Ah, i can't make sense of it...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:27 PM on April 17, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still want to know what you (creationists) mean when you say that we're not apes.
In what sense?
Historical?


No, Magical.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:02 AM on April 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, it's the best answer so far.

But i'm still not satisfied.

What do they think we mean when we say humans are apes? What makes them say that we're not? What does that mean?

They don't seem to have many problems saying that we're mammals, or vertebrates (that i know of).

Well, by saying that we're apes we mean exactly the same.

Don't we?

So what's the difference?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:17 PM on May 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again: Where's that fantastic rate of change that gave us lions and domestic cats from only two individuals in the ark?

What do creationist mean when they say we're not apes?

Can you demonstrate a lack of objectivity in our arrangement in the evolutionary tree?

Coyotes, wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, thylacines kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, cats, hummingbirds, ostriches, bonobos, chimpanzees, rattlesnake, coral snake, tsukinowaguma bears, polar bears, panda bears, pandas, raccoons, legless lizards, legged lizards...

How many kinds have i just mentioned?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:57 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Cladus: Eukaryota
Supergroup: Opisthokonta
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Divisio: Neoptera
Subdivisio: Endopterygota
Superordo: Panorpida
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Divisio: Ditrysia
Sectio: Cossina
Subsection: Bombycina
Superfamilia: Bombycoidea
Series: Saturniiformes
Familia: Saturniidae
Subfamilia: Saturniinae
Genus: Rothschildia

...incomplete


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:25 PM on June 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Mapping endogenous retroviruses in different species is very useful.

If we have made any minor mistake when drawing the phylogenetic tree (it WILL be minor), this will probably correct it.
Right?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:40 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still don't know what creationists mean when they say we're not apes.

Not one of them has answered this simple question: Are we mammals?

I think you could still be a creationist while acknowledging that we're apes.

"Yes, Yahweh decided to make us apes. He created us specially, and apes."

They call birds 'birds', and the 'fact' that there are many separately created kinds of birds does not trouble them.

So what's wrong with calling us 'apes'?
I think they don't reason at all in regard to this question. They are just psychologically averse to calling us 'apes'.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 PM on July 15, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:30 PM on July 15, 2009 :
[color=teal]I still don't know what creationists mean when they say we're not apes.

Not one of them has answered this simple question: Are we mammals?

I think you could still be a creationist while acknowledging that we're apes.


The one who invented the taxonomic system that classifies us as apes and primates was invented by a creation scientists before Darwin was ever on the scene.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:33 PM on July 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The one who invented the taxonomic system that classifies us as apes and primates was invented by a creation scientists before Darwin was ever on the scene.

Where did Carl Linnaeus ever talk about creation science?  I don't recall him ever talking about special creation.  And he never seemed to interested in the church to begin with.  Unless you're just claiming he was one because at the time evolution hadn't been proposed.  Since he didn't deal with creationism or make any claims about it,  I just wondered why you called him a creation scientist....

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:30 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I only said creation scientist because just about everyone back then was essentially a creationist, admittedly a different sort than the ones we have today, but a creationist nonetheless. It's no different than saying evolutionary scientist.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:28 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I only said creation scientist because just about everyone back then was essentially a creationist, admittedly a different sort than the ones we have today, but a creationist nonetheless. It's no different than saying evolutionary scientist.

OK, I see were you're coming from, but it really doesn't carry much weight.  Linnaeus  never made any creationists claims so I just wondered why you brought him up in this post, just seemed kind of pointless in this discusion.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:04 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed. But still. A creationist could see taxas, and place us with the rest of the apes.

I just don't see why not.

They call ostriches "birds", they call hummingbirds "birds"... We're a lot more like chimps than those too are like each other.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:10 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:39 AM on April 13, 2010 in the thread What created the dinosaurs?:
I wonder if its an ape or a man….. probably an ape…
wisp
FAIL!

False dichotomy.

If you disagree, define "ape" in a way that it doesn't include you. Go ahead.
I'm so sorry that you can't tell the difference.
Define "ape", please.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:33 AM on April 13, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:33 AM on April 13, 2010 :
Define "ape", please.


Ape:
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

being related to other apes is nothing to be ashamed  about.






-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 8:24 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let them be ashamed. It's extra funny!

We're human beings! We're not like those ugly filthy disgusting apes...

...


Which are marvelous because they were intelligently designed, of course! Praise the Lord!


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:10 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:10 PM on April 13, 2010 :
Let them be ashamed. It's extra funny!

We're human beings! We're not like those ugly filthy disgusting apes...

...


Which are marvelous because they were intelligently designed, of course! Praise the Lord!


"WHAT!..THE HELL YOU SAY!!!...I   AM   NOT RELATED TO DIRTY MONKEYS!"

LOL!..so what if the human family tree has monkeys in it?







-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 11:34 PM on April 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since our common ancestor with monkeys was a monkey, cladistically speaking we are, in fact, monkeys.

The thing is "monkey" is not a scientific word. It includes and excludes species in a whimsical manner according to psychological appreciations.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:45 AM on April 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, i'm still waiting for you to define "ape".




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:58 AM on May 9, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester. 'Ape'. Definition. Go!


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:48 PM on May 15, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:41 AM on March 21, 2009 in the thread numbers not in evolutionists f:
I find in general, if there is a -pithecus attached to the end of the given name, it is an ape. If there is a Homo- at the beginning of the name, it is a human. Evolutionists think they are something inbetween.
You said this more recently, but i don't recall where.

So, Lester... Tell us about the gap between the Australopithecus and the Homo Habilis.


I bet you'll say that one of the two are exceptions to your generality...

Which one?

Can you explain the canines of the Homo Erectus? Arthritis?

Some creationists have tried to explain to me that what we know about the neanderthals comes from a single skeleton with arthritis. They shut up when i show them this:



And this (includes some easy French):


What's your opinion?




Oh, and, by the way, don't forget i'm still interested in your definition of "ape".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:17 PM on May 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:17 PM on May 24, 2010 :
So, Lester... Tell us about the gap between the Australopithecus and the Homo Habilis.


Oh, you see, it is that gap that we should have filled in by now, um, if evolution were true.

But that discrete, specific, viable, means by which to accurately identify, define, and measure "information" - the stuff that we are told must come from a mind and cannot increase naturalistically - yeah, thats coming ... At some point....  Not sure when...  But until it does, the YEC/ID crowd just KNOWS that they are correct and that we should have all fossils of everything that ever lived.  If evolution is true, that is....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 04:21 AM on May 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sooo... No definition of "ape"? In all these years you people haven't come up with anything?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:54 AM on June 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Finally, after more than a year asking, i got an an attempt of an answer.
Quote from Lester10 at 6:36 PM on June 10, 2010 in the thread April 7, Paul Nelson's day
I see that an ape is ‘a tailless primate such as a monkey, orang-utan, chimpanzee or gorilla.’
A primate apparently ‘includes humans, apes and monkeys’.

But the first definition is premised on the assumption of evolution. So I would say we are primates, but not apes. You notice the examples given of tailless primates did not include man.

If evolution is true, then we are apes; if not then we are not.
I say evolution is not true and we are fundamentally different from apes.
We may be a primate but not all tailless primates can be called apes, humans being the obvious exception.
Let's analyze that.

I see that an ape is ‘a tailless primate such as a monkey, orang-utan, chimpanzee or gorilla.’
I asked for a definition that excludes humans.

You can't do it, can you?

Gibbons have tails, and they are apes. Unless by "apes" you're only talking about homininæ.


Yes, when i use the word "ape" i'm talking about cladistics. But when you use it, what is it that you're talking about?

This seems to be your implied definition:

Everything that looks a lot like us except for us.


A primate apparently ‘includes humans, apes and monkeys’.
What do you mean by "apparently"?

You just went to a higher clade.

There are other higher clades you accept you belong to, for some reason. Like vertebrates, or mammals. And you still deny the tree-like pattern, amazingly enough.

But the first definition is premised on the assumption of evolution.
Then why don't you give me YOUR definition? One that excludes us, of course.
So I would say we are primates, but not apes.
What makes you think that the first is premised on Evolution and the second isn't?

In any case, that wasn't my question.
I already know it's more comfortable for you to just say what you think we are. I'm asking you to do the opposite. Take the word "ape", and define it in whatever way you want, but make it exclude us.

My bet is that any such definition will be patently whimsical.

You notice the examples given of tailless primates did not include man.
YOUR examples.

Giving examples is not the way you define things. You define a group by its shared traits.

So, what shared traits do your "apes" have that exclude us?

If evolution is true, then we are apes; if not then we are not.
You say it's not, but you still use the word "ape".

What do you mean by "ape"? Why does it exclude us? Define "ape" in a way that excludes us, or stop saying we're not apes.

I say evolution is not true and we are fundamentally different from apes.
Saying things is easy. You don't even feel the need to explain what you mean.

We may be a primate but not all tailless primates can be called apes,
So?
humans being the obvious exception.
Obvious?

You can't even define "apes" in such a way that it excludes you. So there's nothing obvious.

All definitions are partial. You just need to give me the part that excludes us.

"Primates that don't eat pizza", for instance.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:30 PM on June 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:13 PM on June 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ohy, those curvy branches - their lack of 'precision' used to drive systematists crazy!  

I did most of my work on that one branch off to the right (with the Colobines and Cercopithecids).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:03 AM on June 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ohy, those curvy branches - their lack of 'precision' used to drive systematists crazy!
Some evolutionary twigs seem to go back in time.
I did most of my work on that one branch off to the right (with the Colobines and Cercopithecids).
Well, i sure envy you.



I would love it if they made an interactive super cladogram! Something as interactive as Google Earth...

I would waste lots of time playing with it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:10 PM on June 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, thanks for at least trying to address it, but i hope even you are able to see that if you tried to define "ape" as anything that excluded you, you failed miserably.




AronRa's video about 'reptilian' taxonomy.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:02 PM on June 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:10 PM on June 12, 2010 :
I did most of my work on that one branch off to the right (with the Colobines and Cercopithecids).
Well, i sure envy you.
Not so fast - I only used their DNA, I never actually got to visit them in real life...




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:01 PM on June 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still envy you. I'd love knowing, handling and comparing DNA.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:51 PM on June 14, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've just learned, that amongst other things, I'm an organic, biotic, eukaryotic, meatzoan, bilaterally symetrical gill-less, dry-skinned, endothermic, dry nosed, mammalian hind leg dominant primate.

What are you?

from: http://www.locolobo.org/Taxonomy.html


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 08:57 AM on June 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm a gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

What about you, Lester?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:07 AM on June 17, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 09:07 AM on June 17, 2010 :
I'm a gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

What about you, Lester?



I don't have a highly social lifestyle :'(




-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 09:39 AM on June 17, 2010 | IP
login257

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:48 PM on March 28, 2009 :Evolution should predict a gradual blurring of species of kinds as you go back into the fossil record until everything coalesces into one common ancestor (phyletic gradualism).


Evolution being a gradual process is a misconception.
A species in a stable environment or a species exceptionally skilled to cope with changes in its environment can remain unchanged for long period's.
On the other hand, with a sudden change in environment, a species can change radically in a short time.

Creationists often refer to the fossil record and the gaps in it.
But what do u expect?

The fossil record is like an enormous library with hundreds of thousands of books.
only problem: they are mostly empty short of a page here and there, a sentence or two ...
Some have a chapter or more still in them.
None have a complete text.

Actually, the creationists could help with that problem.
They have a relation with somebody who has a complete copy ...


 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 11:37 AM on June 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

login257
timbrEvolution should predict a gradual blurring of species of kinds as you go back into the fossil record until everything coalesces into one common ancestor (phyletic gradualism).
Evolution being a gradual process is a misconception.
If by that you mean a 100% gradual process, it sure is. Of course, it can have gradual progress sometimes.

The word "progress" can scare some radical evolutionists who (with some good reasons) howl at the idea that Evolution can have a direction, but i say it oftentimes does have a direction.

A species in a stable environment or a species exceptionally skilled to cope with changes in its environment can remain unchanged for long period's.
Very true.

Nevertheless, it can also change in the most stable of environments.

On the other hand, with a sudden change in environment, a species can change radically in a short time.
That is quite likely, but that can also happen in an unchanging environment.

"Unchanging" will of course be relative, because a population in a different evolutionary stage will have a different relationship with its environment, which in practice will be like having a different environment.

Fitness landscapes are the best visual representation i know of:


Do you know about them?

In this particular representation the environment doesn't change (you would need a 4th dimension in order to do that, or you could also sacrifice one of the spacial 3). And yet a population (any one of the dots) that is not at the top of a lump will have to climb.

The steeper the inclinations are, the faster a population will climb it.

When the environment changes, so does the fitness landscape. It can sometimes create temporary bridges.

This is an awesome way to look at Evolution, in my opinion.


(Edited by wisp 6/17/2010 at 5:49 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:48 PM on June 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you give it up, right, Lester? Do you admit you're an ape?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:05 PM on June 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes? No? Maybe? Something?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:04 AM on July 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see...


Well, do you guys feel like having a laugh?
Biblical taxonomy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/25/feedback-a-biblically-based-taxonomy



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:18 PM on July 24, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh that was brilliant, thanks Wisp! I loved how they classified a load of things non-living! Sea insects don't get a soul, but but winged ones do?
Poor little buggers

(Edited by Galileo 7/25/2010 at 4:07 PM).


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 4:07 PM on July 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed.

They dare us to produce life in a lab (making it clear that it won't matter because it will prove creationism), but now we can see they can opt to call it "non life" anyway, no matter how complex the results may be.

Even if we could produce a species so complex that its individuals could discuss with creationists on equal intellectual ground, creationists would still say to their faces (if they had such a thing) that they're not alive.

A creationist debater in some other forum gave me that link as a demonstration that Baraminology was being developed.

Looks like their entire classification system has only managed to determine one kind: doves. Apparently that's what they call "under development".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:59 PM on July 25, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.