Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…166167169171172…201

Comments

  • #8402
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I wonder what crazy story he'll spin now, after he's admitted his total failure to provide that robust definition of cfsi nobody seems to be able to find, not to mention his admission that Dembski is a lying scumbag.

    It must disallow close to 99% of the crap he usually posts.


  • #8403
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    I wonder what crazy story he'll spin now, after he's admitted his total failure to provide that robust definition of cfsi nobody seems to be able to find, not to mention his admission that Dembski is a lying scumbag.

    It must disallow close to 99% of the crap he usually posts.

    A pinch of common sense disallows most of the crap he posts. But if we're guessing, I'd say he'll go back to completely ignoring everything asked of him, badly 'defining' CFSI, and whining about ad homeninininininemisms until we get bored of asking him stuff. Then claim he was right all along because we have no answer to what he's said, even though he won't have said anything that hasn't already been shown up as nonsense. When we point this out to him, he'll make bad jokes about science, again showing he doesn't understand what he's reading, and when we point this out to him he'll complain that we're being mean to him.
    Oh, and probably go on about saving and love a bit somewhere in there too.


  • #8404
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It also says that we are Apes!!!

    ... but it's nice to see that ye don't believe that ye are Apes ... progress in the direction of Creation Science at last!!!!:)
    afraid not. We may be descended from an ape but we are not apes. Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc.
    CFSI is the stuff that causes the difference between a worm and a Human!!!:)
    Happy now???:eek::)
    Yes. it just proves that CFSI is a pile of sh*te.
    J C wrote: »
    Koth seems to think that Evolutionists don't believe they are Apes ... and is shocked that even a 5 year old would believe such nonesense!!!
    ... whereas you seem to think that most people on the thread think they are Apes.
    Koth will speak for himself, I don't need you misprenting me. Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, but humans are not apes and apes are not humans.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8405
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    koth wrote: »
    afraid not. We may be descended from an ape but we are not apes. Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc.

    Actually, we are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Great Ape family.


  • #8406
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Actually, we are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Great Ape family.

    The diagram in the linked wiki is my understanding of apes

    So, is that wrong? I'm asking because this is getting very confusing as to what the term ape actually means.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #8407
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Ape generally refers to the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Anyone who is a member of the Hominoidea Superfamily is an ape. That includes Humans, extinct members of the Homo genus, Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and Gibbons. More specifically, Humans are a member of the great ape family (Hominidae), and even more specific - a member of the Hominini tribe.

    When I refer to Ape, I am referring to the scientific classification - as that's the only one that really counts. All apes share a common ancestor, and have shared features. That is why they are apes.


  • #8408
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Right that makes a bit more sense. Pity JC couldn't explain himself clearly, as I was using ape to refer exclusively to chimps, gorillas etc. and it looks like he was using it in the same manner as yourself.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8409
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    I'd recommend to light reading, to start on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo and then go up each order on the scientific classification on the right hand side to get an understanding of the Ape family from a human ancestral perspective.


  • #8410
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    In addition to dlofnep's concise explanation and recommended reading I'd also like to recommend this. I think Aron is always quite clear and distinct in explaining things and this video speaks to the core of the confusion above.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU


    Edit: Actually watching it back now, the video below was what I meant to post but I'm going to leave the first one stand because it's a good commentary on the crap that JC has been coming out with lately.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU


  • #8411
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Thanks for the wiki link and video clip, guys. Shall look at them later :)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #8412
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    In addition to dlofnep's concise explanation and recommended reading I'd also like to recommend this. I think Aron is always quite clear and distinct in explaining things and this video speaks to the core of the confusion above.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU


    Edit: Actually watching it back now, the video below was what I meant to post but I'm going to leave the first one stand because it's a good commentary on the crap that JC has been coming out with lately.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

    I'm glad you left it in as I've just watched it and it's fascinating. On to the next one now. :D


  • #8413
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    We are great apes.


  • #8414
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by koth
    ... afraid not. We may be descended from an ape but we are not apes. Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc.

    dlofnep
    Actually, we are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Great Ape family.
    Ah come on lads ... make up your minds ... are Humans Apes or not?:eek:

    If Evolutionists can't even make up their minds on this simple issue ... it's no wonder that they are so confused about everything else in the W2M Evolution Fairytale!!!

    I'll take you out of your misery ... and tell you who is right.:)
    Koth is correct ... we are not apes. He correctly pointed out that Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc ... and they aren't interfertile with Humans either ... so leave that Ape alone!!!
    ... and don't sexually assault the Gorilla either!!!:)
    (Koth didn't get the bit about the Gorilla thumb correct - but he got the rest perfect)

    Well done Koth ... you win the Darwin Prize for Creation Science Excellence!!!
    ... take a bow ...
    ... and it's up to the front of the class for you diofnep, where I can keep an eye on you ... please write "I'm not an Ape because I walk upright, speak English and don't engage in nooky with Apes" ... twenty times.;)


  • #8415
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Well, i got the bad jokes part right at least.


  • #8416
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    The diagram in the linked wiki is my understanding of apes

    So, is that wrong? I'm asking because this is getting very confusing as to what the term ape actually means.
    ... Evolutionists seem to have this problem with plain English allright ... they seem to take several meanings from the word Ape ... and they also seem to have a myriad of meanings for the word 'evolution' !!!
    ... no wonder they are so confused about everything to do with Evolution!!!
    ... and they don't know their Ape from their elbow ... or their science from their faith!!!:)


  • #8417
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... Evolutionists seem to have this problem with plain English allright ... they seem to take several meanings from the word Ape ... and they also seem to have a myriad of meanings for the word 'evolution' !!!
    ... no wonder they are so confused about everything to do with Evolution!!!
    ... and they don't know their Ape from their elbow ... or their science from their faith!!!:)

    This coming from the person who's avoided defining CFSI for the last several hundred pages?


  • #8418
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Ah come on lads ... make up your minds ... are Humans Apes or not?:eek:

    Our minds are made up - Koth was unsure about the classification, I corrected them on it. I don't remember Koth pretending to be a scientist, unlike you J C. It is ok for them to be wrong, and accept a correction.
    J C wrote: »
    If Evolutionists can't even make up their minds on this simple issue ... it's no wonder that they are so confused about everything else in the W2M Evolution Fairytale!!!

    Drop the childish rhetoric. The whole scientific community accepts Humans as part of the great ape family.
    J C wrote: »
    I'll take you out of your misery ... and tell you who is right.:)
    Koth is correct ... we are not apes.

    That is incorrect. We are apes. Great apes who share a common ancestor with all apes, lesser included. That is a scientific fact.
    J C wrote: »
    He correctly pointed out that Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc ... and they aren't interfertile with Humans either ... so leave that Ape alone!!!

    ... and don't sexually assault the Gorilla either!!!:)

    You resort to being childish when you can't actually conjure up a sensible argument. Apes do in fact have thumbs. They just don't have the same dexterity as humans.

    What's this? Oh look, a gorilla with a thumb!

    gorilla_hand_william_west.jpg

    One would not expect all apes to have speech, nor does evolution predict that. Speech is something that evolved in the Homo genus, and therefore - any ancestor prior to the first speaking member of the Homo genus would not expect to have speech.

    Thirdly - Why on earth would they be inter-fertile with humans? Humans deviated from the closest ape (chimp) 7 million years ago. It is not expected for them to be inter-fertile. Clearly your poor grasp of biology continues. Do you think a Chimp and an Orangutan could procreate also? I mean, they are both apes and should be according to your logic.


  • #8419
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Just to clear things up, JC, humans are apes. dlofnep and odrnwisr cleared up my confusion.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8420
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Koth and dlofnep are confused about whether we are Apes or not ... and Robin flip-flopped on the issue:-
    Initially he joined koth in criticising me for believing that Humans are Apes when I was an Evolutionist

    [QUOTE=Originally Posted by koth
    How the hell did you get any (Evolutionist) accrediation if you didn't know that basic fact (that we are not Apes) ?

    robindch;77484975]By going to a creationist diploma-mill?[/QUOTE]

    ... and then he flip-flopped ... and criticised me for not now believing that Humans are Apes.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    It's even more shocking that guys with third level education believe Humans are Apes!!!

    Shocking to a creationist perhaps, but I think that's probably ok with most people here.
    dlofnep talk to Koth ... and Robin talk to yourself ... and when ye have worked out whether ye believe yourselves to be Apes or not ... come back and tell the rest of us!!!
    ... I can hardly wait!!!:):D


  • #8421
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    RichieC wrote: »
    We are great apes.

    No. We are awesome apes.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #8422
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C, I have responded to your childish questions in full. I have no need to repeat them. Humans are apes, this is a biological fact - supported by DNA. Something you're going to have to deal with I'm afraid.


  • #8423
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Koth and dlofnep are confused about whether we are Apes or not ... and Robin flip-flopped on the issue:-
    Initially he joined koth in criticising me for believing that Humans are Apes when I was an Evolutionist



    ... and then he flip-flopped ... and criticised me for not now believing that Humans are Apes.

    Originally Posted by J C
    It's even more shocking that guys with third level education believe Humans are Apes!!!

    Shocking to a creationist perhaps, but I think that's probably ok with most people here. talk to Koth ... and Robin talk to yourself ... and when ye have worked out whether ye believe yourselves to be Apes or not ... come bak and tell the rest of us!!!
    ... I can hardly wait!!!:):D
    I love the way you try to paint this as bad. See, this is one of the reasons I think you are lying about your background. Koth had a view, he was presented with evidence that showed him that view was incorrect. He assessed that information and his position and came to the correct conclusion that his original position was correct.

    Instead of critisicing and making terrible attempts at mocking you should actually look at what he did and try to apply it to the retarded bullsh1t you believe.

    MrP


  • #8424
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Just to clear things up, JC, humans are apes. dlofnep and odrnwisr cleared up my confusion.
    You remind of an old lady I one met who said that when she was confused about anything she always consulted her local clergyman ... so I guess dlofnep and odrnwisr is the equivalent of your clergymen.

    ... and I was correct when I said that when I was an Evolutionist, that I (erroneously) believed that I was an Ape ... and I'm also correct now in my contention that Humans are clearly not Apes.


  • #8425
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by RichieC
    We are great apes.

    MrPudding
    No. We are awesome apes.

    MrP
    Is this a case of becoming what you believe, I wonder???:)


  • #8426
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C, less of the red herrings - and address your lack of knowledge on basic biology.


  • #8427
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You remind of an old lady I one met who said that when she was confused about anything she always consulted her local clergyman ... so I guess dlofnep and odrnwisr is the equivalent of your clergymen.

    ... and I was correct when I said that when I was and Evolutionist that I (erroneously) believed that I was an Ape ... and I'm also correct now in my contention that Humans are clearly not Apes.

    I never claimed to be a scientist. dlofnep and odrnwisr were kind enough to educate me about the use of the term of ape in science. I'm willing to admit I was wrong due to the evidence provided. If you see that as something wrong, so be it, no skin off my nose.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8428
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I love the way you try to paint this as bad. See, this is one of the reasons I think you are lying about your background. Koth had a view, he was presented with evidence that showed him that view was incorrect. He assessed that information and his position and came to the correct conclusion that his original position was correct.
    ... he told us that "dlofnep and odrnwisr were kind enough to educate" him about the issue ... and he promptly flip-flopped ... sounds like the old lady and her clergyman to me!!!
    Do ye guys have minds of your own at all ... at all??:)
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Instead of critisicing and making terrible attempts at mocking you should actually look at what he did and try to apply it to the retarded bullsh1t you believe.
    MrP
    Says the guy who believes that his great ... great ... granny was a Worm!!!:eek:

    ... or are you going to deny this ... only to flip-flop and then tell us that you believe it ... after consulting your local Evolutionist 'Pastor'!!!:eek::D


  • #8429
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    J C wrote: »
    ... he told us that "dlofnep and odrnwisr were kind enough to educate" him about the issue ... and he promptly flip-flopped ... sounds like the old lady and her clergyman to me!!!
    Do ye guys have minds of your own at all ... at all??:)

    Says the guy who believes that his great ... great ... granny was a Worm!!!:eek:

    ... or are you going to deny this ... only to flip-flop and then tell us that you believe it ... after consulting your local Atheist 'Pastor'!!!:eek::D

    I'm still confused as to why anyone* replies to your posts. (you receive a lot of well thought out responses in plain English, only to reply with silly gibberish, covered in smilies). Seriously, what are you on about?


    *Look at me, I'm replying too.


  • #8430
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I'm still confused as to why anyone* replies to your posts. (you receive a lot of well thought out responses in plain English, only to reply with silly gibberish, covered in smilies). Seriously, what are you on about?


    *Look at me, I'm replying too.

    I can only answer for myself, but at this stage its mostly for entertainment purposes.

    Edit: And occasionally because he says something so spectacularly wrong, I feel the need to correct it in case someone actually thinks he has a point.


  • Advertisement
  • #8431
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I can only answer for myself, but at this stage its mostly for entertainment purposes.

    Edit: And occosionally because he says something tso spectacularly wrong, I feel the need to correct it in case someone actually thinks he has a point.

    The thread is huge. I think it's mainly down to J C.

    His ramblings are like pieces of fresh meat thrown into a cage of hungry Lions. They are pounced on straight away, don't stand a chance, but they keep coming.
    I fear the words "I have a cunning plan" are rapidly marching towards this conversation with ill-deserved confidence.
    - EB, "Blackadder's Christmas Carol"

    ^^^ This quote sums up my thoughts when I picture J C getting his 'facts' together for another silly post.

    You're right Doctor, it IS entertaining. :D


  • #8432
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dlofnep wrote: »
    J C, less of the red herrings - and address your lack of knowledge on basic biology.
    If JC could do that, she wouldn't be a creationist, would she?


  • #8433
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't drivel ... and Evolutionists on this thread never back up what they say!!!
    They make unfounded accusations against me ... and unfounded claims about both evolution ... and creation.

    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.
    However the new theories that are comming forward will of course be darwinian in origin.


  • #8434
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Such as?


  • #8435
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.
    The guys 'in the know' ... realise that W2M Evolution is on it's last legs ... and they are trying desperately to replace it with something with at least some evidence supporting it. In the meantime they conflate Natural Selection, evolution / genetic drift within Kinds ... and W2M Evolution !!!

    beerbuddy wrote: »
    However the new theories that are comming forward will of course be darwinian in origin.
    NS and genetic drift within Kinds have Darwinian dimensions ... but W2M Evolution isn't evidentially supported ... and it is unlikely to have a Darwinian replacement :)

    ... what replacement theory have you heard of ... my sources tell me that it won't be Darwinian.


  • #8436
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.

    Which claims (by evolutionary biologists) are unfounded? The only unfounded claims are ones perpetuated by uninformed creationists.
    beerbuddy wrote: »
    It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.

    Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

    So name some of these unfounded claims. You don't just get to make such a statement in here without being called on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8437
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... anybody go to the Skeptics 'Ask for Evidence' meeting last night ??

    ... did Síle provide evidence?


  • #8438
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Which claims (by evolutionary biologists) are unfounded? The only unfounded claims are ones perpetuated by uninformed creationists.



    Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

    So name some of these unfounded claims. You don't just get to make such a statement in here without being called on it.

    Ever heard of evolutionary developmental biology for example ???????
    Darwin didnt have a big understanding of Genetics at the time he is being overturned on some of its prinicple facts.Yes evolution is a fact but Darwins theory of it is not one hundred percent valid.If you wish i will go on.


  • #8439
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Ever heard of evolutionary developmental biology for example ???????

    I have.
    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Darwin didnt have a big understanding of Genetics at the time he is being overturned on many of the prinicple facts he speculated on.

    It's not relevant what Darwin thought. You wouldn't cite the work of astronomers from the 1800's, and critique some of their lack of knowledge in some areas, would you? So why does it matter with Darwin? Critique evolutionary biologists of today, not someone who was just getting to grips with it. I know more about Evolutionary Biology than Darwin did.


  • #8440
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I have.



    It's not relevant what Darwin thought. You wouldn't cite the work of astronomers from the 1800's, and critique some of their lack of knowledge in some areas, would you? So why does it matter with Darwin? Critique evolutionary biologists of today, not someone who was just getting to grips with it. I know more about Evolutionary Biology than Darwin did.
    That would be easy!!:)

    Could I ask for evidence for W2M Evolution.


  • #8441
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    That would be easy!!:)

    Indeed, for someone who has actually studied Evolutionary biology. Something you clearly haven't done.
    J C wrote: »
    Could I ask you for the evidence for W2M Evolution.

    I don't accept your term as a valid scientific term. If you ask me a valid question, I will answer it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8442
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't accept your term as a valid scientific term. If you ask me a valid question, I will answer it.
    Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm.


  • #8443
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Could I ask for evidence for we how we all evolved from a worm.

    We didn't evolve directly from a worm, in the sense of our nearest ancestor. There is a worm-like creature which has been found, which is the earliest ancestor of chordates. All members of the Chordate phylum are descended from a very early, and primitive chordate species, which gave rise to all that we see today of that family.

    It may or may not be that we came for the specific worm in question - If we find an earlier member of the chordate family, then that will be a better candidate. We will always revise as new evidence is presented to itself.

    Now if you want an overall collection of evidence for evolution as a whole, I have presented it in lengthy detail over a number of pages in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056552907

    You are warned however, if you go in that thread with your Noah's Ark bullshít - you will be banned from it. Your idiocy is just about tolerated and confined to this thread for our amusement alone.


  • #8444
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    koth wrote: »
    afraid not. We may be descended from an ape but we are not apes. Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc.

    Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, but humans are not apes and apes are not humans.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Actually, we are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Great Ape family.
    RichieC wrote: »
    We are great apes.

    There are differing opinions over whether humans are apes or not, but it's really down to the definition of the word 'ape'.

    'Ape' isn't really a formal scientific term, but something more like a 'folk taxon', traditionally meaning tailless, non-human primates. Today's taxonomic term for the evolutionary branch containing humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons is 'hominoidea'. The offshoot that includes only human, chimp, gorilla and orangs is the 'hominidae':

    Hominidae.PNG

    [Pan=chimps; Pongo=orangutan; Hylobates=gibbons]

    'Apes', then, traditionally are all of the hominoidea except for humans. 'Great ape' has traditionally meant all of the hominidae except humans. Modern taxonomists, guided by the principles of 'cladistics', don't like this kind of grouping, which they call 'paraphyletic'. They prefer 'monophyletic' groups, where all the descendents of an ancestor retain a common taxonomic label.

    'Reptiles' are an analogous case, conventionally meaning all descendents of the original ancestral reptile except for mammals and birds. Some taxonomists have now dropped the corresponding class 'reptilia', and use 'sauropsidae' to mean the evolutionary branch of the amniotes (tetrapods producing terrestrially adapted eggs) arising after the mammals split away:

    526px-Reptilia-Sauropsida.jpg
    (Other taxonomists prefer to redefine 'reptilia' to mean the same thing as sauropsidae)

    Regardless of taxonomy, the words 'reptile' and 'ape' will continue to be used in a less rigorous sense if they are useful. For example, it can be useful to lump the cold-blooded sauropsids together as 'reptiles' when discussing some biology not shared by the warm-blooded birds. Similarly, if we want to talk about something that the chimps, gorillas and orangutans have in common, but that humans don't share, then it may be useful to lump the former together as 'great apes' to the exclusion of humans.

    To sum up, taxonomists say that you can't grow out of your ancestry, and our ancestors - as those of gorillas and chimps - will always be hominids. Whether or not they will also be 'apes' is a matter of somewhat arbitrary definition.

    .


  • #8445
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    We didn't evolve directly from a worm, in the sense of our nearest ancestor. There is a worm-like creature which has been found, which is the earliest ancestor of chordates. All members of the Chordate phylum are descended from a very early, and primitive chordate species, which gave rise to all that we see today of that family.
    Could I ask for evidence that this worm-like creature is the ancestor of anything ... except other worms.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    It may or may not be that we came for the specific worm in question - If we find an earlier member of the chordate family, then that will be a better candidate. We will always revise as new evidence is presented to itself.
    ... but no evidence has been presented that this particular worm ... or any other worm was a common ancestor of anything ... except other worms!!!
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Now if you want an overall collection of evidence for evolution as a whole, I have presented it in lengthy detail over a number of pages in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056552907

    You are warned however, if you go in that thread with your Noah's Ark bullshít - you will be banned from it. Your idiocy is just about tolerated and confined to this thread for our amusement alone.
    I am happy to respect your boundaries ... after all I am only a guest on your forum ... although I have to say your threat to ban me for presenting scientific evidence on your forum is a little odd ... given the Skeptics stance that evidence should determine the truth of all things!!!:eek:
    ... and the fact that you admit that I am just about tolerated, is also somewhat at odds with modern liberal multi-cultural societies where tolerance of others (and their point of view) is normally demanded as a public good!!!

    I appreciate that ye need an Evolutionist 'happy place' ... where ye can be yourselves ...
    ... without any alternative viewpoint being expressed to 'prick your bubbles'.

    I can also see that ye think that it is nice to be able to have a 'mutual admiration society' on the Evolutionists Evolution thread in order to recover from the shocks to the validity of your worldview that continue to emerge in Creation Science and ID research worldwide ... so I will stay off the Evolutionists Evolution thread ... and I will confine myself to this one, to allow ye to engage in unchallenged story telling to your hearts delight over on the other thread!!!:):D


  • #8446
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    I see the thread has done another full circle and is back to persecution of creationists.
    J C wrote: »
    although I have to say your threat to ban me for presenting scientific evidence on your forum is a little odd ...
    Have you ever sourced a scientific peer-reviewed paper to back up your outrageous claims?


  • #8447
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    I see the thread has done another full circle and is back to persecution of creationists.
    No ... in fairness to you guys, I'm not claiming to be persecuted ... I don't particularly want to post in the other thread anyway.
    I am merely pointing out the expressions of intolerance and censorship that dlofnep is directing at me ... and wondering out loud why he feels the need to do so if he is as 'cock sure' of his facts and his evidence for W2M Evolution ... as he seems to think he is!!:)

    sephir0th wrote: »
    Have you ever sourced a scientific peer-reviewed paper to back up your outrageous claims?
    There are plenty of Creation Science peer reviewed papers out there ... but your question is as loaded as a Medieval Inquisitor asking a prisoner if they had a Papal Bull to back up their claims of the Pope's Fallibility!!!:)


  • #8448
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Question: Did the church, or at least some of them, pull a u-turn on the topic of dinosaurs?

    I thought the church's stance was that god put the bones in the ground in different hiding places for us to find. But now they say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? Or is that just some crazy baptist/ evangelical churches?

    Are these ideas mutually exclusive?


  • #8449
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Question: Did the church, or at least some of them, pull a u-turn on the topic of dinosaurs?

    I thought the church's stance was that god put the bones in the ground in different hiding places for us to find. But now they say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? Or is that just some crazy baptist/ evangelical churches?

    Are these ideas mutually exclusive?
    I think that all of the Mainstream and State Churches historically believed that fossils were evidence of Noah's Flood ... but significant groups of Theistic Evolutionists have emerged within these churches during the 20th Century ... and they tend to follow the Materialistic Evolutionist explanation 'hook, line and sinker'.
    Creationists and Creation Scientists are also to be found within all Christian denominations as well as within Judaism and amongst Muslims.

    I don't think that any church has ever said that fossils were put in the ground by God to test us ... this seems to be an Evolutionist Urban Legend.


  • #8450
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I assume the ban on me only applies to the Evolution 'Happy Place' Thread.

    Just looked at some of the other threads on the forum ...
    like this one
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056572301
    ... which is saying that Prof Dawkins is 'slightly agnostic' about God ...

    ... Prof Dawkins seems to be even more agnostic ... about Evolution!!!


    ... here is Prof Dawkins own assessment of his previous books on Evolution ... Preface to The Greatest Show on Earth (and emphasis mine):-

    It is not the first book I have written about evolution, and I need to explain what's different about it. It could be described as my missing link.
    The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself.
    The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact.
    My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.

    Looking back on those books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close.

    ... and having read The Greatest Show on Earth ... I still haven't seen any evidence presented for Worm to Man Evolution.

    Mind you, I'm not criticising Prof Dawkins, for this ... I think that the evidence simply doesn't exist ... and he is right to not only be agnostic about W2M Evolution ... he could quite legitimately lose all faith in W2M Evolution ... and become a complete non-believer in it!!!!!!:)
    I look forward to the day when Prof Dawkins becomes a Creation Scientist.:)
    ... or at least follow people like Prof Fred Hoyle who saw that ID was real ... and that there is no logical alternative.


  • #8451
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins seems to be even more agnostic ... about Evolution!!!
    Are you drunk?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement