Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did apes descend from us? (first evos say we descended from apes, now say other way around...LOL!!!)
The Star ^ | October 1, 2009 | Joseph Hall

Posted on 10/02/2009 11:00:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

>> Then why are the Temple of Darwin scientists saying that this “research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes”? <<

The apes of today are not the apes a four million years ago. The idea that science is discovering may be true is that our most common ancestor between the lines that exist today may need to be pushed back based of newly found fossil evidence. You never know what fossil evidence may be dug up or accidentally discovered tomorrow, but it is a new piece in puzzle that may never be 100% understood, but we may eventually get a general sense in how life developed on earth over the Billions of years this planet has existed.


51 posted on 10/02/2009 12:04:17 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What is the current creationist thinking on radiohalos (formerly called ‘pleochroic halos’)?

I have no idea. None of the links work!

52 posted on 10/02/2009 12:05:01 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Take your pick.

1. The scientists are being misquoted by sensationalist journalists.

2. The scientists are trying to get publicity for what by any logical standard isn’t that big a discovery.

At least that’s how it seems to me. What counts is what the discovery means, not what scientists say it means.


53 posted on 10/02/2009 12:05:45 PM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Haven’t you heard, all those Temples dedicated to Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth routinely censor, deny tenure, and ultimately throw out any scientist who dares to propose a theory that rivals Darwood’s origins fairytale.


54 posted on 10/02/2009 12:06:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

See the “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”.

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

it has some good points on explaining WHY we developed the way we did.


55 posted on 10/02/2009 12:07:04 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
“Science is the not the belief in Science as a replacement for God, but Science is the applied practice of skepticism and methodical experimentation as a tool to understand the world in which we live in.”

Agreed, in an ideal world, which is to remind those that Paul of Tarsus differentiated between true science and the methodology applied and politically influenced science, and personal agenda driven goals as with the wonder boy Hendrik Schön. These are people like you and I, and sometimes they need help putting their pants on and I don't.....unless of course to much port wine the night before.

Their is much of science that will collapse due to a failure in credibility due to the a fore mentioned dynamics.

Strange days ahead for science.........

56 posted on 10/02/2009 12:07:47 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

==I have no idea. None of the links work!

I guess they’re still evolving :o)

Try this:

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers


57 posted on 10/02/2009 12:08:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

"It wasn't really ape ape..."

58 posted on 10/02/2009 12:08:41 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I don’t know anything about “Aquatic Hominid” theory, but I certainly agree with your depiction of what science used to be and how it has devolved. It has been coopted by the left for use as political and social engineering. The result is “junk science”. Two words that years ago would have never been connected.

Not only do we need to take our country back, we need to reclaim science for true science, [your words] “the applied practice of skepticism and methodical experimentation as a tool to understand the world in which we live in.” Here-here!


59 posted on 10/02/2009 12:10:03 PM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

My high school english teacher said man did not evolve from the ape, he evolved from the jackass.


60 posted on 10/02/2009 12:12:40 PM PDT by CobraJet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

Hear, hear!


61 posted on 10/02/2009 12:13:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Already given you a response blowing them out of the water on coal and diamonds. It is obvious that they are not about presenting the ‘rest of the story’ but are truncating it in the expectation that the lazy and ignorant will accept their words without challenge.


62 posted on 10/02/2009 12:14:50 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Why only those two choices?


63 posted on 10/02/2009 12:15:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If you insist on hanging your stuff out in public, be prepared to be told it’s not as large as you think it is.


64 posted on 10/02/2009 12:15:26 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I was calling my dog????


65 posted on 10/02/2009 12:17:25 PM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

I don’t know, xcamel, but if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you’ve been hitting the bottle again.


66 posted on 10/02/2009 12:18:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Explain to me “Radio-Halo’s”?

How do some radio-isotopes with half-lives in the range of 2-3 minutes manage to leave spherical radio-halo’s in rocks of molten nature?

Most curious.


67 posted on 10/02/2009 12:18:29 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/178100.html


68 posted on 10/02/2009 12:19:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
GodGunsGuts: "I didn’t know any better"

Money quote of the day!

69 posted on 10/02/2009 12:21:05 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Regardless of all the gotcha, the Ardi skeleton is fascinating. The researchers painstakingly combed the discovery site for 15 years to get the complete skeletal remains. That’s a huge leap beyond the incomplete Lucy. I don’t particularly care for the artist conception in Science Mag - they made too many assumptions without adhering to the muscle mass ratios based on limb length and thickness. I’d like to see a clay model rather than pencil. The clay applied on the replica skeleton will give you a fairly precise reconstruction. Hairy or non- well... that’s the artists guess.


70 posted on 10/02/2009 12:21:50 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For someone who tries to make the connection of believing in evolution and racism, you really are not helping yourself by adding “Obama” keywords to a story about monkeys- Knock it off! Racism, even veiled isn’t tolerated her.


71 posted on 10/02/2009 12:22:56 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

...and you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie!


72 posted on 10/02/2009 12:28:23 PM PDT by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: Puckster
Explain to me “Radio-Halo’s”?

I assume you are referring to Gentry's work ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

----------------------------------

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

74 posted on 10/02/2009 12:29:09 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken”

Inane.....I imagine that if I had no ability to discern between a salvation that was based in the Truth of God the Creator that requires faith, and not of your own, but given of God himself, lest you boast.....and a salvation that is based in faith in the “Creature more than the Creator”, ergo, “Man is the destroyer and Savior of this World”.

You will eventually believe in Gore and AWG and the kindly demise of the elderly to make way to the youth....etc., eventually.


75 posted on 10/02/2009 12:29:48 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Ted Talks has a great video on the Aquatic Ape theory.


76 posted on 10/02/2009 12:30:03 PM PDT by IronKros (The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in what? ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

After a closer examination of the skeleton (via the line drawing) the limb length, forward inclined appendicular girdle and narrow pelvic illiac seems to accommodate a frequent quadruped. I’d say it looks more like a browser than a climber that could walk in erect posture - but I’d err here on the long fingered lady being crouched more often than upright.


77 posted on 10/02/2009 12:31:45 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xcamel; GodGunsGuts; ColdWater
"75% of your links are invalid, the rest come from unaccredited non-scientific sources."

Yet, if you google (for example) Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years, you get 974 hits. You should get something from that, even if it's simply a boatload of quarrels you can pick with GGG.

78 posted on 10/02/2009 12:34:09 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


79 posted on 10/02/2009 12:42:11 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

“generally” “probably” “mostly” LOL!


80 posted on 10/02/2009 12:44:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm

It is interesting to note that he was published in Science, and yes with some controversy. But, no actual studies to undermine the conclusions.

I can surmise, as you provided, anything I want, however, the surmising is without and contradiction provided by studies, only educated opinions.

I do see a publication or 2 that attempted an alternative explanation without directly challenging Gentry that were published in Science, however, no indication of a study.

I do see claims of Gentry disproved on the internet, but again, not without publication or another study.

There may be another individual that explored this in a study. But I haven’t found it.

However, if your asserting that someone disagreeing with Gentry is proof that he is wrong, then we that disagree with you is all that’s needed to declare you inept....but I won’t.

I honestly have to go, so maybe we can continue this later.


81 posted on 10/02/2009 12:45:44 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Puckster
It is interesting to note that he was published in Science, and yes with some controversy. But, no actual studies to undermine the conclusions.

This conclusion published in Science?

"To the question of what mode of origin is consistent with the relatively short half-lives of the polonium isotopes (or their β-decaying precursors), I can say only that other mechanisms are under study."

82 posted on 10/02/2009 12:49:32 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Not Found

The requested URL /article/1795 was not found on this server.

Hmmm....now I wonder why that is???

83 posted on 10/02/2009 12:54:54 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Ever heard of circular reasoning?
84 posted on 10/02/2009 12:57:42 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Try this instead:

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers


85 posted on 10/02/2009 1:02:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Then why are the Temple of Darwin scientists saying that this “research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes”?”

—I think that was a really poorly phrased way of trying to say that we changed just as much as chimps since the common ancestor. I.e. we didn’t evolve “from” apes - us and chimps changed just as much since the common ancestor, and in fact we may have change less than chimps (at in fact in total anatomy we may have even changed slightly less, at least from the neck down). The next sentence indicates what he meant - although I think it’s a dumb and confusing way of putting it.


86 posted on 10/02/2009 1:04:30 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Could this lend credence to the phrase “I’m a monkey’s uncle”?


87 posted on 10/02/2009 1:08:59 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puckster

You link to Gentry blows the ‘varible decay rate’ out of the water.

With respect to the decay rate question, Spector (31) has
argued that the differences between Henderson et al (20) halo
radii measurements and equivalent air mineral ranges present
a case for a variable 2. In the light of the above experimental
uncertainties, this conclusion is not necessarily valid. On the
other hand, Gentry (24) has shown that even exact agreement
between halo radii and corresponding CB sizes does not
necessarily imply an invariant A and in fact uncertainties in
radius measurements alone preclude establishing the stability
of it for 238U to more than 35%.
2


88 posted on 10/02/2009 1:13:55 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m sure there are others, those are just the most obvious ones to me. Feel free to add your favorites.


89 posted on 10/02/2009 1:14:45 PM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

How about the Temple of Darwin human origins fairytale is a subjective mess.


90 posted on 10/02/2009 1:16:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Puckster

You have some point other than making yourself look like a blithering idiot?


91 posted on 10/02/2009 1:17:28 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Lovejoy explains that the actual missing link – or last common ancestor in scientific parlance -- may have first sprung up some six million years before Ardi - short for Ardipithecus ramidus.

But Ardi, while past the initial link stage, possesses enough ape and hominid traits to show what those true common ancestors would have looked like, he says.

"It's the first find that we have that is really informative about what that last common ancestor was like."

Could you please be so kind as to explain how these statements from the article disprove the Evolutionary theory?

92 posted on 10/02/2009 1:28:17 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
You mean you missed the part where the Temple of Darwin declares that apes may have descended from humans, and not the other way around? Where they say humans are more primitive than apes? You guys crack me up!!!!!!!


93 posted on 10/02/2009 1:44:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin; GodGunsGuts

On a side note, I’m almost postive that this:
“may have first sprung up some six million years before Ardi”
- was a misquote or misspeak.

I think he meant (or actually said) that the last common ancestor was six million years ago - not six million years before Ardi (which would push it back to about 10 million years ago).

If Ardi is already essentially what we expect in a common ancestor, and is essentially a chimp/human hybrid, than pushing the actual ancestor back an additional 6 million years would make no sense.

Statements from other scientists also indicate that this was a misquote/misspeak:

“This is not that common ancestor, but it’s the closest we have ever been able to come,” said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy


94 posted on 10/02/2009 2:01:07 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
How does that disprove the Evolutionary theory?

I guess the “last common ancestor first sprung up six million years before Ardi” part went right over your head?

I am not positive, but I think that statement does not support the YEC story, and does nothing to disprove the scientific theory of Evolution.

Photobucket

95 posted on 10/02/2009 2:14:47 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: All

It appears to me that more humans are evolving into apes all the time.


96 posted on 10/02/2009 2:17:38 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

And what empirically verified common ancestor would that be, Ira?


97 posted on 10/02/2009 2:21:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Nice try but I have advised you before your little games of name-calling, misconceptions, and misdirection will no longer work.

I asked you “How does that disprove the Evolutionary theory?” Now answer the question.


98 posted on 10/02/2009 2:34:05 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Actually, my reply went right over your head, or, as a typical Temple of Darwin fanatic, you are refusing to answer the question because you know the answer discredits the “scientific” status of Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth. Let me ask you again: what empirically verified common ancestor (shared between humans and apes) would that be, Ira?


99 posted on 10/02/2009 3:03:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I asked “Could you please be so kind as to explain how these statements from the article disprove the Evolutionary theory?

You are avoiding my question by trying to change the subject.

We are not playing the misdirection game.


100 posted on 10/02/2009 3:14:55 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson