Chimps Now to be Considered Humans

National Geographic ^ | 5/19/2003 | kkindt

[kkindt]

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species

[Bob J]

Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!

10pmE/7pmP
Thursday, May 22nd, 2003

Diane Ravitch
Author of THE LANGUAGE POLICE and “LEFT BACK”
dianeravitch.com

Plus
Unspun's favorite new FR ping list!

and
Bone-headed Lie-beral Quotes

...because you just can't make this stuff up.

Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!

[ALS]

Don't post stupid crap and you won't have to worry.

btw - The programmers of this board didn't think it was shallow.

[Quick1]

So you're saying 1+1+...+1 could never sum to 1,000? Macroevolution is simply the sum of many small mutations (or microevolutions).

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal.

What? Why would a plant become a mammal? If a plant became a mammal, it would in fact disprove evolution, because there is no *need* for a plant to become a mammal.

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!!

You really are deluded....

That's OK though, you're a conservative, so You can be, I don't mind...

[Aric2000]

Well let's go then Mr. Dataman, keep your ALS under control and maybe we can have an adult conversation.

You first, and I will follow your lead.

[Aric2000]

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal.

Yep, totally clueless about what evolution actually says.

This misrepresentation tells it all.

Macroevolution would allow for a small ratlike mammal, over milliions of years to evolve into Homo Sapiens and other MAMMALS.

Any other misrepresentations that you wish to state, that I can tear to pieces again?

If you would actually learn something, maybe this could be a debate.

No wonder you don't agree with evolution, you don't UNDERSTAND it.

[ALS]

[man of Yosemite]

That's the funniest thing I've seen on this website. Thanks a lot.

[FireTrack]

Some live in cages.

[man of Yosemite]

What I want to know is when will they start paying taxes? Maybe we could put one down on the deck of an aircraft carrier with the handle BYRD.

[ohmage]

Your #338... surely the result of

http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/animal/msg00560.html

[ohmage]

**A right to a lawyer, a right to sue?**

You haven't been paying attention.

Or have you?

http://www.ddal.org/collaboratory.html

[Dataman]

So you're saying 1+1+...+1 could never sum to 1,000? Macroevolution is simply the sum of many small mutations (or microevolutions).

Evolution is not arithmetic. There is only so much data available in genetic material. The genes for gills are not available to dogs. There are genetic boundaries that have never been observed being crossed. When science begins to pontificate about the unobserved, it is no longer science but guesswork.

What? Why would a plant become a mammal?

Evolution teaches we came from the same single-celled organism. Plants came before animals. Therefore we came from plants. So you tell me why a plant would become a mammal.

[kkindt]

There is no proof that the mosquitos that are resistant have that resistance as a result of a mutation. Yes, we agree, there DNA is different in some respect. But this difference can also be explained by a diversity in the original genetic pool that was created. Mutations observed by science have universally been bad news for the creature in which they occur. Evolutionism posits and presupposes positive mutations - mutations that give the creature survival value. The problem is none of these mutations are actually observed. What evolutinoist do is make the logical error of assuming that creatures with different DNA must have gotten that difference from mutations when it is also possible the gene pool of that kind of creature already had this diversity. For example, the Finch beaks - there is a diversity in the genetic pool so that when food supply only provides hard to eat seeds the finches with the bigger stronger beaks survive more often - then when the food supply becomes easier to eat the smaller beaked finches become more plentiful - but there is no proof that the difference in beak size can be attributed to a mutation.

[Aric2000]

Naive Creo rantings placemarker

[Sentis]

I was never asked a question

[Sentis]

You twist your own words and its a thankless task to debate s person who will not stand by what he said. Go ahead say what you like. We can all read what you wrote.

[Sentis]

32 abnd what does that have to do with the debate?

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Virginia-American]

"Give me one piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that evolution is a false theory."

Any intellectually honest scientist with intimate knowledge of the incredibily complex dynamics of simple cellular synthesis, architecture, replication, etc., knows the ONLY WAY any transitional phase of "evolution" of animals could ever take place is ONLY through its supernatural Creator in the first place....

What was the evidence again, I seem to have missed something?