Skip to comments.
Chimps Now to be Considered Humans
National Geographic ^
| 5/19/2003
| kkindt
Posted on 05/20/2003 2:05:10 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: badscience; chimps; evolunacy; evolution; humannature; imageofgod; soul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440, 441-454 next last
To: All
421
posted on
05/22/2003 7:06:04 PM PDT
by
Bob J
(Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)
To: Junior
Don't post stupid crap and you won't have to worry.
btw - The programmers of this board didn't think it was shallow.
422
posted on
05/22/2003 7:06:07 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBotâ„¢)
To: 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).
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.
423
posted on
05/22/2003 7:11:48 PM PDT
by
Quick1
To: F16Fighter
ROFLMAO!!
You really are deluded....
That's OK though, you're a conservative, so You can be, I don't mind...
424
posted on
05/22/2003 7:17:19 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Dataman
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.
425
posted on
05/22/2003 7:19:33 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Dataman
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.
426
posted on
05/22/2003 7:24:09 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Aric2000; Dataman
427
posted on
05/22/2003 7:31:54 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBotâ„¢)
To: mykdsmom
That's the funniest thing I've seen on this website. Thanks a lot.
428
posted on
05/22/2003 7:35:54 PM PDT
by
man of Yosemite
("When a man decides to do something everyday, that's about when he stops doing it.")
To: Dataman
Some live in cages.
To: EBUCK
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.
430
posted on
05/22/2003 7:42:47 PM PDT
by
man of Yosemite
("When a man decides to do something everyday, that's about when he stops doing it.")
To: Last Visible Dog
431
posted on
05/22/2003 7:59:22 PM PDT
by
ohmage
To: Guillermo
432
posted on
05/22/2003 8:25:39 PM PDT
by
ohmage
To: 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). 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.
433
posted on
05/23/2003 6:14:37 AM PDT
by
Dataman
To: Quick1
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.
434
posted on
05/23/2003 6:56:53 AM PDT
by
kkindt
(knightforhire.com)
To: Aric2000
Naive Creo rantings placemarker
435
posted on
05/23/2003 10:20:33 AM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Dataman
I was never asked a question
436
posted on
05/24/2003 5:08:19 PM PDT
by
Sentis
To: TheCrusader
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.
437
posted on
05/24/2003 5:10:07 PM PDT
by
Sentis
To: kkindt
32 abnd what does that have to do with the debate?
438
posted on
05/24/2003 5:10:52 PM PDT
by
Sentis
To: kkindt
bump
To: F16Fighter; Aric2000
"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?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440, 441-454 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson