TOTALLY GEEKED!

This is like arguing with a child.

I'm done.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Oh she's surfacing the internet for links!!

---

You bet!

That should hold her for a while. I'm going to take a nice bubble bath.

Lots of mays and possiblys...

I guess to simple minds, that is proof.

"Do you know Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?"
"Morons"
- huskerbb

___________________________

I hope I'm not the only one that caught that reference. LOL.

Love that quote, and the source of it.

Its nottransforming to another species. It's part of its life cycle. A baby transforms into an old man too.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_____________________________

But a baby is born with all the fingers and toes and hands and feet and arms and legs and the head that it will have throughout it's life. It's size will change, but the general form and the gender will not.

Like I said we are ostensibly on the same side, I just took exception to your suggestion that "Transformers" didn't exist. They do.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Its nottransforming to another species. It's part of its life cycle. A baby transforms into an old man too.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_____________________________

But a baby is born with all the fingers and toes and hands and feet and arms and legs and the head that it will have throughout it's life. It's size will change, but the general form and the gender will not.

Like I said we are ostensibly on the same side, I just took exception to your suggestion that "Transformers" didn't exist. They do.

---

Um, a baby has no appendages, as Lilly said, until they grow.  It is part of being distinctly human.  Being a caterpillar and turning into a butterfly is part of their life cycle.   To point to that as some evolutionary "proof" is absurd.

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lots of mays and possiblys...

I guess to simple minds, that is proof.

---

 So if anyone disagrees with you...insult their intelligence...

flan

---

 OMG!  That's all Welts has been doing!

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lots of mays and possiblys...

I guess to simple minds, that is proof.

---

 i guess to even simpler minds, 10 years is enough for a fossil.

Because after all, 10 years ago was a completely different geological era.

Ll!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

OMG sheee'sss BAaaccckK! Darn it. I have to leave in a few minutes for a basketball game!  

---

 Three hours ago...

Have fun at the game.

flan

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Um, a baby has no appendages, as Lilly said, until they grow. It is part of being distinctly human. Being a caterpillar and turning into a butterfly is part of their life cycle. To point to that as some evolutionary "proof" is absurd.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

_____________________________

I didn't use any of those examples as "some evolutionary 'proof'". You said there were no transformers. I gave you examples of some species that do indeed transform.

I do agree with you that their transformations are part of their normal life cycle, though.

---

 

They caterpillar is an immature butterfly.

The caterpillar will never be anything but a butterfly. 

Metamorphosis is the process of growing up.

Not changing species.

 

The caterpillar is a stage of development.

It will become the thing it was created to become.

It will not become anything other than what its genetic make up dictates.

It will not become a tree, a frog or a human.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I don't understand why evolution is even still under discussion.
It can be seen very clearly.
A simple example is antibiotic resistance. This is rapidly becoming a problem in humans and livestock alike.
Fruit flies are another. The whole point of using fruit flies in genetic experiments is that they go through so many generations so quickly it is easy to track how they evolve.
Heck, how much livestock has changed is even a kind of evolution, albeit brought on by man.
Look at a picture of a cow from today vrs a cow from 80 years ago. Or a dog. Or, well, anything really.
Even humans are taller on average then they were, and have larger heads.
It exists. And is easy enough to see if you only look around.

---

 That is adaptive evolution and part of intelligent design.  It does not mean monkeys changed into humans.  The proof is right in the jungle.  We still have monkeys and we have humans.  If we evolved from monkeys, there would be in between stages right now walking among us.  Evolution doesn't just STOP. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Monkeys amd humans have a common ancester, much like tigers and housecats. It doesn't mean your pet cat will evolve into a tiger.










OR DOES IT???

---

 That doesn't answer where we all came from.  If you want to believe that a big poof in the solar system magically created thousands of different perfect species, have at it.  I see the work of God. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The caterpillar is a stage of development.

It will become the thing it was created to become.

It will not become anything other than what its genetic make up dictates.

It will not become a tree, a frog or a human.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

---

 Yeah, really.  Bizarre.

Yes, there are common FEATURES among us and some DNA. That is an indication of a common creator. But, each species was created by God AFTER ITS OWN KIND .

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I don't understand why evolution is even still under discussion.
It can be seen very clearly.
A simple example is antibiotic resistance. This is rapidly becoming a problem in humans and livestock alike.
Fruit flies are another. The whole point of using fruit flies in genetic experiments is that they go through so many generations so quickly it is easy to track how they evolve.
Heck, how much livestock has changed is even a kind of evolution, albeit brought on by man.
Look at a picture of a cow from today vrs a cow from 80 years ago. Or a dog. Or, well, anything really.
Even humans are taller on average then they were, and have larger heads.
It exists. And is easy enough to see if you only look around.

---

 That isn't the issue.  The issue is how it all started.  

 

Even an in the experiment cited on here, they didn't start with "random" molecules.  They had a string of DNA and copied it.  

 

 

---

 Exactly.  They all want to start with some point AFTER and then muddy the waters.  First we have to establish the BEGINNING then branch out from there.

 

See, you love me.

Regarding speices, when do you decide when you have a new one?
So you have a strain of bacteria, and about half become resistant to antibiotics, are they still the same strain? Or do you call it something different now?

Evolution did not happen over a few years or generation, but slowly, over millions of years and countless generations.
As to what 'created' life, I have always wondered why we assumed there was a time when life didn't exist. The universe is so old, and even here on earth there are certain life forms that are extremely durable and resistant to extreme condidtions.
I guess there is just so much we don't know, I don't take it for granted that extremely simple forms of life couldn't have crash landed here from elsewhere in the universe.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Regarding speices, when do you decide when you have a new one?
So you have a strain of bacteria, and about half become resistant to antibiotics, are they still the same strain? Or do you call it something different now?

Evolution did not happen over a few years or generation, but slowly, over millions of years and countless generations.
As to what 'created' life, I have always wondered why we assumed there was a time when life didn't exist. The universe is so old, and even here on earth there are certain life forms that are extremely durable and resistant to extreme condidtions.
I guess there is just so much we don't know, I don't take it for granted that extremely simple forms of life couldn't have crash landed here from elsewhere in the universe.

---

 But where did they start?

---

 I am a farmer, not a scientist. I have no idea. I just generally go with anything amd everything is possible because the world we live on is small and facinating and full if unbelievable things, so why should the rest of the universe be any different? 

Maybe there is no 'start'. Maybe life has just always existed. 

weltschmerz wrote:

---

I knew someone would eventually bring up the lame old canard of "If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" It's a ridiculous question, and shows how little understanding one has of the subject. Dogs descended from wolves, but we still have wolves, don't we? An entire species doesn't evolve in the same direction. They branch out and evolve in ways that are most beneficial to their survival IN THEIR DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS!
Look up h. naledi. An ape-human transitional fossil with features of BOTH.

news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11855405/Homo-naledi-a-new-species-of-human-discovered-in-a-cave-in-South-Africa.html

www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/palm-to-palm-with-an-ancient-human-relative

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 30th of December 2015 12:43:28 PM

---

 The comparison with dogs and wolves isn't really valid.  Both dogs and wolves have the same number of chromosomes.  Apes and humans do not.

Um, ok. Noted.

Is Man a “Naked Ape”?
BY WAYNE JACKSON
In 1967, Desmond Morris, an English zoologist and curator of mammals at the London Zoological Society, authored a book titled The Naked Ape. It became an overnight best-seller. The book was excerpted by Life magazine, condensed by Reader’s Digest, and sold half a million copies in a few short months. Morris’s book began in the following fashion: “There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens.”

In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists sometimes point out that evolutionists allege that man descended from the apes. Some evolutionists bristle at such a statement, claiming: “We never taught that men came from monkeys. Rather, we suggest that man and the monkey both descended from a common ancestor.” Two things can be said regarding this claim: First, it makes precious little difference whether one believes the ape is his “father” or his “cousin”; either is equally degrading. Second, however, the evolutionists’ denial is false. Numerous Darwinists have boasted of their “apish” origin. The late George Gaylord Simpson, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, wrote:

On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descendant of any living ape"“-a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility"“-and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, 121).
Or, note this from Nobel Prize winner H. J. Muller:

It is fashionable in some circles to refer slurringly to the inference that apes were ancestral to man, and to insinuate that it is more proper to say that men and apes, perhaps even men, apes, and monkeys, diverged long ago from a stem form that was more primitive than any of these. This is mere wistful thinking on the part of those who resent too vivid a visualization of their lowly origin and their present-day poor relations (1957, 250).
Professor Jay M. Savage, biologist at the University of Southern California, wrote:

[F]ossil material of apes, ape-men, and men have [sic] been gathered from a variety of sources, and both the cumulative evidence and recent finds unequivocally support the theory of human origins from the higher apes (1965, 110).
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley declared concerning man: “Once he was thought a fallen angel; then we found him to be an ascended ape” (1962, 4).

What Does the Evidence Show?
Evolutionary claims to the contrary, the evidence does not even remotely indicate a kindred relationship between human beings and apes. Someone assuredly will ask, however: “Are there not some obvious similarities between apes and humans?”

Yes, there are similarities"“-just as there are numerous likenesses between a great variety of living things. This is simply one of those tell-tale evidences of the creative genius of the Great Designer (God) who fashioned the wonderful world of living creatures to inhabit the same general environment, the planet Earth. Similar design, however, does not prove common ancestry, and such an assertion is an egregious logical fallacy.

There is a vast chasm of differences"“-physical, intellectual, psychological, social, etc."“-between humanity and the lower primates, and no theory of evolution can bridge it! Let us consider a few of these matters.

Physical Evidence
Morphology is that branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of plants and animals. Scientists are well aware of the numerous morphological differences between humans and apes. Let us note a few significant variations:

(1) Man (and only man) walks upright; apes and monkeys do not. John Klotz has observed:

The picture that so many have of the fierce ape walking upright through the jungle howling, beating on his chest, and tearing out trees by their roots is incorrect. Ordinarily an ape takes at most only a few steps on two legs and then reverts to all fours. At times he appears to be walking upright because of his long arms. They are so long that they reach the ground when he assumes a slightly stooped position (1961, 127-128).
(2) The axis of the human head (our line of sight) is at a right angle to the axis of the body, thus accommodating our locomotion in an upright (on two legs) position. In the ape, however, the line of sight is parallel with the axis of the trunk, facilitating the characteristic all-four movement.

(3) Apes have opposable toes (designed for grasping branches and handling food), whereas humans do not. Incidentally, if the evolutionary scenario is true, would not this trait have been retained as a survival advantage?

(4) Man has a large, vaulted cranium. Apes have a flattened cranium. The ape’s brain reaches seventy percent of its final size inside the womb, but the human brain does seventy five percent of its growing outside the womb, thus suggesting a relationship between maturation and learning, as opposed to basic instinct.

(5) The human nose has a prominent bridge; the ape’s does not. Man has red lips formed by an out rolling of the mucus membrane that lines the inside of the mouth; apes do not possess this trait.

(6) Man’s dental arch is parabolic, whereas the ape’s is U-shaped. Moreover, the ape’s canine teeth project; man’s do not.

(7) The vertebral column of man is in two curves; the vertebral column in the ape is in three. Also, man has short neural spines on his cervical vertebrae, whereas the ape’s neural spines are long.

(8) Man has relatively short arms. The ape has relatively long arms.

(9) In the human female, breasts are prominent; in apes they are flattened. Additionally, in women the vaginal canal is more forwardly placed, thus accommodating face-to-face copulation (with obvious emotional implications), while in apes the placement is more rearward. Too, female apes have a heat season, while female humans have the ability to be sexually receptive continuously.

(10) Humans have a deep, bowl-shaped pelvis, but apes have a shallow, flattened pelvis. Humans also have a bulging gluteus maximus (buttocks) [designed for sitting], whereas in the ape the posterior is flattened.

(11) Man is relatively hairless, with what body hair he does have being more prominent on his ventral (front) surface, while the ape is quite hairy, with the hair being more dominant on his dorsal (back) surface.

(12) Man has the greatest weight at birth in relation to his adult weight, yet at birth he exhibits the least degree of maturation. He is by far the most helpless of creatures (suggesting, with sociological implications, that he was designed to be part of a caring family unit).

Psychological Differences
In addition to the above sampling of physical differences, there is a vastly greater gap between humans and apes from the psychological vantage point (the term “psychological” is used to cover a wide variety of subjects). Consider the following:

(1) Man possesses reflective consciousness. He knows that he is, and he knows he knows it! This provides the capacity of human consciousness for self-reflection"“-the ability of the mind to turn inward, to wonder, and to contemplate. No ape has this self-consciousness.

(2) Humans have the ability to reflect upon their past and to study their origins, hence, to speculate about life and its purpose. To its credit, no ape ever concocted the theory of evolution. Man has—in an attempt to escape the moral and spiritual responsibility owed to his Creator. No ape ever wrote or read a history book—or ever considered one!

(3) Mankind has the capacity to set goals, plan for the future, and then work for the fulfillment of those aspirations. Apes do not. They have neither hope beyond life nor fear of the grave. They, like all brute beasts, live only for the present. Man has a longing for immortality.

(4) Though apes can be trained, they cannot he “educated” in the true sense of that term. They can be taught to respond to signs, as in the case of the chimpanzee Washoe, who was taught American Sign Language; but they cannot meaningfully communicate ideas and abstract concepts to other persons and so enjoy true mental communion.

On the other hand, human beings can communicate both orally and in writing, employing real symbols in the conveyance of information. It should be noted in this connection that there is a great difference between signals (such as one might use to train a dog, horse, bird, or chimp) and a symbol. A single example of the difference will suffice. A signal simply conveys, from the operator to the subject, the message that the subject is to do or not do something, while a symbol (e.g., oral or written words) instructs the subject concerning how to accomplish a task, and perhaps even why it is to be done.

Maybe this is a convenient place to note the difference between the way animals and humans think. Animals are capable of perceptual thinking only, while humans are able to think conceptually. Perceptual thought, which is typical of animal behavior, requires the actual or nearly immediate presence of the pertinent objects, whereas conceptual thinking does not. Conceptual thought is independent of objects.

Animals cannot reason or make judgments. They are unable to conclude that such and such is or is not the case in a given situation. No ape can reason: if such is the case, then so and so is not. The question is not then: can animals think? The issue is: can animals think in the way humans do? They cannot! And there is no logical evolutionary explanation for this (see Moore 1983, 341ff).

(5) Man can accumulate knowledge across the centuries; he can build upon the educational achievements of antiquity. On the other hand, apes have the same basic instinct as their predecessors; a twentieth-century ape has no greater reservoir of knowledge than an ape of a thousand years ago!

(6) There is a wide difference between humans and lower primates in the realm of aesthetics. Human beings can write poetry, create masterful paintings, compose symphonies, and enjoy fine drama. An ape has neither ability nor interest in any of the above. If evolution is true, why were artistic capacities evolved only in man? They certainly have no survival factor so far as we can determine.

Apes do not have any sense of personal aesthetics. They never attempt to “fix themselves up” for the opposite sex! I say this in spite of the fact that one of my college biology instructors attempted to explain the absence of body hair in humans on the grounds that far back in our primitive past our “grandmother monkeys” noted that the barest of their species were the most attractive to the males, and so, they commenced the practice of plucking themselves. The good professor declared that the modern feminine practice of plucking eyebrows is a holdover from our ancient past! Of course such an idea is dependent upon the old inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics doctrine, which long ago was abandoned even by evolutionists.

(7) Man is inventive; animals are not. Only human beings can make real tools. Jane Goodall, who worked extensively among African chimpanzees, asserted that chimps are tool-users. This, allegedly, establishes a link between the chimpanzee and man. The fact is, however, even though some lower primates may use twigs to pry insects from logs, etc., this does not involve inventiveness. It does not require the type of intellectual skill to devise and perfect a complicated instrument or machine. There simply is no comparison between a stick and a computer (or even a pair of pliers)!

(8) All humans, no matter how primitive and/or deprived they may be, have a threshold of morality. That is, they have a consciousness that there is such a concept as morality. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood, ought and ought not do exist. Moral codes frequently vary, for men continue to depart from God’s prescribed morality (as made known in the Scriptures), yet the need for morality is acknowledged universally.

But such is not the case with the ape, or any other animal. Beasts have no sense of ethics. They operate on the level of instinct and survival. And the plain fact of the matter is, if in reality humans are “naked apes,” there is no reason under the sun why we should not function on the brute level. And that is exactly what many who have swallowed the evolutionary propaganda are doing! Their lifestyle is consistent with their philosophy. Most, however, who will argue for evolution on theoretical grounds, will not stay with the practical consequences of the dogma. Deep down, they know we are not animals.

(9) The religious inclination is universally and peculiarly a human trait. Such has been recognized by students of anthropology for millennia. As one writer has noted, the evidence indicates that “no race or tribe of men, however degraded and apparently atheistic, lacks that spark of religious capacity which may be fanned and fed into a mighty flame” (Dummelow 1944, ci). It has been said that man is incurably religious. Even when he departs from the true God, man worships something—even if only a god of stone, wood, or, as in the case of atheism, himself! But no ape ever built an altar, offered a sacrifice, uttered a prayer, sang praise to the Creator, etc. Man is the only incurably religious creature on planet Earth. How can any evolutionist, however well-intentioned, explain this peculiarly human trait? Man’s religious urge argues for his supernatural origin.

Conclusion
The cumulative evidence forces the honest investigator to admit that man’s ancestry is not to be found in the savagery of the animal kingdom. He must look elsewhere for his roots. We suggest, as did certain ancient Greek philosophers, that we are “His offspring” (Acts 17:28).

www.christiancourier.com/articles/1453-is-man-a-naked-ape

You sniff at the Bible for Zap Ta da and yet you believe exactly the same thing sans God.

A caterpillar is larvae. It was born with everything it needs to finish its development into a butterfly.

The caterpillar will not become anything else.

Its basic coding is a butterfly.