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

[Last Visible Dog]

Lancelot Link put this debate to rest in 1970.

[Sentis]

I capitalize words I wish to place emphasis on. Also when I type these posts I don't spell check or grammar check. Why should I? They are typed in a conversational style. I am certain if I go back and check your posts we will find grammatical errors. Anyone other than possibly an English teacher will make grammatical error in conversational writing.

I in fact I never claimed intellectual superiority to anyone I do however claim superior knowledge to many. Do you think I should be able to bring up your grammatical errors as proof you don't know what your talking about? I could go back through your posts and point them out.

BTW you again get off the subject and refuse to answer basic questions. How old is the Universe? How old is the Earth? Do you have something to hide?

[Sentis]

"That's what I like about you humble intellectuals. You claim to be superior to creationists but exhibit the reasoning power of an adolescent. Your statement above has at least 3 flaws it it. So using your measure, were the flaws deliberate or did they flow from ignorance? Hint: I don't think you even know what the flaws are. "

For example, your statement above has at least two flaws in it do you know what they are?

[Aric2000]

AS long as he teaches english it's OK with me, but hopefully no one is silly enough to hire him as a science teacher.

With his naive notions and scientific "absolutes" the students would come out without a clue about science.

[Dataman]

The law that states that, is a general law, not an absolute.

NEWS FLASH! If it is not absolute, it is not a law- perhaps a guiding principle.

If the law of biogenesis is not an absolute, mayhaps you could tell us when an exception was observed.

Don't forget you have accused creationists of avoiding tough questions and being ignorant of science. Let's see if you avoid this question and give a scientific answer.

[Sentis]

In what way would you like this answered. If you want the answer about how the very first life form arose. I can't give you an exact answer I wasn't there. I can give you half a dozen ways it could have happened. As I say the difference between evolutionists and creationists is we acknowledge the truth and the truth is we aren't certain on this question. That isn't the main thrust of evolution in any case. The "Origin of Life" is not evolution it is a chemical reaction and you should ask the chemists how it happens.

Creationists feel they can answer the question but they have no proof that their answer is correct. Evolutionists have evidence, but proof positive of how the first life emerged is hard to find due to the great age of the Earth. The proof may be found one day and until it does the rest of evolutionary theory will plod along becoming more and more solid.

[Dataman]

RE# 338:I don't suppose it would be proper to mention use any of their FR screen names without their permission.

[Dataman]

You got one out of 3.
You missed two of your logical errors.

[Aric2000]

There has been no exception observed at this point.

What kind of silly trap is that?

No, it has NOT been observed, but it has obviously occurred at least once.

How, "I don't know", is fine with me, science does not claim to have all the answers, creationists on the other hand....

"Goddidit" is not good enough for me, but, that statement for some reason gives you comfort.

Have a ball with it, just don't claim that it is science.

[Sentis]

Would you like to troll or would you like to debate choose one. BTW you got none of at least two. You can attack and obfuscate but it brings us to the simple fact you refuse to answer questions. Go argue with yourself awhile.

[Dataman]

That's what I like about you humble intellectuals.

For example, your statement above has at least two flaws in it do you know what they are?

Yes.

#1: FR Evolutionists are not generally humble.

#2 FR Evolutionists are not generally intellectual.

[Sentis]

By the way grammatical errors are not logical errors.

[Sentis]

As always there can be no debate with the creationist group as it always come down to name calling and attacks by their side. Troll someone else :) I haven't the time today to waste on you.

[conservababeJen]

Creationists need only faith.

I would like to read your "half dozen ways" if you're willing to share them.

[Sentis]

Sorry, not wasting my time on this thread this morning. If you would be so kind just do a search of evolution in Free Republic it should give you tons of reading material where the question of the "origin of Life" has been discussed. Or go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ you should find your information.

[Aric2000]

I am humble, just not when I am talking to someone that is clueless about what they are debating.

For instance, Ichneumon makes me feel humble, he knows FAR more then I could ever learn, the specific information that he has is way beyond what I have available to me.

And as far as being intellectual, I don't know if I would want to be "intellectual" as you call it. Knowledgeable, yes, knowing how that information is used, yes, but intellectual, icky, give me a break.

Now, if you were to reverse those.

FR Creationists are generally clueless about evolution.

That would be a true statement

FR creationists generally do not correct each other when one says something questionable, or is an outright misstatement or generalization.

That would be true as well.

FR creationists go on the defensive when given scientific facts that dispute their silly blather, and claim that those statements, A: did not answer the question, or B: ignore the fact that the post had been made at all.

That would be a true statement as well.

What's your point Dataman?

[Dataman]

There has been no exception observed at this point.

Then you admit the law of biogenesis is indeed a law. That is the right answer.

What kind of silly trap is that?

It's called logic. Sorry if you think it's a trap.

No, it has NOT been observed, but it has obviously occurred at least once.

If it has not been observed, if it violates an existing law, and if it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, how can it be obvious? That's not science and you clamed to be scientific.

"Goddidit" is not good enough for me, but, that statement for some reason gives you comfort.

But "iddidititself" is good enough for you. I don't think you quite comprehend the implications of your belief.

Have a ball with it, just don't claim that it is science.

If you could understand the implications of your belief, you would come to realize that "itdidititself" is not science either. You must not comprehend that since you seem to think spontaneous generation is science.

But that's OK. Believe what you want-- only don't pretend it's science when it's superstition. Don't pretend it's logical when it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

[TheCrusader]

"You cannot DNA test a piece of cloth, other than to tell what it's made of. It would have nothing to do with dating".

On the contrary, DNA testing of the cloth can have everything to do with dating it. For example, the DNA test for blood on the Shroud has shown that the victim was male, and most probably of Jewish extraction, and indicated that the blood sample was ancient. (The atheist, pseudo-scientists who examined the Shroud in 1988 concluded the Shroud was circa 1300 A.D, and the crucified man's image was that of a Crusader. But the Crusaders were mostly of French/Gaul ancestry, certainly none of them Jewish). Also, microscopic pollen analysis show that the spores on the Shroud came from plants only common to Jerusalem. While none of these tests can absolutely date the Shroud, they sure have ripped the 1988 athiest-scientist's conclusions to shreds. Pax Christi, Jim

[F16Fighter]

"The evolutionists are nothing more than deconstructionists and scientific Marxists. Looks like they'll finally get their wish and make man just another animal."

Good post...

Apparently for some Darwinist "scientists," "enlightenment" means accepting ANY premise regardless of possibility as they peer through their respective attic cell windows of the asylum.

[conservababeJen]

But I want your take. You're the one who dangled the carrot with your "I can give you half a dozen ways it could have happened" comment. I'm biting..
Let me know when you'll find the time to enlighten me.

Thanks
CBJ