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: ALS
ALS again proves that he is clueless.
That 167 IQ is wasted on you.
401
posted on
05/22/2003 3:39:25 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Aric2000
I think I found your god
402
posted on
05/22/2003 3:44:14 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBot™)
To: Aric2000
or
?
403
posted on
05/22/2003 3:45:43 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBot™)
To: ALS
Actually, I think that would be a goddess, because the that man is ACTUALLY a woman.
Nice try though
404
posted on
05/22/2003 3:46:27 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Aric2000
that can't be your god then. You said "it" was un-understandable".
gotta be the rock god then
here you are growing some godlets
405
posted on
05/22/2003 3:50:01 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBot™)
To: Ichneumon
''go out into the hall, open the box, take out the red ball, and put it in the freezer''.
I can do that too. Of course my husband still wonders why I keep sticking those red balls in the freezer.
406
posted on
05/22/2003 3:51:35 PM PDT
by
LauraJean
(Fukai please pass the squid sauce)
To: kkindt
Yeah, but...
Chimps have 48 chromosomes, four more than your average demo.
407
posted on
05/22/2003 3:54:59 PM PDT
by
djf
To: djf
and Eloon
408
posted on
05/22/2003 3:55:31 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBot™)
To: 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....
But hey -- I have a good friend who in his heart swears historians will one day regard Bill Clinton as one of America's "greatest Presidents."
409
posted on
05/22/2003 6:23:50 PM PDT
by
F16Fighter
(Democrats -- The Party of Stalin and Chiraq)
To: Quick1
Mosquitos have evolved to resist pesticide Careful not to confuse adapted with evolve. I have no problem with adaptation. The mosquito is still a mosquito though. That's not evolution.
410
posted on
05/22/2003 6:26:00 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: Dataman
"I think our friend has a very limited repertoire."Trapped in a paradigm the size of a juice box.
411
posted on
05/22/2003 6:28:56 PM PDT
by
F16Fighter
(Democrats -- The Party of Stalin and Chiraq)
To: Dataman
To: Quick1 Mosquitos have evolved to resist pesticide
Careful not to confuse adapted with evolve. I have no problem with adaptation. The mosquito is still a mosquito though. That's not evolution.
Amen
412
posted on
05/22/2003 6:29:45 PM PDT
by
ALS
(ConservaBabes.com - Home of ConservaBot™)
To: Junior
Such boresomeness. Aric dragged the topic over from another thread and wants to have a food fight. I'm ready to discuss the topics but not with not with mud-slinging irrational teens. As we have all come to expect, guys like you whine about contentless posts while at the same time offering a diaper pail full of useless content, carping and complaining.
For example, let's take just one sentence from your two-paragraph post of puling:
Maybe that's why creationists won't ever come out and actual state their views -- they know those views won't stand up to the light of day.
Unsupported distortion number one: [Creationists won't ever come out and state their views.] If you had truth on your side, you wouldn't have to make stuff up like that. Not only do creationists give their veiws, but the regularly trounce your side. With all the web sites out there, you can easily get the creationist view on just about anything.
Unsupported distortion number two: [they know those views won't stand up to the light of day.] I've been watching these debates for 5 years and still wonder how some of you can type with your eyes closed. We're still waiting for you all to devastate us with your overwhelming evidence.
Your post contained other falsehoods and I wonder why you who claim to have the truth need to fabricate things to support it.
413
posted on
05/22/2003 6:47:26 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: F16Fighter
Trapped in a paradigm the size of a juice box.
414
posted on
05/22/2003 6:51:04 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: ALS
They're out tonight.
415
posted on
05/22/2003 6:53:50 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: kkindt
Chimps Now to be Considered Humans
Looks as though the lumpers are making their move. Bonabo sexuality appears to be almost as diverse as that of humans. I still wouldn't want to eat hors d'oeuvres prepared by chimps.
416
posted on
05/22/2003 6:56:06 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Dataman
Ah, but it is. Some mosquito evolved with a mutation that somehow allowed it to resist pesticide. It then reproduced and spread its genes to the next generation of mosquitos. Now we have a bunch of those mosquitos that all have the mutation, and they live easier than mosquitos without the mutation, so they propagate more.
If that's not a classic definition of evolution, then what is?
417
posted on
05/22/2003 6:56:21 PM PDT
by
Quick1
To: Dataman
Hehehe -- Well illustrated.
418
posted on
05/22/2003 6:57:04 PM PDT
by
F16Fighter
(Democrats -- The Party of Stalin and Chiraq)
To: Dataman
I never made any of it up. Name searching on FR is evidence enough of the shallowness (or lack) of the creationists on these threads positions.
419
posted on
05/22/2003 6:57:56 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
To: Quick1
If that's not a classic definition of evolution, then what is? microevolution vs.
macroevolution
The creationist has no problem with microevolution which is variation and adaptation. For example, 2000 years ago there were far fewer varieties of dog. Though there are many new varieties today, they are still dogs. They existed in the genetic material of their ancestors 2k years ago. No new genetic info was added.
Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal. Of course this sort of thing does not happen. It has never been observed. It only happens in textbooks and computer animation.
420
posted on
05/22/2003 7:05:41 PM PDT
by
Dataman
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