Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
Boy you must be a stumpjumper. Having read the studies, I can assure you they prove conclusively that man and Neanderthals don't share an ancestor. If I may ask, are you a savant? How else would you know what the studies say without reading them?
I know you won't understand this, but the newer studies have supplanted the Krings, et al, dates.
"sense"
"Yeah! Answer that one, all you Darwinian fundy monkey-lovers!"
Apes and man have a common ancestor. Man DID NOT descend from any living ape. No one says they did.
That simply proves conclusively you can't understand what you read.
Public school teacher: "Well, Virginia, there is no scientific basis for that."
Virginia: "Do I get an "F" if I don't believe in Darwin's theory?"
Teacher: "Yes, Virginia, there was a primordial humanoid"
Try again, genetics is more complicated than that. Geneticists will tell you how worthless that "97" number is without considering other genetic details.
Funny how Neanderthals look almost exactly like us but we are not related?
You would have to say that we are, in fact, cousins.
But as the old saying goes, we are cousins about 25,000 times removed (500,000 years/20 years per generation removed).
Not necessary, the trailer park residents aren't human either...
Was my attempt at a little levity to your statement. Sorry if it came across wrong. Sigh.
However, the premise still is valid. You cannot argue a scientific issue using public opinion as your source.
*I* am.
A big, sweaty, hairy burping ape.
With a remote and an easy chair.
And I pass gas. Oh dear, did it again. Sorry.
I agree that humans aren't descended from any of the Neandertals on which DNA testing has been conducted, but the variation between the Neandertal DNA is so great that I think it's premature to say that we aren't descended from any Neandertal populations. (Moreover, just look at the creationists on this thread!)
I didn't say you could. My point is we have been "taught" about evolution in public schools for how long now? Yet most people still reject it. Obviously it doesn't really matter if it is taught as fact or not if students don't believe it.
"Public School Fact:
Religious Student doesn't believe in Darwinism = F in class
Atheist Student doesn't believe in Religion, subscribes to Darwinism = A in class
Religious descrimination at its worst.
Sending kids to public schools will guarantee religious discrimination...take the hint. "
So, by your line of reasoning,
Religious School Fact:
Student doesn't believe in Creationism = F in class
Student doesn't believe in Science, subscribes to creationism = A in class
Religious brainwashing at its worst.
Sending kids to parochial schools will guarantee scientific discrimination...take the hint.
You are arguing with a direct quote of Fuz Rana's, not me.
Google it.
Of course God doesn't belong in science class. Science is the study of how the universe works at the default level, i.e., when God (or any divine or supernatural influence) isn't taking a direct hand in the works.
The problem is when people take the stand that, if it can't be demonstrated by science it's not true.
There are quite a few animals that look the same, but are genetically unrelated. It's called repeatable evolution. (Though "evolution" is a misnomer since they appraently didn't evolve).
Your point?
Rofl! Thanks for the morning chuckle!
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.