I post, you decide.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2 posted on
01/23/2006 4:33:12 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
3 posted on
01/23/2006 4:33:15 PM PST by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: PatrickHenry
The response will be that God merely ran out of ideas and used almost the same design.
4 posted on
01/23/2006 4:34:02 PM PST by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: PatrickHenry
More, if you run out...
5 posted on
01/23/2006 4:35:02 PM PST by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: Fierce Allegiance
Engineer evolution?
6 posted on
01/23/2006 4:35:39 PM PST by
r-q-tek86
(Mr. September)
To: PatrickHenry
I know some act like apes but . . .
I was made in the image of God. I believe that precludes a close relation to a chimp as God isn't remotely like a chimp.
8 posted on
01/23/2006 4:37:43 PM PST by
DesertSapper
(was staunch Republican . . . now looking for real Conservatives)
To: PatrickHenry
9 posted on
01/23/2006 4:38:17 PM PST by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: PatrickHenry
And we have hair- too- just like chimps! And I can actually make a chimp face (with mannerisms) -- my nieces love it!
SPooky....
Rate of molecular evolution.. ha- nice try. DOn't we share most of our genome with a form of slime mold? I'm serious. Even closer to this mold than a chimp. And for breast milk checmistry, humans are closer to donkeys than primates. And I understand the center of the human brain is actually more reptilian than mammalian- I know lots of people who are lizard-like in fact. Bought a car from one recently.
To: PatrickHenry
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have found genetic evidence that seems to support a controversial hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees may be more closely related to each other than chimps are to the other two species of great apes gorillas and orangutans. They also found that humans evolved at a slower rate than apes. Are they saying that gorillas and orangutans are more highly evolved than humans are?
To: PatrickHenry
You post. I decide?
Evolution is for the morally challenged and mentally shallow.
That was easy!
14 posted on
01/23/2006 4:39:36 PM PST by
DoNotDivide
(Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.)
To: PatrickHenry
"it suggests that certain human-specific traits, like generation time, began to evolve one million years ago"
One million years ago? But, the universe is only 10,000 years old! How could this be? Are the godless scientists saying that human-specific traits evolved before the universe even existed?
18 posted on
01/23/2006 4:42:13 PM PST by
sagar
To: PatrickHenry
19 posted on
01/23/2006 4:42:28 PM PST by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
To: PatrickHenry
Blockquote>"I think we can say that this study provides further support for the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees should be in one genus, rather than two different genus' because we not only share extremely similar genomes, we share similar generation time," said Yi." I'll bet J. Fred Muggs knew this all along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Fred_Muggs
20 posted on
01/23/2006 4:46:04 PM PST by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: PatrickHenry
DU will go ape over this article, as they think that comparing GWB's appearance to that of a
chimp is political discussion of the highest order.
21 posted on
01/23/2006 4:47:12 PM PST by
Plutarch
To: PatrickHenry
Guess that puts humans on the mainstream of Hominid evolution, with Orangutangs, Gorillas and Chimps being "spin-offs".
This will make the Mullahs happy.
23 posted on
01/23/2006 4:48:16 PM PST by
muawiyah
(-)
To: PatrickHenry
In the article, what does the term "generation time" refer to?
I would guess that it would either be the average time between generations or the length of the gestation period, but neither of those seem to fit with the context of the article.
To: PatrickHenry
29 posted on
01/23/2006 4:51:26 PM PST by
rawcatslyentist
("If you're talking to AQ, we want to know why!" Yogi Berra couldn't have said it any plainer!)
To: PatrickHenry
I went to the source and asked him if this was true and here's his response
30 posted on
01/23/2006 4:51:47 PM PST by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: PatrickHenry
"I think we can say that this study provides further support for the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees should be in one genus, rather than two different genus' because we not only share extremely similar genomes,..." I don't think these Darwin clowns know the differance between a hypothesis and a hypopotamus. They talk about genomes and genusi to give themselve credibility and request grants for federal money. This is a hobbyshop they've been milking for a hundred or so years. If there were anything at all to this evolution BS, they would've found numerous LIVING transitional species by now. Instead, not a damn one. And yet the suckers keep them propped up. Luckily for the evolutionists, there's a sucker born every minute...didn't Bob Hope even say so? These guys are as phoney as that "human cloning" clown in Korea.
To: PatrickHenry
>Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
Hey, bot, that article is a lot of nonsense. There is no connection between humans and chimps.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson