Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Better yet, how could homo sapiens be descended from erectus when it's been demonstrated that we could not possibly have descended from the neanderthal and erectus is clearly much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal? Neanderthal DNA, of course, has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", thus making comprehensible the otherwise enigmatic lack of evidence of interbreeding despite long periods of contact between the two groups.
Did you read this through Junior? Did you bother to analyze what was being said here? Or do you just throw stuff out hoping that no one will notice how silly it is?
Junior is basically just a propagandist. He keeps on throwing out the same stupid garbage even after it's been totally refuted as in his accusing me of dishonesty for posting quotes from various scientists regarding evolution as if I hadn't provided a thorough refutation of that kind of claim on the previous page of posting. I mean, I've basically just gotten tired of his stupid gratuitous insults and, since the FR moderators apparently lack the willpower to do anything about him, will simply reply in kind henceforth.
Hear that, "Junior? I mean, if you don't feel like being insulted, don't post anything with my name on it. Real simple, isn't it?
Most Christians have no trouble with science. Some of them are scientists.
If there is something wrong with being a creationist--and there is--it's because people like you have made the label poison. Nobody's a communist anymore either. And there's no socialism; it's called Economic Democracy. (Doesn't that sound wholesome?)
When you blow out your credibility, just re-emerge with a new cover.
What are you spewing about? Did you know that chimpanzees are not monkeys? And no, we're not descended from chimpanzees, but you'd be unhappy to meet that common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. It would be some kind of ape. But cheer up! It wouldn't be a monkey.
Funny that you sit there, wave your hands, and say there's no proof.
Don't be silly. You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens (AKA Homo sapiens heidelbergensis). I posted the skulls. I also posted the chart which shows no gaps of overlap in hominid species after 4 million years ago.
Gaps don't help your case even where they do exist. Was your great great great grandfather too old to be your ancestor? Just because you don't know who your father is doesn't mean you didn't have any ancestors.
Read your own words and weep:
First we got the biology, then we got the culture. But you don't give your Neanderthal cousins enough credit. They did ceremonial burial (an important early advance if you play Civilization II) and had stone tools.
Futhermore, the evidence about interbreeding is far more ambiguous than you state. In Europe, the Neanderthal fossils do not intergrade at all with H. Sapiens and the Neanderthals are particularly robust. Elsewhere, especially in the Middle East, it's much harder to type fossils because they intergrade so much.
You cut off the number. Wonder why? Anyway, let's fix that.
. . . less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093).
Do you understand what is being shown here? Functionally, all the cytochrome c are the same. You can take the original cytochrome out of a yeast organism, put in human cytochrome, and it will work fine. Most of the molecule is just structural padding. You can have mutations all over the place as long as they don't change 1) the overall geometry or 2) a few critical amino acids at sensitive junctures.
Thus a Designer can reach into his toolbox and use any old cytochrome c when He's designing a new organism. They all work everywhere. That's the significance of this molecule.
But a funny thing happens when you look at the cytochrome of organisms. The more related the organisms seem to be, the more related their cytochromes are. Humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c. Why? The odds are stupendous.
This is what you "refuted" in this way:
What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.
A change of subject. Anyay, apes are not monkeys. Evolutionists do think that humans arose from the line of anthropoid apes. You have simply dodged.
When I posted the cytochrome c evidence, you responded with a stream of nonsensical garbage.
So anyway, I defied you and you clammed up. I still say that Gould has repudiated your abuse of him. Please show where he really meant to say you were right.
Tell your seeing-eye dog to shape up!
And I have no problem with science. You have been reading my posts for a long time and you know better than to imply that. Your statement above is therefore completely dishonest. What I have a problem with is phony science and that is what evolution is.
The evolutionists constantly keep saying that evolution is science, that evolution is true, that evolution has been proven. However, the first requirement of anything that calls itself science is a detailed consistent theory. Evolution cannot even lay claim to that. Evolution is a mish mash of what-if's maybe's and contradictory statements. As proof of my statement, I will make the following challenge: post exactly what the theory of evolution is, right here.
You have a lot of trouble with science in every sense of "have trouble with."
I will give you the opportunity to show some honesty. Have you been answered on this question before?
That is why you do not post my answer. That is why you do not address what I said and try to refute it. You got caught with your pants down. Your post was totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whether the cytochrome c of man and monkeys are identical or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether man descended from monkeys because the question has been answered for decades in the negative by scientists. Man did not descend from any of the known apes and science says so.
Now you're simply brazening. And why do you keep saying "monkeys?" Do you see that as crucial to your dodge?
The actual current thinking is that humans and chimpanzees--not monkeys--share a common ancestor 4.5 - 5 million years ago. This is what evolutionists do think and it's where the molecular evidence (including cytochrome c) does point.
The only thing that anyone needs to understand is that man did not descend from monkeys, which means that your entire post (and your reposting after it has been shown to be irrelevant) is irrelevant to the question of man's descent from monkeys.
As to your claim about being able to switch around the genes of different species, that is total bunk also. While the blood of different species is functionally equivalent if you put the blood of one species in another you will kill the individual.
You continue to show a total lack of analytic thinking - as do all evolutionists. This is why evolution is not science, it is pop-scientism for atheists.
The cytochrome c molecules, not the genes that encode them, have been extensively swapped in experiments to prove their functional equivalence. How much of your misunderstanding is real and how much a convenient excuse to thrash bandwith and proclaim triumph in large blue fonts?
Stop the excuses, post it here. Getting a straight answer from an evolutionist is like pulling teeth. Post the darned thing! It is a secret? Or is my statement true? Evolution is not even a theory, it is just a mish-mash of contradictory nonsense.
Do you remember?
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.