Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Picaro]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

They both came from a common ancestor. The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.

The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.

 

[bripat9643]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

They both came from a common ancestor. The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.

The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.

What do you suppose the mathematical probability is of the universe being ruled by a petulant gaseous vertebrate with a penis?

 

[RWS]

There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.

Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....

 

[RWS]

And picaro, you are getting close to being dangerous. Please, let's calm this down, and be fonzie.

 

[Picaro]

There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.

Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....

I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.

 

[Picaro]

And picaro, you are getting close to being dangerous. Please, let's calm this down, and be fonzie.

That's no fun.

 

[RWS]

There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.

Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....

I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.

You can't be agnostic and argue for Biblical creation theory at the same time.

If you value empirical evidence, then again, you can't side with religion.

I don't think you are an agnostic. You're a wannabe... something....

You're not sure what you are yet.

And that's ok. Just be a good person, and do good things in your local area. And things will work out in the end. Regardless of religion.

 

[RWS]

 

[deanrd]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

I think we were magically shimmered into being from a pile of dirt by a mystical white guy in a Gandolff like long white robe. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Picaro]

There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.

Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....

I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.

You can't be agnostic and argue for Biblical creation theory at the same time.

If you value empirical evidence, then again, you can't side with religion.

I don't think you are an agnostic. You're a wannabe... something....

You're not sure what you are yet.

And that's ok. Just be a good person, and do good things in your local area. And things will work out in the end. Regardless of religion.

I'm not arguing for Biblical creation, and never have, so your strawman is just evidence of your own intellectual limitations. I do have fun pointing out the obvious rip off of Genesis the 'Darwin's Dufuses' parrot in their cult verses, though, like replacing 'Garden of Eden' with the 'warm pond' fantasy, and the Genesis creation of the universe with the 'Big Bang' thingy. Hilarious stuff. I also greatly enjoy that 'spontaneous equilibrium' hand wave, one of the more ludicrous and silly comedies of the whole cult; even its inventor Gould finds it embarrassing.

Try and come up with new material, maybe hire a real scientist to make one up for you or something. This usual idiot 'evidence' is stale and boring, and already shot to pieces over a hundred years ago.

 

[james bond]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Believe? No, I don't do believing.

Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts

Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.

But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.

Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.

Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.

What you linked is ridiculous and nuts. They're not the same species nor related.

First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.

What I linked is fact.

If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.

There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.

No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it. You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus. Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light. Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor. You take that out and all your links turn to mush. The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best. Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect. It wasn't about survival of the fittest. Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist. His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide. Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..

It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is? Wait, it's not a fact if you don't want to accept it? Come off it.

There will never be consensus because there are people who have weird agendas where they'll ignore all the evidence and peddle their crap. It doesn't help your case at all.

So, how people misused his theories, proves he's wrong? Can you not see how bad an argument that is?

Darwin might have been wrong, that isn't the point of the topic here. The point is whether we came from Monkeys.

The reality is that both monkey and humans probably came from the same source which might not have been human or monkey.

>>f: It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is?<<

That's a good question and even Nature tried to point the closeness out. What it is is statistics. Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

The scientists who want to argue for having chimps as a common ancestor use it. Grant it, it's not much of a difference based on DNA, I think about 4% or less. However, it's not enough to convict someone in a court of law just based on DNA (there has to be other corroborating evidence). Moreover, those who are against the common ancestor theory use statistics, too. It means a difference of around 35 million places where the molecules are different from chimps and humans. Of that there are 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.

Finally, I remember it was apes used as ancestor to humans previously. Then it became ape-human. Chimpanzees were never part of it until their DNA was found to be similar.

 

[DrLove]

No - I believe humans (Republicans anyway) are in the process of devolving into monkeys

 

[sealybobo]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from. Why is that a problem for you, for anyone? "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago..." Four million years ago and you are concerned about this? Ridiculous.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin. Darwin was wrong about his tree of life. It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family). Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.

We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too. Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship. Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.

Yes we did.

Even if there were bushes instead of one tree apes and humans share a bush.

And god didn’t poof those bushes into existence. Every land creature evolved from a water creature first. That’s what evolution says. The alternative is what? God did it?

 

[sealybobo]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

They both came from a common ancestor. The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.

The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.

What do you suppose the mathematical probability is of the universe being ruled by a petulant gaseous vertebrate with a penis?

Blasphemy

 

[Slyhunter]

Believe? No, I don't do believing.

Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts

Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.

But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.

Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.

Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.

What you linked is ridiculous and nuts. They're not the same species nor related.

First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.

What I linked is fact.

If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.

There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.

No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it. You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus. Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light. Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor. You take that out and all your links turn to mush. The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best. Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect. It wasn't about survival of the fittest. Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist. His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide. Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..

It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is? Wait, it's not a fact if you don't want to accept it? Come off it.

There will never be consensus because there are people who have weird agendas where they'll ignore all the evidence and peddle their crap. It doesn't help your case at all.

So, how people misused his theories, proves he's wrong? Can you not see how bad an argument that is?

Darwin might have been wrong, that isn't the point of the topic here. The point is whether we came from Monkeys.

The reality is that both monkey and humans probably came from the same source which might not have been human or monkey.

>>f: It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is?<<

That's a good question and even Nature tried to point the closeness out. What it is is statistics. Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

The scientists who want to argue for having chimps as a common ancestor use it. Grant it, it's not much of a difference based on DNA, I think about 4% or less. However, it's not enough to convict someone in a court of law just based on DNA (there has to be other corroborating evidence). Moreover, those who are against the common ancestor theory use statistics, too. It means a difference of around 35 million places where the molecules are different from chimps and humans. Of that there are 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.

Finally, I remember it was apes used as ancestor to humans previously. Then it became ape-human. Chimpanzees were never part of it until their DNA was found to be similar.

Actually I heard we were closer to pigs, which is why they use pigs to make vaccines.

 

[skye]

No

We did not came from monkeys.

 

[sealybobo]

No

We did not came from monkeys.

What came first fully grown people or babies?

 

[Esmeralda]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from. Why is that a problem for you, for anyone? "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago..." Four million years ago and you are concerned about this? Ridiculous.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin. Darwin was wrong about his tree of life. It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family). Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.

We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too. Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship. Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.

I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes. More than any other being on the planet. The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.

The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million years ago BTW, from apes. You would be happier if we evolved from worms? LOL How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who ******* cares?

 

[Picaro]

Actually I heard we were closer to pigs, which is why they use pigs to make vaccines.

And rats, too, like 90% or so. And some chicken genes, and even a tree or something. It sounds good to people who don't know squat about genes, and rely on liars to inform them on the issues. Many people think they can use DNA to create orders of development, timelines, and date stuff, for instance, which of course is utter rubbish, but it sounds good when some parrot with an agenda pretends its all 'sciencey n stuff'. 'Rationalists' never lie, no scientist has ever lied, you know.

 

[sealybobo]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from. Why is that a problem for you, for anyone? "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago..." Four million years ago and you are concerned about this? Ridiculous.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin. Darwin was wrong about his tree of life. It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family). Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.

We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too. Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship. Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.

I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes. More than any other being on the planet. The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.

The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million years ago BTW, from apes. You would be happier if we evolved from worms? LOL How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who ******* cares?

They believe we were poofed into existence. If we are related to apes then maybe to them that means we aren’t special. We’re just another animal