Denial of evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by river-wind, Jul 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Ahem:
    There's a family of New World monkeys called Pithecia; I think this is where the pitheciinae come from.

    However, the pithecine APES (which are not monkeys, monkeys have tails), are still called "the Pithecines", here and there. I'm quite sure of this, and so is my sister (the one with the degree). The pithecines are supposedly where the Homo genus arose, from a gracile australopithecine predecessor.

    Who wants to shoot this lot down in flames, then? (remember, you are now dealing with an utterly pompous twit, at this stage).

    P.S. Since someone has been harping on about New World monkeys (apparently it was me), then someone should point out that this:
    "I do know what a pithecine is. It is New World Monkey. It is not - as you seem to think - an acceptable variant for australopithecine."

    Is completely wrong, in fact.

    The pithecine group includes (two) Australopithecus species, and the ones I've mentioned that left Africa, and two other, more general taxonomic groupings (from way back in the Eocene): the propliopithecine and oligopithecine categories.

    OK? or not...
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Vkothii, I am still waiting for you to give me a reference to a peer reviewed paper that uses the term pithecine in the sense you (and your sibling) insist upon.
    The only sense in which I have encountered it is in relation to New World Monkeys. Yes New world Monkeys are simians, just like us, so why you keep wanting to use the term simian in this thread is equally beyond me.

    You appear to have created a taxanomic grouping out of thin air. It may be a very useful grouping. It may be a very apt name. It is not, however, common currency amonst primatologists or anthropologists. Indeed - the point I keep making - I have never encountered it ever. Not once. Nowhere. I stand ready to be corrected. List for me the many publications and authors who use it routinely and I shall happily donate $50 to a charity of your choice. But don't come up with a single obscure usage and expect to be greeted by abything but catcalls.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I'd Really Really look up some evidence in a taxonomy reference, if I were you.

    Then you give me a reference, that shows me and everyone else that you're right, the pithecine group is the New World simians.

    So that would mean I'm wrong about them being a generic name for the oligo- proplio- australo- and the other four pithecine apes - the pithecine group - the pithecines (sometimes capitalised).

    OK then?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Since you have these taxonomy references on hand I am limited to wikipedia and the like, you provide the reference.
    And I'm gone for the four days. Absence of a reply is not concession of correctness.
     
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Back up a little here. I have never heard the term pithecine used, except - a vague recollection - in relation to a specific bunch of New World Monkeys. (Bunch here is an appropriate taxonomic term since I had no idea whether it was a sub-order, family or whatever.) From the outset I was questioning the usage of pithecine for anything, but acknowledging that it might have currency in relation to New World Monkeys. Subsequent googling has confirmned this, though you don't want to accept that when the word pithecine appears in relation to a group of monkeys that is the word ptihecine that is used. I cant' do anything on that except :shrug:
     
  9. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    OK, no worries.
    I'll leave the egg on my face for a few days then?
     
  10. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    Apes cannot breed descendants who are goats, turkeys, chicken, humnas, lions, tigers, bears, or anything but apes whether in 9 months or a million years. That should be obvious to all who understand basic biology. The reason is that apes carry APE DNA, not the DNA of any other animal. So evolution is and always has been a myth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Put the right selective pressure and enough time on apes and you could breed a goat-like, turkey-like, what ever kind of creature. Also DNA is DNA, its is not intrinsically different from one species to the next, so it is technically possible to breed an ape until it is genetically identical to goat, turkey, etc, assuming no time limits.
     
  12. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    I see that those who blindly believe scientists are also in the habit of making up words and claiming that other people said them. So sorry friend, but your post doesn't speak well for evolution or those who follow scientists because it proves that one has to make false statements to promote their theories. If scientists were really interested in the truth, then deliberately lying about what others say wouldn't even occur to them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    This forum is not so serious as to believe it represents the attitudes of scientists, as such I'm open to jerk your chain all I want for my own hilarity, science be dammed.

    But it should be noted though the actions of a scientist do not make their claims invalid, ergo ad hominem. As such you can't just say scientist are lying, you have to actually attack the arguments of scientist, not the scientist them selves. As such you failed to counter my argument about the nature of DNA, point for me.

    Oh and I didn't make up TIME CUBE, that for real!
     
  14. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    I have attacked the arguments of scientists by explaining why apes can't breed human descendants. However, I acknowledge that there are MANY people who don't understand the birds and bees sufficiently to know why apes don't breed anything but apes. So those people will say I haven't disproved evolution. Only those who understand what each animal breeds and why will know why evolution is impossible. And that doesn't include evolutionary scientists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    Sorry but what could happen is called science fiction; what does happen is called science. So your claim contains no more evidence than saying that some day in the future humans will turn into goats.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So you first have to know WHY humans breed humans before you can make up stories about humans or apes being able to breed turkeys. And that entails understanding the simple birds and bees. ANYTHING'S possible in the human imagination but the imagination is not evidence. Sorry.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It is true Apes can't breed anything but apes. However, the only reason we are not called apes is due to anachronistic victorian era taxonomic classification systems. Based on DNA and physiology, the great apes and "homo" species should properly be in the same group.
     
  17. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    roflmao: The reason we're not called apes is because we AREN'T apes. It's simple enough for a child to understand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The "great homo-sapiens" is a made up creature from the skulls and bones of many different animals, my friend. There' NO WAY to prove that the skulls and bones that archeologists found to construct their fictitious creatures all came from the same body. Absolutely none. So their methods are in NO WAY scientific. They simply count on using the letters after their names to dupe the public. If any lay person used their methods to construct "prehistoric" creatures and give them Greek-sounding names so long that most people can't pronounce them, we'd be laughed out of every scientific conference. So it's not their methods or claims that are rational or scientific, it's their degrees that dupe the public. And that they do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Oh please than do explain to us again why each animals breeds.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    We are apes. Your response is, in essence, "science isn't science". So, how do you find anything out? Without science, you have no standards of proof, thus nothing you say can be believed.
     
  20. Carico Registered Member

    Messages:
    228
    So which is it? Are humans apes or not? Or are those who espouse evolution so confused that they have no clue what the difference is between humans and animals and why and how each animal reproduces itself?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And by the way, the term "re-production" means to breed descendants who are the same species as oneself, not other animals.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So you need to first understand reproduction before you can undertand why apes don't breed human descendants. And if you still don't understand, then i suggest you visit a zoo sometime and observe what animals breed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Humans are a kind of animal. Humans and chimpanzees certainly have differences, but compared to other animals, we are very close relatives. In addition to not understanding any basic science, you also apparently do not understand evolution. Your children are never exact copies of yourself. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the change can be dramatic.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    So what if a progeny is produced that can't back breed with the species the created it, would that count as a new species from a previous one?
     
  23. solidsquid Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    No, you don't understand it therefore reject it. I've seen you spew the same bile time and time again all over the internet Carico. In every instance you are given mounds and mounds of empirical evidence from the science community yet no matter how incorrect you are shown to be you ignore it, dismiss it or call it lies.

    If you are just going to tell us we're wrong no matter how much evidence we provide which contradicts your argument, then why do you continue to post the same crap from board to board? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Because, quite frankly (these fine people here may not be tired of your tripe nor even be aware of you) your act is annoying and tiring.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page