Did apes descend from us?

While the Daily Mail states, seemingly as fact: Human evolution just got a million years older: woman-ape fossil skeleton is closest thing yet to ‘missing link’, Richard Dawkins’ blog ponders the question raised by theories in the journal Science, out today: Did apes descend from us?

So basically this icon of our age…

evolution…could well be total nonsense.

Of course it is. The Theory of Evolution is nonsense.

UPDATE 3/10/09 – I see the Mail’s headline now reads, “First ape woman suggests human ancestors may have started walking in pursuit of sex.”

“Some scientists” apparently believe this. Other creatures have managed to survive perfectly well by staying on all fours (sixes, eights, etc.). Not necessarily when ‘in the act’ of course, but that’s a different matter altogether.

Experts, schmexperts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Did apes descend from us?

  1. John says:

    Well … “Did apes descend from us?” Would it be rude to include politicians …. On the other hand probably not a good idea,the animal PC brigade would object to degrading and putting animals on par with politicians.

  2. English Viking says:

    The only link that is missing from people who believe in the cult of evolution is the link with reality.

  3. Jonathan says:

    Firstly, it’s a mistake to rely on the Daily Mail for detailed scientificn analysis, although the article isn’t actually that bad, for once.

    “Richard Dawkins’ blog ponders the question raised by theories in the journal Science, out today: Did apes descend from us?”

    It’s the RichardDawkins.net forum, not his blog. The fossil discovered is at least one and a half million years younger than the common ancestor that humans and apes share, which would have been neither human nor ape but ape-like. 1.5 million years is more than enough time for bipedalism to have evolved.

    “Of course it is. The Theory of Evolution is nonsense.”

    This reminds me of when you confidently declared that there were absolutely no transitional fossils, then were unable to supply a definition when I asked you. Can you define what evolution is?

    English Viking-

    “The only link that is missing from people who believe in the cult of evolution is the link with reality.”

    Witty. And convincing too.

  4. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘The Theory of Evolution is nonsense.’

    Ah Stewart, you’re not saveable.

    There’s a difference between the perspectives eh? You, being a true Christian, i.e. a consistent one, will think that I am, however slim the chance looks at the moment.

    Not that long to go for either of us to find out who is right though. The only annoying thing is that if I am right you will never know.

    Sigh.

  5. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter,
    The terrifying thing is that if you are wrong you will know forever.

  6. English Viking says:

    Johnathan,

    ‘The fossil discovered is at least 1.5 million years younger…..’. You state it as though it were fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a guess, based on incomplete and unscientific data. In order to be able to PROVE the date of any given thing’s genesis (did you see what I did there? Still witty!), you need to compare it with a sample, the accurate date of which is KNOWN, not estimated, guessed, hoped for or anything else which requires the advocate of evolution to believe unproven, unprovable assumptions. When these assumptions are jumped to, the said advocate then exercises ‘faith’, the ‘subtance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen’, In the aspect of faith, you are not one bit different from a Christian, with the exception that you place your faith in so called science and not in Christ.

    A transitional fossil is as the name would suggest, one which shows a SPECIES in transition to an entirely different SPECIES. Not one single, genuine example exists. There are fossils which show examples of a development of a species, for example smaller, larger, stronger, weaker etc. There are no examples of a species changing into another species, for example a pig to a dog, a fish to a bird. There have been numerous examples of fakes, frauds and mistakes. The Chinese ‘Frog-Bird’ a couple of years ago is a prime example, which in reality was two different fossils from two different periods literally super-glued together. Piltdown man is an infamous example of the lengths that some ‘scientists’ will go to to ‘prove’ their lies. If evolution is true, there should be literally millions of these fossils. They should not be difficult to come by. They should not be earth-shattering news when they are ‘discovered’. There aren’t any.

  7. Jonathan says:

    “Johnathan”

    Jonathan.

    I was going to respond to your comment in detail, but I decided it wasn’t worth my time when I saw this:

    “There are no examples of a species changing into another species, for example a pig to a dog, a fish to a bird.”

    Shockingly, there aren’t, considering that evolution would not mean a modern species evolving into another modern species! It’s clear you have absolutely no understanding of what it is that you think you’re criticising. A reasonable man would at least take the time to understand what it is that he is denying.

  8. Jim Baxter says:

    EV,

    True. You know, that risk doesn’t enter into my calculations at all.

    Mind you, being a calculator means that I shall go to silicon heaven. Stewart knows what I mean.

  9. English Viking says:

    Jonathan,

    Apologies for mis-spelling your name.

    Is that the best you can come up with? ‘No understanding’, ‘A reasonable man would…blah, blah, blah’. Ad hominem attacks and no rebuttal?

    The examples I gave were just that, examples, which were entirely valid, fish and birds are hardly ‘modern’, according to your theories at least. It was to emphasize the point I was making, which was that there is not a jot of evidence ANYWHERE in the fossil records that show a single species, any species, changing into another, totally separate species. You know that this evidence is required to substantiate your religion, you know that the fossil records should be teeming with them and you know that there aren’t any. You must also know of the outright fakery that plagues this ‘science’, that there is in fact not one ‘theory of evolution’, but literally dozens of theories, most of them conflicting, concerning evolution, the reason for this is that evidence is so scant and contradictory that various ‘scientists’ have added their own tu’penneth worth of ‘facts’, further adding to the confusion.

    Think of this fact; if it takes hundreds of thousands of years, even millions, for mutations in genes to eventually ‘transition’ into a new species, and that that species may only be around for a few thousand years before extinction, it should be that, not only would there be literally millions of fossils of intermediate, transitionary states, but there should actually be far more transitionary fossils than those species that they eventually turn into. At the risk of becoming monotonous, there aren’t any.

    If you like, you could critisise my spelling again. You could insult me as unreasonable, ill-informed and of no understanding, again. I don’t mind, I’ve been called a lot worse things over the years. Whatever you like to call me, fire away, but please do try to answer the points I’ve made, which in summary are:

    1. The dating of ancient materials is so inaacurate as to be utterly worthless as the dates found are based on profoundly unscientific principles and as such are unprovable.
    2. The faith required to believe unsubstantiated, unprovable, untestable, unrepeatable ‘transitions’ is no more than that required to believe in a Creator, who is equally unprovable in a
    scientific manner, and that this means that you have a religion, that of the Cult of Evolution.
    3. The said Cult is rife with unsubstantiated theories, mistakes and downright lies. I have given evidence of two hoaxes that fooled the ‘scientific community’, leading them to exclaim that
    they have found the ‘missing link’, only to be shown to be outrageously mistaken years later.
    4. There is not a single, solitary example of a fossil of a ‘transitionary’ creature.
    5. If evolution were true, there should be literally millions of them, they should be ten-a-penny. There are none.

    Be reasonable Jonathan, take the time to defend your religion.

  10. Jim Baxter says:

    There is not a single, solitary example of a fossil of a ‘transitionary’ creature.

    Er, not Homo Eructus then? Just one, single, solitary example.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:

    John – Politicians’ behaviour might suggest that the process of humans becoming apes is an ongoing one.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jonathan,

    “Firstly, it’s a mistake to rely on the Daily Mail for detailed scientificn analysis.”

    Or anything else.

    “It’s the RichardDawkins.net forum, not his blog.”

    You are right. I stand corrected.

    “Can you define what evolution is?”

    Evolution is real. I believe in it as you do – but only up to a point. What I don’t believe is that small, gradual changes can accumulate to form massively complex new organs and other features.

    Please explain how, in a world where neutral and downhill mutations are the norm, your idea of reality should be given any credence?

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim. Hope you are well.

    “Ah Stewart, you’re not saveable.”

    Evolution never saved anyone.

    On your other point, as English Viking wrote:

    “The terrifying thing is that if you are wrong you will know forever.”

    Not just know, but feel and regret.

    P.S. Some scientists feel that Homo erectus should be classified as fully human.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    English Viking,

    The worst thing you can do is spell Jonathan incorrectly. It’s amazing how many do. Half the time, I get my name spelled wrongly. After a couple of decades, I got fed up telling people. Not so with the TofE stealing souls with its lies and disinformation.

    The fight will continue until the Saviour returns. Millions will say on that day, “we believed Dawkins and Myers, for they are professors.” The Lord will say, “didn’t you believe the evidence of your own senses? The law I put in your heart? The testimony of others?

    “Didn’t you consider all that I gave for your pleasure: food, language, art, music, nature, landscapes, poetry? So much beauty, order and reason you ascribed to chance and what you called ‘natural selection’.

    “Did you truly believe that everything came from nothing? That intelligence came from rocks? That wisdom and charity came about as a result of survival of the fittest? That the fossil fragments of extinct apes proved that man was descended from them?

    “You discovered that some scientists went on to believe that apes may be descendants of humans. Some people were prepared to believe anything if it gave them a reason not to believe in me.

    “The number of days in your life was the time I gave you for increasing in wisdom. For believing and repenting. For nourishing the mustard seed of faith in you so that you would grow in the truth.

    “This is why I breathed your spirit into you in your mother’s womb. This is why I offered my beloved Son as a sacrifice, that He would deliver you from the death and Hell that await those who followed after the things of the world.

    “I gave you the ability to comprehend eternity. I allowed you experience pain, fear and shame. People complained: ‘how can there be a God when he allows such things to happen’.

    “Did you ask why I allowed my own Son to suffer and die for you?

    “Or why I allowed my prophets and apostles to be killed?

    “Or why I have allowed my own people to be persecuted above others for thousands of years?

    “Did you consider that your sufferings will last but for a short time and that my precious jewels are not what men consider precious, but are the souls of those who believed in me and trusted me and came out of their tribulations and are now washed in the blood of the Lamb of God and saved?

    “I reached out to the people my Father gave me. All they had to do was reach out to me.”

  15. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter 9:41

    Homo Erectus is simply an ape. I assume you would not dispute this. TofE claims that modern man is simply an ape, shaved and intelligent, but an ape non the less. In what way do the bones of apes display transitionary features from one SPECIES to another SPECIES? I’ll save you the bother; they don’t.

    Stewart Cowan 2:05 AM

    You were up late! Praying for a no vote in the Irish referendum? A scripture for the worshiper of Darwin:

    ‘But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’. 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

  16. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’. 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

    We could just about agree on that. I might put ‘spiritually discerned’ slightly differently.

  17. English Viking says:

    Jim Baxter @ 3:05

    You’ll know from my previous posts with Jonathan that spelling is not my strong suit, although it is more to do with my fat, old fingers not doing what they’re told in relation to the keyboard than any educational deficiencies. I’m glad that you agree with holy scripture, it’s a good place to start. If you’re in the mood for scripture, try this one;

    ‘Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as snow, though they be as crimson, they shall be as wool’. Isaiah 1 v 18

    God is reasonable, as the above scripture indicates.

  18. English Viking says:

    Jonathan,

    Your silence is deafening.

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    EV,

    I wasn’t criticising your spelling. It looks fine to me. I too have old fingers that go their own way sometimes when let loose on a keyboard – having a dodgy brain supposedly in charge but seldom anything of the kind doesn’t help – and I am reluctant to cast stones as a result.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    English Viking,

    Actually, I didn’t pray for a ‘No’ vote. I should’ve prayed that the Irish people wouldn’t allow themselves to be taken for mugs.

    Yes, that scripture sums up the trouble a lot of people have. It’s how Richard Hawkins gets such a large following.

  21. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    You can get your calculator to silicon heaven, but only if you press all the right buttons.

    Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>