I dont think we evolved from monkeys

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by devilsheep, Sep 6, 2011.

  1. The theory of evolution is so heavily backed by a massive amount of data that it's definitely way more than speculation. In fact, it's considered among biologists as a fact that it happened. You can look up the evidence for yourself.

    "no one can say for sure whats what when you're talking about ANYTHING 100+ years ago."

    There's nothing at all in any field of science that can be proven 100 percent, but science isn't about proving things. It's about gathering evidence to explain phenomena. The more evidence, the better of an explanation science provides. While it may be technically true that nobody knows aything for sure, scientists can rationally be extremely certain of something if they have the data. Science isn't just speculation. Saying that it is shows a massive misunderstanding of how science works.
     
  2. Humans and modern monkeys share a common ancestor that we both evolved from. We aren't the direct descendants from monkeys.

    The reason that we have to some from something is because the planet Earth has been in existence for a finite amount of time. There are no species that were specially created, and all animals are believed to have evolved from other species, and there is a mass amount of data to support that.
     
  3. You are wrong in both the bold and the title. We "evolved" from apes.

    /thread
     
  4. seriously this thread needs to be locked, theres like a million evolution debates on this forum
     
  5. I find it disturbing to think I came from an ape/chimpanzee or whatever. Personally, I don't think that's how we got here :smoke:
     
  6. #26 yurigadaisukida, Sep 6, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2011
    this is called arguement by emotion.

    its a logical fallacy.

    just because you personally are racist against apes, you think they are ugly smelly and dumb or w/e. youve got up your ass, doesnt make evolution wrong.

    evolution is about science not asthetics
     
  7. [quote name='"yurigadaisukida"']
    this is called arguement by emotion.

    its a logical fallacy.

    just because you personally are racist against apes, you think theya re ugly smelly and dumb or w/e youve got up your ass, doesnt mke evolution wrong.

    evolution is about science not asthetics[/quote]

    Uhhh, english please? Haha nah man I'm not trying to argue
     
  8. sorry fixed it
     

  9. We aren't apes, we're primates. Get it right.
     
  10. I'm pretty sure we're considered one of the great apes.
     
  11. I stand corrected, you're right
     

  12. Hold on...

    We have 46 chromosomes, while all the "Great Apes" have 48.

    How can we be great apes when we differ by 2 chromosomes.

    Like science preaches, the Universe thrives offa randomness, so this is in fact really just a coincidence that we're only 2 chromosomes off, right?

    If not, then we are a class of our own.
     
  13. #33 chiefton8, Sep 6, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2011
    This is a nice talking point for ID/creationist movement because technically this sentence is true. Conveniently however, as is the case with just about every ID/creationist talking point, important information is intentionally left out to deceive the reader. In this case, you're ignoring the the simple concepts of random mutations, genetic recombination, gene duplication/fusion and genetic drift. These principles in which DNA is altered, combined with selective pressure, have been shown countless times to create new functions in organisms.
     

  14. Science: 1.

    "God": 0.
     
  15. The great apes are those that belong to the family hominidae, and belonging to this family is not solely dependent on having 48 chromosomes. Taxonomy is more complicated than that.
     
  16. number of chromosomes and number of genes are different. chromosoms are just the way the particular organism packages their DNA, humans could have the same DNA in 103 chromosomes and we wouldnt be affected
     
  17. Taxonomy: Seeing is believing. Not complicated at all.
     
  18. What is that supposed to mean?
     
  19. Now now, if we're going to get into the various perspectives on biological taxonomies, that's really a whole other thread. There's ample evidence for the genetic relationships and that's really the only relevant point of contention for the thesis of this thread.
     
  20. I am the product of baby fucking
     

Share This Page