... We didn t evolve from any of the extant apes either. Our common ancestor with bananas is somewhere back over a billion years ago, though, whereas ourMessage 1 of 59 , Mar 31, 2005View SourceOn 31 Mar 2005 at 9:04, jahvism wrote:
>We didn't evolve from any of the extant apes either. Our common ancestor with
> I did a search on the net and I didn't find any photos of the
> ancestors you suggested, I can only assume that these "ancestors"
> are few and far between compared to the enormous genetical gap in
> its past, one artical states the differences are "similar", similar
> is not "the same".
> Similar hardly proves they evolved from each other.
> Humans have "similar" genes as bananas, 50% to be exact, I hardly
> think we evolved from bananas.
bananas is somewhere back over a billion years ago, though, whereas our common
ancestor with the chimp is only about seven to ten million years ago.
> Just because people think fossils look like they evolved from otherTrue...there is no way to prove that one fossil species is a direct ancestor of
> fossils aren't scientific proof thay did, it's just an assumption.
another unless the fossil yields some DNA or proteins that can be sequenced.
But living creatures all yield DNA and proteins that can be sequenced and these
show beyond any REASONABLE doubt that chimps and humans share a common genetic
ancestor. So, if creationists are correct and there is no way for evolution to
produce to "kinds" from one, then we are the same "kind" as they are. In fact,
there is fairly good evidence that there is only one kind of life--the kind
that is based on DNA.
> It was an assumtion that uranuses magnetic feild was at the sameAnd it's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we share a common ancestor
> axis as its spin axis, this assumption was wrong.
with chimps and to the question of how old is the earth or the universe.
Phil , I think that goes back to the lesbian /virgin sex discussed a few emails earlier..... kinky stuff this creator From: Lenny FlankMessage 59 of 59 , Apr 2, 2005View Source
MessagePhil ,I think that goes back to the "lesbian " /virgin sex discussed a few emails earlier..... kinky stuff this "creator"From: "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...>
Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:00 am
Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: FW: Dover letter to the editor> Actually, some do. It's called "parthenogenesis", and it is not all
> that uncommon. Indeed, there aremany many species in which no males
> exist --- instead females give birthwithout benefit of sex. Indeed,
> in some species (some aphids, IIRC), thevirgin females, the offspring
> of virgin females, are themselves bornalready pregnant.
>offhand that is
> The largest vertebrate that I can think of
> parthenogetic and routinely carries out virgin birth isthe
> tesselated whiptail lizard.I should add that in most of these species, the females cannot give
birth unless they have sexual "intercourse" with another lizard. And
since ALL of the lizards are females, that means they have lesbian
sex with each other. The "performing" female contributes nothing
genetically to the offspring; it is the act of sex itself that
stimulates the "receptive" female to give birth.
Looks like the Intelligent Designer goes in the for the really kinky
stuff, huh.-----Original Message-----Phil S:
From: Phil Schuster [mailto:prschuster@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: [DebunkCreation] Re: ID research??
But what I want to know is why God let a beaver fuck that duck.