Reyginus: Considering the fact that what most christains ask for is not an annihilation of the apes, but a continual evolutionary trend that led to our metamorhosis to surface, placing the question as a challenge to all christains is dumber.
The question could have been reasonable if christains as a whole ask the corelation you're linking from. You don't challenge an entire group of people to a duel based on the individual definition of a particular member on a subject matter. Wisemen don't do that.

Your claim that "most christains ask for is not an annihilation of the apes, but a continual evolutionary trend that led to our metamorhosis to surface", how do you know this for a 'fact'? Na wa. Did you google to find out how many of your bretheren ask this question? On this site alone, please feel free to try the link I posted earlier, here it is

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=site%3Anairaland.com+++religion+why+monkey+exist+evolution&sa=Search

Or you've not noted how insulted you guys are anytime anyone mentions that we're descended from apes, my honest and non-trolling upstanding gentleman? I'm pretty sure even you do not accept that you descended from other apes.

Also, the f**k you know what 'wisemen' do? Where do I even claim to be that (whatever it is) anyhoo?

Besides all that, I placed it as a challenge to all xtians, where? Do you read anything at all?

wiegraf:
Facing the real issue with the question, assuming you genuinely missed it (it happens to the best of us) and are not trolling in some manner or the other, if you're a creationist that asks this question to evolutionists; "if man evolved from monkeys (note: we didn't, but we can ignore that for now), why are there still monkeys?", can you now see how silly the question is?

This is the question in my sig sef

"Serious question here creationists, if God made humans from mud then why is mud still here?"

It isn't even directed at xtians, it's directed at creationists. The examples of your fellow religionists I allude to above include a muslim, no? And even at that, anyone with half a brain (especially as it's an obviously facetious question) would be able to tell I refer to creationists that ask the 'ape-man' question. There are creationists that have no problem with us being descended from apes, you do know this, yes? They believe evolution stands, but was somehow guided, yes? Even among those who don't and believe we just magically showed up ready made 6000 years ago, some don't ask the 'ape-man' question as the answer is rather obvious. Just as the answer to the question in my sig is BLATANTLY obvious. They just choose to ignore evolution for whatever reasons (usually religious), but they do not claim it is illogical or ask silly questions (they may have better questions though).

Really, wtf is wrong with you?

Now, ansah the question.

wiegraf:
So, considering your fellow religionists frequently ask this question, that would mean they usually ask, in your own words, the "dumbest question I've heard this year" (or any other year, for that matter). You also imply of their behavior as being "way too dumb". Again, your words, not mine. Yes or no pls?

Ansah! OWN UP TO YOUR FOLLY AND THAT YOUR FELLOW RELIGIONISTS. DO IT, SLAVE!!!

Because Mud/dirt/soil is an essential part of life.

Soil acts as the womb to all life forms on earth.

Aside from water, it is the most important natural resource vital to the survival of all of mankind/earth's life forms. As said in the bible, from the soil we came and to the soil we will return.

Sounds far fetch eh? Well, we have all sorts or arteries, layers or skin, liquids etc within us. When we are alive they all play their part in keeping our physical forms active and functioning. It is when we die however, that all of these things literally decompose until our remains are dust like. You can use a fully decomposed corpse/human ashes as fertilizer In fact even animals apply to this rule. They too become part of the earth (literally) post death.

Dinosaurs...fossil fuels anyone?

Now to answer the question Mud is here because it is NECESSARY to keep the world going. Everything needs mud to survive. From earth worms, to fishes, to me, to you, to even birds. It's like a car's transmission. Without it, there is no purpose!

I think the REAL question should be though, "if we came from monkeys/apes...[insert inability to breed with them/why are some morphed into homo sapiens and others not; etc etc]"

davidylan: that is quite a funny signature.

Lets turn the tables atheists... if man is a product of evolution then why do single-celled organisms still exist?

yea lets turn the table, what do you have problem with so i can teach you

Reyginus: You still don't understand what the thread is about. Please study the reinforcement fiber and matrix content of a composite material. Then, if you don't see the error in arguing that the presence of a product brings to extinction its production materials, I will leave you alone.

it depends on the reactant. constant chemical classes would tell you something about that

MsDarkSkin: Because Mud/dirt/soil is an essential part of life.

Soil acts as the womb to all life forms on earth.

Aside from water, it is the most important natural resource vital to the survival of all of mankind/earth's life forms. As said in the bible, from the soil we came and to the soil we will return.

Sounds far fetch eh? Well, we have all sorts or arteries, layers or skin, liquids etc within us. When we are alive they all play their part in keeping our physical forms active and functioning. It is when we die however, that all of these things literally decompose until our remains are dust like. You can use a fully decomposed corpse/human ashes as fertilizer In fact even animals apply to this rule. They too become part of the earth (literally) post death.

Dinosaurs...fossil fuels anyone?

Now to answer the question Mud is here because it is NECESSARY to keep the world going. Everything needs mud to survive. From earth worms, to fishes, to me, to you, to even birds. It's like a car's transmission. Without it, there is no purpose!

I think the REAL question should be though, "if we came from monkeys/apes...[insert inability to breed with them/why are some morphed into homo sapiens and others not; etc etc]"

Fossil fuels != mud. You'd need something alive to die and (usually) stay dead for a long time before you get fossil fuels, no? You also typically need other live organisms to decompose the poor dead organisms, yes? (I think so, can't remember).

Man could survive without fossil fuels, but certainly not as well, for now. We've not actually used fossil fuels for heavy energy purposes for most of our history. It might be the fastest/easiest way we can think of to attain our modern type of industrialization, but soon enough we'll be rid of them as the supplier of our energy needs (and they won't be missed). They're not essential for survival.

But yes, I suppose soil, not fossil fuels, is necessary for our sort of life to exist for other reasons. Equally important though is biodiversity. A critical component of any ecosystem, which includes of course; 'mud'. So even following your sort of reasoning, why does evolution need exist? To provide biodiversity. This should be as obvious as needing say soil for our kind of life, else what are you going to plant? Humans?

Note, if one wants to claim we were all ready made 6000 years ago complete with biodiversity, other life, etc, already 'designed' thereby making evolution superfluous, you'd be ignoring the fact that we and other life forms see and use micro-evolution (and we'll probably use/see macro-evolution if we're lucky) all the time. Arguably more so than we've used say fossil fuels. Then again, this is moot, as the average evolutionist does not think of the earth as having been made 6000 years ago, therefore evolution is a vital part of his world view, just as important as soil. So, depending on the context, questions that might seem reasonable to you would still come across as being of the 'ape-man' caliber of silly.


And all this supposes there's some sort of master plan anyway, ie, mud was put there just for our sake, animals created just so we could slaughter and eat them, etc. An evolutionist certainly need not see it that way, but of course we've been just avoiding that.


As for the real question, why some morphed and others didn't? Like I said earlier on, natural selection, etc. Just as we have different skin colors, hair colors etc. Mostly a combination of environment and mutations, factors largely steeped in chance.

If you want details though these are better question to ask, true. What conditions led to these mutations success? How was a feature evolved over time? Etc, etc. Note the overall logic of evolution still remains sound even if some details need work. Man-ape type questions on the other hand are just pure silly or ignorant (can't blame uneducated for being ignorant though).

We didnt come from monkeys, we descended from apes, monkeys came along the same line with us with the chimpanzee, Pan Troglodyte being our closest living relative.

WE ARE ALL STILL APES, hence the question" why are apes still here" is invalid.

Its like asking "if i came from my mother, why is my mother still here"

Thorough understanding of nature will stop threads like this from growing into pages.

I am so disappointed by the level of intellect in Nigerian science after all these years.

ooman: We didnt come from monkeys, we descended from apes, monkeys came along the same line with us with the chimpanzee, Pan Troglodyte being our closest living relative.

WE ARE ALL STILL APES, hence the question" why are apes still here" is invalid.

Its like asking "if i came from my mother, why is my mother still here"

Thorough understanding of nature will stop threads like this from growing into pages.

I am so disappointed by the level of intellect in Nigerian science after all these years.

Oh, please, don't try to equate the mud-man/ape-man analogy to a ape-man/mother-son one! Sleep aint death! Creationists wouldn't ask the Q if yuo could show us an Ape that really gave birth to a human being!

ooman:

it depends on the reactant. constant chemical classes would tell you something about that

I wish you understand the consequences of the above. Let me follow this angle a bit. Even when the nature of the reactants are considered it doesn't bring the reactants to extinction.
In the fission reaction of uranium-238, two products are formed with the release of energy. Thorium-234 and alpha particles, surely. Certainly, and by implication, what you're trying to say is that radioactive uranium-238 no longer exists because a sample of it was involved in the nuclear reaction that produced thorium, alpha p, and the emission of energy. In other words, uranium as we know it, has been used up in our universe. Even if it is a nuclear chain reaction, the set-up will only affect those uranium atoms involved. My question (following this path) now is, how can a local nuclear reaction erase all uranium atoms from our cosmos?

ooman: We didnt come from monkeys, we descended from apes, monkeys came along the same line with us with the chimpanzee, Pan Troglodyte being our closest living relative.

WE ARE ALL STILL APES, hence the question" why are apes still here" is invalid.

Its like asking "if i came from my mother, why is my mother still here"

Thorough understanding of nature will stop threads like this from growing into pages.

I am so disappointed by the level of intellect in Nigerian science after all these years.

Anything can be invalid when you're asking the wrong question. The right question is, why don't pan genus and co metamorphosize to homo genus anymore? What happened?
And please, before you use any mother and son analogy to illustrate any point, you must be sure the mother and son are characteristically similar. I can equate your point to saying that the question: 'if my mother has a hunch on her back why do I stand erect?', is invalid.
Ah! So much for our educational system

ooman: We didnt come from monkeys, we descended from apes, monkeys came along the same line with us with the chimpanzee, Pan Troglodyte being our closest living relative.

WE ARE ALL STILL APES, hence the question" why are apes still here" is invalid.

Its like asking "if i came from my mother, why is my mother still here"

Thorough understanding of nature will stop threads like this from growing into pages.

I am so disappointed by the level of intellect in Nigerian science after all these years.

Technically we are all still apes... but quite CLEARLY some apes are more intelligent than others. why?

davidylan:

Technically we are all still apes... but quite CLEARLY some apes are more intelligent than others. why?

David, do you have your PHD yet or still pursueing. I meant no insult! Just asking.

I like your question,though its disappointing its coming from you, I thought you should know better.

First I would like to ask you, in your own terms, what is intelligence biologically?

ooman:

David, do you have your PHD yet or still pursueing. I meant no insult! Just asking.

I like your question,though its disappointing its coming from you, I thought you should know better.

First I would like to ask you, in your own terms, what is intelligence biologically?

I asked a simple question... why are there still apes that have not evolved at all to homo sapiens? Very simple question... you dont need a 4-line ad hominem to answer.

seyibrown:

Oh, please, don't try to equate the mud-man/ape-man analogy to a ape-man/mother-son one! Sleep aint death! Creationists wouldn't ask the Q if yuo could show us an Ape that really gave birth to a human being!

Am using phone, once I get on my laptop, I will paste pictures davidylan should be able to interpret, that will explain how we came from apes, even though you may not accept it, but its standard proof of evolution.

davidylan:

I asked a simple question... why are there still apes that have not evolved at all to homo sapiens? Very simple question... you dont need a 4-line ad hominem to answer.

Oh david, your signature is wrong, you aren't saved yet, you are still a sinner. Your comments always bleed insult which is sin.

Evolution of sapiens is a process that is billions of years old, you dont get to have a precis.

Having said that, there are still apes BECAUSE WE ARE ALL APES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE ALL MOSERN ANIMALS. Sapiens diverged from ancestor of the troglodytes some 2 mya and even earlier from ancestor of the pans.

Evolution is not a one way thing because it is an uncontrolled process.

Present examples include polyploids like leavis and barrerae.

ooman:

Oh david, your signature is wrong, you aren't saved yet, you are still a sinner. Your comments always bleed insult which is sin.

Evolution of sapiens is a process that is billions of years old, you dont get to have a precis.

Having said that, there are still apes BECAUSE WE ARE ALL APES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE ALL MOSERN ANIMALS. Sapiens diverged from ancestor of the troglodytes some 2 mya and even earlier from ancestor of the pans.

Evolution is not a one way thing because it is an uncontrolled process.

Present examples include polyploids like leavis and barrerae.

All these and yet you fail to answer the simple question? Is it perhaps because you dont know the answer?

Let me ask another... where are the intermediate species of the torglodyte divergence to sapiens?

Reyginus: Anything can be invalid when you're asking the wrong question. The right question is, why don't pan genus and co metamorphosize to homo genus anymore? What happened?
And please, before you use any mother and son analogy to illustrate any point, you must be sure the mother and son are characteristically similar. I can equate your point to saying that the question: 'if my mother has a hunch on her back why do I stand erect?', is invalid.
Ah! So much for our educational system

We are all modern animals. We evolved from same ancestor. That is why.

davidylan:

All these and yet you fail to answer the simple question? Is it perhaps because you dont know the answer?

Let me ask another... where are the intermediate species of the torglodyte divergence to sapiens?

Could you not read answers from my previous post.? Dont tell me you dont understand them.

Ever heard of australopethicus, orrorin, habilis, erectus, afarensis, neaderthalensis etc about more than 20 transition species have been found, will post full list later, its clumsy typing on phone.

Reyginus: I wish you understand the consequences of the above. Let me follow this angle a bit. Even when the nature of the reactants are considered it doesn't bring the reactants to extinction.
In the fission reaction of uranium-238, two products are formed with the release of energy. Thorium-234 and alpha particles, surely. Certainly, and by implication, what you're trying to say is that radioactive uranium-238 no longer exists because a sample of it was involved in the nuclear reaction that produced thorium, alpha p, and the emission of energy. In other words, uranium as we know it, has been used up in our universe. Even if it is a nuclear chain reaction, the set-up will only affect those uranium atoms involved. My question (following this path) now is, how can a local nuclear reaction erase all uranium atoms from our cosmos?

Knowing the half life of uranium is the solution to your plight. Dont google it, read a text book, its important.

this is the picture i promised, the proof of our evolution from same ancestor with the troglodytes

ooman: this is the picture i promised, the proof of our evolution from same ancestor with the troglodytes

the unfortunate problem with that logic is that it is essentially all based on an assumption. In more clarity - the fusion event described in human chromosome 2 tells us NOTHING about whether man and apes shared a common ancestor... that is an assumption. Could it be possible that the fusion event took place in a prior ancestor of man completely independent of the ape ancestry? Here is another example... we know there are unique similarities in the genomes of man and maize... is that evidence of common ancestry as well or is the ape merely another example of deceptive cherry-picking to fit a prior assumption?

Even if we buy the ancestral logic... is there concrete proof that what occurred was not a splitting of a single chromosome to yield the 48 chromosomes in apes?

If we decided to go the other way... is the assumption that the fusion event in chromosome 2 has significant impact on the large scale phenotypic differences between man and apes despite the fact that the genes expressed on those chromosomes are basically analogous to one another?

What is even more interesting is that sequence analysis has shown that the genes on human chromosome 2 and the ape analogues are not exactly identical. Many of the genes are the same. What happened? Genetic transposition?

ooman:

We are all modern animals. We evolved from same ancestor. That is why.

Lol. This is below my intellect, please!
To say that we are modern animals, following your stand, is utterly wrong. Initially, you posited we are all of the animal and primate ape. And the ape is ancient as you intend to mean. Now, this doesn't look good. It is like saying that we've been existing from the past and we began to exist in modern time. What a contradiction. What happened to our favorite word 'specie'?
That's by the way. Your answer is way too weak.

ooman:

Knowing the half life of uranium is the solution to your plight. Dont google it, read a text book, its important.

Okay. I will make you happy. I read a textbook(from my memory library) as you instructed and here is what I got.
First, a half-life is the time spent for half of the total number of atoms in a given sample of an element to decay.
Sincerely, I don't see how it answer the question nor weaken it.
The underlying words in the definition were: period, half, sample, atoms, total with the central message being that 'a portion of an element decays'. I'm trying hard to understand how a sample of anything equals the totality of the same thing. My man, with every further input you make, you make the terrain difficult for yourself.

@reyg, are you going to answer my question? Why na?

davidylan:

the unfortunate problem with that logic is that it is essentially all based on an assumption. In more clarity - the fusion event described in human chromosome 2 tells us NOTHING about whether man and apes shared a common ancestor... that is an assumption. Could it be possible that the fusion event took place in a prior ancestor of man completely independent of the ape ancestry? Here is another example... we know there are unique similarities in the genomes of man and maize... is that evidence of common ancestry as well or is the ape merely another example of deceptive cherry-picking to fit a prior assumption?

sometimes i wonder where you got your science from? The bible.

the chromosome clearly showed telemeres and centromeres of chromosomes found in chimpanzee, our closest living relative, combined in human chromosome, which gave different haploid numbers, hence separating us into different species.
Similarities with other mammals and ultimately bacterial and archea shows that all organisms are families which evolved and diverged from the same ancestral simple cells.

davidylan: Even if we buy the ancestral logic... is there concrete proof that what occurred was not a splitting of a single chromosome to yield the 48 chromosomes in apes?

Sequencing proves that wrong, as you yours said below

davidylan: Many of the genes are the same

davidylan: If we decided to go the other way... is the assumption that the fusion event in chromosome 2 has significant impact on the large scale phenotypic differences between man and apes despite the fact that the genes expressed on those chromosomes are basically analogous to one another?

Lack of a chromosome made us express some genes, change in physiognomy for instance, and not express some, lack of fur, for example.

davidylan: What is even more interesting is that sequence analysis has shown that the genes on human chromosome 2 and the ape analogues are not exactly identical. Many of the genes are the same. What happened? Genetic transposition?

Now you have shown your illiteracy. Do you expect evolution to be static? If you cannot make a reasonable deduction from presented proof, i see no way you can begin to comprehend the smallest about evolution. of all the self correcting mechanisms of the DNA during replication, do you not learn that, at least some mutations, and yes, transposition alter the cause of chromosome with time? Must i tell you that?

Reyginus: Okay. I will make you happy. I read a textbook(from my memory library) as you instructed and here is what I got.
First, a half-life is the time spent for half of the total number of atoms in a given sample of an element to decay.
Sincerely, I don't see how it answer the question nor weaken it.
The underlying words in the definition were: period, half, sample, atoms, total with the central message being that 'a portion of an element decays'. I'm trying hard to understand how a sample of anything equals the totality of the same thing. My man, with every further input you make, you make the terrain difficult for yourself.

or maybe you have lost tract of the main point here. here is your unbelievable question

Reyginus: I wish you understand the consequences of the above. Let me follow this angle a bit. Even when the nature of the reactants are considered it doesn't bring the reactants to extinction.
In the fission reaction of uranium-238, two products are formed with the release of energy. Thorium-234 and alpha particles, surely. Certainly, and by implication, what you're trying to say is that radioactive uranium-238 no longer exists because a sample of it was involved in the nuclear reaction that produced thorium, alpha p, and the emission of energy. In other words, uranium as we know it, has been used up in our universe. Even if it is a nuclear chain reaction, the set-up will only affect those uranium atoms involved. My question (following this path) now is, how can a local nuclear reaction erase all uranium atoms from our cosmos?

let me ask you again, are you suggesting that you think that all uranium atoms have been erased for real?

Reyginus: Lol. This is below my intellect, please!
To say that we are modern animals, following your stand, is utterly wrong. Initially, you posited we are all of the animal and primate ape. And the ape is ancient as you intend to mean. Now, this doesn't look good. It is like saying that we've been existing from the past and we began to exist in modern time. What a contradiction. What happened to our favorite word 'specie'?
That's by the way. Your answer is way too weak.

Yea, I find it hard to spend my time with your level, explaining things as to a pri. 1.
What exactly do you not understand, that we are all animals? that we are all modern animals (apes) and that our ancestors (also apes) have gone extinct?
We are some 200, 000 years old, yet we are still here. Does that not suggest that human species is quite "old" (though not in evolutionary terms) but WE are modern, living in this time?

wiegraf: @reyg, are you going to answer my question? Why na?

You have to understand yourself before I answer you. Even something wrong can follow a consistent train of thought.

ooman:
let me ask you again, are you suggesting that you think that all uranium atoms have been erased for real?

ooman, is not yet time to click the tantrum pad.
I'm interested in the above.
This is laughable. Really. I cannot be suggesting, neither do I think it is so. That actually is the implication of what you're saying. You've lost track of your point. Let me remind you. The premise we are contending is, whether the totality of a thing goes extinct because it was involved in a material product. While I held it is impossible , you posited otherwise.
And with this latest input from you, I don't know who is arguing for or against.
Please what are you arguing for?

Reyginus: ooman, is not yet time to click the tantrum pad.
I'm interested in the above.
This is laughable. Really. I cannot be suggesting, neither do I think it is so. That actually is the implication of what you're saying. You've lost track of your point. Let me remind you. The premise we are contending is, whether the totality of a thing goes extinct because it was involved in a material product. While I held it is impossible , you posited otherwise.
And with this latest input from you, I don't know who is arguing for or against.
Please what are you arguing for?

i dont argue, i engage in reasonable debate, when it gets unreasonable like this is getting, i back out.

I am debating the idea that man came from dust, never if the dust were used up or not. I told you that if i should debate why dust is still here, then that means i already accept that man truly was made from dust. But how could i accept such a risible idea.

What i debate is that it is a total impossibility that a cell can come from dust SiO2, if you know what that means!

ooman:

i dont argue, i engage in reasonable debate, when it gets unreasonable like this is getting, i back out.

I am debating the idea that man came from dust, never if the dust were used up or not. I told you that if i should debate why dust is still here, then that means i already accept that man truly was made from dust. But how could i accept such a risible idea.

What i debate is that it is a total impossibility that a cell can come from dust SiO2, if you know what that means!

Lol. Okay I see. Trying to back out when the arguement has not yet commenced is not advisable. Don't you notice we are boring this audience? Let's try make the stage a bit planer.
I would like to know the relationship between the question wiegraf asked and what you're saying?
Since you hold that by asking the question, one must have already accepted it to be true, hence, irrational. Do you hold wiegraf a dunce? I'm just curious.

ooman:

i dont argue, i engage in reasonable debate, when it gets unreasonable like this is getting, i back out.

I am debating the idea that man came from dust, never if the dust were used up or not. I told you that if i should debate why dust is still here, then that means i already accept that man truly was made from dust. But how could i accept such a risible idea.

What i debate is that it is a total impossibility that a cell can come from dust SiO2, if you know what that means!

but you swallow the idea that your cells came from primordial soup... much of which came from dust anyway?

Reyginus: Lol. Okay I see. Trying to back out when the arguement has not yet commenced is not advisable. Don't you notice we are boring this audience? Let's try make the stage a bit planer.
I would like to know the relationship between the question wiegraf asked and what you're saying?
Since you hold that by asking the question, one must have already accepted it to be true, hence, irrational. Do you hold wiegraf a dunce? I'm just curious.

You must be ignored! you must be schizophrenic or at least a dolt

davidylan:

but you swallow the idea that your cells came from primordial soup... much of which came from dust anyway?

We do not know so much about the primordial soup as you admitted in some of your previous posts, so dont you think it is aporetic and totally preposterous for you to claim you know so much about the chemistry of the early earth, to know which is "dust" and which is not? Besides, does it make sense to you that life can come from dust. does living systems contain silicon at all. sometimes you are a totally disappointment.