quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Does any evolutionist here know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Does any evolutionist here know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants? Or not? If so, then it shouldn't be hard at all to understand why apes can't breed humans as descendants. [;)]

Or should we call humans giraffes so we can claim that humans produce baby giraffes as descendants?[sm=purplelaugh.gif] If not, then why do evolutionists think that claiming that humans are apes means that apes can breed human descendants?[sm=sadquestion.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Does any evolutionist here know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants? Or not? If so, then it shouldn't be hard at all to understand why apes can't breed humans as descendants. [;)]

Or should we call humans giraffes so we can claim that humans produce baby giraffes as descendants?[sm=purplelaugh.gif] If not, then why do evolutionists think that claiming that humans are apes means that apes can breed human descendants?[sm=sadquestion.gif]

I hate to sound crass, so I'll try to keep this gentle.
Is your understanding of evolutionary theory and genetics so shallow as to assume that this is a terribly challenging question?
First, I'd like to point out that humans are apes.
Our classification is Domain: Eukaryota, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates ,Hominidae, Homo, H. sapiens
"The family Hominidae consist of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, collectively known as the great apes. Humans can breed with apes because we're still apes.

As for why we can't breed with apes, or giraffe;
It's a matter of genetics. A member of a species can only breed with a genetically similar species. This can extend as far as Genus classification while still producing (albeit very rarely) viable offspring, as is the case with horses and donkeys.
What you're failing to take into consideration with your question is evolution. Evolution does not say that an ape one day birthed a human. It tells us that it was a gradual process with intermediaries along every step of the way from 'ape' to human. If you were given a full accounting of every generation to exist between 'apes' and humans, you would not be able to point to any one place where it stopped being an 'ape' and started being human. It would be a smooth transition. It's would be like looking at a picture of every day of a person's life and trying to separate where the child ended and the adult began.

I'm pressed for time here, so I can't elaborate much except to recommend that you do a bit more research into the subject before you attempt to tear it down. If you can't understand evolution, what makes you think you'll be able to present a cogent argument against it?

I recommend starting by looking up 'ring species' in Wikipedia. Or, for that matter, just start Googling relevant terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

Does any evolutionist here know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants? Or not? If so, then it shouldn't be hard at all to understand why apes can't breed humans as descendants. [;)]

Or should we call humans giraffes so we can claim that humans produce baby giraffes as descendants?[sm=purplelaugh.gif] If not, then why do evolutionists think that claiming that humans are apes means that apes can breed human descendants?[sm=sadquestion.gif]

I hate to sound crass, so I'll try to keep this gentle.
Is your understanding of evolutionary theory and genetics so shallow as to assume that this is a terribly challenging question?
First, I'd like to point out that humans are apes.
Our classification is Domain: Eukaryota, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates ,Hominidae, Homo, H. sapiens
"The family Hominidae consist of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, collectively known as the great apes. Humans can breed with apes because we're still apes.

As for why we can't breed with apes, or giraffe;
It's a matter of genetics. A member of a species can only breed with a genetically similar species. This can extend as far as Genus classification while still producing (albeit very rarely) viable offspring, as is the case with horses and donkeys.
What you're failing to take into consideration with your question is evolution. Evolution does not say that an ape one day birthed a human. It tells us that it was a gradual process with intermediaries along every step of the way from 'ape' to human. If you were given a full accounting of every generation to exist between 'apes' and humans, you would not be able to point to any one place where it stopped being an 'ape' and started being human. It would be a smooth transition. It's would be like looking at a picture of every day of a person's life and trying to separate where the child ended and the adult began.

I'm pressed for time here, so I can't elaborate much except to recommend that you do a bit more research into the subject before you attempt to tear it down. If you can't understand evolution, what makes you think you'll be able to present a cogent argument against it?

I recommend starting by looking up 'ring species' in Wikipedia. Or, for that matter, just start Googling relevant terms.

I already know that evolutionists can't tell the difference between animals and humans even though all children can. That's why they call humans apes. [sm=purplelaugh.gif]

But what they fail to grasp is that calling a human an ape only means that humans have always bred humans and therefore haven't descended from anything other than humans, thus proving evolution false. Sorry. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
I already know that evolutionists can't tell the difference between animals and humans even though all children can. That's why they call humans apes.

quote:

I already know that evolutionists can't tell the difference between animals and humans even though all children can

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
I already know that evolutionists can't tell the difference between animals and humans even though all children can. That's why they call humans apes.

So do you consider yourself a vegetable or a mineral?

Assuming you're an animal, let's take it a bit at a time. Are you a mammal? Were you hatched from an egg, or live in your mother's pouch? I'm guessing otherwise, and you are a mammal.

Are you a primate? This would require having "refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain." Do you have paws, a long snout, or a very small brain? I'm guessing otherwise, and you are a primate.

Are you an ape? This would require having "short tails or no tail at all." Do you have a long tail? I'm guessing otherwise, and you are an ape.

quote:

I'll bite. What's the difference between a human and an animal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I'll bite. What's the difference between a human and an animal?

Well, it's pretty obvious from Scripture that humans were created in God's Image, that we alone in the "animal kingdom" have eternal souls, and that God came to earth as a fully human physical being, not some amoral animal.

quote:

Well, it's pretty obvious from Scripture that humans were created in God's Image, that we alone in the "animal kingdom" have eternal souls, and that God came to earth as a fully human physical being, not some amoral animal.

quote:

Here's the dictionary's definition of animal:"A living organism which feeds on organic matter, usu. one with specialized sense organs and a nervous system, and able to respond rapidly stimuli. Such an organism other than human beings."

So evolutionists not only try to change history, but they have to change word definitions as well in order to pass along their beliefs. So since evolutionists are the only ones on the planet who can't distinguish between humans and animals, then they're the last group of people to tell others how humans and animals breed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiat_lux

quote:

Well, it's pretty obvious from Scripture that humans were created in God's Image, that we alone in the "animal kingdom" have eternal souls, and that God came to earth as a fully human physical being, not some amoral animal.

quote:

Here's the dictionary's definition of animal:"A living organism which feeds on organic matter, usu. one with specialized sense organs and a nervous system, and able to respond rapidly stimuli. Such an organism other than human beings."

So evolutionists not only try to change history, but they have to change word definitions as well in order to pass along their beliefs. So since evolutionists are the only ones on the planet who can't distinguish between humans and animals, then they're the last group of people to tell others how humans and animals breed.

First of all, quite frankly that's not a very good dictionary definition. More to the point, technical definitions in any profession often diverge somewhat from what's in the dictionary.

Certainly I agree that there are spiritual and theological differences here, but how do we explain the physical similarities? Is it just a strange coincidence that on a physical level humans clearly bear close resemblance to other animals? Other than the last sentence in your dictionary definition, we human beings would appear to match the definition of animal very precisely. And I'm not sure who's suggested describing God as an "amoral animal."

Humans are scientifically classed as apes because of related physical characteristics. I fail to see what this has to do with theology or certainly with morality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Tigers and leopards look simliar. Does that mean one can breed the other? Not at all! That is the erroneous conclusion that spawned evolution.

quote:

Darwin and his followers have missed the obvious & instead, leaped to the erroneous and impossible conclusion that our similarities means that one animal can breed another![sm=purplelaugh.gif]

quote:

Tigers and leopards look simliar. Does that mean one can breed the other? Not at all! That is the erroneous conclusion that spawned evolution. Only animals which were created to mate and breed together can produce offspring together.

quote:

And most importantly, in all land animals and humans, in order to live in the environment which God created, we all have to; breathe oxygen, drink water, eat food, mate and breed and protect ourselves. that means we all have to have some form of:

1) A heart
2) Lungs
3) A stomach
4) A digestive system
5) A brain
6) A circulatory system
7) A reproductive system
8) Limbs
9) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth

And on and on and on. So of course our genes, DNA, and looks will be similar!

quote:

But in order to deny God, Darwin and his followers have missed the obvious & instead, leaped to the erroneous and impossible conclusion that our similarities means that one animal can breed another! But that's how scientists work; they make pre-mature conclusions about their findings, based on what they want their findings to mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiat_lux

quote:

Tigers and leopards look simliar. Does that mean one can breed the other? Not at all! That is the erroneous conclusion that spawned evolution. Only animals which were created to mate and breed together can produce offspring together.

The theory of evolution is unconcerned about whether tigers and leopards could "breed the other." In fact it would predict that they normally cannot breed together to produce viable offspring, and also that two tigers would not have leopard offspring.

quote:

And most importantly, in all land animals and humans, in order to live in the environment which God created, we all have to; breathe oxygen, drink water, eat food, mate and breed and protect ourselves. that means we all have to have some form of:

1) A heart
2) Lungs
3) A stomach
4) A digestive system
5) A brain
6) A circulatory system
7) A reproductive system
8) Limbs
9) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth

And on and on and on. So of course our genes, DNA, and looks will be similar!

So you acknowledge that on the physical level, humans and many other animal species have much in common, one might even say more common than not. We simply disagree about why this is so.

Intriguingly, your views are not all that far from those of the theory of evolution on this issue: these physical attributes have developed because they are useful to survive in our environment.

quote:

But in order to deny God, Darwin and his followers have missed the obvious & instead, leaped to the erroneous and impossible conclusion that our similarities means that one animal can breed another! But that's how scientists work; they make pre-mature conclusions about their findings, based on what they want their findings to mean.

First, this is a bit of a slap in the face to a considerable number of your sisters and brothers in Christ, who have no intention of denying God.

Second, and more importantly, the theory of evolution isn't that random animals of two different species mate and create offspring of yet a third species, or that two animals of one species mate and have offspring of a totally different species, like the human-giraffe link at the top of this thread. I am unaware of a single evolutionary theorist who has seriously advanced the claim, for example, that tigers breed together and magically create leopards, or vice versa. You are right that such a theory would be ridiculous; however, that theory is not the theory of evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but since one species doesn't breed another, but instead, reproduces itself, then you haven't got a case.

quote:


There is therefore no basis for you to disagree about why animals and humans have similar traits, looks and genes.

quote:


Again, all one has to understand is the birds and the bees to see why animals reproduce themselves.

quote:


But since you worship scientists as gods, then you'll agree with anything they say no matter how impossible or absurd their theories are.

quote:


They can say we came from aliens and you'll agree with them because they have degrees, even when their theories can't be supported by history or reality. So worshiping scientists as gods leads people as far away from reality as they can go. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but since one species doesn't breed another, but instead, reproduces itself, then you haven't got a case. There is therefore no basis for you to disagree about why animals and humans have similar traits, looks and genes. Again, all one has to understand is the birds and the bees to see why animals reproduce themselves.

quote:

But since you worship scientists as gods, then you'll agree with anything they say no matter how impossible or absurd their theories are. They can say that humans came from mice because the DNA of mice and humans are 99% the same and you'd nod your head because they have degrees. They can say we came from aliens and you'll agree with them because they have degrees, even when their theories can't be supported by history or reality. [8|] So worshiping scientists as gods leads people as far away from reality as they can go.

quote:

Sorry, but since one species doesn't breed another, but instead, reproduces itself, then you haven't got a case. There is therefore no basis for you to disagree about why animals and humans have similar traits, looks and genes. Again, all one has to understand is the birds and the bees to see why animals reproduce themselves. But since you worship scientists as gods, then you'll agree with anything they say no matter how impossible or absurd their theories are. They can say that humans came from mice because the DNA of mice and humans are 99% the same and you'd nod your head because they have degrees. They can say we came from aliens and you'll agree with them because they have degrees, even when their theories can't be supported by history or reality. So worshiping scientists as gods leads people as far away from reality as they can go.

quote:

Christianity is silly. They believe that people go to heaven when they die, but even children know, that if you dig up a grave the corpse is still there. They can see that dead people don’t go anywhere, but refuses to admit it. They are silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry, but since one species doesn't breed another, but instead, reproduces itself, then you haven't got a case. There is therefore no basis for you to disagree about why animals and humans have similar traits, looks and genes. Again, all one has to understand is the birds and the bees to see why animals reproduce themselves.

It was Carl Linnaeus, as Christian and a creationist that classified humans as apes. Humans are classified as apes because that is where we fit. Genetically, morphologically, etc...
Ape is not a species, it is a Family definition. Asking to see the difference between humans and apes is like asking to see the difference between Golden Retrievers and dogs, Tabbies and cats, or Trout and fish.
Watch this video. (Click that sentence for a link). And all of his others, come to think of it.

No, one species doesn't breed another. That's not what evolutionary theory says. Did you even bother to look up 'ring species?'
Here's I'll provide a link this time so that you have no excuse for your failure to understand other than willful ignorance. Click here for the link.
Evolutionary theory says that a species only breeds the same type of species, but with variation. All that is required for evolution to work is variation and selective pressures. Selective pressure is induced by the environment. Variation is induced by mutation and genetic drift. Once you have this, evolution inevitably occurs.
Species don't 'breed' other species. They breed slight variations on their own species. Every daughter generation is genetically compatible with the parent variation. The difference between species is what happens when two populations of the same species mutate in different directions until there is a genetic barrier to their breeding. So while all daughter generations can breed with their immediate parent generation, they may not be able to breed with, say, their greatx10^4 grandparent due to genetic differences that have arisen. This is why humans and giraffe can't breed together. While we had a very different ancestor, the splits in that ancestor population eventually diverged too far for breeding to be possible.

quote:

But since you worship scientists as gods, then you'll agree with anything they say no matter how impossible or absurd their theories are. They can say that humans came from mice because the DNA of mice and humans are 99% the same and you'd nod your head because they have degrees. They can say we came from aliens and you'll agree with them because they have degrees, even when their theories can't be supported by history or reality. [8|] So worshiping scientists as gods leads people as far away from reality as they can go.

No, we can't say that humans came from mice because of similar genetics. We can say that we shared a common ancestor due to genetic similarities. This is obvious. This is why both humans and mice have all of the characteristics of mammals.
The reason we can tell that humans didn't come from mice is twofold. The first is evident in the fossil record. The second is genetics. We can tell how closely humans an mice are related by looking at the genetic markers. There are genetic markers that we share with both mice and gorillas. There are also genetic markers that only humans and gorillas share that mice do not share. We can tell that humans didn't come from mice because if we did then gorillas (who would also have had to have come from mice, due to their relationship to humans) would carry them also. The fact that we share any genetic markers between the three species is evidence for a common ancestry to all three groups. The fact that humans and gorillas have shared genetic markers that are not present in mice shows us that humans and gorillas are more closely related than humans an mice.

We do not agree with scientists because they have degrees. We agree with scientists because they provide evidence to back up their claims. We agree with scientists because their works are peer-reviewed by others who know the subject and would call out any flaws they spotted. We agree with scientists because they have provided us with the most cogent models of reality that are yet available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but again, since there's another explanation for the similar organs, DNA and genes other than that mice and people came from the same fictitious beast, then no, you can't say we came from th same common ancestor, particularly when you don't know who he is. Your claim is no different than me claiming that we came from mighty mouse because mighty mouse is just as imaginary as your common ancestor. [sm=purplelaugh.gif]So you can stick to science fiction, I'l live in the real world where mice breed mice and humans breed humans. Unbelievable. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but again, since there's another explanation for the similar organs, DNA and genes other than that mice and people came from the same fictitious beast, then no, you can't say we came from th same common ancestor, particularly when you don't know who he is. Your claim is no different than me claiming that we came from mighty mouse because mighty mouse is just as imaginary as your common ancestor. [sm=purplelaugh.gif]So you can stick to science fiction, I'l live in the real world where mice breed mice and humans breed humans. Unbelievable. [8|]

Yeah, except that the "Same designer, same genes," argument doesn't work. (Click here)
We don't have to know who the common ancestor was to the individual. That's like me asking you to tell me who the nearest common ancestor between you an your neighbor is. I bet you can't do it. (An no, I can guarantee the answer isn't Adam. We know of a common female ancestor to all humans due to genetic evidence.)
Does that mean you and your neighbor have no relation? Of course not. We can even tell how closely you an you neighbor are related by seeing how many genetic markers you share.
This is also (one way) we can tell that humans and chimps are related, but did not come from mice. It's not just that we both have DNA, or that the DNA is vaguely similar, but that there are very specific identifiers that we can use to trace lineages. There are also retroviruses that are embedded into the genetic code of both humans and (for instance) chimps that are quite definitive evidence of a common ancestor.

But, like others have said, you have no interest in actually learning about the subject matter. You're content to wallow in your ignorance. I'd be willing to be you haven't even clicked any of the links I've provided.
I could get more convincing rebuttals to my posts by paining "Nope!" on a wall and shouting at it all day.
You're not even trying, and it's getting to the point where I feel like I'm boxing a quadriplegic.
Unless you manage to surprise me with your response, I'm done wasting my (metaphorical) breath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

Why can't Great Danes breed Chihuahuas?

quote:

I know one thing; The ancestor of my neighbors were human, not dogs, cats, goats, sheep, zebras or monkeys. So i still know better than evolutionists do because evolutionists don't know the difference between humans and animals. And until they do, thy won't have a clue who can breed what. Their imaginations will simply run wild with legendary and fictitious beasts that turned into humans. So evolution was simply invented to try to deny God & it does a horrendous job of it because it is the stuff of science fiction and is only good for great entertainment.

quote:

So one of the biggest mistakes that evolutionists make is thinking that by calling a human an ape that makes it possible for apes and humans to interbreed and exchange genes. But it doesn't any more than calling a dog a giraffe makes dogs and giraffes capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes.