6000 years?

[pjmret]

I see. You are saying you do not believe humans are apes?

since I was talking about species, they are not the same species, no. its not a belief, its a fact.

now, there is a scientific sub grouping of primates known as the "great apes" which includes humans and other primates commonly referred to as apes, such as gorillas. Of course, that's a fairly specific and obscure (to the general public) distinction.

 

[Boris Norris]

At what point in Darwin's scheme of things involving the evolution of all life forms did humans start bleeding in a way that was not inherited from plants or black African primates?

No idea. You tell me.
The question is ridiculous if you think it will prove god did.

 

[Boris Norris]

Are you saying humans only started bleeding after the evolutionary split between plants and animals or between humans and black African primates?

That's not what he's saying and it's a dickheads justification for religion.
Here's the best we know so far. Compare that with what your hideous god says.


Existing evidence suggests that the blood vascular system first appeared in an ancestor of the triploblasts over 600 million years ago, as a means to overcome the time-distance constraints of diffusion.

 

[mark francis]

since I was talking about species, they are not the same species, no. its not a belief, its a fact.

now, there is a scientific sub grouping of primates known as the "great apes" which includes humans and other primates commonly referred to as apes, such as gorillas. Of course, that's a fairly specific and obscure (to the general public) distinction.

I see. According to Darwinists, humans are not blood related to primates except in dictionaries.

 

[Boris Norris]

I see. According to Darwinists, humans are not blood related to primates except in dictionaries.

Which Darwinist said that?

 

[pjmret]

I see. According to Darwinists, humans are not blood related to primates except in dictionaries.

What is this weird obsession with something you call a darwinist? Some fan club? Lol
I have never met anyone who called themselves that can you point me to someone who does?

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Which Darwinist said that?

Nary a one. DNA shows that gorillas and chimps are quite similar to homo sapiens. Darwin was unaware of DNA, of course. Genetics has progressed a huge amount since the 1850's when Darwin was alive.

I don't think geneticists call themselves "Darwinists".

 

[Boris Norris]

Nary a one. DNA shows that gorillas and chimps are quite similar to homo sapiens. Darwin was unaware of DNA, of course. Genetics has progressed a huge amount since the 1850's when Darwin was alive.

I don't think geneticists call themselves "Darwinists".

Tell dear old mark. He's the confused one.

 

[mark francis]

Nary a one. DNA shows that gorillas and chimps are quite similar to homo sapiens. Darwin was unaware of DNA, of course. Genetics has progressed a huge amount since the 1850's when Darwin was alive.

I don't think geneticists call themselves "Darwinists".

Has genetics proven humans are blood related to plants or to jungle animals, or should we assume that evolution never crossed those boundaries?

 

[pjmret]

Has genetics proven humans are blood related to plants or to jungle animals, or should we assume that evolution never crossed those boundaries?

What is your obsession with blood related? Lol
It's not particularly a relevant phrase used by scientists in terms of evolution, science *****

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Has genetics proven humans are blood related to plants or to jungle animals, or should we assume that evolution never crossed those boundaries?

There are transitional organisms between plants and animals, most of them quite small in size.

 

[mark francis]

What is your obsession with blood related? Lol
It's not particularly a relevant phrase used by scientists in terms of evolution, science *****

If you are going to use DNA to trach human ancestry back to dumb animals, then you must explain how humans cannot have gotten the DNA of animals without having gotten it in the blood.

 

[Boris Norris]

Has genetics proven humans are blood related to plants or to jungle animals

I don't know that and you obviously don't either. Although the question is designed to be ignorantly provocative. What we do know is the DNA is fact and all those mentioned contain similar DNA to us. You know nothing about DNA so why belch your ignorance.

, or should we assume that evolution never crossed those boundaries?

Exactly. It didn't have to cross any boundaries. After it's discovery it was the end of all research surrounding it.

There's something mentally wrong with godbotherers who refuse to believe facts even when they're proven. You are so welded on to the Bible with a lifetime of never being challenged. A man of your age to persue those lies is breathtakingly ignorant. If you live to be a million years old, the findings of science will be the same or change as future discoveries demand. Yet you believe an old book who's author still cannot be authenticated as being the one true path of life that provides eternity. I gulp with a mind like that then suppress my vomit.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Apes and homo sapiens have a common ancestor that is almost certainly extinct. Where do you get this "blood related" nonsense?
Of course, theists believe that humans have souls and animals do not. Well, perhaps except the folks that insist that All dogs go to Heaven.

There is no way to prove that any organism has a soul. Souls are rather like time travel: they are ever so useful as narrative devices.

I find it amusing that although the Biblical character known as "God" has been constantly disappointed in human behavior, humans have been quite successful in making dogs through breeding into whatever they wish them to be: guardians, companions, shepherds, defenders of food, and both hideously ugly and extremely ornamental. Have humans taken free will away from canines? I see no evidence of it. There is no doubt that a dog can be far more loyal to his owner than humans can be to "God".

 

[Boris Norris]

If you are going to use DNA to trach human ancestry back to dumb animals, then you must explain how humans cannot have gotten the DNA of animals without having gotten it in the blood.

We don't have to explain anything. You have to accept the facts. You believe there's a god without a sceric of research or facts but when presented with facts of evolution, you dismiss it because it conflicts with your silly religion. That's ignorant and immature.

There is no doubt of our ancestry and all the denial by godbotherers will never change that. Even the pope has implied it is correct. It doesn't matter to evolution if you don't believe it. It remains a fact and will always be. Religion will continue believing the most fundamental evidence of our origins is a fact and preach it to nutters while they raid their wallets. You're one of them.