Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion / Evolution?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    insanity50 wrote: »
    ah yes, here's another one of the lads with their bro science degrees they received from the internet.

    probably read the back page of the selfish gene, and the first two pages of the blind watchmaker and then hitchens and dawkins became your new Prophet Isiah.

    The amount of idiots on this forum who think they're experts in evolutionary biology is shocking.

    Oh, hey. I have a B.Sc., H.Dip., M.Sc. and a couple of scientific papers on the way to being published. Never read anything by Dawkins, but humans still share a common ancestor. Perhaps you could direct your impotent spite somewhere else now?


  • Options
    #63
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    ScumLord wrote: »
    It would be fair to say we evolved from a type of ape, but monkeys are very different from apes.... Damnit! :pac: Monkeys have a tail for a start.

    It's all a matter of time and terminology. The monkeys that we see today are split between old world monkeys (cercopithecoidea) and new world monkeys (callitrichidae, cebidae, aotidae, pitheciidae & atleidae). If you trace our lineage back through history then you will get to a point first where we share the same group with old world monkeys, about 25 mya, before the split between hominoidea and cercopithecoidea and eventually to where we share a group with new world monkeys too, about 35 mya before Platyrrhini split from Catarrhini. So as long as there is consistency in your terms it would not be completely incorrect to say we evolved from monkeys.

    Sorry to get technical, I know this is AH.:)


  • Options
    #64
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Melion wrote: »
    In my eyes it comes down to something as simple as Jesus & Miracles etc vs Dinosaurs, evolution from monkeys etc.. It boggles my mind that people believe in Jesus and all his miracles, im sure a man lived 2000 years ago who was nothing but a really good public speaker.

    Am i wrong to simplify it that much?

    Didn't we just have this thread? And yes you are wrong to simplify it that much.


  • Options
    #65
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh, hey. I have a B.Sc., H.Dip., M.Sc. and a couple of scientific papers on the way to being published. Never read anything by Dawkins, but humans still share a common ancestor. Perhaps you could direct your impotent spite somewhere else now?

    Iv'e heard of dropping shapes to intimidate someone but dropping letters? AH HEEEEEYLLL NO!!!


  • Options
    #66
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Min wrote: »
    So children were not abuse victims?

    You said the last quote was a joke. I will leave it at that.

    It was a joke about how the church wanted more children to abuse hence banning contraception. Might not be correct but hey its just a joke.

    Your saying I am happy that children were abused so I could make jokes about it at the churches expense. Perhaps you could leave it with an apology for stating I took pleasure from the abuse of children ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    philologos wrote: »
    Didn't we just have this thread? And yes you are wrong to simplify it that much.

    We're having another because we know how much you love evangelising and then ignoring any awkwardness that arises because you don't have answers.

    shizz wrote: »
    Iv'e heard of dropping shapes to intimidate someone but dropping letters? AH HEEEEEYLLL NO!!!

    He was all trippin and hatin on science and sh*t, an then I was all like OH NO YOU DI'IN and bam, science all up in this bitch. Mmm-hmm!<clicky fingers>


  • Options
    #68
    insanity50
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭insanity50


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh, hey. I have a B.Sc., H.Dip., M.Sc. and a couple of scientific papers on the way to being published. Never read anything by Dawkins, but humans still share a common ancestor. Perhaps you could direct your impotent spite somewhere else now?

    Perhaps you could link me to those publications, i'd be interested to see if your journal articles are as tripe filled as your boards posts.

    Apt username by the way.


  • Options
    #69
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    LordSmeg wrote: »
    Thats what I'm saying, they havent changed, we have.
    No, that would be incorrect.

    Humans and apes have evolved, just in different ways. It's common to make the mistake of calling a species "more evolved" than another, but there's not such thing in reality.

    Modern apes wouldn't recognise their evolutionary ancestors as being similar any more than they would recognise us as being similar.

    As ScumLord astutely points out, differences are relative. A alien species would likely on first glance categorise us as a species of hairless ape. We would appear about as different to a chimpanzee as an orangutan does. Clearly a different species, but clearly of the same evolutionary family.

    However, on first glance we would consider Chimps to be more like Orangutans than like us, even though that's not the case.


  • Options
    #70
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    insanity50 wrote: »
    Perhaps you could link me to those publications, i'd be interested to see if your journal articles are as tripe filled as your boards posts.

    Apt username by the way.

    As tripe filled? hahaha I'd like to point out you have yet to set anyone straight. You just point out that people are talking ****e without correcting them on the matter.


  • Options
    #71
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    insanity50 wrote: »
    Perhaps you could link me to those publications, i'd be interested to see if your journal articles are as tripe filled as your boards posts.

    Apt username by the way.

    Yes! Shower me with your ineffective contempt! Vent all your frustration over your terminally disappointed parents, that girlfriend you turned into a lesbian and all those performance reviews that weren't quite good enough to warrant a promotion! It gives me energy!

    <fap>


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    insanity50 wrote: »
    ah yes, here's another one of the lads with their bro science degrees they received from the internet.

    probably read the back page of the selfish gene, and the first two pages of the blind watchmaker and then hitchens and dawkins became your new Prophet Isiah.

    The amount of idiots on this forum who think they're experts in evolutionary biology is shocking.


    My, my. Somebody woke up with a dose of Mr Angry this morning.


  • Options
    #73
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    RVP 11 wrote: »
    Surely you would remove the skin first? :eek:
    shizz wrote: »
    As tripe filled? hahaha I'd like to point out you have yet to set anyone straight. You just point out that people are talking ****e without correcting them on the matter.
    Well won't you be embarrassed if his studying uses of tripe outside of food production.


  • Options
    #74
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    In before philologos.


  • Options
    #75
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Pedant wrote: »
    In before philologos.

    Too late.
    philologos wrote: »
    Didn't we just have this thread? And yes you are wrong to simplify it that much.


  • Options
    #76
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    I must say I thoroughly enjoy insanity50's trollish comments. Check out how he wound up walshb in the boxing forum. Couldn't stop laughing.


  • Options
    #77
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    biko wrote: »
    But but, the banana fit in my hand?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

    Am I not meant to eat this coconut I have here? :D


  • Options
    #78
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    ScumLord wrote: »
    There where a lot of upright walking apes at one time and we look pretty different from them from our perspective. If an alien came down to earth they'd probably only be able to differentiate between us and the other primates due to our hairlessness.
    Not really. We're the odd ones out. Hell we're even the odd ones out among the hominids. We're bipedal for a start. Big diff. Hairlessness as you mention. We've sticky out noses and chins and foreheads, with comically large heads and are much less robust and muscular. Like tall skinny upright baby apes. Never mind the mental diffs.

    The only reason we walk upright is due to a change in habitat, we became a planes ape while the rest stayed in the forest. If they stay in the forest and they are already adapted to that environment they would have little need to change.
    Maybe. Some researchers reckon now the bipedal thing wasn't triggered by such an environment change, well not the forest/grassland one anyway. Walking upright may have evolved in forests.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #79
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Min wrote: »
    Will not be drinking banana milk shakes at your house....

    Because the last banana will be covered in lube and jammed in ur anus? :eek:


  • Options
    #80
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Not really. We're the odd ones out. Hell we're even the odd ones out among the hominids. We're bipedal for a start. Big diff. Hairlessness as you mention. We've sticky out noses and chins and foreheads, with comically large heads and are much less robust and muscular. Like tall skinny upright baby apes. Never mind the mental diffs.
    There was a lot of bipedal apes at one point though from what I remember and it was just after the savannah appeared in Africa. I would have thought it was fair to assume one lead to the other. It's strange we're the only bipedal ape that survived there was so many at one point.


  • Options
    #81
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    shizz wrote: »
    Too late.

    DAMMIT!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Jay D
    Registered Users Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭Jay D


    Melion wrote: »
    In my eyes it comes down to something as simple as Jesus & Miracles etc vs Dinosaurs, evolution from monkeys etc.. It boggles my mind that people believe in Jesus and all his miracles, im sure a man lived 2000 years ago who was nothing but a really good public speaker.

    Am i wrong to simplify it that much?

    Definitely wrong in just being boring and posting another reworded thread on this yet again for another day in AH. That's hardly evolution is it professor?


Advertisement