• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation - Evolution Continuum

inca

Active Member
You write "genuine science page". Perhaps you wanted to say what you consider "genuine" cos is backing up your point of view! I even posted sites done by people who are not Creationist and they are scientists themselves. So what? Are you gonna use now Mr. Q tactic of accepting what he pleases and rejects what he hates? Shame on you! :oops:
 

inca

Active Member
Children as young as seven months understand grammatical rules.a Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.b

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.c)

Apes have not demonstrated these skills in the wild and do not pass them on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but apparently all human groups have language. If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex.e Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.

Speech :talk: :talk: :talk:
Speech is uniquely human.a Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.
Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

Codes and Programs
Codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. It also is accompanied by elaborate transmission, translation, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. Therefore, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, and duplication systems, and all living organisms were produced by an extremely high level of intelligence using nonnatural (or supernatural) processes.
Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Because programs are not produced by chance or natural processes, it seems most likely that an intelligent, supernatural source developed these programs.... :drink:
 

inca

Active Member
And I said before there are linguists explaining both Sumerian cuneiform scripture and Chinese ideograms are pretty much like Frank Rampsey's math codes. So, if you're comparing human language with animal "language" you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You just mention what you have read in evolutionists books since you were a kid. First, try to make your brain evolve and learn something about human language and then after dare to talk about animal language.
 

inca

Active Member

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Listen inca,

Maybe if you wouldn't post eight things per minute, and bog people down with your millions of links, they wouldn't have made you stop. Maybe if you were to present your case in an underogatory, understandable format, you would get better results. After all, if you are correct in your thinking, a simple explanation, with follow ups concerning people's questions should do the trick.
 

inca

Active Member
No, that is not the reason of being expelled otherwise they would've cut it before and didn't allow 9 pages or more and in fact the participants keep on arguing. Hence it's not only me the one who extends the issue like the expansion of the universe. For every reply it comes an anti-argument. The links are for the people who want to read them. I recognize is not the task of 99% of the readers who jump information. It's the 1% who want to read, learn and discuss or argument against, the ones I'm interested in. I don't care at all if the other 99% is too lazy to read or wanna digest a quick Mc Donald's Combo sort of answer...including you, as a matter of fact! :killme:
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
inca...
the vervet monkey has a definate vocabulary... this has been verified by several exparaments in the wild...

for example... if you make the noise/word for hawk all the vervets will run under bushes and look up in the sky for the hawk... if you make the word/noise for snake the vervets will run up trees and look around at the ground for the snake...
http://www.safaricamlive.com/Encyclopedia/mammals/Vervet/VervetMonkey Info.htm
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~nstone/vervet.htm

Then there is Alex... Alex is an African Grey parrot who is famous for his language abilities... His skills are growing by leaps and bounds and he helps teach other parrots to speak.

>>Dr. Pepperberg currently works with 4 African Grey Parrots. Alex, the oldest, can count, identify objects, shapes, colors and materials, knows the concepts of same and different, and bosses around lab assistants in order to modify his environment! They have begun work with phonics and there is evidence to suggest that, someday, Alex may be able to read.<<
>>Dr. Pepperberg purchased Alex from a Chicago pet store in June, 1977. He can label seven colors, is learning the alphabet and can count up to six objects. Alex is also working on identifying objects from photographs. Alex likes cardbord boxes, keychains, and corks. <<
above exerpts from the Alex foundation
http://www.alexfoundation.org/
http://www.mecca.org/~rporter/PARROTS/grey_al.html


animals also have complex genetic structures and ablilities far in excess of our own... are they genetic exparaments by otherworldly beings as well?

I wonder how you dare say we are so different from animals?

I accept the animals as my ancestors and brothers... its one of the cornerstones of my 'faith'... one that I am glad that science upholds... the Judeo-christian ideal of Human superiority doesn't appeal or make sence to me.

wa:-do
 

true blood

Active Member
Can animal blood be used for human blood transfusions?

Also remember, humans and animals are subject to the same God.

It is easy to look down upon the animals as utterly alien to us, driven on by need and instinct in their grubbier, less rational way, slavering for food and attention like our pets, jostling at the trough on our farms, battling one another in the wild over mates and territory and status in the group. But the person who thinks himself entirely above and apart from this world need only take a closer look at his or her own daily existence, at the struggles and hurts and yearnings of body that still mark each and every human life. We do our share of grubbing and jostling and competing for mates, too, and for good reason do we say of people hurt or humiliated that they are “licking their wounds.” There is a kinship in this, for all our loftier capacities, a fellowship with the creatures

However humans didn't evolve from River Apes.
 

inca

Active Member
I'm not talking religious concepts. I respect your faith. Yet, if someone says animals are talking philosophy or math that is not science but being naïve. I agree animals have a way to communicate with themselves. It's not a question of imitation of sounds of the parrots, language means thinking, to elaborate, etc. I just establish the differences. If you confuse the imitation of noises (whether natural or TRAINED by human MIND) with thinking or reasoning, it's your affair. I respect your thought but using science facts I use my free right to disagree absolutely with you. Yet, animals do have certain limited skills and they are able to memorize. Yet, using science and knowledge anyone can see the big difference between animal "language" and human language and thinking. That's why I even set the example of boys who were raised in the jungle. I could've used other examples as well as the children's habilities when they are deaf & dumb compared with the training of chimps, orangutangoes, etc, but I don't think is needed NOW that I know you won't change your point of view. When you have a scientific attitude you just can't keep on thinking the way you did decades ago when you were a kid. We have to surrender to evidence objectively whether we like it or not. If you can't do that, you don't have a scientific attitude but you're dogmatic always believing what you want to believe. I can't say I think the same I did 6 months ago (!) and I know I will hate to change some ideas but I will in behalf of science, not my prefered and beloved imaginary mental toy to play with during decades in order to satisfy my own ego.
 

inca

Active Member
True Blood: you ask if humans can receive animal blood. I have a lot to say about blood but I guess I have to reduce what I have memorized in the brain.
The first tests were made using animal blood but the fact is even human blood is dangerous to human beings and literally killed probably millions of lives. That's why some people even try to pass as Jehovah's Witnesses to avoid transfusion! Hemophilia, AIDS, citomegalovirus, Chagas disease, Hepatites B, death by rejection of blood by incompatibility (cos we have different blood though we have types of blood), etc, etc were spread cos the transfusion which was part of general therapy. The number of dead people was so significant that they had to invent artificial blood like "white blood" or use blood expanders, vitamines, iron suppliers, etc trying to diminush the risks. Even when the blood was "cleaned" the risks continue to exist and then surgeon specialists tried succesfully operations in open heart or brain without blood at all. Even the argument that they HAD to use transfusion when hemoglobine is too low had to be changed when they saw some patients survived. This doesn't mean the religious group is right confusing the Biblical texts of avoiding blood as FOOD with the purpose of the transfusion. Even cos the Bible quotes Christ's words there's no greater love than giving "life" to a friend. They forgot to say IN THIS CASE the word "life" is synonym of soul and blood! They also don't say anything about the case of some twins in the womb using a natural transfusion system obviously allowed by God. They don't have any problems to eat steak with bloody juice (they say the Law didn't demand to eliminate every single drop of animal blood but just slit animal's throat to bleed it) but anyways they could use parts of plasma (which is not blood) to use it in transplant. They can even use their OWN blood or part of their plasma cos even Watchtower Society allow them to use it in "consciousness". It seems their consciousness won't work unless they have more information. Cos some vaccines in fact have been made with animal blood and yet they never questioned that cos they are too ignorant to be aware of that! And it's pityful the fact the leaders abandon them (they are victims) instead of providing them with their own Jehova's Witness doctors, hospitals, nurses, clinics, cooperatives, bank of alternative medicine, etc. They are not suicides, they just want another medical option but they are not getting too much help just trying to convince the doctors' own consciousness to change his (her) medical approach showing them the Bible and their own interpretation!!!! That's ridiculous. Yet, a wise person will see the real damages of blood transfusion and try his (her) best to avoid it unless he wanna die some years later! Some odd things happen with blood but I won't explain that "glue" and the Rhesus factor, the hemoglobine with enough iron to build a nail, the human sacrifices, the hormons, etc, etc.
In the past evolutionist did all kind of tests (like Nutall test) even with blood trying to demonstrate humans are pretty much like apes. Those tests were a fiasco when the evidence showed we're more close to hogs and other animals than apes!
 

inca

Active Member
A good example of alleged "molecular homology" is afforded by the a- and b-haemoglobin molecules of land vertebrates including man. These supposedly are homologous with an ancestral myoglobin molecule similar to human myoglobin. Two a- and two b-haemoglobin associate together to form the marvelous human haemoglobin molecule that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood. But myoglobin acts as single molecules to transport oxygen in our muscles. Supposedly, the ancient original myoglobin molecules slowly evolved along two paths until the precisely designed a- and b-haemoglobin molecules resulted that function only linked together in groups of four to work in the blood in a much different way under very different conditions from myoglobin in the muscle cells. What we have today in modern myoglobin and haemoglobin molecules are marvels of perfect designs for special, highly demanding tasks. Is there any evidence that intermediate, half-evolved molecules could have served useful functions during this imaginary evolutionary change process, or that any creature could survive with them in its blood? There is no such information. Modern vertebrates can tolerate very little variation in these molecules. Thus, the supposed evolutionary history of the allegedly homologous globin molecules is a fantasy, not science.

We can safely conclude that homology, at every level--body structure, cell structure, biochemical systems, and molecular structure--is an inconsistent and unsatisfactory theory and poor evidence for evolution.
 

inca

Active Member
Yet, more tests have been done since then. And I'm not gonna hide some information that could lead someone less "prepared" to the naïve notion this can happen in nature by randomic evolution.
Hemoglobin is pair of chains of amino acids. The hemoglobin A of chimpanzees is identical to humans. The Gorilla alpha chain differs from the human in the amino acid substitution, glutamic acid in humans, and aspartic acid in gorillas, at position 23. There is also the substitution in the beta chain. A single mutation could therefore transform gorilla hemoglobin into human, or vice versa. Non-human primates carry blood ABO blood antigens that can be tested with the same reagents and equipment commonly used for testing human blood. The closer the relationship to humans, the greater is the similarity with respect to antigens. Red cells of apes, with the exceptions of gorillas, give reactions to ABO blood grouping tests that are identical to humans.
When I say "a single mutation" could transform gorilla hemoglobin into human or viceversa please REMEMBER I AM JUST TALKING ABOUT HEMOGLOBIN not the whole blood. So, obviously all what I'm saying now gives credit to the idea there was genetic engineering performed in "apes" in the past. Not even the PURPOSELY HUMAN GUIDED breeding with all species of apes now could produce a new one. Remember the limits of sterilization in hybrids? Unfortunatelly I can't add more, I promised to Dr. Urbina, remember? So, we need more than similarities among part of blood or number of chromosomes to believe in natural evolution, we need an external little help from the friends whether human or alien...no Father Chronus neither Mother Evolution. Not even direct hand of God according to the Hebrew Bible cos he didn't create but merely "form" from the real original creation "in the beginning". So the whole process was indirect and a consequence.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
true blood-
its important to remember that human blood cant always be used for humans... their are factors such as the ABO factor as well as the Rh factor... Rh factor is so strong that it is a major cause of miscarrage.

you can't do a blood transfusion from a dog to a horse either...

and I don't see any evidence of the 'river ape' theory... I'm more of a 'savana ape' person myself.

wa:-do
 
true blood said:
Can animal blood be used for human blood transfusions?

Actually, the answer is yes. I happen to be a hemophiliac, and I infuse myself with a mixture of synthetic and animal-harvested clotting proteins.

And it's a good thing, too, because it has meant hemophiliacs no longer have to worry about hepatitis C etc. that comes from human blood supply.
 

inca

Active Member
...only an eventual f***#&@ virus that kills you and the whole human civilization. You remember AIDS and SARS? But I don't judge. If I were you I'd probably done the same!
 
inca said:
...only an eventual f***#&@ virus that kills you and the whole human civilization. You remember AIDS and SARS? But I don't judge. If I were you I'd probably done the same!

inca, WHAT are you talking about?

:drink: :lol:
 
Top