The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[SavedByTheLord]

Yeah, intelligent creators reuse the common design, but in our case, the Creator forgot to remove the Appendix and the Coccyx.
Also he could have retained body-hair for colder climates like what is there among the Yetis, or bears. He was a bit careless.
Edit: I think he did not remove Appendix for the benefit of doctors and removed body-hair for the benefit of apparel and tent makers.
We would not have needed them if the Creator had done that. God is Great, Allahu-Akbar. الله أكبر

Actually both have function. And what happened with our supposed prehensile tail?
That would be quite useful.
And what happened to our body hair?
You just annihilated evolution. Thanks for the good work.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Actually both have function. And what happened with our supposed prehensile tail?
That would be quite useful.
And what happened to our body hair?
You just annihilated evolution. Thanks for the good work.

He did not leave the prehensile tail with us but left a bone for the religious to understand that humans evolved from rodents and monkeys.
God is great. Allahu Akbarالله أكبر
Removal of body-hair was a mistake. That got Adam in a jam. The smooth shining skin and cherry lips of Eve.
That is the cause of eternal sin. O God! Why do you make us suffer for what you did?
God is great. Allahu Akbarالله أكبر

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually both have function. And what happened with our supposed prehensile tail?
That would be quite useful.
And what happened to our body hair?
You just annihilated evolution. Thanks for the good work.

I have never heard it claimed that our ancestors had a prehensile tail. And the odds are that they did not. The only monkeys with prehensile tails are New World Monkeys. That indicates that that trait evolved after they split off from the line that led to us. And whether a trait is useful or not depends upon the environment that one is found in. That is why there are even tailless monkeys.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I have never heard it claimed that our ancestors had a prehensile tail. And the odds are that they did not. The only monkeys with prehensile tails are New World Monkeys. That indicates that that trait evolved after they split off from the line that led to us. And whether a trait is useful or not depends upon the environment that one is found in. That is why there are even tailless monkeys.

So mankind has no primate or other ancestor wit a tail in its long list of ancestors going back to a single celled creature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So mankind has no primate or other ancestor wit a tail in its long list of ancestors going back to a single celled creature?

You need to work on your reading comprehension again. Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You need to work on your reading comprehension again. Go back and read what I wrote.

So where did our tails go since mankind had an ancestor at one time who had a tail?

So chimps have 48, man 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.

Please explain these foxes.

Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Bat-eared fox 72

 

[Subduction Zone]

So where did our tails go since mankind had an ancestor at one time who had a tail?

So chimps have 48, man 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.

We are not descended from chimps though some members make me wonder at times, we share a common ancestor with them. We are not talking Alabama biology here.

Also the difference in chromosome numbers was explained to you by me and by others. You have no response You lost.

Please explain these foxes.

Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64
Bat-eared fox 72

Why? You need to display a minimal amount of honest to be able to demand answers. If I explained it to you you would just ignore it again. If you want me to explain this to you then you need to go back and read the explanations on why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs. If you apologize and ask politely I will even find and link my explanation for you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We are not descended from chimps though some members make me wonder at times, we share a common ancestor with them. We are not talking Alabama biology here.

Also the difference in chromosome numbers was explained to you by me and by others. You have no response You lost.

Why? You need to display a minimal amount of honest to be able to demand answers. If I explained it to you you would just ignore it again. If you want me to explain this to you then you need to go back and read the explanations on why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs. If you apologize and ask politely I will even find and link my explanation for you.

What?

So chimps have 48, man 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.

Please explain these foxes.

Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

 

[Subduction Zone]

What?

So chimps have 48, man 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.

Please explain these foxes.

Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

No, I already explained it to you. You accepted it at that time. You lost.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, I already explained it to you. You accepted it at that time. You lost.

And you flubbed that also.

Please explain these foxes.

Chromosome counts various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

And the following also.

Now consider mankind and our supposed closest cousin the chimpanzee. A careful examination between the two will show that people and chimps are not that similar. There is a multitude of differences. Chimps live in trees. Very few people live in trees. Chimps love to groom each other. Most people would not like someone else picking stuff off of them. Chimps like to eat leaves, termites, bark, resin, and ants, among other things. Most people would not want to eat these but chimps love these. Chimps’ arms are longer than their legs. For people, the opposite is true. People walk upright almost all the time. Chimps mostly don’t. Try walking like a chimp for a while; you will not like it very much. The reason is simple - their body structure is different from ours. Chimps are covered with rather thick hair over their whole bodies with the exception of parts of their face, ears, hands and feet. People have rather sparse hair. Even the hairiest person has hair sparser than the sparsest of chimps. Chimps can eat a lot of bananas and not get bored of them. Most people would not want to eat that many bananas. Chimps’ brains are quite small compared to those of mankind. The ears of chimps are noticeably different from those of mankind.

The hands of a chimp are different from those of people. Chimps’ fingers are longer. The feet of a chimp are very different from those of people. Chimp’s feet are more like hands. The big toe is like a very useful thumb. Their feet are much more flexible and bendable than the feet of mankind. Chimps can hang from trees by their feet or by their hands. They can swing while hanging from branches and even swing between branches. Here is something a chimp could do. A chimp can hang from a branch by one foot and one hand. Try hanging by your feet alone. That would be very hard. A chimp can hold a banana by its foot. If you eat enough bananas you probably would feel sick. Take a good, long look at a picture of a chimp. Look at the face closely. It doesn’t look like any person I know. The features are not like those of a person. The part of the face where the mouth is located looks like a snout. The shape of the head is more wide than tall. The nose is very different. The ears are very different. Also remember that there are at least 150,000,000 (possibly 420,000,000) differences (an inexplicable number) between the DNA code of people and the DNA code of chimps.

Chimps do not write books, make airplanes that fly, cook with fire, or shop at malls. Chimps did not invent the Internet, build ships, build telescopes, invent calculus, or stamp coins. They have never built pyramids, superhighways, supermarkets, TVs or bridges over large rivers and bays. They do not make calendars. Chimps are not good chess players. They have never built a rocket. They have not invented games like hockey, baseball, football, tennis, pinochle, poker, or bowling. In fact mankind, of all living things, does all these and many more. Mankind’s intelligence stands completely apart from all animals. People have written millions of books and innumerable newspapers, letters, magazines and notes. The animal kingdom has written none. People have read billions of books. Animals have read none. People have produced hundreds of millions of gas-powered engines. Animals have produced none. Mankind has invented telephones, cell phones, computers, TV and radio. These have been produced by the billions and used many billions of times. Animals have invented and made none. It would take many books to document all the differences between people and animals in the area of intelligence.

Evolutionary science likes to claim that the chimpanzee is our “closest” relative. But the phrase “closest” is both deceptive and indoctrinating. When examined closely, chimps aren’t even close at all to people. The differences are immense. The use of the phrase, “closest”, implies that chimps are “close” to people. However, mankind is very different from all creatures. None are close at all - not in appearance, not in genetics, not in behavior, and not in intelligence. Yet chimps are quite like other apes and monkeys. A chimp is much closer to other apes and monkeys than to people. In fact, chimpanzees are not even relatives of people. People are people and chimps are animals. It could not be more obvious. The fact that evolutionary science has identified the chimp as our closet cousin is proof that evolution is false. If our supposed closest cousin of all the animal kingdom is not even remotely close, as can be clearly proven, then mankind is not related to any animal at all through common biological descent. Once again, evolutionary science has presented evidence that is not evidence. Therefore there must be NO EVIDENCE for evolution.

 

[McBell]

No, I already explained it to you. You accepted it at that time. You lost.

I actually like when members explain things...
I learn a lot that way.

Though, I completely agree that after the first couple dozen times it gets old.
And with all the things that have been explained to them it is now near impossible to just refer them to the post with explanation....

 

[Mock Turtle]

The use of the phrase, “closest”, implies that chimps are “close” to people. However, mankind is very different from all creatures. None are close at all - not in appearance, not in genetics, not in behavior, and not in intelligence.

You really need to get an education as to use of language - 99% not close enough:

Study: Bonobos more closely linked to humans than chimps?

A new study finds that bonobos may be more closely linked to humans than chimpanzees, at least when it comes to anatomy.

studyfinds.org

Researchers at George Washington University examined seven bonobos from the Antwerp Zoo in Belgium that had died, but were being preserved. Previous studies had used DNA to differentiate between bonobos and chimpanzees, concluding that they share about 99.6% of the same DNA, while humans share about 99% of our DNA with both species.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really need to get an education as to use of language - 99% not close enough:

Study: Bonobos more closely linked to humans than chimps?

A new study finds that bonobos may be more closely linked to humans than chimpanzees, at least when it comes to anatomy.

studyfinds.org

You are deceived with the junk DNA con. Apparently it is not junk. But even 1% comes to over 30 million base pairs and that disproves evolution also.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are deceived with the junk DNA con. Apparently it is not junk. But even 1% comes to over 30 million base pairs and that disproves evolution also.

Well the nonsense you wrote might fool the youngest primary school kids but not any with even the smallest amount of scientific education, given that the actual longer time periods involved for evolution explain all of this. How do you explain these - were they God's prototypes and discarded after humans went into production:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually like when members explain things...
I learn a lot that way.

Though, I completely agree that after the first couple dozen times it gets old.
And with all the things that have been explained to them it is now near impossible to just refer them to the post with explanation....

If you would like to see that post I will do so for free. He needs to apologize. But I should be able to dig it up and link it rather easily.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well the nonsense you wrote might fool the youngest primary school kids but not any with even the smallest amount of scientific education, given that the actual longer time periods involved for evolution explain all of this. How do you explain these - were they God's prototypes and discarded after humans went into production:

View attachment 84062

And which one is a man?

If a worldwide flood came today and buried almost all creatures and made a bunch of fossils, you would make the same mistake and say that the primates all have a common ancestor.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And which one is a man?

Homo sapiens, but many humans today seem to show some small amount of DNA from Homo neanderthalensis, so some mixing going on.

If a worldwide flood came today and buried almost all creatures and made a bunch of fossils, you would make the same mistake and say that the primates all have a common ancestor.

I would presume we would look at the evidence impartially and not be guided by the possibly not impartial dogma arising from some particular religious belief. And the evidence for all these forms as indicated makes far more sense than your extremely improbable short lifespan of humans and their ancestors or relatives. You really think the similarities and differences in morphology are merely made up? How do you explain these?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So chimps have 48, man 46. Therefore man is not descended from chimps.

1. nobody, except ignorant creationists, says that man descendend from chimps. we don't. we share ancestors. which is not the same

2. you have been given the explanation of the "missing" chromosome (= chromosome 2 and 13 found in the other great apes fused together and we know in ridiculous detail what the fusion site is and how we know it occured). You completely ignored it.


Why do you ask questions if you aren't planning on even reading the answers?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

1. nobody, except ignorant creationists, says that man descendend from chimps. we don't. we share ancestors. which is not the same

2. you have been given the explanation of the "missing" chromosome (= chromosome 2 and 13 found in the other great apes fused together and we know in ridiculous detail what the fusion site is and how we know it occured). You completely ignored it.


Why do you ask questions if you aren't planning on even reading the answers?

Or deceived evolutionists.

All supposed similarity is not evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.

Chromosome count
Mankind 46
Chimps 48

Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31

Earth worm 36
Silk worm 56

Grape fern 90
Rattlesnake fern 184

Mankind 46
European olive 46

Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or deceived evolutionists.

All supposed similarity is not evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.

Chromosome count
Mankind 46
Chimps 48

Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

Chromosome counts various species.
Butterfly 268
Gypsy moth 62
Japanese oak silk moth 31

Earth worm 36
Silk worm 56

Grape fern 90
Rattlesnake fern 184

Mankind 46
European olive 46

Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

Just because the science is far beyond your grasp does not mean that other people have been deceived.