THE PACK Message Boards

Vuldari wrote:

Morkulv wrote:And yet, scientists and explorers never found a skeleton of a combi between humans and ape genes. So there is a lack of proof, and numbers don't say anything: Rabbits, rats, and even pigs also have a lot in common with humans as well, but that scientists never mention.

That's because there never was such a thing. The "Missing Link" theory is Bull$***.

Evolution of mankind did NOT go:

"X ancestor (primate)" -> "Ape" -> "Human".


It was more like...;


"X ancestor (primate)" -->"X jr. A" -> "Pre-Human" __> "Cro-magnon" --> "Human"
........................................|.............................................|_>"Neanderthal" -> (DEAD)
........................................|_>"X jr. B"_
.............................................................|_>"pre-ape"_
.................................................................................|_> Everything...
.................................................................................|_>...from...
.................................................................................|_>...Gorrilas...
.................................................................................|_>...to...
.................................................................................|_>...Lemurs.


The ape chain is much more complex than that, and there were surely more failed cousins that split off of the "A" chain before the critical Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon era, but otherwise, I think that about sums it up.

So long as people keep $%^$ing up the evolutionary theory, I will keep correcting them. There is no "missing link". We were not decended from monkeys. ...but we share the same great great great great... Grandfather, who was neither ape nor human...yet.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Edit:] This public service announcement has been brought to you by the Evolutionary awareness association. We now bring you back to your regularly scheduled conversation.

You don't know if there is a missing link, but the truth is that the difference between human and ape DNA can't be explained. Either we (humans) developed that percentage over the years, or there really is some kind of "missing link". I don't know what to think.

But I must say that your theory looks more realistic to me.

The reason why scientists use rats, rabbits and guinea pigs instead of monkeys and apes in medical science is because rats, rabbits and guinea pigs are much cheaper and easier to care for than apes and monkeys, who are notorious for being high strung, difficult to care for, and prone to biting and maiming the limbs of researchers.

Please don't be so quick to dismiss DNA comparison as a tool. It has proven to be an invaluable tool in accurately mapping family trees.
Through DNA comparison, along with immunological tests, humans are most closely related to the great apes, as well as the not-so great apes, along with the Old World monkeys. This group, in turn, is closely related to the New World monkeys, and this group in turn, is related to the prosimians (lemurs, tarsiers, and slow loris). The closest living relatives of the Primates are the Flying Lemurs, and the closest living relatives of the Primates and the Flying Lemurs are the Tree Shrews.

Apokryltaros wrote:The reason why scientists use rats, rabbits and guinea pigs instead of monkeys and apes in medical science is because rats, rabbits and guinea pigs are much cheaper and easier to care for than apes and monkeys, who are notorious for being high strung, difficult to care for, and prone to biting and maiming the limbs of researchers.

Please don't be so quick to dismiss DNA comparison as a tool. It has proven to be an invaluable tool in accurately mapping family trees.
Through DNA comparison, along with immunological tests, humans are most closely related to the great apes, as well as the not-so great apes, along with the Old World monkeys. This group, in turn, is closely related to the New World monkeys, and this group in turn, is related to the prosimians (lemurs, tarsiers, and slow loris). The closest living relatives of the Primates are the Flying Lemurs, and the closest living relatives of the Primates and the Flying Lemurs are the Tree Shrews.

Yes, but that doesn't make us apes, or 'great apes'. Primates? Maybe. But apes? No!

ape, n.
Any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all

If you go by that, then we are apes.

Right, but I don't go by that.

Morkulv wrote:Right, but I don't go by that.

You can't just disregard years of others' scientific research. If you wanna go out and somehow scientifically prove that we aren't apes, then by all means, go ahead. But just because you don't want to believe we're apes doesn't mean we aren't.

I'm not saying that scientists are wrong, I just have my own theory's for it, and the theory like you are telling it, just leaves to many questions unanswerred for me. Thats why I 'refuse' to believe that we are apes. We are related to apes, so that would mean we are primates, but that doesn't mean we are apes.

I like to believe Vuldari's theory more.

Morkulv wrote: Yes, but that doesn't make us apes, or 'great apes'. Primates? Maybe. But apes? No!

No, we are apes, given as how all of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, are apes, also. This is because, not only because our DNA differs from theirs by no greater than 3 percent, but because we are so anatomically similiar to them. In fact, not only are we apes, we happen to be the most successful of all apes, and of all primates, for that matter.
It's a very sad fact of Nature, and of Life in general, that no matter what we do, we can not choose who or what we can be related to.
Unlike you, it doesn't bother me at all that I'm related to chimpanzees.
Or bonobos, or gorillas.

Morkulv wrote:You don't know if there is a missing link, but the truth is that the difference between human and ape DNA can't be explained. Either we (humans) developed that percentage over the years, or there really is some kind of "missing link". I don't know what to think.

Actually, scientists have explained why ape and human DNA differ, in that humans have fewer chromosomes than other apes, in that, over the course of thousands of generations, genes from some chromosomes were grafted onto other chromosomes through translocation, and were later lost, and/or some chromosomes were fused together. Scientists know this in that they've used immunofluorescent microscopy, in that they get a rabbit to produce antibodies to particular genes on a specific chromosome, and then attach a fluorescent dye to an antibody to the rabbit antibody. Then the scientists apply the rabbit antibodies to human and ape chromosomes, and then the rabbit antibody antibodies are applied. Then fluorescent light is shined onto the chromosomes, and then they are compared.
Libraries' worth of information has been derived from this, trust me.
Information like how one chromosome in humans corresponds to three different chromosomes in chimpanzees.

In fact, sometimes I pity the fact that I'm not a chimpanzee, or a gorilla.
If I were, then the value of the pictures I draw would go through the roof. Art-collectors buy up art composed by non-humans like there's no tomorrow.

Morkulv wrote:I'm not saying that scientists are wrong, I just have my own theory's for it, and the theory like you are telling it, just leaves to many questions unanswerred for me. Thats why I 'refuse' to believe that we are apes. We are related to apes, so that would mean we are primates, but that doesn't mean we are apes.

I like to believe Vuldari's theory more.

No, you don't have theories. Someone can only call an idea that they've come up with a 'theory' if they have years of research to support it, and if the idea is acceptable by other members of the scientific community. What you have is a very weak hypothesis.

From what I can tell, you don't even know exactly what your hypothesis is. All you seem to 'know' is that the research that scientists have devoted their whole lives to is wrong.

And yes, I agree with Vuldari's theory (as a side note, it's not 'his' theory. Scientists have been putting forth ideas just like that for years. Vuldari didn't invent that idea...he's just relaying it to us). But, even under that theory, we are still considered apes. Go ahead and call yourself something besides an ape if you want. That won't make you any less ape. It's true that we are arguably the best apes, but we are still apes.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Morkulv wrote: Yes, but that doesn't make us apes, or 'great apes'. Primates? Maybe. But apes? No!

No, we are apes, given as how all of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, are apes, also. This is because, not only because our DNA differs from theirs by no greater than 3 percent, but because we are so anatomically similiar to them. In fact, not only are we apes, we happen to be the most successful of all apes, and of all primates, for that matter.
It's a very sad fact of Nature, and of Life in general, that no matter what we do, we can not choose who or what we can be related to.
Unlike you, it doesn't bother me at all that I'm related to chimpanzees.
Or bonobos, or gorillas.

Morkulv wrote:You don't know if there is a missing link, but the truth is that the difference between human and ape DNA can't be explained. Either we (humans) developed that percentage over the years, or there really is some kind of "missing link". I don't know what to think.

Actually, scientists have explained why ape and human DNA differ, in that humans have fewer chromosomes than other apes, in that, over the course of thousands of generations, genes from some chromosomes were grafted onto other chromosomes through translocation, and were later lost, and/or some chromosomes were fused together. Scientists know this in that they've used immunofluorescent microscopy, in that they get a rabbit to produce antibodies to particular genes on a specific chromosome, and then attach a fluorescent dye to an antibody to the rabbit antibody. Then the scientists apply the rabbit antibodies to human and ape chromosomes, and then the rabbit antibody antibodies are applied. Then fluorescent light is shined onto the chromosomes, and then they are compared.
Libraries' worth of information has been derived from this, trust me.
Information like how one chromosome in humans corresponds to three different chromosomes in chimpanzees.

Dude, thats a great story and all... But I still don't know why human DNA and ape DNA differs... And frankly, I don't really care. Just to get this straight: I don't care weither I'm related to chimps, or whatever, its just that the whole story just leaves to many questions unanswerred for me (still), and I don't believe partial story's (thats one of the reasons I'm not a Christian). Ofcourse scientists have certain explanations, but it doesn't cover everything for me. I don't believe people on they'r word, and that includes scientists. Not because I don't like scientists, but because they are humans, and we all know that humans make mistakes. Again, I'm not saying that they are wrong (hell, maybe we are just another breed of monkeys just jumped out of the tree's many years ago for all I care), but I'm just a realist when it comes to this. Scientists were NOT there when we evolved many years ago, so the chance that they can't tell everything nowadays excactly is bigger then you might expect.

Same goes for Renorei. I have my own idea's (scrap the word 'theory' ).

I came in late on this one, but thankfully Apokryltaros has already beaten me to the punch on the science arguments. So, I'll just ditto for the moment.

You know, if you're just going to dismiss what any of us are trying to explain by saying "I don't want to understand it because I think that no one has the right answer" because you don't care to learn about science OR religion, then, could you do all of us a favor and just stop enticing us to try and correct you whenever you say "I think science/evolution is wrong."
I find it to be infinitely aggravating to have to waste my time trying to explain scientific thought to a person who turns out to be as deathly allergic to scientific thinking as I am to penicillin.
I mean, do you enjoy making us precious waste our time trying to explain things, only for you to win your arguments by saying, "well, I don't care what you or other people think because I don't care, and that's what counts"?

Scott Gardener wrote:I came in late on this one, but thankfully Apokryltaros has already beaten me to the punch on the science arguments. So, I'll just ditto for the moment.

I don't think it matters.

Morkulv wrote: I don't care weither I'm related to chimps, or whatever, its just that the whole story just leaves to many questions unanswerred for me (still), and I don't believe partial story's (thats one of the reasons I'm not a Christian).

Then you shouldn't believe anything at all. Unless you're omniscient, all you'll ever have are partial stories.

Lupin wrote:

Morkulv wrote: I don't care weither I'm related to chimps, or whatever, its just that the whole story just leaves to many questions unanswerred for me (still), and I don't believe partial story's (thats one of the reasons I'm not a Christian).

Then you shouldn't believe anything at all. Unless you're omniscient, all you'll ever have are partial stories.

If we all had attitudes like that, we would have never bothered to leave the trees.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Lupin wrote:Then you shouldn't believe anything at all. Unless you're omniscient, all you'll ever have are partial stories.

If we all had attitudes like that, we would have never bothered to leave the trees.

Exactly.

Not believeing something because we don't know *everything* about it is counterproductive because we'll probably never know everything about anything.

Lupin wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:

Lupin wrote:Then you shouldn't believe anything at all. Unless you're omniscient, all you'll ever have are partial stories.

If we all had attitudes like that, we would have never bothered to leave the trees.

Exactly.

Not believeing something because we don't know *everything* about it is counterproductive because we'll probably never know everything about anything.

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Argume ... ncredulity

Wolfess wrote:OK, everyone has agreed that when a werewolf bites a human, the human gets infected and becomes a werewolf himself. BUT... What the hell happens when a werewolf bites a wolf? Does the infection work both ways or only on humans?

Contrary to what the majority of others here seem to feel, I think the wolf would definitely be affected if it were to be bitten by a lycanthrope. I don't think that it would become bipedal and start walking on two legs like a human or anything like that, but there would be some sorta change. Maybe becoming more monstrous looking, agressive etc. Wolves are almost if not 100% genetically identical to domestic dogs, and you remember what happened to that dog in Cursed.

Alpha wrote:...and you remember what happened to that dog in Cursed.

No, I've blocked the movie out of my mind with help from my therapist's prescriptions.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Alpha wrote:...and you remember what happened to that dog in Cursed.

No, I've blocked the movie out of my mind with help from my therapist's prescriptions.

What's the name of that prescription? I gotta see if my doctor can prescribe me some.

Figarou wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:

Alpha wrote:...and you remember what happened to that dog in Cursed.

No, I've blocked the movie out of my mind with help from my therapist's prescriptions.

What's the name of that prescription? I gotta see if my doctor can prescribe me some.

"Reprisitol"

Apokryltaros wrote: "Reprisitol"

Oh.. Repressitol Got it.

Apokryltaros wrote:No, I've blocked the movie out of my mind with help from my therapist's prescriptions.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's not exactly what you'd call cinematic greatness. Unfortunately for me though, the original thread question jarred my memory.