Noah's flood its reality

Why is my simple question not answered. Even in conceding that Great Ape is not a specie and that it is a biological family, the question is still applicable. In that specific biological family, the first member of that family was of what gender? Male or female?

 

For myself, I did not reply (even after clicking view post out of boredom) because the question is rather pathetic in it's projection of ignorance. The term "Great Ape" is not even a biological family...it is a description used to condense many into one. Asking if this was the first simply makes no sense at all.

 

Why was the "simple" (minded) question not answered?
Why are we so reminded of a 3 yr old jumping up and down for attention, look at me look at me!!!!

 

Because the question is a nonsensical question and is not applicable.

In your family, what can first, a male or female?

 

Well, I don't make it a point of studying either evolution or biology (imo .. boring) but was taking rstones199 at face value in what he stated on this subject. In short, I admit to my ignorance on that subject... therefore my question is a valid question in context to what has been told to me on this forum. I know from personal experience (siring and raising my own children with my equally human wife), that it takes male and female to provide an offspring in any of those families that were mentioned.

So, in that family in which the humans belong, was the first human male or female?

It would also seem that you are stipulating that rstones199 and his other opponent were both wrong in their ideas about the Great Ape. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have stated?

 

And that is why you believe in the bible and a 'god'...pure ignorance. Thank you for finally admitting it.

 

\

I can only assume you are pretending to be this ignorant and trolling for attention....the alternate explanation is simply too disturbing to fathom, and is cruel to even contemplate.

 

What came first the chicken or the egg? This being a thread within the religion section of this forum, you know that I am going to lean on the Bible (without 'PROOF') which you will reject (without 'PROOF').

You are the one who is portraying himself as the utmost authority on this forum with regard to the subject matter, so the answer to that question should not be so difficult for you to answer. You say the question is not applicable. Why is the question not applicable? Male and female are required so which came first the male or the female?

 

Obviously the chicken has to come first. If you weren't so ignorant (your own admission) on biology, you would understand this.

The question is not applicable because you are dealing with a family of species, not just one specie.



Perhaps a visual representation will better represent this. Male/Female has been around a lot longer than the Great Apes. So lets start with blue dots that are both males & female. On the picture above, can you tell me when the first red female red dot showed up? Better yet, as the blue evolves over to red, can you tell me when the first red dot evolves from the blue dots?

 

No. He is correcting a fundamental misunderstanding of a biological concept. You do it to equivocate and troll.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

Not applicable and you don't understand seem to be the best answers to common sense questions. How did a single asexual organism become many asexual and sexual organisms is a very valid question.

 

Whatever you interpret it as him doing, it still adds up to him (at the very least) showing where others on the forum have been propagating false information regarding the Great Ape.

 

You perhaps remember from your microbiology that single cell critters such as your famous
paramecia can reproduce asexually by simple cell division, or, they can exchange
genetic material with other paramecia.

does that seem like a good start?

You will also recall that with both simple plants and animals, you can have single cells living independently, or, they can form into interdependent colonies, acting as a single organism.

You also find organisms such as sponges that have differentiated cells performing different functions,s but which can also survive as single cells.

Nobody can know exactly what happened hundreds of millions of years ago, but that there is a not so terribly difficult transition from asexual to sexual, from single cell to multi cell is well illustrated in living organisms.

 

I was actually replying to WarRen's post, and realised you had said roughly what I was saying. That's why I apoogised.

 

Thank you for capturing and stressing the point that I was wanting to make but was unable to do because of my lack of formal education on that subject matter.

 

Saul Goodman

 

According to evolution, we started with a universal common ancestor or many common ancestors. Meaning at some point in the very early beginnings of biological development there were simple organisms that became more complex, those that were able to adapt and avoid extinction anyway. Now this may be a flawed rationale, but it seems to me that an organism that can become either asexual or sexual, male or female, and reproduce should be a living fossil. This type of organism is far more sophisticated than any creature we know of on Earth today. Why isn't it still around?

It's layman's logic, so undoubtedly scientifically wrong somehow.

- - - Updated - - -

I love Saul Goodman. I always of forget what he said his real name is.

 

however, the discussion is not surrounding creatures "lower" than mammals or birds. We are talking about mammals specifically. The question I posed still remains.... which came first, the male or the female? In any of the various species in that family in which the humans are a member of? Both had to be there in order to reproduce. Did a man and a woman suddenly migrate out of the sea or the dust of the earth and was a complete human? If not, then man had to have had a predecessor, and there had to have been male and female at the same location at or about the same time that would make them both within the age required for reproductive processes. This Earth is a pretty big ball of dirt and water, for two such creatures to have a random meeting in such a scenario.

 

Evidence, not proof. I pick on the other side for throwing that word around with respect so science, so I thought I'd better pick on you too Science doesn't deal in proofs.

- - - Updated - - -

And a complex one demanding a lot of research and analysis.

 

Perhaps if you had BOTHERED to study a little biology, which you think boring, you wouldn't keep asking questions, the answers to which you will not accept anyway.

Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species--perhaps a self-replicating molecule--that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

 

You are right... the question (the one I presented) remains the same. Unanswered.

Strange answer coming from you. If there male and female before there were any mammals, then where did the male and female come from? Were they male and female rocks? Now you are saying that all of the science text books are wrong, because they teach that mammals do exist then there has to be a first one. If there were no first one, then it can be concluded that there is none in existence.

Seemingly not, especially when you make statements that contradict what science teaches our youth in schools. "there was no first mammal". Uh Huuuuh

My error. It was a continuation of the previous sentence ... I placed a period as opposed to a colon or semicolon.

Well, so far you have not been able to answer my question in any other manner that seems reasonable. Is man or a woman a mammal? Yes! Then which one came first? neither, there are no first mammals? This had to have been the work of that Invisible Pink Panda. It never existed "there is no first mammal": yet there it is out of nowhere.... poof... we are mammals but there was never a first mammal.

Then you might want to consider taking a course in how to be an instructor because so far you seem to be contradicting yourself every time you write another line.

Good starting point.... now,,, during that interbreeding process, there just happened to be a morphed offspring that favors our present day human (male or female). Don't know which gender, because at this point it don't make any difference. whether that first human offspring was a male or female, in order for it to reproduce, it had to use a male or female (respectively) from the older generation. So, what all of this evolution is actually promoting is what is known today as beastiality. So this process of beastiality continued on and then what happened?

How well I know. My mother used to breed poodles here in Florida... Made a darn good living at selling those little rascals. It was in 1988 I set up her first computer system (commodore 64) to print out her AKC paperwork. So I am well acquainted with the aspect of breeding the lower class animals... but there again, we still are not talking about those lower class animals. We are talking about humans. But for you to say that there was no first 'mammal' or no first 'human', would at best be dishonest. That first one, would have been the one in which the title was assigned to. Now to make such arbitrary assignments (especially in the case of humans) without first seeking the consent of those who you are labeling, would infringe upon their individual rights of identity. So what has happened, is you got a bunch of scientists who got together and decided for the whole world that from that point forward, all people would be called "humans".

Classic example of what I am saying. Back in the early 60's the black people of America decided that enough was enough.. they fought against the prejudices of society and won what was thought to be 'equal rights'. Later they discovered that 'equal rights' were not being protected because they were referred to under a malicious title that begins with the letter "n". They have since won that battle and it is now unlawful in the US to refer to them using that "n" word. They recognized their right to be free from such labels... they won...

Now, in the legal system there is a term called "color of law" which means that though something written might have the appearance of the law but is not the law.
The same can be said of the term 'human'.

the term "human" is a derivative from another culture. It is taken from the word "hue" and is enjoined with the word "man"
" hue (hyu)

n.
1. a gradation or variety of a color; tint: pale hues.
2. the property of light by which the color of an object is classified as red, blue, green, or yellow in reference to the spectrum.
3. color: all the hues of the rainbow.
4. form or appearance.
5. complexion (def. 1).
[before 900; Middle English hewe, Old English hīw form, appearance, color; c. Old Norse hȳ bird's down, Swedish hy skin, complexion, Gothic hiwi form, appearance; akin to Old English hār gray]"

I will presume for the sake of brevity that all the readers know the meaning of the term 'man', but if needed and requested, I will also provide those definitions.

So, if this creature being considered only has the appearance of a man, then what is this creature? As in the law previously mentioned regarding 'color of law', there is ample doorways to go through on this little indiscretion of language. If a person only has the appearance of a man (looked upon as human), then what is this creature?

I am getting at a couple of points, and you will probably conclude otherwise.

Also see this:
"
human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

 

Simplified for those needing such:

Species as we see them did not have a male/female inception....this occurred long ago (many millions of years), and once the X/Y separation took place most have incorporated it into the genome. All amorphose creatures going forward have both a female and male component as this was the reason it took place to begin with.

Though there are species we see that did not follow this route they are the extreme minority...that Etherereal does not know this is testament to his ignorance and failure to be seen as remotely compelling.


Simply put...the "Great Apes" were male and female long before they existed.