Re: TOBS: Apes Built the Pyramids

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> Not at all.. the moment you behave like an arrogant SOB.. I snip the
> rest

Clearly you don't subscribe to Jesus' dictum to turn the other cheek,
but since you, along with many Christians, have entirely rewritten the
Bible to your own satisfaction, I suppose it is wrong to expect you to
follow the original.

As to arrogance, the arrogance is entirely on the part of those who
start endless threads and then refuse point blank to answer civil
questions politely put that have arisen from those threads.  When
people repeatedly do this they should not be surprised that responses
begin to treat said people with increasing lack of respect.  If they
cnanot support their position, they should quit opening dumb threads.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who post the exact same
questions repeatedly over a period of five years or more and
absolutely, completely, persistently and utterly ignore answers that
are politely, patiently and repetitively given to them.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who pretend to know what
evolution is all about but demonstrate their ignorance of it tediously
with repeated Internet postings that consistently highlight their lack
of understanding.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who demand peer-reviewed
references from others but give not a single one themselves.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who will not look up a
reference when it is repeatedly given to them.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who throw out blind "quote"
after blind "quote" regarding our supposed genetic proximity to the
banana, but cannot offer a single *useful* reference to support their
wild claims.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who will not *give* an
intelligent and useful reference when repeateatedly asked for one.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who think they know better
from reading ill-informed creationist web sites than do hundreds of
hard-working scientists the world over.

Arrogance is entirely on the part of those who disparage the unselfish
efforts of scientists on the Internet to spread scientific knowledge
in easily digestible formats.

You want to debate arrogance?  Any time, anywhere.  But please do not
confuse arrogance with having the facts on one's side, because there
is no one more arrogant on this planet than a person who believes that
unless others believe precisely as they do, the others will rot in
some kind of hell for eternity.

> first I did not know about about the major difference between the two
> elephants.

Your ignorance is rife, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you by
scores of people on the Internet.  You will not listen, you will not
educate yourself, you will not be educated.  Arrogance is entirely in
the domain of those who will not learn despite such repeated pointers.

> second, you still not provide the answer I seek. Can they interbreed?
> Many species of animals can produce hybrids like a wolf and a husky..
> etc.

What difference does it make?  Until you come up with a scientific
definition of "kind" and also a biological mechanism which prevents
one of these kinds from evolving into another kind, your arguments are
useless.  Can you come up with such definitions and mechanisms?

Evolution does not progress by two species interbreeding and somehow
generating a third species.  Evolution is the change in allele
frequency in a population over time, and the accumulation of these
changes to a point where speciation occurs.  This is an observed fact.

This is why there are only 300 genes different between us and a common
ancestor with the mouse.  This is why there are transitional species
littered throughout the fossil record.  This is why the archaeopteryx
has a mix of reptile/dino and bird features.  This is why the okapi
looks like a transitional giraffe.

> You forget, that sometimes evidence in a crime is misleading or
> misinterpreted, which leads to the release of innocent people wrongly
> accused and incarcerated.
> Paleontology should recognized this as well.

You ignore 140 years of evidence from diverse branches of science
which all point unequivocally to the same answer.  In such
circumstances the chances of it being wrong are extraordinarily slim. 
But unlike religious fanatics, scientists do not make the arrogant
mistake of thinking they know it all.  If they did, science would stop
tomorrow and no mroe reasearch would be done.  The fact that
scientists are only too well aware that they do not know it all is why
they are constantly searching for new information and constantly
testing old understandings.

Arrogance is the domain of those people who tiresomely and repeatedly
try to trash the Theory of Evolution, but can offer not a single
theory to replace it, nor can they point to any published science
papers that either raise serious doubts about the viability of the
Theory of Evolution or that propose a serious alternative to it.  If
you want to overthrow evolution, you need to come up with an
intelligent, science-based theory that better explains the facts.  No
one, in 140 years, has ever done this.

> > A trail of bones and skulls showing slow development from more
> > ape-like forms to more humanlike forms over the last several million
> > years is a fact.  Human-ape genetic similarity is a fact
> > (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html).  We even have the same
> > errors in our genetic make-up that chimpanzees have
> > (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/).
> 
> The similiarity is a fact, nobody doubt this... and yet we are half
> banana's right?

As I have *repeatedly* pointed out to you, your 50% banana claim has
yet to be backed up by you with even one intelligent reference. 
Blindly throwing out a quote you claim was said by someone who was
reported somewhere is entirely inadequate.

As I have made perfectly clear on previous occasions and which you
have *arrogantly* ignored, I searched the _New Scientist_ archives for
the month of July 2000 for both "banana" and for "Robert May", based
on your "reference" and both searches came up blank.  I have
repeatedly told you this and am still waiting on even one useful
reference for *any* of your banana claims (you have so far made four
different ones), yet here you are arrogantly throwing it out yet
again.

Do you have a *real* reference to support this claim?  You gave only
one useful reference in this entire sequence of claims, and when I
looked that one up, it absolutely refuted your claim that we shared
75% of our DNA with the banana.  The reference *you* gave to support
*that* claim said that we *may* share *up to* 30% of our DNA.  Do you
arrogantly deny this?

And even if we do share 50% of our genes with a banana, how does this
call the Theory of Evolution into doubt?  Or are you going to
arrogantly avoid answering that question - yet again?

I notice that your responses predictably petered out rather rapidly as
things got toughter and more technical in this thread.  Are you going
to respond to the rest of the post and to the points I have raised
here or are you going to once more cry "uncle" and retreat into
snipping those parts of responses that you cannot answer?

Budikka