Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Can Evolution Be A Fact?


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how much information one researches within the parameters of the evolution of human beings; the unknown and hypothesis of why human beings are indeed uniquely different from our common ape ancestor are at best an educated guess.

 

I admit the question of, If God is the creator, Couldn't He have made both ,but made humans unique in thought and reason as we are, in the mentioned image of God, not necessarily in a physical aspect?

Others have addressed this, so my reply is repetitively redundant (as opposted to uniquely different).

 

Every species is different. That is perhaps the main reason for designating species in the first place. We are now still primates, still crude beasts who kill, rape, lie and cheat. Jane Goodall has lifted the veil on ape society, and the study of primate society and morality has implications for human society. Morals, and their enforcement, is not a human invention or possession.

 

For an introduction:

People have always tried to distinguish our species from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are special, we are different. Above all, we are better. As time goes on, however, our grasp in the belief that we are truly superior and ultimately different becomes more tenuous indeed.

 

[W]hat then, is left to differentiate Homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom, other than degree.

 

For a more detailed examination of morality in primates:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

 

So much for "non-overlapping magesteria".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    43

  • Shyone

    18

  • Ouroboros

    6

  • par4dcourse

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

IOW, they don't need big brains to do what they do where they do it, and more intelligence has not proven to be necessary for their continued existence (assuming some apes are smarter than others). For humans, the strength that other species need has not been a requirement for survival.

 

Perhaps it's better to say that not all animals that live in the jungle developed long necks like giraffes. Giraffes found a niche that gave them an edge whereas other animals that live in their same environment exploited other edges.

 

Humans exploited an edge by growing a larger frontal lobe. Other animals exposed to the same conditions exploited other niches.

 

From a purely objective point of view non of these edges is superior if it allows an animal to survive and thrive. We humans consider our intelligence superior (a subjective conclusion) but biologically it's not necessarily so, just different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps it's better to say that not all animals that live in the jungle developed long necks like giraffes. Giraffes found a niche that gave them an edge whereas other animals that live in their same environment exploited other edges.

 

Humans exploited an edge by growing a larger frontal lobe. Other animals exposed to the same conditions exploited other niches.

 

From a purely objective point of view non of these edges is superior if it allows an animal to survive and thrive. We humans consider our intelligence superior (a subjective conclusion) but biologically it's not necessarily so, just different.

Bingo. What he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading lately on the human brain and it's functions specifically compared to other animals. From the interneurons of humans to the frontal lobe activities, to the myelin substance found formed around the adult brain in contrast to a teenage brain. Also, these physical functions in relation to our psychological processes. Experience in life contribute to brain development and directs the specifics of function in the physical sense and in the overall makeup of the individual human. Genetics are the materials from what I gathered, but the complex array of brain activity from experience is the form of what we use the materials to develop individuality.

 

Specifically, this particular grouping of the brain's "emergence" of division in the M1area of the brain into evolution is what baffles me. What evidence do we really have that the functionality and animation of the human framework stemmed from another primate?

 

 

That's a good question. But even if we could never answer that question, that i no way disproves the theory of evolution as a fact of science. Your post, after all, is entitled, "How can Evolution Be a Fact?" It just means that this one question remains outside the explanatory capabilities of science for now.

 

What you have raised is a great big non sequiter to the question in which your post is framed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We humans consider our intelligence superior (a subjective conclusion) but biologically it's not necessarily so, just different.

 

I would have to disagree with this. In evolutionary terms, "superior" characteristics are those which enable a species to most effectively exploit available resources, towards the end of species survival, reproduction, and proliferation. Intelligence has proven (thus far) to be the most successful strategy for accomplishing these ends.

 

IOW, Homo Sapiens has exploited more resources, out-survived more species, and proliferated more widely than any other species larger than insects and arachnids. At this point, we can safely say that we have "won" the evolutionary race.

 

If our intelligence results in our making Earth uninhabitable for all species larger than insects and arachnids, I suppose I might be forced to reconsider. But for now, intelligence has turned out to be the "superior" trait, out-competing such traits as sharp teeth, agility, speed, armor-plating, and even wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOW, Homo Sapiens has exploited more resources, out-survived more species, and proliferated more widely than any other species larger than insects and arachnids. At this point, we can safely say that we have "won" the evolutionary race.

 

Well, it remains to be seen. In just 10k short years of civilization we are closing in on destroying our habitat. Will we still be around in 1000 years? 2000? Short times in biological terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You silly heathens!

All animals are descended from the stock aboard Noah's ark. It says so right there in the gawd inspired infallible bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how much information oneresearches within the parameters of the evolution of human beings; theunknown and hypothesis of why human beings are indeed uniquelydifferent from our common ape ancestor are at best an educated guess.
I was going to say something about this' date=' but Scitsofreaky beat me to it. But really though, is this [i']another[/i] thread on evolution from you? I don't recall you answering me in the last thread but whatever. From what I gathered, the gist of this thread is: We're so smart, and no ape is exactly like us, even for all the undeniable similarities I so artfully deny, so we can't possibly have evolved from them (even though I know by now that we didn't evolve from them, but that we all evolved from a single ancestor). Really, as intelligent as your arguments seem, they're no less uninformed than "I ain't come from no monkey!!"

 

Your position is NOT an intellectual one, btw. Your insistence on calling humans "uniquely different" is all the proof I need to conclude that. You as a christian, still think that humans aren't even animals, much less mammals, much less primates, much less apes, much less homo sapiens (as opposed to homo sapiens sapiens). It's inherently offensive to you that we're not so much closer to god than a chimp, and that fact is actively clouding your mind, making you unable to OBJECTIVELY look at things. All you can do, all you HAVE done is said "close but no cigar" and wagged fingers. You (in all likelihood) have proffered no reason why the fact that "Not exactly the same" equals "evolution must not be right". You might as well start a thread explaining why humans have souls and "animals" do not.

 

I have a question: Why are you even HERE asking this same damn question? Why on an ex-christian website? I know you like our input and whatnot, but you DO realize that acceptance of evolution is NOT required to be a non-believer, right? There are plenty of forum settings where you can talk with people out there, and plenty of them are science forums where you can discuss with actual scientists and the otherwise highly educated this very subject. If I had to hazard a guess, it's not because you are acquainted with us, but because you can talk a great deal more shit to us, and discount what we're trying to tell you, because most of us are on pretty much the same level (credential-wise, not in terms of actual education)

Shyone, on 03 October 2009 - 01:43 PM, said:

 

This is really pathetic. Humans didn't evolve from primates. We are primates.

Ophelia Ginger

I believe we are still classified as ape. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Ape and primate are two different types of classifications. All apes are primates. For that matter, all primates are mammals. Incidentally, I said exactly what Shyone said to yoyo in his last thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOW, Homo Sapiens has exploited more resources, out-survived more species, and proliferated more widely than any other species larger than insects and arachnids. At this point, we can safely say that we have "won" the evolutionary race.

I'm with Vigile on this one. Homo Sapiens is a much younger species than some other. If our intelligence leads to a destruction of ourselves, we will not be here to judge which species was the best fitted. Besides, I think it goes in phases too. The environment changes, even globally, and one species (like the dinosaurs) rules for a while, but suddenly when the conditions change, another species takes over.

 

If our intelligence results in our making Earth uninhabitable for all species larger than insects and arachnids, I suppose I might be forced to reconsider. But for now, intelligence has turned out to be the "superior" trait, out-competing such traits as sharp teeth, agility, speed, armor-plating, and even wings.

Yes, for the moment we are the winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to be ornery - even if we humans manage to annihilate ourselves, I maintain that intelligence is the only trait which might be able to ensure the long-term survival of a species. Without intelligence, the chances of getting off this planet before our sun becomes a red giant, spreading our genetic structure across the Universe, and even (maybe) solving the problem posed by the eventual heat-death of the Universe is pretty much nil.

 

So if Homo Sapiens kill ourselves off, it will only prove that the specific way in which our species developed intelligence is not optimum. Maybe the cockroaches will do it better.

 

(damn, I'm in the mood to argue over trivial nonsense today!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of trivial nonsense, Davka, what do you mean by "intelligence"? Do cockroaches have intelligence? If not, do they have the potential for intelligence? (I also want to point out that "cockroach" isn't a single species, but that is a minor quibble.)

Why does everyone forget about the single celled organisms? Surely they are much more successful than anything that has come after. It is hard to compare multi- and single celled organisms because species is nearly useless when referring to the latter, but it does seem to me that we cannot disregard them while discussing evolutionary success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If our intelligence results in our making Earth uninhabitable for all species larger than insects and arachnids, I suppose I might be forced to reconsider. But for now, intelligence has turned out to be the "superior" trait, out-competing such traits as sharp teeth, agility, speed, armor-plating, and even wings.

 

I mean really though, lets discuss this survival topic a bit. Example, roaches. Let's say we had a nuclear attack and most of the world was wiped out leaving roaches. Do they win the evolutionary war of, ...this species did this to adapt to this to survive?

 

Many say that the other animals are in their own way more intelligent, plan better, survive etc. I am not speaking of this, but of the simple fact of intelligence on a human scale.

 

On the human scale, being compared to a human. A cockroach can't build a building in the same manner that a human could, and neither can an ape.

 

This is my point, not that they aren't special, unique, or even able to survive, possibly better than the human race; but that the apes show the genetic commonality of human race; but when tested, the capacity of learning is limited to that of an ape. A human's knowledge is superior to that of an ape and IMO until an ape can express it's thoughts as elegantly as a teenager to the least in writing or painting, or architecture, etc; they will just be highly trained apes, as seeing eye dogs are highly trained dogs within their specific realm of abilities.

 

My challenge is that if these apes are so similar to humans in genetics, brain size, etc then why have they not progressed any further? Did the human race really need to evolve in the way that humans evolved?

 

I would say that we needed to evolve just as much as an ape in today's age would need to evolve. So where is the exodus of apes, traveling to evolve in pursuit of survival?

 

On the evolution side, ... Is it possible that man lived with dinosaurs, and our dating is flawed. This would be the only explanation to me that would justify why our common ancestry of ape-human NEEDED to evolve into a higher species, turning into humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe we are still classified as ape. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Ape and primate are two different types of classifications. All apes are primates. For that matter, all primates are mammals. Incidentally, I said exactly what Shyone said to yoyo in his last thread.

 

Who really gives a flying flip about the technical 'wording' of ape and primate unless you are highly learned in the subject, as well as OCD and have no points in the discussion. If someone couldn't 'guess' that I was referring to an ape from saying primates, then they had no other good point to the topic to make, and decided to make fun of the 'wording' to make me look stupid, or they wanted to make their regurgitation of high school Biology sound more educated by first pointing me as uneducated.

 

It was an ape, get over it. And the reason why the other thread slowed down was because I heard and debated that point, and half the dang thread was this redundant junk about primates not being apes!!!

 

An ape is a primate. A primate is an ape. Just as an apple is a fruit, and a fruit is an apple. :Doh:

 

Please, there are at least 5-6 posts just about my one sentence wording of primate :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If our intelligence results in our making Earth uninhabitable for all species larger than insects and arachnids, I suppose I might be forced to reconsider. But for now, intelligence has turned out to be the "superior" trait, out-competing such traits as sharp teeth, agility, speed, armor-plating, and even wings.

 

I mean really though, lets discuss this survival topic a bit. Example, roaches. Let's say we had a nuclear attack and most of the world was wiped out leaving roaches. Do they win the evolutionary war of, ...this species did this to adapt to this to survive?

 

Not really, because in the case of cockroaches it's not a matter of adaptation. They happen to be better able to deal with hard radiation than we are, but that's not the result of environmental pressure. It's not a trait that helps them out-compete any other species in the world as it is now, and it wasn't developed in response to any need. It's just the way they happen to be built.

 

If we irradiate the planet, we will have lost the evolutionary struggle. The cockroaches will then be in an excellent position to exploit resources because most of the competition will be dead - but that doesn't mean they will win in the long run, it just means they will have a head start.

 

Many say that the other animals are in their own way more intelligent, plan better, survive etc. I am not speaking of this, but of the simple fact of intelligence on a human scale.

 

On the human scale, being compared to a human. A cockroach can't build a building in the same manner that a human could, and neither can an ape.

 

No, but many animals use tools, language, and social rules. They aren't as sophisticated as ours, but that doesn't mean they cannot become equally sophisticated, given time and pressure.

 

My challenge is that if these apes are so similar to humans in genetics, brain size, etc then why have they not progressed any further? Did the human race really need to evolve in the way that humans evolved?
If apes had adapted by growing their cerebral cortex, they would BE us. Your question is no different from asking why a chicken is not a duck.

 

I would say that we needed to evolve just as much as an ape in today's age would need to evolve. So where is the exodus of apes, traveling to evolve in pursuit of survival?

 

Again - the other apes each found different niches and exploited them quite nicely. Penguins can't fly because they don't need to. Chickens don't need to swim on pond surfaces.

 

You are looking at the whole issue backwards. You are thinking that all animals should be evolving identically. But it is the environment that shapes animal development. One group of birds found it easier to survive by hunting from the air, while another found sufficient food on the ground, and survived by running. Why? Because one group lived in the African savanna, where the environment favored runners, while another group lived in North America, where the trees made running harder.

 

You also seem to think that evolution happens overnight. The environmental pressure on apes only started in the past few centuries, which is no time at all on the evolutionary scale. If apes survive in the wild for another 50 million years, we can expect them to look and act different than today's apes (assuming the environment pressures them). But asking "where is the exodus of apes?" is completely missing the point. There is never any exodus of any species looking for a niche to evolve into. It is a very slow, gradual process.

 

That's what the fossil record shows.

 

On the evolution side, ... Is it possible that man lived with dinosaurs, and our dating is flawed. This would be the only explanation to me that would justify why our common ancestry of ape-human NEEDED to evolve into a higher species, turning into humans.

 

Sabre-toothed tigers aren't enough of a threat for you??? Why in the world would dinosaurs be the only possible environmental pressure that would favor more intelligent primates over less intelligent ones?

 

The fact is, every environment favors certain traits over others. For our ancestors, the environment of the African plains favored intelligence. For the ancestors of our primate cousins, the jungles favored agility, strength, tree-climbing, and other traits.

 

And no, it is not possible that man lived with dinosaurs. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

Are you in college by any chance? Because if you are, you should take a biology course, even if it's as an elective. You clearly don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An ape is a primate. A primate is an ape. Just as an apple is a fruit, and a fruit is an apple.

 

Not really. An ape is a primate, but a primate is not necessarily an ape. Just as an apple is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessarily an apple.

 

There are a whole lot of primates besides the apes. And I swear a banana is a fruit, but I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a%20thinking%20ape.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again - the other apes each found different niches and exploited them quite nicely. Penguins can't fly because they don't need to. Chickens don't need to swim on pond surfaces.

 

You are looking at the whole issue backwards. You are thinking that all animals should be evolving identically. But it is the environment that shapes animal development. One group of birds found it easier to survive by hunting from the air, while another found sufficient food on the ground, and survived by running. Why? Because one group lived in the African savanna, where the environment favored runners, while another group lived in North America, where the trees made running harder.

 

What cause the humans that evolved from apes to feel the need to have look elsewhere to the degree justified by the gradual evolution process taking place in this realm? At no point during this lengthy evolution these apes settled even at the closest point to human nature?

 

That is just as crazy sounding to me as to me saying that Jesus resurrected and floated around talking to His disciples!?

 

Get my drift. There was an idea, and it has come to rule over science's origins. The theory of evolution of humans and apes is exploited. Science calls for truth of matters, not truths based around the most socially accepted theory. If that was the case then I believe Creation would win :shrug:

You also seem to think that evolution happens overnight. The environmental pressure on apes only started in the past few centuries, which is no time at all on the evolutionary scale. If apes survive in the wild for another 50 million years, we can expect them to look and act different than today's apes (assuming the environment pressures them). But asking "where is the exodus of apes?" is completely missing the point. There is never any exodus of any species looking for a niche to evolve into. It is a very slow, gradual process.

 

 

 

Abiyoyo--On the evolution side, ... Is it possible that man lived with dinosaurs, and our dating is flawed. This would be the only explanation to me that would justify why our common ancestry of ape-human NEEDED to evolve into a higher species, turning into humans.

 

Sabre-toothed tigers aren't enough of a threat for you??? Why in the world would dinosaurs be the only possible environmental pressure that would favor more intelligent primates over less intelligent ones?

 

The fact is, every environment favors certain traits over others. For our ancestors, the environment of the African plains favored intelligence. For the ancestors of our primate cousins, the jungles favored agility, strength, tree-climbing, and other traits.

 

And no, it is not possible that man lived with dinosaurs. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

Are you in college by any chance? Because if you are, you should take a biology course, even if it's as an elective. You clearly don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory at all.

 

I do understand the basics of evolutionary theories. YOU do not understand that it is just a theory and inconclusive. If it truly was a science experiment, it would fail because the holes are plentiful.

 

The evolution of man, the term evolution is a fact. The evolution of man from an ape is inconclusive, and still has holes. It is socially accepted now, that's it.

 

Sabre tooth tigers in part, as other forms of these beasts are still a threat to modern apes. That comparison is irrelevant because, as you stated, every species has found their own niche.

 

Why did the humans feel pressured, in a different way, that those apes from the same common ancestor today, HAVE NOT? This is my question.

 

The evolution of species is based on the premise on adaptation and survival. A species grew this, or shed this to adapt. And, so on, and so on.

 

Every time someone questions an evolutionary trait, the answer is because it needed to fit the environment.

 

Kind of like, God did it! when discussing why this and that are these ways if there is a God. Because God did it! See my point. Way to long now evolutionists have been able to say, Because they needed to adapt and survive.

 

You may say, Well we have fossil records and proof of evolution of species. Some, maybe, but not all, and not the missing link between human and ape evolution.

 

Question. If tomorrow, they discovered that man did live with dinosaurs hands down, and that man did not evolve from common ancestors of apes, and it was documented, recorded, and laid out as genuine discoveries; Would you then change your mind about evolution of human beings from apes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we tell you to not pose naked in front of the camera LR? Everyone gets so jealous of your hairy chest.

 

(Sorry, now back to our regular program.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sabre-toothed tigers aren't enough of a threat for you??? Why in the world would dinosaurs be the only possible environmental pressure that would favor more intelligent primates over less intelligent ones?

 

The fact is, every environment favors certain traits over others. For our ancestors, the environment of the African plains favored intelligence. For the ancestors of our primate cousins, the jungles favored agility, strength, tree-climbing, and other traits.

 

And no, it is not possible that man lived with dinosaurs. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

Are you in college by any chance? Because if you are, you should take a biology course, even if it's as an elective. You clearly don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory at all.

 

I want to give you a theological biological class Davka. :grin:

 

Here is the scenario. We will use you Sabre-tooth tiger example.

 

Lets say hypothetically, God created man and apes separately, and the story is right in that man was in God's image as far as thought and inventiveness. So, we have a tribe of apes living among their own in their temporal habitat, and man the same. Lets say 15 equally apes and humans in both tribes.

 

Sabre-tooth tigers surround the tribes at separate times. The apes, highly skilled creatures they are, try to climb high, and 14 are eaten, but one survived and build a nest of sort in the trees to solve the problem of the Tigers threat to them.

 

Sabre-tooth tigers surrounded the tribe of the humans The tigers ate 14 of the humans leaving only one human. This human somehow escaped. The human then came back to the area, under caution. He observed the apes in their new dwelling, and also observed the way the pack of tigers would attack from a distance.

 

The human then looks around and has an idea. So, a few weeks goes by, and the man has crafted his idea for the Tigers. The man went to see the Tigers in their place they usually packed and hunted. The man begins to scream and yell!!! The Tigers begin to chase him. The man runs, stops as the tigers are at distance and the Tigers fall into a giant dug out pit the man had dug, and were killed because the man placed some sharp edged branches he broke off on the bottom.

 

The man then gets the tigers, and uses whatever he can find to take their meat out of them and use it's skin for clothing.

 

This could have happened in one day, with even the crudest of human kind. Man would go from being chased by tigers and watching his family eaten, to figuring out how to capture tigers, eat them, and use their fur for clothing.

 

The difference is that even in crude form, a man has the advantage of the ape, because the ape is not equipped to think in the same aspect of humans.

 

Are we just as the other species? We are born and then learn? History has shown that even in the most desolate of places and use of limited resources and knowledge; man has overcome this world.

 

In that, my question for evolutionists is this. How did that work out. The tigers are on both sides of the fence, and the ape that was the designated evolvee to eventually become man was surrounded by rogue, fierce creatures.

 

Did generation upon generation of passing tidbits of information pass down before they finally realized how to conquer the tigers?What did they eat all those years? What did they drink?

 

Did they all live in trees until they became humans? Still trying, thinking, pushing the frontal lobes into forming until they could think of a plan to solve the problem of big, fast, fanged, tiger going to eat me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand the basics of evolutionary theories. YOU do not understand that it is just a theory and inconclusive. If it truly was a science experiment, it would fail because the holes are plentiful.

 

Yeah, and so is gravity. Here is a definition for ya:

 

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

 

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What cause the humans that evolved from apes to feel the need to have look elsewhere to the degree justified by the gradual evolution process taking place in this realm?

 

I'm going to take a wild stab at the meaning of this question - what I think you are asking is "what caused humans to go out on the plains instead of staying in the jungle?"

 

Population pressure. In every environment, there is a small percentage of each species living at the very edge of the niche. Some of those end up leaving the optimum environment altogether. Most of the ones that leave the area they are best adapted to will die. But every once in a while, a few individuals will move outside their optimum area who happen to have characteristics which help them to survive there. If they reproduce, they pass those characteristics on to their offspring.

 

The fact is that ALL species continually weed out the less fit, and ALL species are continually pushing some of their members to the edges of their viable territory. 99.9% of the time, the result is death. But given hundreds of millions of years, the 0.1% who survive will differentiate into new species.

 

At no point during this lengthy evolution these apes settled even at the closest point to human nature?
I have no idea what you are asking here, so I won't even try to answer.

 

 

I do understand the basics of evolutionary theories.
NO, you don't. You demonstrate that with every post you make, and with every question you ask.

 

YOU do not understand that it is just a theory and inconclusive.
Please don't make me repeat for the billionth time what is meant by the word "theory" in science. Google it. Or try Wikipedia. Saying that evolution is "just a theory" is a dead give-away: you don't understand what evolutionary theory is. You do not even understand what a theory is.

 

When you have learned those two things, come back and we'll talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we are still classified as ape. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Ape and primate are two different types of classifications. All apes are primates. For that matter, all primates are mammals. Incidentally, I said exactly what Shyone said to yoyo in his last thread.

 

Who really gives a flying flip about the technical 'wording' of ape and primate unless you are highly learned in the subject, as well as OCD and have no points in the discussion. If someone couldn't 'guess' that I was referring to an ape from saying primates, then they had no other good point to the topic to make, and decided to make fun of the 'wording' to make me look stupid, or they wanted to make their regurgitation of high school Biology sound more educated by first pointing me as uneducated.

 

It was an ape, get over it. And the reason why the other thread slowed down was because I heard and debated that point, and half the dang thread was this redundant junk about primates not being apes!!!

 

An ape is a primate. A primate is an ape. Just as an apple is a fruit, and a fruit is an apple. :Doh:

 

Please, there are at least 5-6 posts just about my one sentence wording of primate :HaHa:

:nono: Tsk tsk. There you go again, bein' all intentionally dense, and intellectually dishonest. As an adult human, you really have no other excuse for not understanding all this, because the only way you wouldn't, would be to be severely retarded, and I have great doubts about that. First off, you know damn well that "a fruit is an apple" is untrue, because "is" = "equals" and the vast majority of all fruits are NOT apples, therefore, all fruits don't equal apples. However, every proper apple in existence is a fruit, without exception.

 

Likewise, and no yoyo, you don't need to have a degree to know, understand, and care about this, but the same backwards comparison taboo is in effect when it comes to taxonomy. ALL APES ARE PRIMATES, but not all primates are apes. Monkeys for instance, are primates, but not apes. Hell, just think of a venn diagram. Put one circle down for primates, and another down for apes, and whatever fits in the middle are both.

 

I mean, come on, "animal" is a taxonomic classification. By your tortured logic, because an iguana is so different from a jellyfish, one of those HAS to not be an animal. Anyway, if at some point 5, 10, or maybe 15 years from now, you decide to stop insulting our intelligence with this feigned stupidity, you can refer back to this post and read up on the basics of Human Taxonomy.

 

I only try yoyo, because the subject interests me. I know we're ALL wasting our time trying to teach you anything, and this statement

Who really gives a flying flip about the technical 'wording' of ape andprimate unless you are highly learned in the subject, as well as OCDand have no points in the discussion. If someone couldn't 'guess' thatI was referring to an ape from saying primates, then they had no othergood point to the topic to make, and decided to make fun of the'wording' to make me look stupid, or they wanted to make theirregurgitation of high school Biology sound more educated by firstpointing me as uneducated.
is proof. You say you want to learn, but you can't be bothered to get even the most basic of terms straight if it will help you learn. Instead you accuse us of wanting to flaunt our knowledge ( what the fuck are you here for if that's the case?!), and that it's only important to the "highly learned" people you probably should be talking to about this stuff in the first place (if our knowledge is so insufficient... What the fuck are you doing here talking about it?! I would suggest trying to make us sound stupid, or blindly devoted to our "precious" evolution).

 

It's like trying to pick up a dead frog with a piece of wet cardboard. I mean damn! I had to go and teach you about groups and subgroups, how all members of one group qualify to be placed in another group, but how all members of that second group aren't necessarily qualified to be in the first-- I learned that stuff before 6th grade! But at least there are others who will learn something, so it's not a total loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<<snip Davka regurgitations>>>>>

 

Evolution of apes into humans is theory. READ MY POST DAVKA! Science does not have the Hands down answer! You read Davka. I guess you are a fundamental evolutionist that can't see past there own arse. :Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to be ornery - even if we humans manage to annihilate ourselves, I maintain that intelligence is the only trait which might be able to ensure the long-term survival of a species. Without intelligence, the chances of getting off this planet before our sun becomes a red giant, spreading our genetic structure across the Universe, and even (maybe) solving the problem posed by the eventual heat-death of the Universe is pretty much nil.

 

So if Homo Sapiens kill ourselves off, it will only prove that the specific way in which our species developed intelligence is not optimum. Maybe the cockroaches will do it better.

 

(damn, I'm in the mood to argue over trivial nonsense today!)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that cockroaches are smart? I would tend to agree, but I'd say that survival is 1 part luck and one part adaptability.

 

Hence, although intelligence could potentially get us off the planet before the solar instability wipes out life as we know it, it won't happen. By the time humans or whatever other species realize that things are looking bad, we won't have whatever it would take to design and execute an interstellar mission. We'll all just die (speaking for my descendants).

 

And I'm in a cynical mood tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Okay, you are right. Ape sub for primate in my post on the first page somewhere before the original 'pointing' of the error, also further up on that page from the post that I said,...Sorry, ape instead of primate!!!!!! Get over it man. Make a point or something. You have yet to make a point related to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.