Oh. My. God.

So with the mouse predator population exploding, I assume a mouse civilization will be necessary for the common defense.

Will they have a little mouse pharaoh?
 
man branched off from the apes at the so called "missing link".
we were never apes -we had a common ancestor.

Evolution is survival of the fittest. our larger brain gave us more cognition which was more imporatant the brute strength or ability to quickly climb like the monkeys
 
Taft2016 said:
Not nearly as much as I mock you non-responses. Your repeatedly inability to explain how one species "evolved" the intelligence to race beyond very other species and dominate all is basically a wall you've hit.
Click to expand...

I have no need to explain that. You have not answered what it has to do with your claim that all species of life but man share a common ancestor. You should be addressing the common lines of proof for evolution but you'd rather discuss behaviors. Okay, then....

Again, the behaviors and capacities of man (e.g., the use of tools, language skills etc.) show more in common with a gorilla than a gorilla shows in common with the palm tree. If the differences in behavior of man and gorilla disprove the explanation of their relationship provided by the toe (theory of evolution) then why doesn't the greater difference in behavior between the gorilla and the palm tree disprove the toe explanation of their relationship? You don't have an answer for that.
 
anatta said:
man branched off from the apes at the so called "missing link".
we were never apes -we had a common ancestor.

Evolution is survival of the fittest. our larger brain gave us more cognition which was more imporatant the brute strength or ability to quickly climb like the monkeys
Click to expand...

We are apes, we are primates, mammals, vertebrates (not you) and animals.
 
TapsOut said:
FTFY.
Click to expand...

You should be addressing the common lines of proof for evolution but you'd rather discuss behaviors. Okay, then....


Again, the behaviors and capacities of man (e.g., the use of tools, language skills etc.) show more in common with a gorilla than a gorilla shows in common with the palm tree. If the differences in behavior of man and gorilla disprove the explanation of their relationship provided by the toe (theory of evolution) then why doesn't the greater difference in behavior between the gorilla and the palm tree disprove the toe explanation of their relationship? You don't have an answer for that.
 
anatta said:
it's a hair splitting differentiation one way or teh other..the point being we diverged from modern great apes
Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

you remain an invertebrate internet slug
Click to expand...

Again, we are apes (also great apes), primates, mammals, etc. We share a common ancestor with other great apes just as we share a common ancestor with the members of all those other groups relative to their place in our long evolution. That is, we share common ancestor with monkeys (primates), dogs (mammals), lizards (vertebrates) and sharks (animals). You are not a monkey or a shark but you are a primate and an animal.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Again, we are apes (also great apes), primates, mammals, etc. We share a common ancestor with other great apes just as we share a common ancestor with the members of all those other groups relative to their place in our long evolution. That is, we share common ancestor with monkeys (primates), dogs (mammals), lizards (vertebrates) and sharks (animals). You are not a monkey or a shark but you are a primate and an animal.
Click to expand...

Did you know that the only ape that is not one of the "great apes" is the gibbon?

It's like they created a special category of apes just to exclude him.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You should be addressing the common lines of proof for evolution but you'd rather discuss behaviors. Okay, then....


Again, the behaviors and capacities of man (e.g., the use of tools, language skills etc.) show more in common with a gorilla than a gorilla shows in common with the palm tree. If the differences in behavior of man and gorilla disprove the explanation of their relationship provided by the toe (theory of evolution) then why doesn't the greater difference in behavior between the gorilla and the palm tree disprove the toe explanation of their relationship? You don't have an answer for that.
Click to expand...

TapsOutt2016 said:
Did you know I don't have an argument that explains how man alone did not evolve from a common ancestor but was created in his present form.
Click to expand...

I did and do.
 
TapsOut2016 said:
No, I do and I did.

You, OTOH, claim to have the answers and keep tripping over every question posed.
Click to expand...

It was not I who was making the assertions. You claimed to support the theory of evolution except as it applies to man. I am asking why your proof supports that other species evolved but man did not. Even if we accept your metric of behaviors like tool use, languages skills, artistic expression etc., you have not shown why that supports the evolution of other species but not man. Lots of species have unique behaviors and again ours behaviors are a lot more like a gorilla's than a gorilla's behaviors are like a palm tree's or even those of a mullet, yet you tell us this supports your argument that man did not evolve from the common ancestor but the other species did. No, it obviously does not.
 
Last edited:
I've said it repeatedly. The theory evolution offers no explanation for man's incredible capacity to create, utilize, and employ the arts and sciences in order enjoy complete dominion over the planet.

Of every species on the planet, why does man have a capacity that exceeds that of all other species combined?

You can keep ignoring that, but it's just intellectual dishonesty.
 
Taft2016 said:
I've said it repeatedly. The theory evolution offers no explanation for man's incredible capacity to create, utilize, and employ the arts and sciences in order enjoy complete dominion over the planet.

Of every species on the planet, why does man have a capacity that exceeds that of all other species combined?

You can keep ignoring that, but it's just intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

You have evaded repeatedly. Your position has nothing to do with the scientific evidence available and you don't even apply your own metrics in a consistent or scientific way. You are just a misinformed coward.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You have evaded repeatedly. Your position has nothing to do with the scientific evidence available and you don't even apply your own metrics in a consistent or scientific way. You are just a misinformed coward.
Click to expand...

Of course it has to do with the evidence. The fact that we somehow "evolved" a capacity greater than all species combined is key to the discussion.

Your inability to answer is not irrelevant. It's telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top