Oh. My. God.

Taft2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The greatest part of this discussion is that it began with liberals laughing at a guy with a Biblical Creationist theme park, and ended with liberals expressing a belief that if man disappeared from the earth tomorrow, the planet would be taken over by mice, who would develop little mouse weapons to protect them from predators, build mouse civilizations, and have little mouse kings.

Which is just proof to me that evolution is just another form of irrational fundamentalist religion.
 
Taft2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the evidence. Here is a good source for you on the evidence supporting the toe.

http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/

Biochemistry is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells. The biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.

Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.

On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.

Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.

Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.

Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements.

Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution.

You need to tell us why this evidence supports the evolution of other species but not man. You have not begun to address any part of it. You are just looking for some way to rationalize your need for the safety of the herd and to feel special. You are an ignorant and cowardly little narcissist.
 
Taft2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have answered, but your question does not deserve one since it is not highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Again, you are talking in qualitative terms that you cannot support. How do you measure a greater capacity (for what)? What does the test environment look like? Here's a test... you alone with a large bear which I am sure will give us a good idea about the capacity of your underwear.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I have answered, but your question does not deserve one since it is not highly relevant to the theory of evolution. Again, you are talking in qualitative terms that you cannot support. How do you measure a greater capacity (for what)? What does the test environment look like? Here's a test... you alone with a large bear which I am sure will give us a good idea about the capacity of your underwear.
Click to expand...

The fact that one species evolved a capacity greater than all other species combined would not be relevant to a discussion about evolution?

Many people would consider it the most relevant aspect.
 
Taft2016 said:
And which of the above answers the questions you have ignored ad infinitum at this point now?
Click to expand...

This is the problem. You don't think the evidence supporting the toe (which you claim to support in part) is relevant to a discussion of your claim that man alone is not explained by the toe. Why, because as I said you reject the toe at a very fundamental level or entirely and more importantly you reject science. Your position was chosen on whim.
 
Taft2016 said:
The fact that one species evolved a capacity greater than all other species combined would not be relevant to a discussion about evolution?

Many people would consider it the most relevant aspect.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't have any support for your claim. A capacity for what?

It's not relevant at all. How does it explain the homologies between chimps and sharks or why they prove a relationship while the same homologies and more exist between man and chimp but don't prove a relationship? That's just for starters.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
This is the problem. You don't think the evidence supporting the toe (which you claim to support in part) is relevant to a discussion of your claim that man alone is not explained by the toe. Why, because as I said you reject the toe at a very fundamental level or entirely and more importantly you reject science. Your position was chosen on whim.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't relative.

I said it, like you, doesn't answer the question, which is the 800 lbs unevolved gorilla in the room.
 
Of course this makes you no better than Biblical creationists, who get criticized for unquestioning adherence to their belief.

Legitimate questions are raised about your beliefs and you brush them off in the same manner as creationists, but because your 12th grade teacher told you it is fact you arrogantly repeat it as doctrine.
 
Taft2016 said:
Of course this makes you no better than Biblical creationists, who get criticized for unquestioning adherence to their belief.

Legitimate questions are raised about your beliefs and you brush them off in the same manner as creationists, but because your 12th grade teacher told you it is fact you arrogantly repeat it as doctrine.
Click to expand...


You are not raising legitimate questions about the beliefs evidence supporting the toe, what it suggests or predicts. You are proving your great capacity for evading the point and ignoring the scientific evidence that disproves your claims.
 
Taft2016 said:
Saying it's not a relevant question isn't an answer.
Click to expand...

That was an aside the answer, again (is the 4th or 5th time), is you don't have anything to support your qualitative claims. Again, I am not exactly sure what capacity you are talking about and I don't think you know either.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
You are not raising legitimate questions about the beliefs evidence supporting the toe, what it suggests or predicts. You are proving your great capacity for evading the point and ignoring the scientific evidence that disproves your claims.
Click to expand...

For your theory to stand, you must strip man of all of the traits that have given him dominion over the planet, and reduce him to his basest characteristics as a biological organism.

That is the one of the most dishonest manipulations of evidence I've ever seen and is just another example of agenda driven junk science.

But that's how you guys roll, man made global warming and all....
 
Taft2016 said:
For your theory to stand, you must strip man of all of the traits that have given him dominion over the planet, and reduce him to his basest characteristics as a biological organism.

That is the one of the most dishonest manipulations of evidence I've ever seen and is just another example of agenda driven junk science.

But that's how you guys roll, man made global warming and all....
Click to expand...


LOL

It does not, but I think what you are saying is we have looked beyond the superficial things you want us to consider. We look at the anatomical, genetic and other lines of evidence that support the toe to consider the toe as it applies to man. Why wouldn't we?

You claim you accept the theory of evolution, which implies you accept the evidence for the toe, but you are not addressing why it does not prove the evolution of man.

You are being quite vague and evasive now but what trait are you talking about? Tool use? Again, we are not that unique in it and if our varying capacity disproves toe as it applies to us then shouldn't the widely varying tool use capacity of the magpie and the palm tree disprove their relationship? Even giving your metric some benefit of the doubt you still fail to apply it consistently.
 
Last edited:
Reality =/= superficial.

If you like, you may factor in all the "superficial" achievements in science and art of every other species, and their capacity to defend themselves and achieve dominion over other species.

But it wouldn't help because the results stand.
 
Taft2016 said:
Reality =/= superficial.

If you like, you may factor in all the "superficial" achievements in science and art of every other species, and their capacity to defend themselves and achieve dominion over other species.

But it wouldn't help because the results stand.
Click to expand...

You are hopelessly deluded.

Lots of species have unique abilities. But that is not really related to any primary line of evidence for the toe of any species much less man. You are not addressing the science. Instead you insist on only addressing things that support your need to feel special and not upset your parents. Your "theory" is based on little more than willful ignorance, narcissism and a cowardly herd mentality.
 
Taft2016 said:
Reality =/= superficial.

If you like, you may factor in all the "superficial" achievements in science and art of every other species, and their capacity to defend themselves and achieve dominion over other species.

But it wouldn't help because the results stand.
Click to expand...
I actually thought you were reasonably intelligent chap but you are just spouting bullshit here.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
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...

Sperm whales have huge brains and brute strength.
 
Taft2016 said:
Reality =/= superficial.

If you like, you may factor in all the "superficial" achievements in science and art of every other species, and their capacity to defend themselves and achieve dominion over other species.

But it wouldn't help because the results stand.
Click to expand...

What about the tenrec's achievements in litter size. Eighteen at once. That's an evolutionary important achievement!

https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&q=animal+with+biggest+litter&oq=animal+with+biggest+litter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top