Oh. My. God.

[Timshel]

And you repeatedly want to separate our biological organism from everything we have become, which is dishonest science. You clearly have an agenda, and I do not.

If bears started using walking sticks you'd be the first one citing it as evidence of evolution and so would I.

LOL, BS!

The toe is about biological change not technological change.

But, I have addressed several times now the fact that our behaviors are more like those species closest in relation to us, which is what the toe would predict. If a species is going to start using a walking stick, doing sign language or keeping a cat as a pet it will probably be another ape.

Your agenda is obvious, to protect your feelings.

 

[Taft2016]

LOL, BS!

The toe is about biological change not technological change.

But, I have addressed several times now the fact that our behaviors are more like those species closest in relation to us, which is what the toe would predict. If a species is going to start using a walking stick, doing sign language or keeping a cat as a pet it will probably be another ape.

Your agenda is obvious, to protect your feelings.

So the mental capacity to develop technology has no biological implications?

You're sinking quickly here....

 

[Timshel]

So the mental capacity to develop technology has no biological implications?

You're sinking quickly here....

Of course, it does. But our rate of technological advancement is clearly not directly related to our rate of biological change or variation as you insist. Your great great grandfather had no capacity to fly and you do, but this great gulf does not disprove the fact that you are almost identical to him biologically. We can go back to the late stone age, just 10000 years ago, our ancestors had little more technology than apes, or primates. The biological change from that ancestor to us is still pretty small while the gulf in technology is astounding.

The compelling proof of our relationship with that stone age ancestor, your great great grandpa, other apes or any species is based primarily on biology.

 

[Taft2016]

Of course, it does. But our rate of technological advancement is clearly not directly related to our rate of biological change or variation as you insist. Your great great grandfather had no capacity to fly and you do, but this great gulf does not disprove the fact that you are almost identical to him biologically. We can go back to the late stone age, just 10000 years ago, our ancestors had little more technology than apes, or primates. The biological change from that ancestor to us is still pretty small while the gulf in technology is astounding.

The compelling proof of our relationship with that stone age ancestor, your great great grandpa, other apes or any species is based primarily on biology.

Capacity to achieve something is not bound by a timeline.

Where did that capacity come from and why have no other species demonstrated anything remotely comparable to it?

You should be able to answer now that you have acknowledged a biological connection.

 

[Timshel]

Capacity to achieve something is not bound by a timeline.

Where did that capacity come from and why have no other species demonstrated anything remotely comparable to it?

You should be able to answer now that you have acknowledged a biological connection.

Again, you fucking willfully ignorant moron, other species have demonstrated something remotely comparable. Tool use is found in many primates, birds and other species. We inherited the skill (the stone age goes back 3.4 million years). Our thumbs gave us some considerable advantage. How does the tool use of the palm tree compare with that of other primates? What does your standard for differentiating man from his closest relatives say about the entire toe?

You claimed that using a cane would make you accept evolution (not really sure why). I wonder why KoKo's ability to sign does not? Learning is not an act of biological evolution but Koko's capacities certainly suggest she is more closely related to us (which you reject) than a palm tree (which you pretend to accept).

Of course our abilities are connected to our evolution. But the similarities in our capacities are not the most compelling proof for the toe, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Our biological similarities are. According to your approach a bat and an owl are more closely related than an owl and a penguin.

 

[Taft2016]

Again, you fucking willfully ignorant moron, other species have demonstrated something remotely comparable. Tool use is found in many primates, birds and other species. We inherited the skill (the stone age goes back 3.4 million years). Our thumbs gave us some considerable advantage. How does the tool use of the palm tree compare with that of other primates? What does your standard for differentiating man from his closest relatives say about the entire toe?

You claimed that using a cane would make you accept evolution (not really sure why). I wonder why KoKo's ability to sign does not? Learning is not an act of biological evolution but Koko's capacities certainly suggest she is more closely related to us (which you reject) than a palm tree (which you pretend to accept).

Of course our abilities are connected to our evolution. But the similarities in our capacities are not the most compelling proof for the toe, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Our biological similarities are. According to your approach a bat and an owl are more closely related than an owl and a penguin.

And your comparison of the space shuttle with a stick ramped into a termite mound is imbecilic.

And stop with the Koko idiocy. Scientists say her IQ is between 70 and 95, which would place her above the average human IQ of most of southern Africa.

Are you dumb enough to believe that?

 

[Timshel]

And your comparison of the space shuttle with a stick ramped into a termite mound is imbecilic.

And stop with the Koko idiocy. Scientists say her IQ is between 70 and 95, which would place her above the average human IQ of most of southern Africa.

Are you dumb enough to believe that?

And yet, the lack of comparison to a space shuttle found in the technology of our stone age ancestors or your likely very stupid great great grandfather don't disprove our very close relationship with them? At the same time the wide gap in the ability to use tools between a chimp and a palm tree do not disprove their relationship? When are you going to address the obvious implications for your supposed proof if it is applied consistently?

 

[Mr.Badguy]

Happy to, as it is making you obviously uncomfortable defending your biases with clearly bad data.

Lol I'm very comfortable watching you make a fool of yourself.

 

[Timshel]

It's not really that hard to understand how 3.4 million years of using stone age tools may have created some selective pressure that then accelerated our tool use creating more selective pressures, more tool use, and so on.

 

[Taft2016]

And yet, the lack of comparison to a space shuttle found in the technology of our stone age ancestors or your likely very stupid great great grandfather don't disprove our very close relationship with them?

No, because they are the same species with the same capacity.

At the same time the wide gap in the ability to use tools between a chimp and a palm tree do not disprove their relationship? When are you going to address the obvious implications for your supposed proof if it is applied consistently?

No, because they are different species.

Your math, like everything you seem to attempt, is faulty.

Just because A > B, and A > C, does not mean B = C.

Edit: And I should add that you're putting forth a false premise because I never said that apes and palm trees, or even humans for that matter, did not evolve. I said I don't know what happened to humans, but evolution does not explain our advanced status. So again, please quit lying.

 

[Timshel]

No, because they are the same species with the same capacity.

They did not have the capacity for a space shuttle. According to you that means they might not be the same species or even related. What would tell you you are wrong? Hopefully their biological similarities would prove more compelling than the differences in their technological capacities, but hey don't go applying that in a consistent fashion.

No, because they are different species.

???

We are a different species, moron?

If the gap between our tool use capacity and that of other primates disproves our relationship then the difference between that capacity between primates and a palm tree disprove their relationship.

 

[Taft2016]

They did not have the capacity for a space shuttle. According to you that means they might not be the same species or even related. What would tell you you are wrong? Hopefully their biological similarities would prove more compelling than the differences in their technological capacities, but hey don't go applying that in a consistent fashion.

Obviously they did because we now have it. Or are you saying man evolved that much in 2000 years and that his technology is the evidence of that?

We are a different species, moron?

No, I said we are the same species. Moron.

If the gap between our tool use capacity and that of other primates disproves our relationship then the difference between that capacity between primates and a palm tree disprove their relationship.

Again with the false premises of non-relationship. This is like talking to a freaking wall. You are incapable of a non-traditional nuanced discussion of the subject. Clearly.

I never said that apes and palm trees, or even humans for that matter, did not evolve, or were not related. I said I don't know what happened to humans, but evolution does not explain our advanced status. So again, please quit lying.

 

[Timshel]

Obviously they did because we now have it. Or are you saying man evolved that much in 2000 years and that his technology is the evidence of that?

Obviously they did not because they did not build a space shuttle. No, dumbfuck, man has evolved very little in 2000 years, yet his technological abilities have changed dramatically.

No, I said we are the same species. Moron.

Shitferbrains, man is not the same species as the other primates that use tools. You claim that the difference in ability between our tool use and that of the other primates disproves our relationship. When pressed to explain the extremely wide gap in the tool use ability between a primate and a palm tree (which you claim to believe are related) you tell me they are a different species. WTF is wrong with you, moron? Yes they are different species as we are a different species than the other primates but I am asking how your "different capacity" metric disproves relationship in one case but not in the other.

Again with the false premises of non-relationship. This is like talking to a freaking wall. You are incapable of a non-traditional nuanced discussion of the subject. Clearly.

I never said that apes and palm trees, or even humans for that matter, did not evolve, or were not related. I said I don't know what happened to humans, but evolution does not explain our advanced status. So again, please quit lying.

You certainly did.

How does the evolution of other species PRECLUDE the Divine creation of man?

I do not however, believe man is the product of an evolution from a lesser species.

One can believe that species evolve and at the same time man is not part of that equation.

There is no scientific proof either than all life emerged from single organism. Just theories.

The possibility that species evolved separate and apart from the Creation of man is not only possible, I'd call it probable.

I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one. And for that, you say I reject the entire premise.

Liar.

So what now are you saying? You don't have an opinion on the theory of evolution but you don't understand our technological prowess? Is that it or do you want to add something more?

 

[Timshel]

Poor little TapsOut has been all over the place. First, he implied that he accepts the theory of evolution then admitted he rejects it for man now he does not seem to know and apparently did not want to talk about it in the first place. LOL

 

[Taft2016]

Obviously they did not because they did not build a space shuttle. No, dumbfuck, man has evolved very little in 2000 years, yet his technological abilities have changed dramatically.

Whew. The Stoopid is strong with this one.

Yes, obviously they DID have the capacity because as a species they built it. As I stated before, capacity is not bound by a timeline. By stating they didn't have the ability 2000 years ago, you're now arguing against yourself and saying man evolved tremendously over the course of 2000 years.

Shitferbrains, man is not the same species as the other primates that use tools.

Straw man. Never said that.

You claim that the difference in ability between our tool use and that of the other primates disproves our relationship.

Straw man. Never said that. In fact, I just got done saying I never said that. So it's a repetitious straw man.

I reposted an earlier post saying no one, including myself, knows how man got to this point. I said man may have evolved to a certain point and was gifted with some sort of divine or extra terrestrial enlightenment. I said evolution alone can not explain how he got to this point.

When pressed to explain the extremely wide gap in the tool use ability between a primate and a palm tree (which you claim to believe are related) you tell me they are a different species WTF is wrong with you, moron? Yes they are different species as we are a different species than the other primates but I am asking how your "different capacity" metric disproves relationship in one case but not in the other.

Whew.... stooooopid.

I'll try again. Just because A > B, and A > C, does not mean B= C.

In this case ape > tree.

Yes, an ape is more evolved than a tree. But because one species evolved from A to B, and another from A to C, does not explain how another species would have evolved from A to Z and light years beyond, and accumulated a capacity greater than all 8.7 million other species combined.

With man we're talking about cognizance, awareness, abstract thinking, creativity, ingenuity, on a light years scale above all other species.

To get to your point that all needs to be stripped away, which, like you, is dishonest.

And frankly, your repeated dishonesty, straw men, and outright lies are getting tiresome.

Answer the question already. You've had about 50 shots at it already, so I don't think you can.

 

[Timshel]

Whew. The Stoopid is strong with this one.

Yes, obviously they DID have the capacity because as a species they built it. As I stated before, capacity is not bound by a timeline. By stating they didn't have the ability 2000 years ago, you're now arguing against yourself and saying man evolved tremendously over the course of 2000 years.

Sorry, moron, man had no capacity to build a space shuttle 200 years ago. Once again we are very closely related to the humans of 200 years ago which proves that technological similarities are not the most compelling proof of relationship between two specimens.

You are a fucking moron that does not understand evolution or where to begin a critique of it. You are just spouting nonsense for apparently no reason as you no longer seem willing to take a position on the subject of the toe. You have surrendered completely so there is not much more to talk about here.

 

[Taft2016]

Sorry, moron, man had no capacity to build a space shuttle 200 years ago.

Yes, he did, knuckle-dragging ape.

He just didn't have the knowledge, which isn't the same as having the capacity.

God, the stooopid.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, he did, knuckle-dragging ape.

He just didn't have the knowledge, which isn't the same as having the capacity.

God, the stooopid.

Clearly man did not have the capacity. Capacity means ability. Knowledge was obviously a necessary part of possessing the capacity or ability.

Moron, by suggesting no other animals possess this capacity to build a space shuttle but man did before he actually achieved it you are necessarily claiming something that is way outside of any scientific method. That is, you must claim to know that no other animals will ever develop a capacity for technology. Your process is not science, it's bullshit, lies and fairtyales.

 

[Taft2016]

Clearly man did not have the capacity.

No, clearly he did, because he did it.

Moron, by suggesting no other animals possess this capacity to build a space shuttle but man did before he actually achieved it you are necessarily claiming something that is way outside of any scientific method. That is, you must claim to know that no other animals will ever develop a capacity for technology. Your process is not science, it's bullshit, lies and fairtyales.

I have the benefit of hindsight, not foresight. Duh.

Meanwhile, I've been asking you twerkboy, over and over.... what other species do you envision building a space shuttle?

 

[domer76]

Yes, he did, knuckle-dragging ape.

He just didn't have the knowledge, which isn't the same as having the capacity.

God, the stooopid.

Jesus Christ in a Crapper, you are one of the densest morons I've witnessed on this forum.