Oh. My. God.

[Taft2016]

I did and do.

No, I do and I did.

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

[Timshel]

No, I do and I did.

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

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

[Timshel]

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.

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

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.

[Timshel]

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.

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/sci...-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]

And which of the above answers the questions you have ignored ad infinitum at this point now?

[Timshel]

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.

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

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.

[Timshel]

And which of the above answers the questions you have ignored ad infinitum at this point now?

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.

[Timshel]

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.

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

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.

[Taft2016]

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.

[Timshel]

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.

I have answered you three times now!