Oh. My. God.

[Taft2016]

Dick, he's a home-schooled flat earther. You can never enter into a logical discussion with them. They have no concept of reality.

I suggest you move on. You waste too much good energy on this cretin.

And there it is. The intolerance of the Church of Evolution.

 

[Taft2016]

First off, capacity means ability. (jibber jabber snipped)

I used it in a different context. A different context supported by the dictionary.

So, first off... you lose.

Again.

 

[Taft2016]

There is no way to test capacity/ability other than by demonstrating that capacity/ability. I don't know what other species will be capable of in 4 million years and neither do you. Therefore you have no basis on which to claim they lack the capacity.

Discussed ad nauseum.

Hindsight vs. foresight.

We have hindsight, we don't have foresight.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, the dictionary is my friend. This is the sense in which I meant "Capacity."

"actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand"

Man, as a species, had the potential. Which became a realized potential, and which still has unrealized potential.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capacity



No, in fact I just embarrassed you on your own criteria. Thanks for stopping by.

Fine. Based on your definition, this term is completely useless to any scientific inquiry because it is obviously untestable and will always be untestable.

We simply did not know that your mom was capable of using the smartphone but that still puts into question how we could reliably establish your biological relationship to her. Hmm, what facts might we consider?

 

[Timshel]

I used it in a different context. A different context supported by the dictionary.

So, first off... you lose.

Again.

Nope. Scroll up. I am happy to use any definition you want.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Seriously chaps, call it quits! You're getting nowhere!

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

 

[Taft2016]

Fine. Based on your definition, this term is completely useless to any scientific inquiry because it is obviously untestable and will always be untestable.

That's a lie.

Saying "Man as a species had the capacity to build the space shuttle for thousands of years" is obviously testable, and provable.

Seriously dude, what else did you think I meant when I said "man as species" had "the capacity for thousands of a years"? And that capacity is "not bound by a timeline"?

And what did you think I meant when I said "you're not intellectually up to having this conversation"?

 

[Timshel]

Discussed ad nauseum.

Hindsight vs. foresight.

We have hindsight, we don't have foresight.

By claiming apes or any other species do not have the capacity you are making a claim about their potential based on your conveniently chosen definition of capacity.
Koko's already pretty mind boggling. I have no idea what her ancestors will be capable of in 4 million years and no way to test it. Neither do you.

Whatever they are capable of it will have nothing to do with how we will prove their relationship to Koko. Your standards are nonsense, useless and completely untestable.

 

[Timshel]

That's a lie.

Saying "Man as a species had the capacity to build the space shuttle for thousands of years" is obviously testable, and provable.

Seriously dude, what else did you think I meant when I said "man as species" had "the capacity for thousands of a years"? And that capacity is "not bound by a timeline"?

And what did you think I meant when I said "you're not intellectually up to having this conversation"?

Saying that any other species do not have the capacity is not testable, dumb dumb. Your basis for rejecting the evidence that establishes our relationship is based on your claim that they do not possess the capacity, which according to you means they will never be capable of the feat. How do we test that?

Even if KoKo builds a space ship tomorrow it will not be the best proof that she is related us or any other species. Your positions have nothing to do with science. Maybe science fiction fantasy.

 

[Taft2016]

Saying that any other species do not have the capacity is not testable, dumb dumb. Your basis for rejecting the evidence that establishes our relationship is based on your claim that they do not possess the capacity, which according to you means they will never be capable of the feat. How do we test that?

Discussed ad nauseum. Hindsight vs. foresight. Even mentioned a few posts ago.

How much longer are you going to keep dragging this discussion in circles?

Don't get me wrong, it's amusing as hell. But how much of this abuse can you take?

 

[Timshel]

Discussed ad nauseum. Hindsight vs. foresight. Even mentioned a few posts ago.

How much longer are you going to keep dragging this discussion in circles?

Don't get me wrong, it's amusing as hell. But how much of this abuse can you take?

Your claims require foresight. Will chimpanzees or their ancestors build a space shuttle at any point in the future? Unless I know the answer I can not make any claim about their "capacity" to build a space shuttle. We did not know your great great grandfather had the "capacity" to build a space shuttle so how would we have reliably determined his relationship to you?

I don't know that penguins have the capacity to fly are they birds? Bats can fly and the overwhelming majority of mammals have shown no capacity to fly are they birds? How would I answer these questions? What then proves to be the most compelling evidence of relationship? Is it some claim about their "capacity" which according to you I can't know?

You are a riot.

 

[Taft2016]

Your claims require foresight.
You are a riot.

Lol. You'll never get it, will you?

I have no claims. I acknowledge I don't know what happened, or will happen. So I have nothing to prove.

You, on the other hand, have to prove what is still only a theory.

I can't lose, and you can't win.

That's why I'm having such fun dragging this out.

 

[Timshel]

Forget using a cane, dolphins can't walk yet we know they are more closely related to the bear than most of the things in the ocean. How do we know that? Is it because we think the dolphins will be able to walk or bears will be able to hold their breath for a long time (polar bears will have to) in the future? LOL

 

[Timshel]

Lol. You'll never get it, will you?

I have no claims. I acknowledge I don't know what happened, or will happen. So I have nothing to prove.

You, on the other hand, have to prove what is still only a theory.

I can't lose, and you can't win.

That's why I'm having such fun dragging this out.

Back to the fetal position.

You absolutely made claims about the "capacities" of other species but of course I don't expect you stand by any of them coward.

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.

So bats must certainly be birds???

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

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.

 

[Timshel]

There is no way to mischaracterize or properly characterize anything a coward like TapsOut argues. Even quoting him is apparently a strawman because he will change his mind soon. Can we end this pointless exercise if I agree you have the "capacity" to accept evolution and creationism (but not at the same time) because you are bound to take every position possible at the rate you change your stance.

 

[Timshel]

TapsOut, I am not sure you have the capacity to understand the theory of evolution, what it means or explains. In 4 million years you might get it but in your lifetime... it's not looking good. How can we prove you are human?

 

[Timshel]

I am getting tired of pointing out how stupid TapsOut is or what the ridiculous claims he has made would mean if we took them seriously as science. But in hopes of inspiring my monkey to make some more silly claims for my amusement....


So how did we get so advanced? I touched on some thoughts and will share my thoughts more but I hesitate to without making it clear they are not meant as proof of the theory of evolution. Though my views tend to agree with the theory it's definitely not a primary line of proof for the toe. It's not a basis for rejecting or accepting the toe and has almost no relevance to the many facts that the toe explains.


The stone age is believed to have begun about 3.4 million years ago and ended just 10000 years ago. I don't think our development over that period is believed to have been that rapid. Still our genus homo has gone through quite a bit of biological change since then and the tools were also believed to be used by two other extinct genus of hominins.


Over that long of a period tool use and other technologies could have exerted selective pressures reinforcing the tool use. It may have created a feedback loop and drove our evolution, just like the simple "technology" of cooking did. OTOH, at some point our mastery of various technologies has likely started to reduce selective pressures entirely. But, then that would have came with a massive explosion in our population which also accelerated our technological advancement.