![Life at poal [334x750 - 40KB]](https://poal.co/static/images/MjGBNH.jpg){kind=link}
"A theory doesn't mean best guess" Except that's exactly what it means.
Incorrect, if in future you care to argue against the status quo, please do 5min of reading beforehand.
The laymans term for theory means untested hunch, this is the opposite of what the word actually means.
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
Terms (oregonstate.edu)
When you get your vaccine, which I'm sure you will, many remark at getting the 'needle', but it is actually a syringe. A completely different implement. When you don't understand the terminology you obfuscate its original meaning. It happens often with people that have nigger brain.
You're so lost in your delusion you no longer understand the basis of your argument.
You are asserting we evolved from monkeys.
Only religious people make that observation because they fail terminology. It has always been maintained humans have evolved from a common hominin ancestor.
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae. Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (man) and Pan (chimp) whom share 98.6% of our DNA. Are you postulating there is no such thing as DNA? Or was that a divine creator designed it that way?
This counters ever fact in human history
Changes in diet made our ancient ancestors' brains bigger. I gather you are supposedly coming from a notion of young earth theory to surmise otherwise.
It seems that the line blurring between the scientific method and theory is now gone. Also, "status quo" .... is always nothing more than the most violent pushing for their bias to be seen as fact. (again, not science). I see you're wanting to turn this into a semantics argument and it's one you'll continue having with yourself.
"The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae. Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (man) and Pan (chimp) whom share 98.6% of our DNA.
Your response also includes.. "You are asserting we evolved from monkeys." How very interesting. You're both trying to state that we evolved from monkeys, while simultaneously trying to suggest that "common ancestor" doesn't mean derivative. How peculiar and troubling.
"Only religious people make that observation because they fail terminology." "terminology" as in a course ? Or did you mean to type "in their terminology" which then is again an argument for semantics.
"It has always been maintained humans have evolved from a common hominin ancestor." This is hilariously and historically false....and a largely flawed one. In fact your basis ,"chimps share 98.6% of our DNA" , is confusing because humans don't even share 98% of DNA between themselves. "https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news38"
"Are you postulating there is no such thing as DNA? Where did you read that ? In fact I'm pretty sure I showed just how relevant and reliable "science" uses DNA in the comparative statement I referred to regarding bananas.
"Or was that a divine creator designed it that way?" The creation exists, it's patterns exist, those measurable physical characteristics ...one might call the theory. Wouldn't it be more presumable to acknowledge that with creation that there must be a creator ?
I see you're wanting to turn this into a semantics argument and it's one you'll continue having with yourself.
Fuck man, c'mon.
You are misusing terms then proclaiming those terms mean something they don't. It's like talking in Greek explaiing how that nitwit clock boy invented a clock.
You're both trying to state that we evolved from monkeys, while simultaneously trying to suggest that "common ancestor" doesn't mean derivative. How peculiar and troubling.
You have said a few posts ago that you believe my position to be one that we evolved from monkeys.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
We evolved from a common ancestor. every post asserts this, lift your game man, this is just low-tier trolling now.
Also when you use the '>' before text it adds a quote and highlights the text, please use the functions.
"misusing terms" No. I have stated that scientific theory and the scientific method are 2 separate things. You continue to focus on terms because your actual argument is flawed, weak, and you're not very good and presenting an actual case.
It's why you focus on terms and usage instead of subject matter. Your entire argument is being able to call one thing another. For you "intelligent design" is simply "evolution on a timeline longer than we have". And it's not.
"You have said a few posts ago that you believe my position to be one that we evolved from monkeys." Nope. Wrong again. I said that I agreed that observable and miniscule changes in adaptations are prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. You're desperate to claim these are "micro-evolutions" because for you , you need that to be a thing. Without it, just understanding that the human condition isn't a set series of facts and the constant state of change is simply the body reacting for sustainability (plus gets transferred onto our offspring, not a completely different creature)
There is no "common ancestor" / missing link. It doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist.
(post is archived)