Life at poal [334x750 - 40KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (52).

[–] • 1 pt

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.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

"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.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

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.

What you actually said word for word.

Also, if the idea of monkey to man were true, we wouldn't see primates today ~ DefinitelyNotAGlowNigger

"misusing terms" No. I have stated that scientific theory and the scientific method are 2 separate things.

Again exactly what you said word for word.

"A theory doesn't mean best guess" Except that's exactly what it means.

It's why you focus on terms and usage instead of subject matter.

We can't get through any of the subject matter if you keep misrepresenting what im saying by "best-guessing" what the words im using mean to you on any given occasion. Clear and cut definitions are required, where we are on the same page is how me move forward.

You're desperate to claim these are "micro-evolutions" because for you , you need that to be a thing.

Absolutely anecdotal, it doesn't need to be anything, which also doesn't make it any more incorrect by the way.

I have stated evolution is supported by the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology.

I have suggested that if you don't want to look into these, and most religious people go on observation, then if you can concede microevolution, macroevolution IS the exact same thing. It is many many, microevolutions, time and time again. Lots of small changes, turn into more noticeable changes over a longer period.

There is no "common ancestor" / missing link. It doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist yet because there are gaps in the archeological hominin table. (cdn.britannica.com)

We know there is a pie, but someone cut some slices out.

The more evidence we find, the more accurate the table. It doesn't refute the findings because DNA can still show comparative analysis between species. So we can see how closely related some primates were and how related they were to others they were. That way you can develop a hierarchy, hence we even know there are missing links. Not that there is no link and its a leap or guess saying, ahh fuck it, not sure what fits in here.

Misconceptions about gaps (evolution.berkeley.edu)

> 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. What you actually said word for word. > Also, if the idea of monkey to man were true, we wouldn't see primates today ~ DefinitelyNotAGlowNigger *** > "misusing terms" No. I have stated that scientific theory and the scientific method are 2 separate things. Again exactly what you said word for word. > "A theory doesn't mean best guess" Except that's exactly what it means. > It's why you focus on terms and usage instead of subject matter. *** We can't get through any of the subject matter if you keep misrepresenting what im saying by "best-guessing" what the words im using mean to you on any given occasion. Clear and cut definitions are required, where we are on the same page is how me move forward. > You're desperate to claim these are "micro-evolutions" because for you , you need that to be a thing. Absolutely anecdotal, it doesn't need to be any**thing**, which also doesn't make it any more incorrect by the way. I have **stated** evolution is supported by the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology. I have **suggested** that if you don't want to look into these, and most religious people go on observation, then if you can concede microevolution, macroevolution IS the exact same thing. It is many many, microevolutions, time and time again. Lots of small changes, turn into more noticeable changes over a longer period. > There is no "common ancestor" / missing link. It doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist yet because there are gaps in the archeological [hominin table.](https://cdn.britannica.com/92/392-050-14244BE2/scheme-evolution-human-lineage-hominin-species-bars.jpg) We know there is a pie, but someone cut some slices out. The more evidence we find, the more accurate the table. It doesn't refute the findings because DNA can still show comparative analysis between species. So we can see how closely related some primates were and how related they were to others they were. That way you can develop a hierarchy, **hence we even know there are missing links. Not that there is no link** and its a leap or guess saying, ahh fuck it, not sure what fits in here. [Misconceptions about gaps](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml)

parent
link