CDZ Questions About Evolution

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The mistake those hostile to the fact of evolution make is to incorrectly perceive the Earth as 'static,' when indeed to opposite is true: the Earth is constantly changing – ocean beds become mountain ranges, rainforests become deserts – and life responds to these changes, evolving to accommodate change, where a particular species might become extinct, but life continues.

Absent evolution, life would have never manifested on this planet.

 

[FA_Q2]

Evolution DOESNT SAY we evolved from Apes. It says we SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR. Try running that over and over and over through your mind until the meaning of those words makes sense, and then you'll understand why this post of yours I am quoting TOTALLY exposes that you havent even BEGUN to study the subject, so WHY PLAY? Because: politics, and an o.c.d. for "argument." Waste of time.

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Does not change the fact that we did not evolve from apes. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

Ok, then instead of splitting hairs and playing word games, why don't you just spell out exactly what your claim is? Are the apes our ancestors or not?

It has already been made clear - we share an ancestor.

You had your chance. Obviously you are more interested in derailing this thread than you are in answering questions. Bye bye.

LOL. I directly answer your question and you run away - yet again. It is crystal clear that you are here to jam your fingers in your ears and yell nananananana rather than actually discuss anything. You have accused multiple people of dodging questions you pose when almost no one has done so but you all while you refuse to answer anything at all posed to you.

bye bye is right - trying to discuss anything with you is akin to trying to talk to a brick wall and hoping for a response.

 

[S.J.]

Still waiting to hear someone identify the "common ancestor".

 

[S.J.]

We're all familiar with the question "If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?". The answer I've always heard is that evolution is not a replacement, but an enhancement. The apes didn't disappear, they just branched off.

My question is: Why are none of the lower forms of man still in existence? The apes that we supposedly evolved from are still around but the more recent ancestors are not. If they were an enhancement of the ape, why did at least some of them not survive?

Evolution DOESNT SAY we evolved from Apes. It says we SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR. Try running that over and over and over through your mind until the meaning of those words makes sense, and then you'll understand why this post of yours I am quoting TOTALLY exposes that you havent even BEGUN to study the subject, so WHY PLAY? Because: politics, and an o.c.d. for "argument." Waste of time.

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

 

[G.T.]

Evolution DOESNT SAY we evolved from Apes. It says we SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR. Try running that over and over and over through your mind until the meaning of those words makes sense, and then you'll understand why this post of yours I am quoting TOTALLY exposes that you havent even BEGUN to study the subject, so WHY PLAY? Because: politics, and an o.c.d. for "argument." Waste of time.

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

 

[320 Years of History]

Evolution DOESNT SAY we evolved from Apes. It says we SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR. Try running that over and over and over through your mind until the meaning of those words makes sense, and then you'll understand why this post of yours I am quoting TOTALLY exposes that you havent even BEGUN to study the subject, so WHY PLAY? Because: politics, and an o.c.d. for "argument." Waste of time.

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

To be honest, I wrote that because the other member asserted that you'd "doubled down" on your idea, which is what argument by repetition is. I didn't read what you posted; I took the other members "word" for what you did write and that s/he knows a "doubling down" when they see it. I grant that, having not read what you wrote in that part of the thread, I cannot assert that you did or didn't "double down," repeat points already asserted.

Do I know the other member, in person or indirectly by the preponderance of their posts? I don't. It could well be s/he doesn't know "doubling down" (argumentatively) when they see it. One thing's certain, however, "doubling down" and then being shown to have done so isn't "trolling," it's merely pointing out the irrationality of one's approach to making a point. Even if the person accusing one of doing so mistakenly made the accusation, it'd take a lot to get from their having made a mistake, or misunderstanding the logical flaw/remarks that led them to perceive a flaw exists, to "trolling."

 

[S.J.]

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

You know exactly what I'm asking yet you want to play word games and hair splitting on definitions and terms. It's clear to me (and anyone watching) that you are unable to answer it.

 

[S.J.]

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

To be honest, I wrote that because the other member asserted that you'd "doubled down" on your idea, which is what argument by repetition is. I didn't read what you posted; I took the other members "word" for what you did write and that s/he knows a "doubling down" when they see it. I grant that, having not read what you wrote in that part of the thread, I cannot assert that you did or didn't "double down," repeat points already asserted.

Do I know the other member, in person or indirectly by the preponderance of their posts? I don't. It could well be s/he doesn't know "doubling down" (argumentatively) when they see it. One thing's certain, however, "doubling down" and then being shown to have done so isn't "trolling," it's merely pointing out the irrationality of one's approach to making a point. Even if the person accusing one of doing so mistakenly made the accusation, it'd take a lot to get from their having made a mistake, or misunderstanding the logical flaw/remarks that led them to perceive a flaw exists, to "trolling."

Ok, now can you answer my question? Obviously no one else can.

 

[G.T.]

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

You know exactly what I'm asking yet you want to play word games and hair splitting on definitions and terms. It's clear to me (and anyone watching) that you are unable to answer it.

It's word games to correct you on the very theory you're wishing to discuss? Its most basic tenant, no less?

Oh.

Ok, then.

 

[320 Years of History]

An obvious attempt to poison the well when you have no answer.

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

Well, there's no denying the two aren't the same things specifically; however, people often tend to have discussions in which they oversimplify (another logical fallacy) things, and then basing their position on the oversimplification rather than the specifics.

People who are well aware of the scope of understanding held by one another can discuss matters using simplifications, but folks who are strangers to one another really cannot do so and expect to have an effective discussion. At best, and even this isn't always so, one can assume another party speaks the same language and uses (or can be expected to use) the standard forms and conventions of that language when using it with strangers. Assuming that much, one can usually be reasonably certain that if one bothers to fully express one's ideas, the other parties to the conversation will know what one means and intends.

Much as we'd all love to do so, one cannot always and often communicate effectively in a "tweet."

 

[S.J.]

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

You know exactly what I'm asking yet you want to play word games and hair splitting on definitions and terms. It's clear to me (and anyone watching) that you are unable to answer it.

It's word games to correct you on the very theory you're wishing to discuss? Its most basic tenant, no less?

Oh.

Ok, then.

So, since you have no answer, or are not willing to give one, what is your purpose for commenting in this thread?

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh so you double down, surprise!

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

To be honest, I wrote that because the other member asserted that you'd "doubled down" on your idea, which is what argument by repetition is. I didn't read what you posted; I took the other members "word" for what you did write and that s/he knows a "doubling down" when they see it. I grant that, having not read what you wrote in that part of the thread, I cannot assert that you did or didn't "double down," repeat points already asserted.

Do I know the other member, in person or indirectly by the preponderance of their posts? I don't. It could well be s/he doesn't know "doubling down" (argumentatively) when they see it. One thing's certain, however, "doubling down" and then being shown to have done so isn't "trolling," it's merely pointing out the irrationality of one's approach to making a point. Even if the person accusing one of doing so mistakenly made the accusation, it'd take a lot to get from their having made a mistake, or misunderstanding the logical flaw/remarks that led them to perceive a flaw exists, to "trolling."

Ok, now can you answer my question? Obviously no one else can.

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Just to be sure, are these the questions you asked here and that you'd like me to answer?

• Why are none of the lower forms of man still in existence?
• The apes that we supposedly evolved from are still around but the more recent ancestors are not. If they were an enhancement of the ape, why did at least some of them not survive?

I want to point out that I take small exception with your use of "lower forms of man" rather than "earlier forms of man," which avoids making a judgment call in the question itself, thereby leaving the judgment to be made by the responder than by the inquirer. Please, however, indicate whether you expect my replies to deal with the verity of whether earlier forms of humans were indeed "lower" (and in what regard) than current humans.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

You know exactly what I'm asking yet you want to play word games and hair splitting on definitions and terms. It's clear to me (and anyone watching) that you are unable to answer it.

It's word games to correct you on the very theory you're wishing to discuss? Its most basic tenant, no less?

Oh.

Ok, then.

So, since you have no answer, or are not willing to give one, what is your purpose for commenting in this thread?

To advise you that if you want to discuss the theory of evolution, you should maybe read about it first perhaps. That's basically it.

 

[S.J.]

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, fine, but please stop trolling this thread!

I don't think s/he was "trolling" at all. I believe s/he was referring to your use of the repetition tactic/fallacious line of presentation.

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

To be honest, I wrote that because the other member asserted that you'd "doubled down" on your idea, which is what argument by repetition is. I didn't read what you posted; I took the other members "word" for what you did write and that s/he knows a "doubling down" when they see it. I grant that, having not read what you wrote in that part of the thread, I cannot assert that you did or didn't "double down," repeat points already asserted.

Do I know the other member, in person or indirectly by the preponderance of their posts? I don't. It could well be s/he doesn't know "doubling down" (argumentatively) when they see it. One thing's certain, however, "doubling down" and then being shown to have done so isn't "trolling," it's merely pointing out the irrationality of one's approach to making a point. Even if the person accusing one of doing so mistakenly made the accusation, it'd take a lot to get from their having made a mistake, or misunderstanding the logical flaw/remarks that led them to perceive a flaw exists, to "trolling."

Ok, now can you answer my question? Obviously no one else can.

I'll answer comprehensively the questions you asked if you agree to do the same for the two I asked in your "Questions about Creationism" thread. How about that? Deal?

Just to be sure, are these the questions you asked here and that you'd like me to answer?

• Why are none of the lower forms of man still in existence?
• The apes that we supposedly evolved from are still around but the more recent ancestors are not. If they were an enhancement of the ape, why did at least some of them not survive?

I want to point out that I take small exception with your use of "lower forms of man" rather than "earlier forms of man," which avoids making a judgment call in the question itself, thereby leaving the judgment to be made by the responder than by the inquirer. Please, however, indicate whether you expect my replies to deal with the verity of whether earlier forms of humans were indeed "lower" (and in what regard) than current humans.

Ok. And I don't care what you want to call them. Lower forms, earlier forms, whatever. And please don't give me links, I want to hear it from you, not someone else.

 

[S.J.]

How is my question Argument by Repetition
And why don't YOU try answering it?

The theory of evolution does not state that we evolved FROM apes.
It states we shared a COMMON ANCESTOR.

YOU got that wrong, the most basic tenant of the theory itself, and sticking you with that clear cut distinction is not minutia, it sheds a sun bright light on you not even having done the first bit of research on the topic you're trying to have an adult discussion about.

How is this not relevant? It's plainly ridiculous.

You know exactly what I'm asking yet you want to play word games and hair splitting on definitions and terms. It's clear to me (and anyone watching) that you are unable to answer it.

It's word games to correct you on the very theory you're wishing to discuss? Its most basic tenant, no less?

Oh.

Ok, then.

So, since you have no answer, or are not willing to give one, what is your purpose for commenting in this thread?

To advise you that if you want to discuss the theory of evolution, you should maybe read about it first perhaps. That's basically it.

You can't answer even one question and you're advising me to read about it first? lol

 

[Syriusly]

Evolution is not a theory. It is observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time. Nobody disputes that reality.

If we want to debate a theory on the subject, might I suggest debating "Natural Selection", which is actually a theory.

Why the word games? There are no issues with a generic meaning of "evolution" even if it is described as "observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time." Neither is there any controversy over "natural selection" which is inherently implied within "evolution."

Everyone else understands that the two substantive issues regarding this subject are how life started on this planet and how different species developed from it. If you are unable or unwilling to address these issues, please try another forum.
observable changes/adaptations/mutations in species over time

How life started on this planet is not an evolution question.

 

[Syriusly]

What a waste of time these threads have been.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still waiting to hear someone identify the "common ancestor".

Aegyptopithecus - Ape-Monkey Ancestor? - Online Biology Dictionary

 

[320 Years of History]

What a waste of time these threads have been.

They've been entertaining and informative, the latter likely not being in the way they were intended.

 

[FA_Q2]

What a waste of time these threads have been.

They've been entertaining and informative, the latter likely not being in the way they were intended.

most definitely. Though I would venture a guess that most seen this a mile away.