If Darwinism is true, there ought to be specimens of that in-between species between ape and human...

[zaangalewa]

View attachment 486469

Said this man during the eighth day of creation.

 

[the other mike]

View attachment 486469

Said this man during the eighth day of creation. It's not over yet.

So you have a 'special' insight when it comes to interpreting what the true meanings in the Bible's riddles are ?

 

[zaangalewa]

View attachment 486469

Said this man during the eighth day of creation. It's not over yet.

So you have a 'special' insight when it comes to interpreting what the true meanings in the Bible's riddles are ?

What do you ask here, if this is a question at all and not only an attack?

 

[Rigby5]

Blacks

Wrong.
It turns out that from studying mitochondrial DNA, they discovered all humans are actually Blacks out of Africa only about 100,000 years ago. Which is not enough time for any significant evolution. Which means whites are just an inbred type of Black.

 

[zaangalewa]

Blacks

Wrong.
It turns out that from studying mitochondrial DNA, they discovered all humans are actually Blacks out of Africa only about 100,000 years ago. Which is not enough time for any significant evolution. Which means whites are just an inbred type of Black.

Between "Blacks" and "Whites" is nearly no difference at all. Both are the the same race. Indeed I saw once a picture of today living "races" with a continuous stream of all brown-tones between very white and very black. So "Black" and "White" is not really a good category. In the area of Somalia-Ethiopia live for example negrous, who look like Europeans only with a little darker skin. It exist also "Blacks" with blond hairs - and this genes came not from "Whites". The combination of blue eyes and black skin also existed here in Europe. And in general existed also a mix of "newcomers" from Africa in Europe and Asia with the homo Neanderthaliensis and the homo Desinova, who had a long evolution in the North.

But the sapiens people who had lived 100,000 years ago in Europe are - as far as I know - not ancestors of the current Europeans and Asians. They died out as far as I heard. A short time ago scientist found genetic information from a homo sapiens who had lived 45,000 years ago here in the near. He's also not an ancestor of the Europeans and Asians, which live today. In the moment I don't know how old the oldest ancestor of all whites is - here in Europe - but it seem to be less than 50,000 years.

The lionman - my avatar - (or perhaps the lionman maker) is one of my ancestors. That's nearly sure. He - or they - lived about 32,000 years ago not far from here. And they - whoever they were - brought not lions from Africa to Europe. Lions lived here in the heart of Europe in Germany 32,000 years ago. And also many other animals lived here which we know from Africa. We speak in such contextes really about a long, long time.
20,000 years ago for example the first wolve started to wolvesize human beings. The wolves found out it's a good idea to ask human beings what to do, if they don't have any plan what to do. Intelligent creatures. Why to think, if others are able to think for you? Use human smartness! Today they are a big bandwidth of dogs - but indeed not many genetical information had changed.

By the way: Who likes to miss god - and who likes to miss dogs? Why all this crazy dramata in the English speaking world in discussions about evolution?

 

[Hollie]

Personally I believe god did both create Adam and Eve from scratch and create other people by evolution. Cain had to marry some one as did Adam and Eve's other kids. I just don't see the evidence evolution happened the way science says with out more evidence.

I think it’s pretty clear there will never be enough evidence to convince you of the fact of evolution. The evidence is not in doubt among the relevant science community. There is literally no evidence for the Magical Kingdom of Eden, yet you choose to believe that unquestioningly. What does that say about your objective decision-making skills?

you believe with out actual evidence so don't talk to me about religion.

Your conspiracy theory that there is evidence for biological evolution stands in contrast to the documented evidence.

It is a pattern of behavior for religionists such that you do tend to be anti-science. Evidence really is irrelevant to the religionist because the faith nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of theistic belief but one endemic to all of them.

I never claimed evidence of adam and eve. I accept that on faith, like you accept the non existent proof of man from ape like creature on faith.

I have no need for faith in the process of biological evolution. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a belief. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know Adam and Eve existed as supernatural creations 6,000 years ago" -- then of what need is there for evidence? How does anyone provide evidence of the supernatural.

On the other hand, iological history can be source with reasoned, supported arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith? Well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience,The facts support it.

I have already provided ample evidence of the progression of an ape-like creature to modern human. I don’t need faith to reach conclusions about the supported science.

you can NOT provide actual evidence that an ape like creature from 7 million years ago developed into modern man.

Actually, I CAN provide actual vidence.

Hominid Species

first paragraph....

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.

In other words guesses assumptions inference and more guesses.

In other words, hard evidence that is undeniable except to those whose feelings are hurt. The evidence for evolution is vast and compelling while the notion of a 6,000 year old planet being supernaturally created by partisan gods is promoted without evidence by charlatans.

you keep arguing about something almost no one believes. As to your "evidence" it clearly states in the opening paragraph they can not actually prove the claim because it is fragmentary and broken with multiple points not in existence.

How can there be evidence of something that doesn’t exist?

Your own LINK ADMITS in the first paragraph last sentence that they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.

I re-read the link and found no statement about “they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.”

That seems to be an expression of your hurt feelings.

What I did find in the article is the statement, Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”

Strange, that. Your commentary is contradicted by the evidence. Why would the gods leave evidence such that “there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”, if, as you claim, there is no evidence?

Could it be the gods have played a cruel joke on you?

Why would the gods leave such fossil evidence dating back millions of years on a 6,000 year old planet?

LOL you can not understand simple english let me help..... the fossils are far from complete, which means a LOT is missing..... the evidence is often fragmentary, which means no actual records exist that they have to guess and infer that connections exist because they don't actually have the fossils or any other method to connect the different supposed species connections..... there is enough to give a good outline of evolutionary history, which means with no actual fossil connections and no actual evidence we will use our fragmentary evidence and make some wild ass guesses.....

LOL, you’re sidestepping around the fossil evidence. You still haven’t produced the complete fossil evidence for Adam & Eve so we can assume that fable is just that, a fable. You still haven’t explained how fossils dating back millions of years can exist on a 6,000 year old planet. Unless you’re using some “new wave” Bible, a 6,000 year old planet is a part of the A&E fable.

You can insist on refusing to accept the actual evidence of hominid fossils supplied to you and the clear progression of evolutionary biology but living in denial does nothing to support Ark’s cruising the seas.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Personally I believe god did both create Adam and Eve from scratch and create other people by evolution. Cain had to marry some one as did Adam and Eve's other kids. I just don't see the evidence evolution happened the way science says with out more evidence.

I think it’s pretty clear there will never be enough evidence to convince you of the fact of evolution. The evidence is not in doubt among the relevant science community. There is literally no evidence for the Magical Kingdom of Eden, yet you choose to believe that unquestioningly. What does that say about your objective decision-making skills?

you believe with out actual evidence so don't talk to me about religion.

Your conspiracy theory that there is evidence for biological evolution stands in contrast to the documented evidence.

It is a pattern of behavior for religionists such that you do tend to be anti-science. Evidence really is irrelevant to the religionist because the faith nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of theistic belief but one endemic to all of them.

I never claimed evidence of adam and eve. I accept that on faith, like you accept the non existent proof of man from ape like creature on faith.

I have no need for faith in the process of biological evolution. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a belief. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know Adam and Eve existed as supernatural creations 6,000 years ago" -- then of what need is there for evidence? How does anyone provide evidence of the supernatural.

On the other hand, iological history can be source with reasoned, supported arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith? Well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience,The facts support it.

I have already provided ample evidence of the progression of an ape-like creature to modern human. I don’t need faith to reach conclusions about the supported science.

you can NOT provide actual evidence that an ape like creature from 7 million years ago developed into modern man.

Actually, I CAN provide actual vidence.

Hominid Species

first paragraph....

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.

In other words guesses assumptions inference and more guesses.

In other words, hard evidence that is undeniable except to those whose feelings are hurt. The evidence for evolution is vast and compelling while the notion of a 6,000 year old planet being supernaturally created by partisan gods is promoted without evidence by charlatans.

you keep arguing about something almost no one believes. As to your "evidence" it clearly states in the opening paragraph they can not actually prove the claim because it is fragmentary and broken with multiple points not in existence.

How can there be evidence of something that doesn’t exist?

Your own LINK ADMITS in the first paragraph last sentence that they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.

I re-read the link and found no statement about “they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.”

That seems to be an expression of your hurt feelings.

What I did find in the article is the statement, Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”

Strange, that. Your commentary is contradicted by the evidence. Why would the gods leave evidence such that “there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”, if, as you claim, there is no evidence?

Could it be the gods have played a cruel joke on you?

Why would the gods leave such fossil evidence dating back millions of years on a 6,000 year old planet?

LOL you can not understand simple english let me help..... the fossils are far from complete, which means a LOT is missing..... the evidence is often fragmentary, which means no actual records exist that they have to guess and infer that connections exist because they don't actually have the fossils or any other method to connect the different supposed species connections..... there is enough to give a good outline of evolutionary history, which means with no actual fossil connections and no actual evidence we will use our fragmentary evidence and make some wild ass guesses.....

LOL, you’re sidestepping around the fossil evidence. You still haven’t produced the complete fossil evidence for Adam & Eve so we can assume that fable is just that, a fable. You still haven’t explained how fossils dating back millions of years can exist on a 6,000 year old planet. Unless you’re using some “new wave” Bible, a 6,000 year old planet is a part of the A&E fable.

You can insist on refusing to accept the actual evidence of hominid fossils supplied to you and the clear progression of evolutionary biology but living in denial does nothing to support Ark’s cruising the seas.

look you fuck loon your own link ADMITS there is no fossil record that shows any such thing. And again you brain dead lying stupid fuck almost no one believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[Hollie]

Personally I believe god did both create Adam and Eve from scratch and create other people by evolution. Cain had to marry some one as did Adam and Eve's other kids. I just don't see the evidence evolution happened the way science says with out more evidence.

I think it’s pretty clear there will never be enough evidence to convince you of the fact of evolution. The evidence is not in doubt among the relevant science community. There is literally no evidence for the Magical Kingdom of Eden, yet you choose to believe that unquestioningly. What does that say about your objective decision-making skills?

you believe with out actual evidence so don't talk to me about religion.

Your conspiracy theory that there is evidence for biological evolution stands in contrast to the documented evidence.

It is a pattern of behavior for religionists such that you do tend to be anti-science. Evidence really is irrelevant to the religionist because the faith nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of theistic belief but one endemic to all of them.

I never claimed evidence of adam and eve. I accept that on faith, like you accept the non existent proof of man from ape like creature on faith.

I have no need for faith in the process of biological evolution. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a belief. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know Adam and Eve existed as supernatural creations 6,000 years ago" -- then of what need is there for evidence? How does anyone provide evidence of the supernatural.

On the other hand, iological history can be source with reasoned, supported arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith? Well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience,The facts support it.

I have already provided ample evidence of the progression of an ape-like creature to modern human. I don’t need faith to reach conclusions about the supported science.

you can NOT provide actual evidence that an ape like creature from 7 million years ago developed into modern man.

Actually, I CAN provide actual vidence.

Hominid Species

first paragraph....

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.

In other words guesses assumptions inference and more guesses.

In other words, hard evidence that is undeniable except to those whose feelings are hurt. The evidence for evolution is vast and compelling while the notion of a 6,000 year old planet being supernaturally created by partisan gods is promoted without evidence by charlatans.

you keep arguing about something almost no one believes. As to your "evidence" it clearly states in the opening paragraph they can not actually prove the claim because it is fragmentary and broken with multiple points not in existence.

How can there be evidence of something that doesn’t exist?

Your own LINK ADMITS in the first paragraph last sentence that they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.

I re-read the link and found no statement about “they do not have any thing more then disjointed unconnected evidence not actually linked to each other.”

That seems to be an expression of your hurt feelings.

What I did find in the article is the statement, Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”

Strange, that. Your commentary is contradicted by the evidence. Why would the gods leave evidence such that “there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.”, if, as you claim, there is no evidence?

Could it be the gods have played a cruel joke on you?

Why would the gods leave such fossil evidence dating back millions of years on a 6,000 year old planet?

LOL you can not understand simple english let me help..... the fossils are far from complete, which means a LOT is missing..... the evidence is often fragmentary, which means no actual records exist that they have to guess and infer that connections exist because they don't actually have the fossils or any other method to connect the different supposed species connections..... there is enough to give a good outline of evolutionary history, which means with no actual fossil connections and no actual evidence we will use our fragmentary evidence and make some wild ass guesses.....

LOL, you’re sidestepping around the fossil evidence. You still haven’t produced the complete fossil evidence for Adam & Eve so we can assume that fable is just that, a fable. You still haven’t explained how fossils dating back millions of years can exist on a 6,000 year old planet. Unless you’re using some “new wave” Bible, a 6,000 year old planet is a part of the A&E fable.

You can insist on refusing to accept the actual evidence of hominid fossils supplied to you and the clear progression of evolutionary biology but living in denial does nothing to support Ark’s cruising the seas.

look you fuck loon your own link ADMITS there is no fossil record that shows any such thing. And again you brain dead lying stupid fuck almost no one believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

There's that good Christian spirit.

Odd that one of the links supplied to you identifies a history of fossil evidence such that: "Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans."

Yet, you claim "look you fuck loon your own link ADMITS there is no fossil record that shows any such thing."

I've seen nothing of any evidence to indicate the 6,000 year old fossil record of A&E.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Humans did not evolve from apes

Sure they did. I think there might be a semantic disconnect, here. The common ancestor of all apes was an ape. That includes humans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

look you fuck loon your own link ADMITS there is no fossil record that shows any such thing.

Liar.

 

[Dadoalex]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

Nonresponsive.

What means this arrogant answer?

It means that the collection of words you assembled is absolute nonsense as a response to the proposition that just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Yóu are funny. Nice.

Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread. Maybe knowing what the thread is about would help you structure responses that make sense.

Or perhaps I should throw the information of your amusing statement here into a black hole and ask myselve whether it will come back or not with the Hawking radiation wether this exists or not.

It's by the way very important to make a difference between "theory" and "empiricism". Nothing exists because it is only in someones - or everyones - mind. A "quosl" also not exists in any mind, This means not that a "quosl" exists in reality - except this "quosl" which I created now. So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? Your ability to think in logical structures seem also not to be the best, You think it is plausible that such a missing link exist - other think it is not plausible - ¿or is it in the opposit? - whatever. That's all. ... No - that's not all. Every time we'll find a missing link we will get two new missing links.

Well maybe I'm not a smart as you.
No, that's not right.
Maybe the droppings in an outhouse are not as smart as you...
No that's not right either.
Perhaps a change of tack...
That is among the dumbest irrelevancies to drop out of what passes for a human brain that anyone has seen in several lifetimes.

I'm not a hunter but if I follow a set of tracks
and they disappear
Only to reappear later
I do not assume that the creature disappeared and reappeared later. That would be as stupid as assuming that because you can't find B that A does nor proceed C.
I assume something happened to wipe the tracks from my view.

Now why don't you go back and educate yourself on the topic then maybe, but I doubt it, you can post a lucid relevant response.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

zaangalewa

"So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? "

First, there is nothing "special" about it. That is a specious appeal to emotion on your part.

Second, we know the intermediate species exist because the universe follows deterministic, physical laws. We don't have to have a picture of Baby Mount Everest to know that a smaller version of it once existed where it stands. Any suggestion to the contrary would be utterly absurd. The things you are implying and the irrational doubt you are fomenting are equally absurd, and for precisely the same reasons.

 

[Blackrook]

zaangalewa

"So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? "

First, there is nothing "special" about it. That is a specious appeal to emotion on your part.

Second, we know the intermediate species exist because the universe follows deterministic, physical laws. We don't have to have a picture of Baby Mount Everest to know that a smaller version of it once existed where it stands. Any suggestion to the contrary would be utterly absurd. The things you are implying and the irrational doubt you are fomenting are equally absurd, and for precisely the same reasons.

Doubt about your version of events is "irrational"?

Why?

Because you say so?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doubt about your version of events is "irrational"?

That specific doubt is, for precisely the reasons i described. Not having the tools in your toolbox to address the points i actually made, you invent this moronic non sequitur to make life easier for yourself.

And its not "my version", you weirdo. It's the established fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We didn't really evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with them

And that ancestor was an ape. This is the cladistic definition of "ape".

 

[zaangalewa]

zaangalewa

"So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? "

First, there is nothing "special" about it. That is a specious appeal to emotion on your part.

I used the word "special" here in sense of the word "concrete". And the question I had was a 100% philosophical question. By the way: The traditional German word for "critics" is "hinterfragen" = "try to ask the bottom of the problem". The anglicism which is used today for critics is the German word "streiten" = "battle", which means in your language also to argue, to dispute.

Second, we know the intermediate species exist because the universe follows deterministic, physical laws.

Automatically we know nothing because of detertministic physical laws in case of the sphere of living creation. The living creation is structured in a complex organisation, which we call normally "chaos". Example: You have a good idea about the weather of tomorrow - but not any good idea about the weather of tomorrow next year. What we know if we miss a link is just simple that we miss a link. What's the explanation for this needs research.

We don't have to have a picture of Baby Mount Everest to know that a smaller version of it once existed where it stands.Any suggestion to the contrary would be utterly absurd.

Maybe - maybe not. We don't know on what reason we miss the missing link. This question could for example be a totally unimportant question because it has another explanation, which we still don't know. But how to find this explanation if no one asks?

The things you are implying and the irrational doubt you are fomenting are equally absurd, and for precisely the same reasons.

I will never understand why US-Americans always argue like psychopaths. I don't miss any missing link. For me it's only a game to speak about this theme. Perhaps we will find something what's fascinating - perhaps we will find nothing. But US-Americans seem always to fight a total war.

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

Nonresponsive.

What means this arrogant answer?

It means that the collection of words you assembled is absolute nonsense as a response to the proposition that just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Yóu are funny. Nice.

Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread. Maybe knowing what the thread is about would help you structure responses that make sense.

Or perhaps I should throw the information of your amusing statement here into a black hole and ask myselve whether it will come back or not with the Hawking radiation wether this exists or not.

It's by the way very important to make a difference between "theory" and "empiricism". Nothing exists because it is only in someones - or everyones - mind. A "quosl" also not exists in any mind, This means not that a "quosl" exists in reality - except this "quosl" which I created now. So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? Your ability to think in logical structures seem also not to be the best, You think it is plausible that such a missing link exist - other think it is not plausible - ¿or is it in the opposit? - whatever. That's all. ... No - that's not all. Every time we'll find a missing link we will get two new missing links.

Well maybe I'm not a smart as you.

If you don't use drugs and alcohol and you don't have a sickness which is bad for your cerebral metabolism then you are as smart as I - or smarter, because my life was not so easy and I have some damages on my own.

No, that's not right.
Maybe the droppings in an outhouse are not as smart as you...
No that's not right either.
Perhaps a change of tack...
That is among the dumbest irrelevancies to drop out of what passes for a human brain that anyone has seen in several lifetimes.

I'm not a hunter but if I follow a set of tracks
and they disappear
Only to reappear later
I do not assume that the creature disappeared and reappeared later. That would be as stupid as assuming that because you can't find B that A does nor proceed C.
I assume something happened to wipe the tracks from my view.

Now why don't you go back and educate yourself on the topic then maybe, but I doubt it, you can post a lucid relevant response.

Hmm - I'm not sure who is weird now. I think what I say is relevant for this theme here. But indeed I normally avoid to discuss with US-Americans about such themes. I guess everyone in the world is avoiding to do so. The problem is the growing extremism and lack of orientation in the USA, which has a lot to do with such neverending themes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Automatically we know nothing because of detertministic physical laws in case of the sphere of living creation.

Totally false. How absurd. You are attributing magical nonsense to life, for whatever reason.

 

[Dadoalex]

Where are they?

Why?
We knew there were black holes long before anyone discovered one.
Because it has not been found does not mean it is not there.
Even if never found its only impact is that evolution remains a theory.

"Darwinism"is in best case the start of a special form of biological research over long times and distances - and in worst case only an explanation for everything and nothing or just simple another word for racism. But biological evolution means you have biological parents. This is no theory. Everyone has parents. A mother and a father. And they all came from a first cell - or better to say from a first cause (which was uncaused, otherwise it would not had been a first cause). And who survived for example because he was adopted and had learned from his social parents "to fit" will not find the compete motor for the own survival in the own genetical structure.

Nonresponsive.

What means this arrogant answer?

It means that the collection of words you assembled is absolute nonsense as a response to the proposition that just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Yóu are funny. Nice.

Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread. Maybe knowing what the thread is about would help you structure responses that make sense.

Or perhaps I should throw the information of your amusing statement here into a black hole and ask myselve whether it will come back or not with the Hawking radiation wether this exists or not.

It's by the way very important to make a difference between "theory" and "empiricism". Nothing exists because it is only in someones - or everyones - mind. A "quosl" also not exists in any mind, This means not that a "quosl" exists in reality - except this "quosl" which I created now. So why should a special missing link exist as long as we know nothing about? Your ability to think in logical structures seem also not to be the best, You think it is plausible that such a missing link exist - other think it is not plausible - ¿or is it in the opposit? - whatever. That's all. ... No - that's not all. Every time we'll find a missing link we will get two new missing links.

Well maybe I'm not a smart as you.

If you don't use drugs and alcohol and you don't have a sickness which is bad for your cerebral metabolism then you are as smart as I - or smarter, because my life was not so easy and I have some damages on my own.

No, that's not right.
Maybe the droppings in an outhouse are not as smart as you...
No that's not right either.
Perhaps a change of tack...
That is among the dumbest irrelevancies to drop out of what passes for a human brain that anyone has seen in several lifetimes.

I'm not a hunter but if I follow a set of tracks
and they disappear
Only to reappear later
I do not assume that the creature disappeared and reappeared later. That would be as stupid as assuming that because you can't find B that A does nor proceed C.
I assume something happened to wipe the tracks from my view.

Now why don't you go back and educate yourself on the topic then maybe, but I doubt it, you can post a lucid relevant response.

Hmm - I'm not sure who is weird now. I think what I say is relevant for this theme here. But indeed I normally avoid to discuss with US-Americans about such themes. I guess everyone in the world is avoiding to do so. The problem is the growing extremism and lack of orientation in the USA, which has a lot to do with such neverending themes.

I'm not sure how a thread about Darwin and Evolution translates into extremism but...

My suggestions are
1. If you don't know the topic refrain from making comments, especially comments implying such knowledge, because not everyone will show you the same kindness; and
2. If you don't know the topic learn it. this is not a public school and we, whatever side we're on, are not your teachers.

 

[zaangalewa]

Automatically we know nothing because of detertministic physical laws in case of the sphere of living creation.

Totally false. How absurd. You are attributing magical nonsense to life, for whatever reason.

Try to solve the "simple" physics of Newton for only three objects like planets, then you will find out that this is a big problem.



Thanks to people like Fibonacci and Feigenbaum and many others we know for example such things: