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

[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.

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

Take a look at the Nazis then you know how Darwinisms are able to be extremisms on their own. But this I was not thinking abhout. I think within the USA - better to say all over the whole English speaking world - the empty discussion "creation vs evolution" is a discussion from extremists with extremists. Better to say it is an anti-discussion from extremists with extremists.

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.

What a luck that you are friendly man, who defends the good ol' American tradition of free speech. :LoL:

 

[Colin norris]

Where are they?

You must have been home schooled to have not seen this chart.
View attachment 485764

We did not evolve from apes. It was from bonoboes. You can ask ignorant questions forever but DNA does not lie. It wouldnt matter if thousands of descendents were missing, just lime bible, if you open it at any page the story continues undisturbed.

The question is always asked as some pathetic proof we didn't evolve. Only people who don't believe it could be classified as still living like bonoboes.

 

[zaangalewa]

Where are they?

You must have been home schooled to have not seen this chart.
View attachment 485764

We did not evolve from apes. It was from bonoboes. You can ask ignorant questions forever but DNA does not lie. It wouldnt matter if thousands of descendents were missing, just lime bible, if you open it at any page the story continues undisturbed.

The question is always asked as some pathetic proof we didn't evolve. Only people who don't believe it could be classified as still living like bonoboes.

A daughter to her mother: "You made me!" Mother to her daughter: "God made you!"

Who is right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Red herring.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

 

[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...

Take a look at the Nazis then you know how Darwinisms are able to be extremisms on their own. But this I was not thinking abhout. I think within the USA - better to say all over the whole English speaking world - the empty discussion "creation vs evolution" is a discussion from extremists with extremists. Better to say it is an anti-discussion from extremists with extremists.

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.

What a luck that you are friendly man, who defends the good ol' American tradition of free speech. :LoL:

 

[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...

Take a look at the Nazis then you know how Darwinisms are able to be extremisms on their own. But this I was not thinking abhout. I think within the USA - better to say all over the whole English speaking world - the empty discussion "creation vs evolution" is a discussion from extremists with extremists. Better to say it is an anti-discussion from extremists with extremists.

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.

What a luck that you are friendly man, who defends the good ol' American tradition of free speech. :LoL:

You should follow good advice.
You're gonna be handed your ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where are they?

 

[xband]

Wolves were studied evolving in Alaska in the seventies First case of evolution. in one man's lifetime.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

Red herring.

The three body problem (many body problem) is indeed older than Newton. It's exists since Kepler ... and was also known since Kopernikus ... Mathematicians like Alexis-Claude Clairaut, Leonhard Euler, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, Thorvald Nicolai Thiele, George William Hill and Henri Poincaré were busy with it. The movements are in general chaotic and need numeric approximations. But wether such numerical games show the real world or not in a concrete situation is another problem. Also in a pure deterministic world we never will know everything - except we know absolutelly everything about the conditions in the beginning. But this is for example impossible because pi is a never ending number without repeating the sequence of numbers.

 

[zaangalewa]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

You and the tree in your street - hope there is a tree in your street and his name is Joe - have a common ancestor. So you and Joe are brothers. Seems to me Saint Francis was not half the idiot many people like to see in him.

 

[LittleNipper]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

 

[Slyhunter]

Where are they?

I believe it does not go ape -> human but it forks _->ape
.....................................................................pre ape human /-> human. ie ape is our species cousin not our predecessor.

 

[Slyhunter]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

We did not evolve from apes, apes evolved from the same line that humans evolved from. apes are our species cousin not our predecessor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

We did not evolve from apes, apes evolved from the same line that humans evolved from. apes are our species cousin not our predecessor.

That I can believe th problem is scientists do not claim that.

 

[Hollie]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

I’m not aware of any scientist is trying to turn an ape into a human.

Do you read a lot of the supermarket tabloids?

 

[Blackrook]

I believe that a great deal of what scientists tell us is "settled science" is not settled at all, and may change overnight with new discoveries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years.

Or turn this.........

Into this..........

 

[BULLDOG]

We did not evolve from apes.

Indeed we did.

A scientist cannot change any ape into a human, though he play with DNA for 100 years. If a regiment of scientists cannot form humans from apes, how do you suppose nature without consideration or thought could have performed such a trick without reason?

Probably couldn't in 100 years, but we are talking many thousands of years

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where are they?

Neanderthal was one of them. Part of their genes are in us. It's how evolution works. Things mix, things then die out and the new, more powerful one moves forwards.

Like in the UK. The Celts weren't the original inhabitants. So who were? We don't know. They died out or became a part of the Celts.