Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Big contradictions in the evolution theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jet Black" data-source="post: 17610458"><p>Just to correct both of you. Firstly Emsworth is not really correct in that Evolutionary theory says this. Evolutionary theory does not define whether an organism is one thing or another. Secondly, there is no individual who just says "humans are a subcategory of ape" humans are a subcategory of ape, because the definition of ape includes humans.</p><p> </p><p>I double that Carico would deny that she is a vertebrate, if she has a spine. I doubt that she would deny that she is a mammal: Mammals <em>additionally </em>have warm blood, fur and the females lactate (that is produce milk) and give birth to live young. I doubt she would deny that she has forward facing eyes, a generalised dentition (as opposed to a dentition specialized for eating just meat or plants) and has flexible digits. That would make her a primate. I doubt that she would deny that she has a larger than average brain, no tail, short fingernails and trichromatic vision. That would make her an ape. I doubt that in addition to these features she would deny that she is suited to bipedality (though admittedly not as well as <em>Homo erectus</em> was) has an exceptionally large brain cavity, well developed Broca's region, a chin, fully opposable thumb and a foramen magnum positioned to the front rather than the back of the skull. That makes her human.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jet Black, post: 17610458"] Just to correct both of you. Firstly Emsworth is not really correct in that Evolutionary theory says this. Evolutionary theory does not define whether an organism is one thing or another. Secondly, there is no individual who just says "humans are a subcategory of ape" humans are a subcategory of ape, because the definition of ape includes humans. I double that Carico would deny that she is a vertebrate, if she has a spine. I doubt that she would deny that she is a mammal: Mammals [i]additionally [/i]have warm blood, fur and the females lactate (that is produce milk) and give birth to live young. I doubt she would deny that she has forward facing eyes, a generalised dentition (as opposed to a dentition specialized for eating just meat or plants) and has flexible digits. That would make her a primate. I doubt that she would deny that she has a larger than average brain, no tail, short fingernails and trichromatic vision. That would make her an ape. I doubt that in addition to these features she would deny that she is suited to bipedality (though admittedly not as well as [i]Homo erectus[/i] was) has an exceptionally large brain cavity, well developed Broca's region, a chin, fully opposable thumb and a foramen magnum positioned to the front rather than the back of the skull. That makes her human. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Big contradictions in the evolution theory
Top
Bottom