Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[HitchSlap]

What I do know is that Kenya and Tanzinia were home to the vast majority of hominid fossils. Which is not that far from the Savannah of central Africa. They obviously migrated as far as the Congo in the west, No reason their ancestors couldn't have migrated the same space to the east. The only chimpanzee fossils ever recognized as ancestral chimpanzee were found in Oldovia Gorge, where the Leaky family got famous fabricating the handy man myths.

I'm not familiar with the Leaky family "handy man myths."
Link perhaps?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not familiar with the Leaky family "handy man myths."
Link perhaps?

I'm on my cell, can't really do that right not. Wikipedia should tell you what you need to know. Try Richard and Mary Leaky as well. You might try Ancestral Passions in Google Books, best historical biography I've ever seen.

 

[Speedwell]

I think he means that homo habilis is a fraud.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm on my cell, can't really do that right not. Wikipedia should tell you what you need to know. Try Richard and Mary Leaky as well. You might try Ancestral Passions in Google Books, best historical biography I've ever seen.

What did you mean by "handyman myths," then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I do know is that Kenya and Tanzinia were home to the vast majority of hominid fossils. Which is not that far from the Savannah of central Africa. They obviously migrated as far as the Congo in the west, No reason their ancestors couldn't have migrated the same space to the east. The only chimpanzee fossils ever recognized as ancestral chimpanzee were found in Oldovia Gorge, where the Leaky family got famous fabricating the handy man myths.

You should not make attacks against people that you can't back up. Technically that is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment, even if you did not intend to deceive. As a Christian you should realize that the ban against false witness includes more than mere lying. The Leakey family fabricated no myths. You may disagree with the theory of evolution but that does not mean that people made up myths. Now it can be argued that much of Genesis is mythological. No person or even thing is being called untruthful when one does that.

 

[mark kennedy]

You should not make attacks against people that you can't back up. Technically that is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment, even if you did not intend to deceive. As a Christian you should realize that the ban against false witness includes more than mere lying. The Leakey family fabricated no myths. You may disagree with the theory of evolution but that does not mean that people made up myths. Now it can be argued that much of Genesis is mythological. No person or even thing is being called untruthful when one does that.

You really should not start of with an ad hominem fallacy with someone who knows what he is talking about. Notice what you don't have in your post, there is absolutely nothing about fossils or anything sustanative in any shape form or fashion..Its called trolling and there is someone like you in every thread who think random insults and melodrama is smart. Its not.

 

[HitchSlap]

You really should not start of with an ad hominem fallacy with someone who knows what he is talking about. Notice what you don't have in your post, there is absolutely nothing about fossils or anything sustanative in any shape form or fashion..Its called trolling and there is someone like you in every thread who think random insults and melodrama is smart. Its not.

I don't think you "know" what you're talking about, because everything you have said is anathema to what the real paleontologists have to say about it.

What is your Ph.D. in?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think you "know" what your talking about, because everything you have said is anathema to what the real paleontologists have to say about it.

What is your Ph.D. in?

Again not a single word about fossils just melodramatic insults going off like a popcorn proper. That's the second time you used an ad hominem fallacy without anything remotely substantive to support it. That's the bottom of the barel, when you have nothing but ad hominem fallacies you simply won't recover, it's intellectual sui ide.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again not a single word about fossils just melodramatic insults going off like a popcorn proper. That's the second time you used an ad hominem fallacy without anything remotely substantive to support it. That's the bottom of the barel, when you have nothing but ad hominem fallacies you simply won't recover, it's intellectual sui ide.

Do you have a Ph.D. in a relevant paleontology field?
If not, I'll take your mish-mash sentences and half thoughts as hogwash?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No We are not apes, we have a cranial capacity three times that of apes.

We are apes, just like we are mammals and tetrapods.

Your emotional objection to that, does not change the facts of our nature.

 

[mark kennedy]

We are apes, just like we are mammals and tetrapods.

Your emotional objection to that, does not change the facts of our nature.

This comes down to lineage and we are not apes, nothing in the convoluted, unsubstantiated exchanges will change that.

Four ad hominems, two begging the question of proof. You guys are really batting a thousand.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This comes down to lineage and we are not apes

No, it comes down to facts. And the facts show that we ARE apes, just like we ARE mammals.

ie: it is impossible to come up with a definition for "ape", which includes ALL apes but excludes humans (without explicitly adding '...but not humans...' to the definition).

Just like it is impossible to come up with a definition for "mammal", which includes ALL mammals but excludes humans (without explicitly adding '...but not humans...' to the definition).

In any possible sense of the word, we ARE apes (and mammals).

You can deny it all you want. You can believe whatever you want.

But the facts are the facts are the facts.

Four ad hominems, two begging the question of proof.

6 failures of correctly identify logical fallacies.

It seems as if whenever anybody corrects one of your mistakes or disagrees with you, you scream "fallacy".

You guys are really batting a thousand.

You are batting zero.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it comes down to facts. And the facts show that we ARE apes, just like we ARE mammals.

a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans and that is covered in hair and has no tail or a very short tail

: a large and stupid or rude person. (Ape. Definition)​

ie: it is impossible to come up with a definition for "ape", which includes ALL apes but excludes humans (without explicitly adding '...but not humans...' to the definition).

Yet I found one at the top of the google search.

Just like it is impossible to come up with a definition for "mammal", which includes ALL mammals but excludes humans (without explicitly adding '...but not humans...' to the definition).

Unqualified nonsense.

In any possible sense of the word, we ARE apes (and mammals).

Except a dictionary definition.

You can deny it all you want. You can believe whatever you want.

The truth will do just fine.

But the facts are the facts are the facts.

Around around in circles he goes.

6 failures of correctly identify logical fallacies.

Which begs the question of proof.

It seems as if whenever anybody corrects one of your mistakes or disagrees with you, you scream "fallacy".

Based on the content of the argument

You are batting zero.

That's four ad hominems, three begging the question of proof and still not one word about fossils.

Fish in a bucket.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans and that is covered in hair and has no tail or a very short tail

: a large and stupid or rude person. (Ape. Definition)​

Yet I found one at the top of the google search.



Unqualified nonsense.



Except a dictionary definition.



The truth will do just fine.



Around around in circles he goes.



Which begs the question of proof.



Based on the content of the argument



That's four ad hominems, three begging the question of proof and still not one word about fossils.

Fish in a bucket.

Have a nice day
Mark

We're talking taxonomy here. "Ape" in the sense of "Primate".

Not in the sense of every-day use of the word, which you would find in a dictionary.
Like the word "animal".
In every-day use, that typically means "every multi-cellular organism that isn't a human or a plant".
In the taxonomical sense, that definition doesn't include "....but not humans".

PS: you should read up on "ad hominim" because you consistently fail to use it correctly. And no, saying that isn't an "ad hominim" either.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans and that is covered in hair and has no tail or a very short tail

So ".... that is closely related to ... humans", i.e. this definition specifically states as TagliatelliMonster said, Not Human... but hey!

Anyhoo....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unqualified nonsense.
​

Wait....... are you saying that humans aren't mammals?
Seriously?​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So ".... that is closely related to ... humans", i.e. this definition specifically states as TagliatelliMonster said, Not Human... but hey!

Anyhoo....

It doesn't say that.
It says clearly, in black and white, "a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans..."
'And' does not mean something is excluded, it means something is included.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It doesn't say that.
It says clearly, in black and white, "a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans..."
'And' does not mean something is excluded, it means something is included.

so does that definition include my hairy guy then? Why/Why Not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so does that definition include my hairy guy then? Why/Why Not?

Yes, that man is included in that definition since he has a lot of hair (a whole lot) and does not have a tail. As has been stated, any definition for apes or primates or mammals will always included humans in it unless the definition specifically says "... but not humans", which no definition does, scientific or otherwise.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, that man is included in that definition since he has a lot of hair (a whole lot) and does not have a tail. As has been stated, any definition for apes or primates or mammals will always included humans in it unless the definition specifically says "... but not humans", which no definition does, scientific or otherwise.

I Concur! I'll hazard a guess though that Mark sees that definition in a decidedly different light...