Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not familiar with the Leaky family "handy man myths."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 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.I'm not familiar with the Leaky family "handy man myths."
Link perhaps?
What did you mean by "handyman myths," then?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 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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
Do you have a Ph.D. in a relevant paleontology field?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.
No We are not apes, we have a cranial capacity three times that of apes.
This comes down to lineage and we are not apes, nothing in the convoluted, unsubstantiated exchanges will change that.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
Four ad hominems, two begging the question of proof.
You guys are really batting a thousand.
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.
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 are batting zero.
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
So ".... that is closely related to ... humans", i.e. this definition specifically states as TagliatelliMonster said, Not Human... but hey!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
Unqualified nonsense.
So ".... that is closely related to ... humans", i.e. this definition specifically states as TagliatelliMonster said, Not Human... but hey!
Anyhoo....
so does that definition include my hairy guy then? Why/Why Not?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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?