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
Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?
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="hecd2" data-source="post: 72442261" data-attributes="member: 177526"><p>So, we are talking here about a very well determined and limited clade, the Haplorhini which includes about 280 species consisting of the tarsiers, the New World monkeys, the Old World monkeys and the apes including man. So you should be able:</p><p>a) to inform us how many original "kinds" are represented in the Haplorhini,</p><p>b) which taxa fall into which "kinds" (for example, are chimpanzees and gibbons the same kind? What about howler monkeys and baboons? Spider monkeys and howler monkeys? Chimpanzees and bonobos? and so on.)</p><p>c) and most importantly, the rationale you used to determine the number of "kinds" and the membership of each "kind".</p><p></p><p>If you cannot answer the questions in a way that is clearly reasonable and consistent, we have every right to conclude that your concept of "kind" is ill-defined and useless in biology.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hecd2, post: 72442261, member: 177526"] So, we are talking here about a very well determined and limited clade, the Haplorhini which includes about 280 species consisting of the tarsiers, the New World monkeys, the Old World monkeys and the apes including man. So you should be able: a) to inform us how many original "kinds" are represented in the Haplorhini, b) which taxa fall into which "kinds" (for example, are chimpanzees and gibbons the same kind? What about howler monkeys and baboons? Spider monkeys and howler monkeys? Chimpanzees and bonobos? and so on.) c) and most importantly, the rationale you used to determine the number of "kinds" and the membership of each "kind". If you cannot answer the questions in a way that is clearly reasonable and consistent, we have every right to conclude that your concept of "kind" is ill-defined and useless in biology. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?
Top
Bottom