Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[KCfromNC]

I didn't see any facts to adress here so I will go to your other post. thanks

No harm to me if you want to ignore them.

 

[VirOptimus]

we are both hominids, but humans are of the genus "homo" , there are three other hominids, Pan, Ponga, and Gorilla. All four homids are different animal sub groups, because they have different genus's and cannot inter-mate. So they would fall under different animal kinds by a taxonomical genus barrier.

?

What on earth does the above have to do with my post?

 

[Amittai]

what post is that?

Mostly up to 99, plus several more after. Including 187.

It was your question after all. We're interested in joining in it.

 

[createdtoworship]

No harm to me if you want to ignore them.

I literally saw no facts to adress, so I didn't. You can point them out again if you wish, I really didn't see any.

 

[createdtoworship]

?

What on earth does the above have to do with my post?

I assume you were using science in your allegation that "by definition humans are apes"

if you were not using science, but assuming, then my bad....I didn't understand.

 

[createdtoworship]

Mostly up to 99, plus several more after. Including 187.

It was your question after all. We're interested in joining in it.

yes if you could please hyper link any posts that I did not address I would be happy to address them, thanks. I apologize, I have about three debates going on so I don't have a lot of time in between to search threads for posts. I hope you understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

I assume you were using science in your allegation that "by definition humans are apes"

if you were not using science, but assuming, then my bad....I didn't understand.

Humans are apes yes, your post didnt refute that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Humans are apes yes, your post didnt refute that.

well just for example, let analyze that. Humans have a radial ilium bone as I posted a picture above. Apes have a flat ilium. This is for knuckle walking, a radial ilium is for 360 degree motion of a biped. Also apes have what is called a 'shovel face,' So when you see a skull you can instantly tell if it is ape like or human like, you can post any skull picture and see the difference. Thirdly, humans have a nose ridge, a bone that sticks out at the top of the nose. Apes again have a shovel face and no nose ridge. So there are a few of the many differences between apes and humans, I have not even talked about the structure of the hands and feet. So again evidence supports that humans are not apes apparently. Lastly, apes can not mate with humans, so biologically the reproductive systems of both mammals are incompatible. So this proves they are not the same 'type' of animal.

 

[VirOptimus]

well just for example, let analyze that. Humans have a radial ilium bone as I posted a picture above. Apes have a flat ilium. This is for knuckle walking, a radial ilium is for 360 degree motion of a biped. Also apes have what is called a 'shovel face,' So when you see a skull you can instantly tell if it is ape like or human like, you can post any skull picture and see the difference. Thirdly, humans have a nose ridge, a bone that sticks out at the top of the nose. Apes again have a shovel face and no nose ridge. So there are a few of the many differences between apes and humans, I have not even talked about the structure of the hands and feet. So again evidence supports that humans are not apes apparently. Lastly, apes can not mate with humans, so biologically the reproductive systems of both mammals are incompatible. So this proves they are not the same 'type' of animal.

Humans are apes by definition.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’

 

[createdtoworship]

Humans are apes by definition.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’

yes by all means please provide evidence and quotes from your links to present them as evidence.

for example I can show refutation links to the idea that humans and apes share common DNA for example here:
“Unique Human Origins”: Explained | Evolution News

ultimately we can posts links all day long, but it's what we post here on this forum that counts.

 

[VirOptimus]

yes by all means please provide evidence and quotes from your links to present them as evidence.

for example I can show refutation links to the idea that humans and apes share common DNA for example here:
“Unique Human Origins”: Explained | Evolution News

ultimately we can posts links all day long, but it's what we post here on this forum that counts.

You dont seem to understand, humans are apes by definition. Whatever you post wont change that fact.

And evolutionnews? Really? Its about as truthful as conservapedia.

 

[createdtoworship]

You dont seem to understand, humans are apes by definition. Whatever you post wont change that fact.

And evolutionnews? Really? Its about as truthful as conservapedia.

I am fairly sure you have never even heard of that site, am I right? But by all means provide an objective source that defines humans as apes. I will wait. I presume this is all talk, with no sources. Again I can provide links all day, but it's what you post here that matters.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am fairly sure you have never even heard of that site, am I right? But by all means provide an objective source that defines humans as apes. I will wait. I presume this is all talk, with no sources. Again I can provide links all day, but it's what you post here that matters.

Ape - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Ape - Wikipedia

for one that is not what I asked for. Again we can post links that contradict each other all night. And by the way wikipedia is the last resource I would use in debate. You can create an account, log in, and alter any page you want at random. So that is hardly objective data. It works well for fast food data but has errors when someone uses it for scientific or medical reasons, I have a host of links to provide if you want. But what will help this debate along is giving arguments for your views, I typically don't post links as people will just find some bias in the host of the link, as I did with yours. So if you copy the arguments to the forum, it leaves a paper trail of your arguments and allows you to see what the arguments are. Anyway, just trying to help you.

 

[Shemjaza]

ok lets talk about this for a bit. Neanderthal is human like, lucy species (Australopithecus) is ape like. So far no transitional forms.
But lets talk about lucy she is probably the most popular.

Most will use pictures of her hip bone that are graphically altered and not actual photos from a museum for instance of the actual bones.




here is LUCY


Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1 | eFossils Resources


even here:


http://www.efossils.org/page/bonevie...sis/AL 288-1


note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip


and note below how a human like hip wraps around for 360 degree balance for walking upright (not knuckle dragging)


News/Media Center


do you see the same bone configuration of the ilium (specifically) in actual photos of fossils, or 3D CT scans?

Sure Lucy is closer related to the common ancestor of chimps then we are... but she is structurally far more upright then a chimp.

What about Homo habilis and Homo erectus?

Surely they they both stretch your flawed binary of "ape" or "human"?

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure Lucy is closer related to the common ancestor of chimps then we are... but she is structurally far more upright then a chimp.

What about Homo habilis and Homo erectus?

Surely they they both stretch your flawed binary of "ape" or "human"?

I can look into them but typically when you have homo behind them they are of the same genus as homosapien, just a different species. I haven't studied every species of man, but for the most part that is the case. Neanderthal for example is just a prehistoric man. Lucy is ape like and cannot reproduce with a human species and thus is a different genus.

 

[Shemjaza]

I can look into them but typically when you have homo behind them they are of the same genus as homosapien, just a different species. I haven't studied every species of man, but for the most part that is the case. Neanderthal for example is just a prehistoric man. Lucy is ape like and cannot reproduce with a human species and thus is a different genus.

Often the same genus can't reproduce either.

If you look at erectus and habilis you'll see creatures are are clearly not modern humans, but also far more human-like then any non human modern ape.

 

[createdtoworship]

Often the same genus can't reproduce either.

If you look at erectus and habilis you'll see creatures are are clearly not modern humans, but also far more human-like then any non human modern ape.

that is because they are the same genus as modern humans. I never said species can't evolve into other species, I said that anatomy prohibits one genus from evolving into another, namely because you evolve to another genus, and you can't reproduce with the previous genus, at least no genus we know of can.


it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a different Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny fishes are provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be contrary to nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be different from Rana and the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all the world of difference between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)

from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[Shemjaza]

that is because they are the same genus as modern humans. I never said species can't evolve into other species, I said that anatomy prohibits one genus from evolving into another, namely because you evolve to another genus, and you can't reproduce with the previous genus, at least no genus we know of can.


it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a different Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny fishes are provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be contrary to nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be different from Rana and the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all the world of difference between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)

from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

You are ignoring that species and genus are just human groupings for ease of classification, not some inherent unbreakable physical attribute.

An individual Homo habilis would look much more like an Australopithecus afarensis then it would look like a modern human.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are ignoring that species and genus are just human groupings for ease of classification, not some inherent unbreakable physical attribute.

An individual Homo habilis would look much more like an Australopithecus afarensis then it would look like a modern human.

What I was saying is that most homo genus species are related to humans but I never said I researched all human species, but I told you the defining differences between homo and Australopithecus species so you can check yourself. A shovel face is ape like, and a nose ridge is homo sapien like. And habilis from what it looks like looks like an ape to me, it has a shovel face, and if you want to disprove that, just find a skull of habilis that has a nose ridge like a human does. But the only way to prove habilis is a transition of ape to man is to have one mate with both a human and an ape, and if it produces fertile offspring you know it's related to both ape and human. But seeing we can't do that objectively, there is no evidence of a transition factually speaking, and thus no evidence of macro evolution. There is an ongoing debate over this from discovery institute's casey luskin and some secular scientists, they are back and forth on it, but you can read the latest edition here:
On Hominid Fossils and Universal Common Ancestry, Denis Lamoureux Distorts | Evolution News