What are your thoughts on this?

[Bradskii]

Can't this matter be discussed without personal critiques? Take note for example that the word "you" is rarely found in my responses to others.

It's difficult pointing out that what you believe is religiously based and runs counter to basic science without referring to 'you' and to what 'your' beliefs are. If you are wrong about something then I have to refer to you in order to correct you. But I'm more than happy to get back to whatever it was people were talking about before you joined this minor diversion.

 

[ozso]

It's difficult pointing out that what you believe is religiously based and runs counter to basic science without referring to 'you' and to what 'your' beliefs are. If you are wrong about something then I have to refer to you in order to correct you. But I'm more than happy to get back to whatever it was people were talking about before you joined this minor diversion.

If I can discuss this topic or the original topic without making it personal, so can anyone else.

 

[Bradskii]

If I can discuss this topic or the original topic without making it personal, so can anyone else.

Unless you are making incorrect statements. Then it's your statement that has to be corrected. I could keep saying things like 'Well, if someone thought a human wasn't a primate then that person would be wrong because...' But it's easier to say 'Well, you are wrong because...'

It just saves typing.

Meanwhile...back to where we were before primates and chimps and hominini..?

 

[ozso]

Unless you are making incorrect statements. Then it's your statement that has to be corrected. I could keep saying things like 'Well, if someone thought a human wasn't a primate then that person would be wrong because...' But it's easier to say 'Well, you are wrong because...'

It just saves typing.

One can critique the argument presented without critiquing the person presenting it. I do so with great ease most of the time.

Meanwhile...back to where we were before primates and chimps and hominini..?

Yes chimps were never humans or vice versa.

Oh you mean back to the original topic. It's pretty clear that LGBTQTXX+ is on a campaign to brainwash young children.

 

[Bradskii]

One can critique the argument presented without critiquing the person presenting it. I do so with great ease most of the time.

Again, if you make a claim that is patently wrong, it's you I have to correct. You are not suggesting 'Some people might consider humans and primates to be taxonomically different'. It's you making the claim.

Yes chimps were never humans or vice versa.

What on earth did that have to do with anything?

Can we please get back to the thread?

 

[ozso]

Again, if you make a claim that is patently wrong, it's you I have to correct. You are not suggesting 'Some people might consider humans and primates to be taxonomically different'. It's you making the claim.

I'm sure most everyone else is just as capable of attacking the argument without critiquing the person giving it.

What on earth did that have to do with anything?

Can we please get back to the thread?

Oh you mean back to the original topic. It's pretty clear that LGBTQTXX+ is on a campaign to brainwash young children.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm sure most everyone else is just as capable of attacking the argument without critiquing the person giving it.

OK, let's give it a go. I won't mention you at all. These are just some general corrections to statements made in this thread:

The use of the term 'humanoid' has nothing to do with taxonomy. It is not a biological classification. It just means 'human like'. Anyone using it more likely confused it with 'hominid'.

There aren't humans and primates. Because humans are primates.

Primates aren't similar to humans. That would be like someone saying that cars are similar to Lamborghinis.

One can tell the difference between any given primate and another. But one cannot differentiate between a primate and a human, because a human is a primate.

Chimps and bonobos aren't the closest primates to humans because they are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree. A closer primate would be Homo erectus, one of most recent ancestors and a lot closer in physical make up to us than any other primate.

Most biologists, when asked about any difference between a chimp and a human would invariably point out how close we are, sharing close to 99% of our dna.

There are actually mammals that could have been confused with humans - Homo erectus, who were very similar to us. But none extant.

There are 6 taxonomical kingdoms: Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia. We belong to the last one so we are most definitely part of the animal kingdom. As opposed to the fungi kingdom, or the plant kingdom.

No chimp remains could be confused with ancient pre human remains because chimps didn't exist at the same time as pre humans.

 

[ozso]

OK, let's give it a go. I won't mention you at all. These are just some general corrections to statements made in this thread:

Or it could just be taken for granted that those reading this thread also went to high school.

The use of the term 'humanoid' has nothing to do with taxonomy. It is not a biological classification. It just means 'human like'. Anyone using it more likely confused it with 'hominid'.

There aren't humans and primates. Because humans are primates.

Primates aren't similar to humans. That would be like someone saying that cars are similar to Lamborghinis.

One can tell the difference between any given primate and another. But one cannot differentiate between a primate and a human, because a human is a primate.

Chimps and bonobos aren't the closest primates to humans because they are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree.

Chimps and bonobos are the current living primates that are closest to humans.

A closer primate would be Homo erectus, one of most recent ancestors and a lot closer in physical make up to us than any other primate.

Homo erectus was non-human.

Most biologists, when asked about any difference between a chimp and a human would invariably point out how close we are, sharing close to 99% of our dna.

Yet the difference between a chimp and a human are plainly obvious. Again, there's no way a chimp could be mistaken as a human or vice versa.

There are actually mammals that could have been confused with humans - Homo erectus, who were very similar to us. But none extant.

Yes, they have been confused as human ancestors, but they are not.

There are 6 taxonomical kingdoms: Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia. We belong to the last one so we are most definitely part of the animal kingdom. As opposed to the fungi kingdom, or the plant kingdom.

Again, most likely nearly all of us here we're taught that in high school.

No chimp remains could be confused with ancient pre human remains because chimps didn't exist at the same time as pre humans.

There's no such thing as an ancient pre-human. There were just humans and non-human primates.

 

[Bradskii]

Chimps and bonobos are the current living primates that are closest to humans.

Correct. But not the closest that has ever been.

Homo erectus was non-human.

Homo actually means human. Saying that Home erectus in not human is like saying aureum anulum (a gold ring) is not a ring. What you might mean is that he wasn't the same as us - Homo sapien.

Yet the difference between a chimp and a human are plainly obvious. Again, there's no way a chimp could be mistaken as a human or vice versa.

Nobody said they could. But it needs to be pointed out how close we are genetically. And genetics plays a huge part in determining how close species are together. That's the main point here.

Yes, they have been confused as human ancestors, but they are not.

Your belief system clashes with the science. Those that believe in a created man will agree with you.

Again, most likely nearly all of us here we're taught that in high school.

Those that might say that we are not part of the animal kingdom (as opposed to the plant kingdom) might have missed that class.

There's no such thing as an ancient pre-humam. There were just humans and non-human primates.

Your belief system clashes with the science. Those that believe in a created man will agree with you.

 

[ozso]

Correct. But not the closest that has ever been.

Homo actually means human. Saying that Home erectus in not human is like saying aureum anulum (a gold ring) is not a ring. What you might mean is that he wasn't the same as us - Homo sapien.

What they dubed "homo erectus" was not a pre-human. It was a non-human primate.

Nobody said they could. But it needs to be pointed out how close we are genetically. And genetics plays a huge part in determining how close species are together. That's the main point here.

Which goes to show how easily an ancient non-human primate could mistakenly called a pre-humam.

Those that might say that we are not part of the animal kingdom (as opposed to the plant kingdom) might have missed that class.

Again, 99.9% of the time when the term "animal kingdom" is used, pertains to all species other than humans. A lack of nit-picking does not note a lack of basic education.

 

[rjs330]

To admit is to reluctantly confess. As an ESL
( English as Second Language ) learner, I make use of dictionaries.

In view of the various other negative thigs you
choose to make up about me, your choice of
" reluctant confession "- like I knew all along I
was wrong but did it anyway- was with plain intent.
Unless of course you are merely unfamiliar with your own language and just say things, unaware of what they mean.

That view is the more charitable one.
There's a touch of the naif in simply not knowing
and nothing untoward intended.

You might betimes try the " more charitable" approach yourself. It's said to be a Christian virtue.

The absurd nonsense you posted re evolution
does tend to bolster the view that you merely don't
know any better.

And of course bolsters
what I said about overall creliability of views
from such a source as posts things so ill considered.

Which suggests a more apt analogy than your
" grains of sand".

Being that enough cow- leavings makes a manure pile.

Sorry, I don't really follow. You said there were egregious books. That's a statement of admission that there are. How else am I supposed to interpret that? That you actually meant there aren't egregious books?

Since we seem to be confused I think you can answer this question even if English is your second language. Are there egregious books or not? Yes or no.

I don't think I made up any negative things about you. Please explain.

I don't really give hoot about what you think about evolution. I know that evolution from a common ancestor theory is unscientific. But I honestly am not that interested in discussing it. It's not an important enough topic for me. You may believe whatever you wish.

Yes your dismissal of the LGBT agenda to convert the kids due to a lack of acknowledgement of all the things being done is quite astounding.

At least you understand the concept of adding things up. Because when you add up all the LGBT droppings I mentioned you definitely do get a manure pile.

 

[rjs330]

The earliest known hominid lived around 2.3 million years ago. Say hi to grandad:

View attachment 334590

Man, I hate to say it but your grandad isn't strong on good looks. You must have inherited your good looks from you grandmothers side.

 

[Bradskii]

What they dubed "homo erectus" was not a pre-human. It was a non-human primate.

C'mon, you must have looked this up?

Homo erectus evolved around two million years ago, and was the first known human species to walk fully upright. Homo erectus: Ancient humans survived longer than we thought

About two million years ago, a new set of fossils began to appear in the human fossil record. Designated as Homo erectus, they show evidence of increases in both body size and brain size. Homo erectus - A Bigger, Smarter, Faster Hominin Lineage

Fossils of these short and stocky humans...https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-erectus/

Homo erectus, (Latin: “upright man”) extinct species of the human genus (Homo) Homo erectus | Definition, Characteristics, Skull, Diet, Tools, & Facts

Your problem is that you are using a colloquial (and somewhat religiously based) definition of human (even to the point earlier of saying that we're not part of the animal kingdom). This is a discussion about taxonomy. You implying that 'it's not what I would call human' just doesn't cut it.

Which goes to show how easily an ancient non-human primate could mistakenly called a pre-humam.

Dna doesn't do that. We don't have enough dna from H. erectus to use it.

Again, 99.9% of the time when the term "animal kingdom" is used, pertains to all species other than humans.

Again, we are talking taxonomy. Kingdom Animalia means animal kingdom. The use in common terminology doesn't apply. You're making the same mistake as you did in not classing H. erectus as human. I did tell you, 'homo' is Latin for human. It's the genus. Erectus and sapien are the species. You need to learn to differentiate.

 

[Bradskii]

Man, I hate to say it but your grandad isn't strong on good looks. You must have inherited your good looks from you grandmothers side.

I dunno. You be the judge:

Say hi to grandma.

 

[ozso]

It's certainly a fallacy to conclude that one must agree with every scientific theory in existence. It's actually okay to not hold to a couple of them.

 

[Bradskii]

It's certainly a fallacy to conclude that one must agree with every scientific theory in existence. It's actually okay to not hold to a couple of them.

That's true. For me as well. And I always find it helps to know something about what I reject so I'm somewhat confident about the reasons why I'm rejecting it.

 

[ozso]

C'mon, you must have looked this up?

Homo erectus evolved around two million years ago, and was the first known human species to walk fully upright. Homo erectus: Ancient humans survived longer than we thought

About two million years ago, a new set of fossils began to appear in the human fossil record. Designated as Homo erectus, they show evidence of increases in both body size and brain size. Homo erectus - A Bigger, Smarter, Faster Hominin Lineage

Fossils of these short and stocky humans...https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homo-erectus/

Homo erectus, (Latin: “upright man”) extinct species of the human genus (Homo) Homo erectus | Definition, Characteristics, Skull, Diet, Tools, & Facts

Yeah they put a lot of work into trying to connect extinct non-human primates to humans. Very elaborate.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah they put a lot of work into trying to connect extinct non-human primates to humans.

They're not non human. I explained that. They may not be what you think of as human. In fact, I know they're not. But as these are accepted scientific terms, your opinion on this matter doesn't count. You might as well argue about what a joule is or what a photon is.

 

[ozso]

That's true. For me as well. And I always find it helps to know something about what I reject so I'm somewhat confident about the reasons why I'm rejecting it.

When a theory is rejected there's a tendency by some to conclude that the person rejecting it, must have no knowledge of it, even though they have no background information or evidence with which to base that conclusion on.

 

[Bradskii]

When a theory is rejected there's a tendency by some to conclude that the person rejecting it, must have no knowledge of it, even though they have no background information or evidence with which to base that conclusion on.

If someone is posting on a forum about this topic and makes at least 6 factual errors in as many posts then one could safely assume that the person is exhibiting limited knowledge about the topic.