Turtles are the only rational answer in an irrational existence.
Off-topic, but Iâm glad someone besides me is digging Stand Still Stay Silent.
1 Like
I presume by the above youâre answering the question posed below
Are you using âmonkeysâ in a technical, taxonomical sense? Would a talking ape be satisfactory proof?
Edited for typo.
2 Likes
What an interesting link.
Here is the first sentence of the final paragraph:
You have me completely confused as to what you hope to communicate by replying to my post with that link I wonât even try to speculate as to your intention, but Iâll repeat the question robulus posed in reply to you earlier.
And Iâll repeat my own query about your response to him, which was:
My question is this: Would you accept talking apes?
2 Likes
7 Likes
Thereâs a legend that Orang Utans are as smart as us, they just donât let on, in case we give them jobs to do. Your position is idiotic, by the way. I just thought Iâd cheer everyone up a bit with the Orang Utan story. Good, isnât it?
8 Likes
Sorry about the confusion. My gmail account can be challenging at times.
Talking apes?
Sure. Not those trained by biologists to press buttons though. I can teach
my dog to do that, but I like my dog and communicate to him in his language.
Using a source that treats allegorical fictions as actual events isnât helping your argument.
[quote]@Someguy
Theory of Evolution.
Theory of Gravity.
Theory of Light.
Theory of Relativity.[/quote]
Newtonian mechanics have been supersceded because theyâre provably âwrongâ ⌠except they havenât completely been supersceded because even though theyâre âwrongâ they are still âright enoughâ for an most every-day uses. And theyâre an awful lot easier to user than the modern replacements.
Heck, even âflat earth theoryâ has itâs place. If I throw a ball into the air and want to know where itâll land, âflat earth theoryâ will work fine and be a lot easier than treating Earth as a sphere. Similarly, if I want to build a house and start by laying a concrete pad ⌠ech, treating Earth as a flat plane will work just fine.
Scientists have definately moved on since Darwins day, but Darwins basic theories are still useful for an awful lot of people.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, yes 
The good news is that it seems to have closed down sometime in the last couple of years.
No worries on that count. We can leave Washoe and Nim Chimpsky and their ilk out of this.
You, personally, already know quite a few of these talking apes.
With a current population in the neighborhood of 7.3 billion, Homo sapiens sapiens are the most numerous of the great apes, and very nearly all of them can talk.
9 Likes
Talking monkeys.
I canât tell if youâre answering my question or hurling insults at me.
1 Like
Well played Sir. Well played.
1 Like
Are you using some âhow to argue against evolutionâ checklist?
Darwin used investigation of multiple species extinction events as a bridge between micro and macro-evolution - very clever given that he had no better way to look at long timeframes.
Since Darwinâs time, however, transitional fossils, DNA sequencing and observed speciation make macro-evolution as proven as micro.
2 Likes
Just donât give monkeys (or orangutans) guns.
Guns Donât Kill People - Monkeys With Guns Kill People.:
3 Likes
I agree.
However, the person I was replying to seemed to think any flaw in Darwinâs theory meant that the idea of evolution itself was wrong.
I am not continuing the arguement with them though as their ideas are not even wrong.
1 Like
The London specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered a couple years after the first edition of On the Origin of Species.
It is a remarkable transitional fossil. Of course Archaeopteryx was a good living species, but Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, etc. all show intermediate forms between classic dinosaurs and classic birds.
4 Likes
I like that a lot, even though I donât believe. Iâll try it on my evolution-skeptical mom.
This clip from a UK program might explain our stance on the matter -
https://youtu.be/Sy32xB5U9cY?t=24m36s (start at 24:36).
