Evolution is a joke pt V

Primate

What was that 'genius'? I can't be a what?

 

http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963

You are a primate.

 

Nono, the mantra of the theist is, "you can't use wikipedia."

But let's hear them object to the Oxford dictionary: Primate
a mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands , handlike feet , and forward-facing eyes, and, with the exception of humans, are typically agile tree-dwellers.

Or let's hear an objection to Merriam-Webster: Primate
[New Latin Primates, from Latin, plural of primat-, primas] : any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)

All in all, I think DaF is tired of pretending and is running out of material for satire.

 

I forgot to give you thanks!

Thank you Lopey for furthering my argument that those who believe have been DUPED and follow blindly in the FAITH of what others say without any evidence that the science community needs for validation of any sort for a hypothesis to be even considered to be a theory.

Evolution is a faith based religion...

Also, I want everyone to read the site lopey brought to our attention… Then after you read it, is it evolution or a study to find out if predatory birds prefer brown snakes over coral snakes in taste in Costa Rico? I have no idea how they equated that subject matter with the title... if any of you can - please provide a post that links the two.. that would be interesting...

 

whatever. Its evolution by anyone's definition but yours.

 

And we will go to the definition shall we below! Let us READ!!!

Okay class now pay attention.

Primate is not a thing - it is a scientific classification. As shown in wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

When you state that humans are a classification is incorrect. As the definition stated (I can understand, and thus will teach you since you are not knowing) humans are a mammal "WITHIN" the order, which is the classification, of Primate. Primate is a word that incorporates a lot of species of life, we are not primates, but we do belong to the scientific classification that puts us with other primates.

Do you understand? Are you learned?

If you are going to pretend to know about biology, please use our terms and definitions correctly.

Do you understand? That is why I said "REPHRASE" your question...

 

Well, we know that ornithischian dinosaurs are dead-ends, however, theropods living into the present day is a lot slippier. While archaeopteryx doesn't have a pronounced keel like other contemporaries, it also has a lot of modern bird features that other contemporaries didn't have. Did those contemporaries get more bird-like while archaeopteryx became more like other dromaeosaurs? We need more evidence.

Again, biology is messy and filled with all sorts of gordian knots. It isn't physics.

So? You also patently don't understand biology, so I don't see why your opinion should hold any bearing at all on biology as a whole.

What sort of propaganda? Birds are clearly close cousins to dromaeosaurs and descended from a common ancestor with them. The problem is figuring out how it all fits together.

Because I've spent years of study on the topic and it cannot be summarized into a neat little bullet pointed list. However, in short: we see how alleles change through time in smaller organisms; we see phenotypic changes in the fossil record that conform to evolutionary predictions; it is the most accurate theory we have at the moment. All science operates on a "least-wrong" basis; even physics has done so, what with the 'ancient' theories of atoms, such as the "plum-pudding" model and everything since then.

 

Birds biting brown rubber snakes over colored ones is evolution to everyone except me? I doubt others are that stupid... But, you never know huh?

 

I understand you would rather play stupid idiotic word games than own up to your misgivings.

If you want to play word games, may I suggest you take up scrabble.

 

If I speak of primates, humans are included. As humans are a subset of the larger set of primates, that would make humans primates. You understand how supersets and subsets work, correct? If not, you have absolutely and utterly no justification talking to anyone about anything in biology ever.

 

I agree…

Plum Pudding model? I haven’t heard that in years. I’ll have to brush up on that, but I don’t see how atoms have anything to do with evolution… But, I’ll look after lunch.

Also, the changing of genes over time in smaller organisms is exactly why I have problems with evolution. Also, the fossil record is a horrible place to get information dealing with evolution since, from life that existed on this planet the fossil record represents (from what I remember) less that 2% of the life that lived on our wonderful Earth. An example is like have a trillion piece puzzle and having less than 2% of pieces and then stating you know what goes where with all the other missing pieces.

Can we discuss how you believe that in small organisms we see change that gives light to common descent?

 

Uh... Yes...

If you are a biologist (and you say you are) you know darn well that you say "order"... you say lemurs, from the order primates, are interesting creatures. You do not say the lemur primates, or primate lemurs or whatever. You use the order!

Are you saying you weren't taught to use "order" or "subspecies" when refering to life within those classifications?

I think not... and you know better!

 

Would like to debate or just spew out more sophistical bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

No word games... Just waiting for you to answer as I keep providing you where you stopped.

Also, I asked you to rephrase it, but you decided not to, and I just learned you so next time when you ask questions, you do it properly when using the classifications that species belong to and/or are members of.

Your welcome!

 

No biologist on earth would ever use that construction. If you're talking about species, you mention species (Homo sapiens), whereas higher groupings are talked about in general (the genus Canis, the phylum Tardigrada). Humans, however, are primates, and if you were discussing primates, humans are implicitly included unless specifically excluded (ie, all primates have binocular vision; all non-human primates have extensive body hair). Ergo, humans are primates.

 

Humans aren't primates. And apples aren't fruit. And rifles aren't firearms. You should add that to your standup routine.

 

Nope, but Ak did put it as it should have been within his post... Did you see that? Did you read it?

See how he put primates and humans as a subset within primates, thus stating that if you speak of Primates (the order) you speak of ALL that is within the order. AND that is one way of doing it, but if I suggesting to Ak that humans are primates, he would correct me and say that they are a subset of the larger set of primates, as he so did in his post.

Do you understand?

 

Genuine poster: "Are human beings primates?"

OP: "You can't be a primate."

Three genuine posters: "Definition of 'primate' includes humans."

OP: "Primate is not a thing, it's a classification."


Humans are primates, despite the pathetic word games. Like I said from the start, this thread is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and the OP's really starting to let his pretending show this time around. Instead of actually just saying, "yes, they're within the primate group," he does these retarded tap dancing bull(*)(*)(*)(*) semantics that wastes another page and a half of a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) thread that has no place in the religion forum to begin with.

However, in seeing the OP play his games, I am beginning to see that is actually is beneficial to the readers, because every time he lies or plays dumb and gets corrected by multiple posters with facts about evolution, the readers then can see all the reasons why evolution is a working, demonstrable fact.

 

Really? Interesting that you don't think they do, since we do... Because questions like "Are humans primates?" is just not right. You HAVE to use the order and specify! No biologist in his right mind (unless they are close friends) would say such a thing in front of an audience of peers.

Are you kidding me? That would never come out of a biologist mouth! Would you submit a thesis with that question? I doubt it...

 

A primate is a mammal that belongs to this order. So a human is a mammal that belong to a order? Really...? Also, which one of the primates is humans? Since there are three sub-categories within Primate OR does humans just go across the board and fit within all the classification under Primate?

 

Just like I said to Lopey... If humans are primates, are they Old World Monkeys? Because those is a primate... If humans are primates, are they Prosimii? Because those are primates also...

So are humans primates? Well...? I don't think so, but I do think they fall under the order of primate!

Are you learned yet?

 

I think we all understand that humans are part of the primate family of species.

The only left to argue is sophistical (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nonsense – a favorite tactic of trolls to derail threads.

Now, will the peanut gallery answer: what about Human Chromosome 2?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/199749-irrefutable-proof-evolution.html

 

This is how the english language works. All humans are primates but not all primates are humans. All apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples. All rifles are firearms but not all firearms are rifles. Humans are primates. Apples are fruit. Rifles are firearms.

 

It's nonsense because you (along with everyone else) is making it nonsense!! I told you that you needed to rephrase it - you didn't and then everybody on the planet (peanuts included) decided to post something retarded concerning me asking you to rephrase it to make it correct.

Then I posted WHY I asked you to rephrase it... I don't like people butchering biology terms (especially when I don't think they have been properly trained - not necissarily you) thus, I correct them...

It's just being proper... If you have a problem with posting correctly with biology terms - I could care less... I do wish you would answer the question I posted about three pages back!

 

Thank you, but when discussing with unknowns about classifications, just being proper, you define it so everyone is on the same page. It's just proper...

Are humans primates? Is not correct in any sense of biology.

Are humans within the primate order or classification? Are humans part of the order primates?

That is correct. I told said poster to rephrase the question - and I am right to say to rephrase it because it is wrong...