|
Post by amyghost on Apr 8, 2024 10:59:41 GMT
The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys ( as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware. Take that up with Amy. She's the one who said it was the "then-current theory." Say, do you suppose she's responsible for the March of Progress images? lol LOL, but you're bad at this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2024 11:10:51 GMT
How does the March of Progress prove that science corrected an error, and what error was corrected? Was the March of Progress the "then-current theory" or not? Because I seem to remember it being in textbooks, not Bibles. Obfuscation...not working yet again. And yet I’m the only one trying to make sense of what you’re saying…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2024 11:11:45 GMT
Take that up with Amy. She's the one who said it was the "then-current theory." Say, do you suppose she's responsible for the March of Progress images? lol LOL, but you're bad at this. Bad at what?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 10, 2024 12:48:26 GMT
Obfuscation...not working yet again. And yet I’m the only one trying to make sense of what you’re saying… Which may be a signal that everyone else in the class got it and you're the Special Ed kid in the room...
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 10, 2024 12:49:51 GMT
LOL, but you're bad at this. Bad at what? >sigh<
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2024 20:13:58 GMT
And yet I’m the only one trying to make sense of what you’re saying… Which may be a signal that everyone else in the class got it and you're the Special Ed kid in the room... That's certainly possible, but I think it has more to do with your inability and/or reluctance to answer the questions I've been asking. I mean, here I am telling you what I don't understand and asking you to clarify, and there you are accusing me of obfuscation. Perhaps teaching isn't your forte. Oh, I'm actually really good at that. I get a lot of practice and this thread has knocked off any rust. Anyway, if you don't mind getting back to the actual topic of discussion... You said fundamentalists, non-scientists, and laypeople incorrectly defined the theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys'. But you also said it was the "then-current theory" that scientists have since corrected, while the rest of the class is saying that was never the theory. So my question is a simple one: Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2024 20:27:16 GMT
You said fundamentalists, non-scientists, and laypeople incorrectly defined the theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys'. But you also said it was the "then-current theory" About 100 years before Darwin, Linnaeus, seen as the father of modern biology, lamented that while he had been unable to find any significant characteristic to separate men from apes, the “men of the cloth" would have condemned him for saying they were the same. Before this, the ancient Greeks, for instance and Mediaeval European scholars, thought that other apes - and even baboons - were odd sorts of human. Mediaeval Tunisian scholars said that man came from “the world of the monkeys”, and as mentioned already Linnaeus classified us as primates, even though he didn’t know why organisms fell into clearly-related groups. Basically nobody, until the dawn of American fundamentalist Christianity in the Victorian era (see Wilberforce below), ever doubted that humans and other apes were the same kind of thing. That, then, was the 'then-current theory'. Yes Darwin (and others like Huxley) to a certain extent did this. The change he brought was to consider men apes merely as kin with a common ancestor. Darwin said that monkeys, apes and humans must have a common ancestor because of our great similarities compared to other species. Even in his day it could be shown that we are more similar to apes than apes are to monkeys. That ancestor was indeed a type of ape or 'monkey' but, crucially, not the ones most were talking about, the modern animals. Certainly not 'just another type of human'. As already mentioned the misrepresentation of Darwin's Theory were from the usual suspects, either in jest or in all seriousness, not informed scientists. For instance, during the famous Huxley/Wilberforce debate on 30 June 1860, in the new University Museum in Oxford, During debate Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, so it is said, asked Huxley if he claimed descent from an ape on his grandmother or grandfather’s side? So essentially we have pre-Darwin theories, the Darwinian revolution which replaces those and the non specialists who misrepresent the modern evolutionary synthesis (or just misunderstand it). I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 20:56:37 GMT
You said fundamentalists, non-scientists, and laypeople incorrectly defined the theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys'. But you also said it was the "then-current theory" About 100 years before Darwin, Linnaeus, seen as the father of modern biology, lamented that while he had been unable to find any significant characteristic to separate men from apes, the “men of the cloth" would have condemned him for saying they were the same. Before this, the ancient Greeks, for instance and Mediaeval European scholars, thought that other apes - and even baboons - were odd sorts of human. Mediaeval Tunisian scholars said that man came from “the world of the monkeys”, and as mentioned already Linnaeus classified us as primates, even though he didn’t know why organisms fell into clearly-related groups. Basically nobody, until the dawn of American fundamentalist Christianity in the Victorian era (see Wilberforce below), ever doubted that humans and other apes were the same kind of thing. That, then, was the 'then-current theory'. Yes Darwin (and others like Huxley) to a certain extent did this. The change he brought was to consider mean apes merely as kin with a common ancestor. Darwin said that monkeys, apes and humans must have a common ancestor because of our great similarities compared to other species. Even in his day it could be shown that we are more similar to apes than apes are to monkeys. That ancestor was indeed a type of ape or 'monkey' but, crucially, not the ones most were talking about, which were the modern animals. Certainly not 'just another type of human'. As already mentioned the misrepresentation of Darwin's Theory were from the usual suspects, either in jest or in all seriousness not informed scientists. For instance, during the famous Huxley/Wilberforce debate on 30 June 1860, in the new University Museum in Oxford, During debate Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, so it is said, asked Huxley if he claimed descent from an ape on his grandmother or grandfather’s side? I hope that helps. While I can appreciate your move to quoting Quora instead of Wiki... amyghost: "And major swathes of the Christian community (including, yes, fundamentalists) denied the then-current theory that man evolved from ape." Maybe you should let Amy speak for herself.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2024 21:08:03 GMT
About 100 years before Darwin, Linnaeus, seen as the father of modern biology, lamented that while he had been unable to find any significant characteristic to separate men from apes, the “men of the cloth" would have condemned him for saying they were the same. Before this, the ancient Greeks, for instance and Mediaeval European scholars, thought that other apes - and even baboons - were odd sorts of human. Mediaeval Tunisian scholars said that man came from “the world of the monkeys”, and as mentioned already Linnaeus classified us as primates, even though he didn’t know why organisms fell into clearly-related groups. Basically nobody, until the dawn of American fundamentalist Christianity in the Victorian era (see Wilberforce below), ever doubted that humans and other apes were the same kind of thing. That, then, was the 'then-current theory'. Yes Darwin (and others like Huxley) to a certain extent did this. The change he brought was to consider mean apes merely as kin with a common ancestor. Darwin said that monkeys, apes and humans must have a common ancestor because of our great similarities compared to other species. Even in his day it could be shown that we are more similar to apes than apes are to monkeys. That ancestor was indeed a type of ape or 'monkey' but, crucially, not the ones most were talking about, which were the modern animals. Certainly not 'just another type of human'. As already mentioned the misrepresentation of Darwin's Theory were from the usual suspects, either in jest or in all seriousness not informed scientists. For instance, during the famous Huxley/Wilberforce debate on 30 June 1860, in the new University Museum in Oxford, During debate Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, so it is said, asked Huxley if he claimed descent from an ape on his grandmother or grandfather’s side? I hope that helps. While I can appreciate your move to quoting Quora instead of Wiki... amyghost: "And major swathes of the Christian community (including, yes, fundamentalists) denied the then-current theory that man evolved from ape." Maybe you should let Amy speak for herself. Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. And I said already, to be strictly correct, man did indeed descend from a form of ape. That theory though was really in the air only with Darwin and we've heard a classic instance (Wilberforce) mocking it. And now, avoiding the risk of being as exasperated with you here as Amy evidently is, I leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 21:11:00 GMT
While I can appreciate your move to quoting Quora instead of Wiki... amyghost: "And major swathes of the Christian community (including, yes, fundamentalists) denied the then-current theory that man evolved from ape." Maybe you should let Amy speak for herself. Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. And I said already, to be strictly correct, man did indeed descend from a form of ape. That theory though was really in the air only with Darwin and we've heard a classic instance (Wlberforce) mocking it. And now, avoiding the risk of being as exasperated with you here as Amy evidently is, I leave you to it. You aren't doing her any favors... FF: "The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys (as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware." My simple question remains unanswered.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2024 21:15:05 GMT
Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. And I said already, to be strictly correct, man did indeed descend from a form of ape. That theory though was really in the air only with Darwin and we've heard a classic instance (Wlberforce) mocking it. And now, avoiding the risk of being as exasperated with you here as Amy evidently is, I leave you to it. You aren't doing her any favors... FF: "The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys ( as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware." My simple question remains unanswered. To help I have placed the essential point in bold. I hope that helps. Sometimes being simple need patience doesn't? BFN.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 21:32:57 GMT
You aren't doing her any favors... FF: "The theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys ( as we know them today) has never been part of evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware." My simple question remains unanswered. To help I have placed the essential point in bold. I hope that helps. Sometimes being simple need patience doesn't? BFN. You're not one to preach about simplicity. There are days when I humor your convoluted nonsense, but this ain't one of them. Amy said it was the theory at one time, you say it was never the theory. The question remains evaded. Note that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2024 22:14:27 GMT
To help I have placed the essential point in bold. I hope that helps. Sometimes being simple need patience doesn't? BFN. You're not one to preach about simplicity. There are days when I humor your convoluted nonsense, but this ain't one of them. Amy said it was the theory at one time, you say it was never the theory. The question remains evaded. Note that. To help I placed the essential point in bold
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 22:26:39 GMT
You're not one to preach about simplicity. There are days when I humor your convoluted nonsense, but this ain't one of them. Amy said it was the theory at one time, you say it was never the theory. The question remains evaded. Note that. To help I placed the essential point in bold Thanks, but it's unnecessary. Your non-sequitur is unmissable. Or is it a red herring? Whatever, it doesn't matter. Amy said that at some mysterious point described only as "then," the theory was that man evolved from ape. If that's incorrect, it shouldn't be defended.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 12, 2024 11:54:58 GMT
You're not one to preach about simplicity. There are days when I humor your convoluted nonsense, but this ain't one of them. Amy said it was the theory at one time, you say it was never the theory. The question remains evaded. Note that. To help I placed the essential point in bold Amy said that at some mysterious point described only as "then"Clearly, one must exercise extreme caution in the use of adverbs around our Admin.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 13, 2024 21:13:00 GMT
To help I placed the essential point in bold Amy said that at some mysterious point described only as "then"Clearly, one must exercise extreme caution in the use of adverbs around our Admin. You continue to do the impossible. Impressive. "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"The March of Progress agrees with that, but where's the adverb? And what do you think about those who say it was never the theory?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 14, 2024 13:49:12 GMT
]You continue to do the impossible. Impressive. "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"The March of Progress agrees with that, QED then. However it was less of a proper theory then than a mockery or a misrepresentation of one by some, as already described. Most here - at least those who are not determined to drag things out - would think that the Darwinists were right and that, as said above, very often what was represented as Darwin's theory was never really that. Don't you have anything better to do?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 14, 2024 20:23:30 GMT
]You continue to do the impossible. Impressive. "the then-current theory that man evolved from ape"The March of Progress agrees with that, QED then. However it was less of a proper theory then than a mockery or a misrepresentation of one by some, as already described. Most here - at least those who are not determined to drag things out - would think that the Darwinists were right and that, as said above, very often what was represented as Darwin's theory was never really that. Don't you have anything better to do? Yet another way of saying it was never the theory. "those who are not determined to drag things out"That's some tasty irony right there.
|
|