Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:42 pm BS continues

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:35 am Fuck off, Age.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 4:36 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:00 pmWhat evidence would you accept for human evolution?

Well, two things: first, a complete accounting of all the intermediate stages of development of human beings, and secondly, a complete fossil record of the (allegedly) billions of "missing links" and failed evolutionary stages of human development, as a matter of empirical confirmation.
Oh, and you'd have to show that God didn't exist, too, since He says it happened otherwise.

You still don't understand evidence.

I certainly do. A complete fossil record would be good empirical evidence.

The fossil record, though incomplete, is nonetheless evidence for human evolution.

Well, the record should include millions of 'failed' mutations, eliminated by random mutations that did not produce a survival advantage; so we should be neck deep in such mutations, given the Evolutionist's claim that evolution proceeds by eliminating such failed attempts, and randomness means there must be millions of them. So it should be the case that for every fossil that demonstrates a successful mutation, we should have hundreds, thousands or millions that include mutations that failed...and where are they?

Present the record, then...minus the apes, which we now know are a different genetic "branch" from the humans, and minus the various alleged "ancestors" that have already been proven to be frauds: so no Piltdown Man, no Nebraska Man, no Java Man...and what have you got left?

And then ask yourself why the assemblers of the alleged "record" were so eager to accept fraudulent "links," when they're supposed to be scientists?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:42 pm BS continues

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:35 am Fuck off, Age.

LOL What this one just calls 'BS' it is ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF COUNTERING and REFUTING, and as such the ONLY response and come back it has is to tell me to 'Fuck off'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, SHOWS HOW IMMATURE some adults REALLY ARE, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 4:36 pm Well, two things: first, a complete accounting of all the intermediate stages of development of human beings, and secondly, a complete fossil record of the (allegedly) billions of "missing links" and failed evolutionary stages of human development, as a matter of empirical confirmation.
Oh, and you'd have to show that God didn't exist, too, since He says it happened otherwise.

You still don't understand evidence.

I certainly do. A complete fossil record would be good empirical evidence.

The fossil record, though incomplete, is nonetheless evidence for human evolution.

Well, the record should include millions of 'failed' mutations, eliminated by random mutations that did not produce a survival advantage; so we should be neck deep in such mutations, given the Evolutionist's claim that evolution proceeds by eliminating such failed attempts, and randomness means there must be millions of them. So it should be the case that for every fossil that demonstrates a successful mutation, we should have hundreds, thousands or millions that include mutations that failed...

This one REALLY DOES HAVE NO IDEA, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pm and where are they?

In your IMAGINATION, ONLY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pm Present the record, then.

.

LOL 'This' coming from the very one who CLAIMS that some 'thing' created absolutely EVERY thing, and all at one moment, has male genitals.

But, has absolutely NO evidence at all for. Let alone any actual proof.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pm .minus the apes, which we now know are a different genetic "branch" from the humans, and minus the various alleged "ancestors" that have already been proven to be frauds: so no Piltdown Man, no Nebraska Man, no Java Man...and what have you got left?

INSTEAD, A 'thing', with a penis and gonads, created ALL animals ALL AT ONCE, right "immanuel can"?

'This' REALLY was how BLIND and STUPID some human beings WERE, back when this was being written.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pm And then ask yourself why the assemblers of the alleged "record" were so eager to accept fraudulent "links," when they're supposed to be scientists?

Ask "yourself" why you are so eager to believe things to be absolutely true when there is NOT even A SHRED of evidence existing, let alone ANY proof, AT ALL, for them

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:13 pmPresent the record, then...minus the apes, which we now know are a different genetic "branch" from the humans, and minus the various alleged "ancestors" that have already been proven to be frauds: so no Piltdown Man, no Nebraska Man, no Java Man...and what have you got left?

Well, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but a simple google search comes up with:
Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Nakalipithecus, Ouranopithecus, Samburupithecus, Chororapithecus, Oreopithecus, Sivapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:55 am Well, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but a simple google search comes up with:
Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Nakalipithecus, Ouranopithecus, Samburupithecus, Chororapithecus, Oreopithecus, Sivapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus.

So when Eubulides asks you which one of those qualify as (failed mutations of) humans, you say...?

Perhaps you could start with discernment criterias for humans vs non-humans.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:03 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:55 am Well, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but a simple google search comes up with:
Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Nakalipithecus, Ouranopithecus, Samburupithecus, Chororapithecus, Oreopithecus, Sivapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus.

So when Eubulides asks you which one of those qualify as (failed mutations of) humans, you say...?

You don't understand evolution, Eubilides. If by 'humans' you mean modern homo sapiens, none of the foregoing are mutations.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:19 am You don't understand evolution, Eubilides. If by 'humans' you mean modern homo sapiens, none of the foregoing are mutations.

You don't understand your own theory, Will Bouwman.

Can you identify any failed mutations of whatever you classify yourself as? Show me some failed variants of Will Bouwman.
Which individual specimen would you consider almost you, but not quite you?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:22 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:19 am You don't understand evolution, Eubilides. If by 'humans' you mean modern homo sapiens, none of the foregoing are mutations.

You don't understand your own theory, Will Bouwman.

Can you identify any failed mutations of whatever you classify yourself as? Show me some failed variants of Will Bouwman.
Which individual specimen would you consider almost you, but not quite you?

In my theory, a fairly standard interpretation of evolution, a failed mutation is one that cannot reproduce and therefore has no direct involvement in continued evolution.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:22 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:19 am You don't understand evolution, Eubilides. If by 'humans' you mean modern homo sapiens, none of the foregoing are mutations.

You don't understand your own theory, Will Bouwman.

Can you identify any failed mutations of whatever you classify yourself as? Show me some failed variants of Will Bouwman.

How MANY of the other variants of the 200 to 300 million 'sperm', which failed in 'that ejaculation' that created 'the one' known, here, as "will bouwman" would like to have shown TO you, EXACTLY?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:22 am Which individual specimen would you consider almost you, but not quite you?

you could PICK FROM ANY of the 200 to 300 million sperm, which 'almost became 'the one' called and known as "will bouwman", here?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:31 am In my theory, a fairly standard interpretation of evolution, a failed mutation is one that cannot reproduce and therefore has no direct involvement in continued evolution.

I don't understand. All of the examples you listed reproduces successfully. For prolonged periods of time. You even carry some of their DNA.

When IC asked you to produce examples of "failed mutations" you selected them because...?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:38 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:31 am In my theory, a fairly standard interpretation of evolution, a failed mutation is one that cannot reproduce and therefore has no direct involvement in continued evolution.

I don't understand. All of the examples you listed reproduces successfully. For prolonged periods of time. You even carry some of their DNA.

When IC asked you to produce examples of "failed mutations" you selected them because...?

What has 'failed mutations' even got to with 'evolution', itself?

In fact HOW do you even DEFINE the 'evolution' word, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE IF 'this one' WILL CLARIFY, and DEFINE, 'this time'.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:48 am blah blah blah

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:35 am Fuck off, Age.

Define "define" before you demand others define anything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:48 am blah blah blah

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:35 am Fuck off, Age.

Define "define" before you demand others define anything.

I have NEVER 'demanded' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, here.

I JUST ASKED you, 'HOW do you even DEFINE the 'evolution' word, EXACTLY?'

And, what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that you will NOT, AGAIN, CLARIFY, and DEFINE, 'this time' AS WELL.

Now, WHY, EXACTLY, did you even BEGIN to IMAGINE or BELIEVE that I 'demanded' some thing, here?

Let 'us' SEE if it WILL CLARIFY, 'this time'.

By the way, the word 'define' can be defined as, 'explaining or expressing the meaning of some thing'.

How do you define the 'define' word, EXACTLY?

Also, what has defining the 'define' word got to do with your discussion about 'evolution', and the 'evolution' word, EXACTLY?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:38 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:31 am In my theory, a fairly standard interpretation of evolution, a failed mutation is one that cannot reproduce and therefore has no direct involvement in continued evolution.

I don't understand. All of the examples you listed reproduces successfully. For prolonged periods of time. You even carry some of their DNA.

When IC asked you to produce examples of "failed mutations" you selected them because...?

I'm pretty certain they would not qualify as "failed mutations" in Canspeak; at least not of humans. So I'm curious to see how Mr Can accounts for them.