Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results.

[TagliatelliMonster]

How come? Look my nickname: Quest for Truth.

So when is this quest starting?
Because for the moment, it looks more like a quest to NOT get your head out of the sand no matter what.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The satan took the lives of the Job's family.

Yeah. On a dare by god, with his explicit permission. And all that to make a point about how big a sicophant Job supposedly was. Not even the most cruel of mob bosses do such things to "test" loyalty.

Conversely, God is personally responsible for carrying out multiple genocides and infanticides, and also for instructing his radical followers to engage in such. Multiple times.

Any criminality must be condemned.

Then condemn the biggest genocidal killer of all?

 

[questfortruth]

Yeah. On a dare by god, with his explicit permission. And all that to make a point about how big a sicophant Job supposedly was. Not even the most cruel of mob bosses do such things to "test" loyalty.

Conversely, God is personally responsible for carrying out multiple genocides and infanticides, and also for instructing his radical followers to engage in such. Multiple times.

Then condemn the biggest genocidal killer of all?

God was just fine with the murder of Job's family. He was almost an accomplice. You can't let one off and blame only the other.

So, to kill God you propose, and to let innocent satan go? It is like: "John has murdered 10 people. But Bob murdered 1000000000000 people. Therefore, John is innocent."

So what's the issue here...
Are you literally incapable of learning or do you just don't care to?

OK. Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, to kill God you propose, and to let innocent satan go? It is like: "John has murdered 10 people. But Bob murdered 1000000000000 people. Therefore, John is innocent."



OK. Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

Don't assume that others make the same mistakes that you do.

 

[questfortruth]

Don't assume that others make the same mistakes that you do.

I do not get it. Are you trolling? Answer the questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, to kill God you propose, and to let innocent satan go? It is like: "John has murdered 10 people. But Bob murdered 1000000000000 people. Therefore, John is innocent."

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

OK. Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

Humans write books.
Humans are apes.

There's no need for all this confusing language.
Unless one has an agenda and a purpose to make it confusing, off course.
Which you seem to clearly have.

 

[questfortruth]

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.




Humans write books.
Humans are apes.

There's no need for all this confusing language.
Unless one has an agenda and a purpose to make it confusing, off course.
Which you seem to clearly have.

I repeat Darwin's ideas:

Some apes are humans, these are human apes, e.g. Barack Obama.

Some apes are not humans, these are genuine apes, non-human apes.

Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Why? Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

 

[ratiocinator]

I repeat Darwin's ideas:

You mean you're reiterating your inability to grasp simple ideas.

Some apes are not humans, these are genuine apes, non-human apes.

Humans are genuine apes. What on earth do you think is not genuine about them? Humans are apes, full stop, end of story, no need for any further qualifications, it's a simple, straightforward fact. What's so hard?

 

[questfortruth]

You mean you're reiterating your inability to grasp simple ideas.



Humans are genuine apes. What on earth do you think is not genuine about them? Humans are apes, full stop, end of story, no need for any further qualifications, it's a simple, straightforward fact. What's so hard?

"the most foolish things were done with a very serious face. To avoid that, smile, people. Smile!"

baron Munchausen.

 

[questfortruth]

Humans are genuine apes. What on earth do you think is not genuine about them?

Now, friend, if humans are apes, then apes are human?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I repeat Darwin's ideas:

Some apes are humans, these are human apes, e.g. Barack Obama.

Some apes are not humans, these are genuine apes, non-human apes.

Humans are "genuine apes". Just like humans are "genuine mammals".

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Why? Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

Darwin is a human. Therefor Darwin is an ape. And a primate. And a mammal. And a tetrapod. And a vertebrate. And an eukaryote. Just like all other humans.


Deal with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"the most foolish things were done with a very serious face. To avoid that, smile, people. Smile!"

baron Munchausen.

I like pie.



Did I win the "irrelevant comment" contest?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, friend, if humans are apes, then apes are human?

All humans are apes. Not all apes are humans.
Just like all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.




For crying out loud....................................

 

[questfortruth]

All humans are apes. Not all apes are humans.
Just like all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.




For crying out loud....................................

I repeat Darwin's ideas:
Some apes are humans, these are human apes, e.g. Barack Obama.
Some apes are not humans, these are genuine apes, non-human apes.

 

[ratiocinator]

Now, friend, if humans are apes, then apes are human?

You've already had this particularly illogical nonsense answered before. No, humans are a subset of apes. All chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. All oaks are trees, not all trees are oaks.

This really isn't rocket science, why are you struggling so much with something so simple?

 

[ratiocinator]

I repeat Darwin's ideas:
...
Some apes are not humans, these are genuine apes, non-human apes.

The idea of non-human apes being "genuine apes" is not from Darwin, it's your very own misunderstanding of something very, very simple.

 

[questfortruth]

You've already had this particularly illogical nonsense answered before. No, humans are a subset of apes. All chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. All oaks are trees, not all trees are oaks.

This really isn't rocket science, why are you struggling so much with something so simple?

Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Why? Darwin wrote a book, no single one of "non-human apes" has written a single book.

 

[questfortruth]

The idea of non-human apes being "genuine apes" is not from Darwin, it's your very own misunderstanding of something very, very simple.

The Theory of Evolution suggests, that we have come from apes. Not parallel to apes, not among the apes!!!

 

[ratiocinator]

The Theory of Evolution suggests, that we have come from apes. Not parallel to apes, not among the apes!!!

No, it doesn't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Darwin is not a "non-human ape". Why?

Do get a grip and pay attention! I didn't say that and that's not the question I was answering.