I thought he said irony because, as he interpretted it, exactly what I said couldn't happen, happened, so it was ironic that I would say that.
I then explained why it wasn't ironic.
Your meaning is a much too political for his usual posts, though I do admit yours is the more intelligent interpretation.
Also, I don't buy the 4 sequels to the original Planet of the Apes as "canon." The original film ended perfectly with the humans anihilating eachother with nukes and chimps taking over in about 2000 years...though it would take much longer than 2000 years for evolution to work that well. They had to create 2 sequals to explain that disparity...which is why I think it should have ended with the first film.
Except "taking over" is not the same, contextually, as you are using it in. Putting it in context with what we were talking about earlier...humans ACTUALLY being overthrown by chimps rather than killing themselves leaving a power vacuum.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
I dont think thos idea holds water either because the "Ape" has had time to "Evolve " and is still an "Ape" If one buys the theory of evolution they must take into consideration there would be no apes today if ,infact, Homo Sapiens actually evolved from primates.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
I actually do not understand the points your are making. Something about evolution, apes, etc.
This part, especially, is confusing: "there would be no apes today if, in fact, Homo sapiens actually evolved from primates."
That makes no sense. I do not even know how that is supposed to make sense.
You are saying that there would be no ape species existing today IF humans evolved from primates?
HOLY SHIT is that such a confusing statement. Mostly because it is utterly *insert bad word about intelligence, here* if I'm interpreting it correctly.
Humans are primates. Humans are apes.
Chimps are primates. Chimps are apes.
Apes would not exist if humans evolved from primates? That statement is as ridiculous and non sequitur as saying that watermelon tastes like 32.
I guess if you're under the assumption that there cannot be more than one species of ape in existence at a time, it makes sense. But that would be *insert bad word about intelligence, here*.
We can take a shit on the idea that multiple species cannot evolve into the same Hominidae Family by pointing you to the thousands of other species that belong, genetically, to the same Families.
This really your first time hearing this angle? It was used a few times as trolling-bait in the Religion forum here a years pasted. I've seen it used in a few other forums too where religion and evolution where clashed.
EG "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes here today? Wouldn't they be human."
KMC Community Forums
Apr 23rd, 2011 11:50 AM
