Rendlesham Forest U...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Rendlesham Forest UFO incident - an appraisal

18 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
3,081 Views
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 16 years ago

This is not splitting hairs. You are using careless language that simply serves to increase the confusion many people have around evolution.

Since a "missing link" doesn't exist, and since the link's title was designed to pull in punters rather than reflect the science the article was about, having "ape" in the link's title means nothing. The evolutionary split from our ape-like ancestors happened probably about 13m years ago. Homo Hablis developed about 2.5m years ago. The article calls this a "missing link" but this is not what most people mean by the phrase, which indicates a direct line from apes to humans.

And, more to the point, you put forward, "they still haven't found the missing link that connects us to apes" as evidence that extra-terrestrials had "genetically interfered" with us. Surely here you are using the phrase in the common sense. Otherwise, it is meaningless.


Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Famed Member
Joined: 20 years ago

This is not splitting hairs. You are using careless language that simply serves to increase the confusion many people have around evolution.

Since a "missing link" doesn't exist, and since the link's title was designed to pull in punters rather than reflect the science the article was about, having "ape" in the link's title means nothing. The evolutionary split from our ape-like ancestors happened probably about 13m years ago. Homo Hablis developed about 2.5m years ago. The article calls this a "missing link" but this is not what most people mean by the phrase, which indicates a direct line from apes to humans.

And, more to the point, you put forward, "they still haven't found the missing link that connects us to apes" as evidence that extra-terrestrials had "genetically interfered" with us. Surely here you are using the phrase in the common sense. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Not evidence...I said the word 'theory'. Please stop misrepresenting my posts.
Thank you.


Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 16 years ago

I'm sorry - I was taking the word "theory" in the scientific sense, in which case it would certainly need evidence. This isn't misrepresentation, simply a lack of communication.


Reply
Page 4 / 4
Share: