Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:27:24 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 05:45:09 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't been proven wrong. You have shown that you like to "win"
>>>> arguments. Congratulations.
>>>
>>> "but our teeth haven't changed much and neither have our innards".
>>>
>>> Yes, you have been proven wrong.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> it's not so simple....
>>
>> <http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160111-what-is-it-that-makes-you-a-human-and-not-something-else>
>
> Listen, Terd(*). You're trying to redefine the word "human" now in
> attempt to backpeddle. When you jumped into this argument and made
> that statement above it was in response to what I said:
>
> "Our bodies (and digestive systems) have evolved greatly since
> Paleolithic times so it certainly doesn't make sense"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> And that's when you claimed otherwise. Now you're trying to play the
> "Modern Human" card and that's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
>
> (*) I haven't called you that in at least 5 years.
>
> -sw

Well that is an interesting account. I wonder who is smoking and hiding
behind mirrors -- the one who snipped it all and then summarized it to
his liking, or the one who didn't?

Well, I have nothing to hide. I am not trying to redefine the word "human",
I'm showing (like I said) that it's not as simple as your 4th-grade
science teacher would have described it.

Is this a human?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4111/4...fffd2ea1_z.jpg