Oh, any dissent to their point of view brings the name calling. They thrive there.
First off, you two need to relax with the off-topic discussion and ridiculing/borderline trolling of those who disagree with you. You two agree- we get it. A few of us disagree with you and agree with eachother, yet we aren't here discussing how you two can't see the light or dark or whatever you guys are going on about. I won't take the bait anyway.
Now to get back to the topic...
There are several issues here. One is that you incorrectly portray science my viewpoint (assuming that by "some folks" you are referring to folks such as myself). For one, I believe that knocking down this silly law proposal is probably the most humanist action one can take given the consequences of such a law. Second, nature is nature. She will come out the way she is, as Richard Feynman often said. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or I don't like it- nature is nature.
I find it quite egotistical to think that the universe exists for humans or that the truth exists for humans or even that God exists for humans- it just doesn't make sense- it is not in proportion. That is my opinion and I am sure yours is different, but note that there is a fine line between utilitarian humanism and egotistical humanism (if you can even call that humanism)- similar to how there is a fine line between being proud of oneself and being arrogant.
Now to get back to the topic...
There are several issues here. One is that you incorrectly portray science my viewpoint (assuming that by "some folks" you are referring to folks such as myself). For one, I believe that knocking down this silly law proposal is probably the most humanist action one can take given the consequences of such a law. Second, nature is nature. She will come out the way she is, as Richard Feynman often said. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or I don't like it- nature is nature.
I find it quite egotistical to think that the universe exists for humans or that the truth exists for humans or even that God exists for humans- it just doesn't make sense- it is not in proportion. That is my opinion and I am sure yours is different, but note that there is a fine line between utilitarian humanism and egotistical humanism (if you can even call that humanism)- similar to how there is a fine line between being proud of oneself and being arrogant.
I couldn't care less so won't report anyone, who cares.
But, there are some unanswered questions here. Nature....if myp says "comes out the way "she" is(reckon that's myp's reference to Mother Nature)....then evolution would have followed a more consistent pattern where human beings are concerned.
And the fossil record I spoke to is merely the tip of the iceberg that no one in this forum can explain. If evolution is the explanation for mankind, then where is the what should be overwhelming record of evolution? Look at man.....capable of abstract thought, the ability to discern right from wrong....aware.....evolution would have required adaptations and trait alterations that happen in the mammal world...as 'mother nature' goes at a snail's or turtle's pace. Does it not stand to reason given the fact that we are so beyond capable from any other living thing or mammal on this earth, I mean, we're not even f'n close!........wouldn't their be a record?
Here we are......some DNA exactly like primates.....but the leap makes absolutely no sense at all. None. Evolution to me cannot tell the entire story so why should those that support an evolution defintion of man oppose anyone else's thought process on the matter.
But, there are some unanswered questions here. Nature....if myp says "comes out the way "she" is(reckon that's myp's reference to Mother Nature)....then evolution would have followed a more consistent pattern where human beings are concerned.
And the fossil record I spoke to is merely the tip of the iceberg that no one in this forum can explain. If evolution is the explanation for mankind, then where is the what should be overwhelming record of evolution? Look at man.....capable of abstract thought, the ability to discern right from wrong....aware.....evolution would have required adaptations and trait alterations that happen in the mammal world...as 'mother nature' goes at a snail's or turtle's pace. Does it not stand to reason given the fact that we are so beyond capable from any other living thing or mammal on this earth, I mean, we're not even f'n close!........wouldn't their be a record?
Here we are......some DNA exactly like primates.....but the leap makes absolutely no sense at all. None. Evolution to me cannot tell the entire story so why should those that support an evolution defintion of man oppose anyone else's thought process on the matter.
Last edited:
All your concerns are already laid to rest. They were decades ago. I suggest you go look at the literature. Pubmed is a decent place to start for free.
I'll quickly chime in on a couple points though- abstract thought- look at the difference between a mentally handicapped person or someone in a coma vs. another human who can think abstractly- not necessarily a large genetic difference at all.
The fossil record- there is no such "gap".
And what do you mean by more consistent pattern?
I'll quickly chime in on a couple points though- abstract thought- look at the difference between a mentally handicapped person or someone in a coma vs. another human who can think abstractly- not necessarily a large genetic difference at all.
The fossil record- there is no such "gap".
And what do you mean by more consistent pattern?
As I said it happens at a margin and genetically it isn't a great one. Just because it might seem like a huge gap through the lense of human culture does not mean it is actually a huge gap genetically. I mean our genome isn't extremely different than a mouses let alone a chimps, especially in the realm of all life or even mammals. A lot of it has to do with expression and inactivation of genes, etc. moreso than the genes themselves and that level one small change can trigger many pathways biochemically. Again these are things that have been studied tremendously- I again point to the literature.
You are telling me evolution processed much differently in humans than other mammals? And if our "genome" isn't extremely different....then what happened? Because the chimp or mouse and the human species are light years apart. Where is that record where humans split from the chimp and mouse and actually developed awareness...abstract thought..or morality? What adaptations, what traits developed over eons that every other living creature on this planet experiences can you find?
A good start.....but just a small chunk
- Anatomical vestigial structures
- Atavisms
- Molecular vestigial structures
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
Ignoring your misuse of light years, we've only been intelligent (compared to other primates anyway) for 50k years. Our species is 200k years old. I don't know what to tell you about our sudden smarts but you can't use it as an argument against evolution because it's an entirely mental issue independent of our genetic evolution.
I would place more on environmental conditions and competition than anything else.....evolution is not just a physical process it seems.
No I am not telling you that- what makes you think I am?
We are actually not light years apart- that is the point. I am not sure what you are asking in the final question, but there are many phylogenetic trees that use various statistical models and data to show the divergence of various species.
Funny that you brought up the awareness point- new research suggests chimps are aware of thought too: Ability To 'Think About Thinking' Not Limited Only To Humans According to New Research ? Georgia State University
Not just physical, so show me the common traits and denominator then.
This point myp speaks to...genomes....being so close to chimps and mice.....why wouldn't they evolve.....in the non physical sense.
Oops.
No, not "oops". You clearly have not looked at the literature or even textbooks which show data and draw conclusions on things that we have now known for decades. First off, evolution is not a sentient process- it is driven by chance. Second, there is no such thing as "non physical sense" - everything can be tied back to chemical and physical realities. You are just looking at genomes and not considering genomic regulation. You can't just say "oh a chimp looks and acts a lot different than a human, so there must be a huge genetic difference" based on nothing more than intuition.
Last edited:
Strange
Well, I must say that this is one of the stranger things I've heard. I understand that schools have enough on their plates, but aren't they supposed to teach us what is true? As a student in public school, I find this completely ridiculous. If some kid decides to believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and won't budge, causing him/her to fail tests and homework- well, I say fail the obstinate kid. They deserve to fail if they will not open their eyes and see the facts in front of them. However, I DO agree that people should be allowed to believe and say mostly what they want.
Well, I must say that this is one of the stranger things I've heard. I understand that schools have enough on their plates, but aren't they supposed to teach us what is true? As a student in public school, I find this completely ridiculous. If some kid decides to believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and won't budge, causing him/her to fail tests and homework- well, I say fail the obstinate kid. They deserve to fail if they will not open their eyes and see the facts in front of them. However, I DO agree that people should be allowed to believe and say mostly what they want.
Similar threads
