Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
It's not the lack of ability, it's deliberate.
We've evolved beyond that.
Or get invited to some real interesting parties.
I assume that your photos are to suggest evolution. The problem in the above is that no scientist anywhere beieves we evolved from neanderthals. But you do have a point that primate skulls all look familiar. At least as simila as a bovine and hors skull look.
untrue. take one look at Ed Asner
What's the matter? Can't you reconcile your own belief in the bible with your closed-minded belief in evolution?
Keep throwin' spears.
I guess I wonder what you mean by "evolution." There is a vast amount of evidence in the archaeological record that shows very simple architectural forms and we find increasingly complicated architectures which bear obvious resemblance to the forms we see today. So architecture has evolved to my way of thinking.
Is this what you mean?
Or do you think that new species arose from old ones after random mutations and natural selection over zillions of years?
I don't believe in this last notion; and I assure you I do not have a "Quranic mindset." As for "evidence," I see the evidence for speciation as "nebulous and untestable," but maybe that's just because of my scientific training.
ML/NJ
the explination of which shows a timeline of change/relative-ness...above is an alternative explination.
I studied the evidence for evolution in grad school, several courses and seminars as well as for the Ph.D. exams, so I am not impressed with most of the sites creationists send me to.
But for your reading pleasure:
From an NSF abstract:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
We didn't "evolve from apes." We and the apes today share common ancestors.
The author knows this but can't make it the center of his piece because it is a gray area. And anti-science people don't like gray.
If you want to see an example of a partially evolved system go take a look at your appendix. We used to need it, but we don't any more. It is in the process of disappearing.
Who says it isn't right the first time?
Y Chromosome Ping!
Proud member of Haplogroup G2 http://www.stanford.edu/~philr/Hamman/DNAforFamilyHistory1.html
"I'm no biologist, but I don't think evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes."
Thank you. That is one of the biggest pieces of propoganda to come from the right. The only time I EVER hear the evoloution from apes thing it is from a creationist.
"There is no proof that we evolved from apes."
Ah, but sir, you are forgetting Teddy Kennedy.
Not from what I've read there, but feel free to post the information you feel refutes what the author says.
"There is no proof that we evolved from apes."
Ah, but sir, you are forgetting Teddy Kennedy.
Just like the Communists - who also said evolution was wrong - this writer proceeds from her ideological beliefs and then paints the world as she wants it to be. Yes, yes, yes, scientists can be annoyingly liberal sometimes, but the methodology used in science does a good job over time of separating the wheat from the chaff. It also does a good job of verification, over time, despite the human tendency to hang onto old ideas or preconcieved notions.
I don't see any problem with evolution. My own bias is that we're slowly understanding how God created the world. If it takes God 4.5 billion years and an entire planet of living things to lead to the creation of human beings - not to mention the use of supernovas to create complex elements and the grand sweep of planetary creation - well, that's pretty magisterial.
OK, assuming that last gag didn't just get me banned, I can prove that _I_ at least, have evolved from an ape, as I repeat the process every morning via the ingestion of several cups of coffee.
Since it's an obvious point of confusion, could someone please identify the common ancestor(s) of man and ape?
It would clarify the confusion over the whole 'evolved from apes' misunderstanding.
How about nobody saw it happen, science is about testable and repeatable processes, evolution is a description of something observed and testable, but evolution cannot provide evidence of history.
Evolution (the science) describes a mechanism by which humans and apes could come into being from a common ancester, just as the theory of gravity describes how my pencil could have ended up on the floor.
But gravity cannot prove that my pencil rolled of the table. In fact, I PUT my pencil there just now for this post.
I'm not saying that gravity is not science, just that gravity is not the reason my pencil is on the floor.
This article is suggesting NOT the evolution is not science, but that the science of evolution does not prove that humans were not created.
We should teach science in science classes, and history in history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.