Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fresh debate over human origins
BBC News ^ | 24 December 2002 | staff

Posted on 12/26/2002 8:02:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry

The theory that we are all descended from early humans who left Africa about 100,000 years ago has again been called into question.

US researchers sifting through data from the human genome project say they have uncovered evidence in support of a rival theory.

Most scientists agree with the idea that our ancestors first spread out of Africa about 1.8 million years ago, conquering other lands.

What happened next is more controversial.

The prevailing theory is that a second exodus from Africa replaced all of the local populations, such as Europe's Neanderthals.

Some anthropologists, however, advocate the so-called multiregional theory, that not all the local populations were replaced.

They think some of these ancient people interbred with African hominids, contributing to the gene pool of modern humans.

The new evidence, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on an analysis of data from the human genome project - the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint.

Blood and bones

Researchers led by Henry Harpending, professor of anthropology at Utah University, studied small differences in human DNA known as single nucleotide polymorphisms.

Studying when these mutations appeared gives a window into the ancient past, allowing scientists to trace the rise and fall of early humans in different parts of the world.

"The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the rest of the world," he says. "There is instead some sign of interbreeding."

The study suggests that there was a bottleneck in the human population when ancestors of modern humans colonised Europe about 40,000 years ago.

This is a puzzle because earlier human genetic studies have backed the idea that a rapidly expanding African population spread globally and replaced all local populations.

One possibility is that there was limited interbreeding between humans migrating from Africa and local populations in Europe and elsewhere.

'Open question'

Commenting on the research, Professor Chris Stringer, Head of Human Origins at London's Natural History Museum, said that in the last few years the multiregional model of human evolution had been called into question by new data, much of it genetic, showing our species had a recent African origin.

He told BBC News Online: "Arguments now centre on whether we are recently and entirely Out of Africa, or just mainly so.

"Some replacement models, and some genetic data, suggest no interbreeding at all with archaic peoples outside of Africa, while other replacement models allow limited interbreeding with the locals over the short time scale in which they overlapped.

"This new research suggests there could have been some interbreeding, but as the authors recognise, it could have been limited, and whether it happened at all is still an open question."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: archaeology; creationism; crevolist; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; multiregionalism; neandertal; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

1 posted on 12/26/2002 8:02:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
New thread ping.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]

2 posted on 12/26/2002 8:03:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Quick, hide this thread from f.Christian!
3 posted on 12/26/2002 8:11:14 AM PST by Saturnalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
What's amusing is that ancient man/dinosaurs are assumed to be most abundant where fossils are most easily found today - in dry, arid climates. Suppose man really started in Greenland, how would anyone know without a fossil record (which would now be under miles of ice)? It's fun to theorize but remember the data set is highly skewed.
5 posted on 12/26/2002 8:29:27 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
It may be skewed, but it sure is fun to try to figure out!!
6 posted on 12/26/2002 8:36:20 AM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I'm not comfortable with the notion that early man ventured forth simply out of curiosity; another problem I have is the obvious pigmentation differences among people of different geographical distributions while most modern mixed breeds tend to the darker parent almost exclusively.

The accepted notion of African origin is supported by the fossil record and the assumption that a benign climate acted as a stress-reducer for survival of offspring prior to established tribes or communes, but why would a satisfied animal leave such a benign climate?

All of this is too much for my small mind.

7 posted on 12/26/2002 8:36:28 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"This new research suggests there could have been some interbreeding, but as the authors recognise, it could have been limited, and whether it happened at all is still an open question."

Sounds like a conclusive "maybe, maybe not."

Anyway, where are the Zdenek Burian pictures?




8 posted on 12/26/2002 8:41:30 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saturnalia
FR extreme left wing whacks...

Welcome!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

What are you conserving...the left lunatic fringe---post fringe?
9 posted on 12/26/2002 9:10:50 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All
More evo tripe...

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of liberal tripe...

10 posted on 12/26/2002 9:26:09 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Have you ever been diagnosed as bi-polar?
11 posted on 12/26/2002 9:51:10 AM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
One question for you:

Who created God?
12 posted on 12/26/2002 9:57:38 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Now we are all in trouble, F.Christian has found the thread and will have a heyday tossing in his mindless drivel.

Do what others have learned to do.

Ignore him.
13 posted on 12/26/2002 10:30:14 AM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican1974
The problem with the studies showing no Neanderthal genetic information in the modern Human genome is that the genetic information was taken only from two Neanderthal specimens. This is not near the number of specimens needed to determine that.
14 posted on 12/26/2002 10:41:02 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Aric2000
Is he open loop or does he respond to questions?
16 posted on 12/26/2002 11:01:52 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
He'll respond, it is just a matter of figuring out whether it's an answer or not.

I think there is a code, but I don't think any of us have figured it out yet.

Maybe you have to be a whacked out, bi-polar, medicated, hardcore fundamentalist Christian to understand, and since MOST of us aren't any of those things, it's kind of hard to get the code down.
17 posted on 12/26/2002 11:05:22 AM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
What Gary Boldwater said:

"One question for you:

Who created God?"

(heh heh) Most EXCELLENT question, Gary!

What's the answer?

I also like your screen name, Barry ;)




18 posted on 12/26/2002 11:11:21 AM PST by JusticeLives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican1974
I doubt they evolved into humans they may have been a type of modern Human that was cold weather adapted or they were not so far different genetically from modern Humans that they couldn't breed into the incoming population. Either way past studies that suggest Neanderthal genes are not present in Modern populations are flawed. Never trust genetic studies by European scientists done in the past few years. There seems to have been a resurgence in the type of bad science that the Nazis participated in. They have no wish to be related to the Neanderthal and skew studies to show that european populations aren't related.
19 posted on 12/26/2002 11:13:51 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stanz
If you check f,christian has posted that same string of words on every evolution thread. It is actually in his Free republic bio along with every other string of words he posts.
20 posted on 12/26/2002 11:16:34 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
To: f.Christian

Sorry this took awhile to respond too christmas functions drew my attention. What do I base my life on? What am I required to base it on? My life doesn't need a base outside of myself to be fullfilled. Even if i didn't base my life on rational thought I would still not need a basis to be complete. You seem to need the support of a mythology to help you overcome life's problems I do not. Your life may not be complete without a savior to fill you with hope. I need no false hope I am complete unto myself. Even if every man woman and child on this earth believed in Christ I would have no need. I do not need the consensus of the community.

I search for rational truth because that is where reality resides. Truth is not subjective, truth is not objective, and Truth is not subject to the varied Mythologies of this Planet many of these mythologies being much older than the one you embrace. Truth is absolute. That is why in the search for an absolute truth you must often throw off the weak beliefs of degenrate religion or even the hard won beliefs gained from personal insight. Truth cares for none of that.

God is not truth God is a crutch for those to weak to cut away the dead limbs, shoot the sick dog, or take that first unaided step into the light of reason.


47 posted on 12/22/2002 3:46 PM PST by Sentis








To: Sentis

I thought so!


48 posted on 12/22/2002 3:50 PM PST by f.Christian
21 posted on 12/26/2002 11:19:33 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Now we are all in trouble, F.Christian has found the thread and will have a heyday tossing in his mindless drivel.

In the interest of general pain reduction, I'll sum up all of ol' f's previous posts in just two lines.

1. Gobblidegook.
2. Mumbo jumbo.

22 posted on 12/26/2002 11:34:06 AM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Who decreated God...

Commie--Junk science...

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

"They have... lost(link)---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

Do you need an explanation of these thoughts...article---I have one!

23 posted on 12/26/2002 11:38:23 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Isn't the multiregional theory essentially Carleton Coon's old theory? Wasn't it discredited essentially for political reasons (an early example of PC) rather than scientific ones?
24 posted on 12/26/2002 11:41:53 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Isn't the multiregional theory essentially Carleton Coon's old theory?

It seems similar, but Coon suggested completely separate regional evolution, while this new theory includes "out of Africa" as an overlay on what was previously evolving in various regions. At least that's my take on it.

25 posted on 12/26/2002 11:46:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Most scientists agree with the idea that our ancestors first spread out of Africa about 1.8 million years ago, conquering other lands.

My only concern in this whole debate is:

Am I entitled to reparations from somebody?

26 posted on 12/26/2002 11:51:02 AM PST by JimVT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
One question for you: Who created God?

Who is asking?

27 posted on 12/26/2002 12:01:18 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Why do you keep posting this. Those are my words and all you said is "I thought so". Yes I said that and I stand by what I said. My question is why do you cut and paste it everytime I post on a thread. I make no secret I am an Atheist Conservative.
28 posted on 12/26/2002 12:01:21 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JusticeLives
What Gary Boldwater said:

"One question for you:

Who created God?"

(heh heh) Most EXCELLENT question, Gary!

What's the answer?

>Either the chicken or the egg.


I also like your screen name, Barry ;)

>he, he. You know Barry too?


29 posted on 12/26/2002 12:02:36 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
I noticed on another post of yours you seem to think 'democracy' is the all and all.

Good News For The Day

‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ ( Mark 2:24)

"Except for God himself, there is nothing in the practice of religion that is more sacred than humanity. Men and women lose their dignity under any regime that sanctifies anything above men and women."

"In Communism, and Fascism the... system---is everything. The individual is subservient to the plan; to the state."

"Years ago a novelist, Barbara Goldberg wrote:"

"You see that bridge; that huge red naked thing of steel? Magnificent eh?
And there-no, there, right at the top. A little dot that sways and crawls along,
fearful lest it lose its dizzy head, and dash into oblivion. Pitiful isn't it?
That pygmy being with its two small hands, and smaller brain,
you see him? Well, he made the bridge!"

"People are greater than things. They are not like bridges; they build them! It is therefore as it should be, that God, when he sought to reveal himself to the world, did so through a human personality-the noblest thing in all creation. Not only were human beings honored by the incarnation, they were dignified by Jesus' own treatment of his fellows. Habitually he reserved his kindest attentions to human life in its frailest forms. Jesus gave the world a spiritual perspective that every religious obedience secondary, to our duty to care for one another."

30 posted on 12/26/2002 12:07:23 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
My question is simple. Who created God? Is it too hard to give a direct answer or to say that you simply don't know?
31 posted on 12/26/2002 12:08:42 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I'm asking. What's the answer?
32 posted on 12/26/2002 12:14:46 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: ProudAmerican1974
these people always bring up their God when the question of evolution rolls around.
34 posted on 12/26/2002 12:18:15 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Who created God?

Who is asking?

Initially, Gary, but I wouldn't mind knowing as well.

35 posted on 12/26/2002 12:19:16 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican1974
I'm sorry, did I send you a message by mistake? I didn't see where I could have done that. My apologies if I did, it was not my intent. If not, do you have any guidelines for me on what is proper to discuss in this thread? Thanks.
36 posted on 12/26/2002 12:21:23 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; PatrickHenry
By James Jacobs from http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html

Multiregional Evolution

In the same issue as Wilson and Cann presented the 'Out of Africa 2' or 'Eve Hypothesis' Alan G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff argued the polygenic or multiregional side of the modern human origins debate. They maintain that there is no single recent dispersal for modern humans, that humans originated in Africa and then slowly developed their modern forms in every area of the Old World. They also argue that the molecular geneticists' view must be rejected because their reasoning is flawed. Here follows a summation of their arguments.
According to the multiregional view mtDNA is not our only source of evidence. Fossil remains and artifacts represent a much more reliable and a monumental body of evidence. Multiregional evolution traces all populations to humans first leaving Africa over 1 mya (now known to be about 1.8 mya). Today distinctive populations maintain physical differences. The features that distinguish Asians, Australian Aborigines and Europeans are said to have evolved over a long period where these peoples are found today.

Thorne and Wolpoff argue that the fossil record, stretching back for a million years, is the real evidence for human evolution. Their self-described goal is "to describe a theory that synthesizes everything known about modern human fossils, archaeology and genes." They outline their own five predictions of the Eve theory, that modern humans from Africa completely replaced all other groups, that the earliest modern humans appeared in Africa, therefore that the earliest modern humans in other areas should have African features, that modern humans have never interbred, and that an anatomic discontitiuity should be evident.

The claim that a replacement could occur rapidly in every climate and environment is unprecedented from their 1992 viewpoint. At the time of their writing the volcanic winter bottleneck scenario was not yet presented. The authors point out that if replacement occured we would expect to find archaeological traces, yet we can find none in Asia.. The hand ax was common in Africa, yet the technologies of eastern Asia did not include handaxes before or after the African dispersal period. Artifacts found in the earliest assemblages continue to appear into the very late Pleistocene.

The hominid fossils from Australasia are argued to show a continuous anatomic sequence, with the earliest Australians displaying features seen in Indonesia 100,000 years ago. Similar evidence is seen in northern Asia. One million years old Chinese fossils differ from Javan fossils in ways that parallel the differences between north Asians and Australians today. Morphological continuity is also evidenced by prominently shoveled maxdlary incisors occurring in high frequency in living east Asians and in all the earlier Asian fossils. They point out the fact that the Neandertals and modern humans in the Near East shared an identical culture. They also argue that the Neandertals were not fully replaced. The more recent DNA isolation from Neandertal fossils counters this belief.

Thorne and Wolpoff also cite the potential for genetic drift, that some mtDNA disappears every time a generation fails to have daughters. Each lost branch alters the estimation of coalescence to a more recent date. Population size is also addressed, especially the shrinking of population in the Northern Hemisphere due to the Ice Ages. Reductions exacerbate genetic drift and loss of mtDNA types. Therefore, they contend, the lengths of mitochondrial lineages does not actually reflect the age of their divergence. They also criticize the dependence of the Eve model on a molecular clock as unreliable.

Finally, it is affirmatively argued that the close genetic similarities of the entire human race reflect linkages between people, an ancient history of population connections and mate exchanges, or, in other words, gene exchange.


Source:

Thorne, Alan G. and Milford H. Wolpoff. 1992. The Multiregional Evolution of Humans. Scientific American 266:76-83.

37 posted on 12/26/2002 12:22:18 PM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I noticed on another post of yours you seem to think 'democracy' is the all and all.

Actually, I think liberty is and democracy is the governmental component of that.

Listen f, my problem is that I simply don't understand your posts. You seem to speak in tongues or some such, and I just don't get it. I give you a little "what for" sometimes on these threads but basically it's all to let you know you're not getting through. Why not try a different tack and present your thesis in a way others can comprehend and engage you on?

38 posted on 12/26/2002 12:27:40 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Rekramecalp.
39 posted on 12/26/2002 12:28:14 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The creation vs. evolution... drama(link)---continues."

"From here it looks like the God people are slowly winning. When you think about that, it's a logical outcome. A supreme court that opens up with a prayer comes off as a bit hypocritical when it says that religion has no place in publicly-financed institutions. That's a bit like a fox passing a law against hawks eating chickens. It is fascinating to watch as this conflict proceeds in America. In the media, the battle is portrayed as the forces of rationality and logic (science) against the forces of irrationality and ignorant bigotry (religion). Like everything else the mainstream media tells you, this description is a load of crap."

"The truth of the matter is that Galileo wasn't put under house arrest because he denied the Copernican system. Except for Genesis, which is a dynamite scientific treatise on the evolution of the universe and life on earth, the bible doesn't say a damn thing about astronomy. Comets as portents, and that Shakespeare sort of thing, yes, but other than that, it leaves the subject for other publications. The Catholic Church of Galileo's day had a number of officials who were proponents of the sun-centered point of view. Science wasn't their problem. Their problem was arrogance of another kind. Like professors in modern American universities, they thought their behinds should be kissed on a regular schedule. It wasn't what Galileo said that got him into trouble, it was the way he said it."

"He wasn't... politically---correct"(...original source/article).

40 posted on 12/26/2002 12:32:09 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
Sorry if you have never thought beyond brainwashing---indoctrination---mind engineering...

you have to take off the evo trick glasses---

you've got your 'truth/reality blockers' on too tight!
41 posted on 12/26/2002 12:36:15 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
I'm asking. What's the answer?

Pay in advance. Cash on the barrelhead. No returns, no exchanges, no warranty. As is, where is. No, the merch may not be examined before purchase. There will no further explanations on this deal.

42 posted on 12/26/2002 12:40:42 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
I wouldn't mind knowing

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

43 posted on 12/26/2002 12:41:44 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"In truth, if you are given the choice of the universe suddenly appearing out of nothing or being created by a super-intelligence like God, the more logical of the two is God -- if for no other reason than that it works. (Makes sense. Is logical.)"

"But scientists can't bring themselves to face the truth."

"They have become the... priests, bishops and cardinals---of the Age of Secularism."

"They have established themselves in the federally financed temples of the Church of Education, an institution very much like the hierachy of the once-official Church of England. They condemn any faith other than their own. God is heresy to them, and must be expunged from the society. Those who wish to receive a degree must worship only at the alter of "pure" science -- which, by the parameters established by the priests, themselves, cannot answer the most important questions of all.."

44 posted on 12/26/2002 12:43:33 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stanz
Have you ever been diagnosed as bi-polar

450 mg of eskalith CR about eighteen times a days oughta do the trick.

I enjoy getting pinged to these threads...but this is the reason I rarely respond. Not meaning you, of course.

45 posted on 12/26/2002 12:47:04 PM PST by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

46 posted on 12/26/2002 12:50:01 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Super duper helpful! Thanks ever so much.

47 posted on 12/26/2002 1:13:59 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Sorry if you have never thought beyond brainwashing---indoctrination---mind engineering...

you have to take off the evo trick glasses---

you've got your 'truth/reality blockers' on too tight!

f., pretty much gobblidegook again here. I'm neither brainwashed, nor tricked, nor blocked from reality as you assert free of corroberation, reason, or logic. You either can't explain yourself, or won't. My mistake, I thought you wanted in on this discussion.

48 posted on 12/26/2002 1:28:29 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: All
"The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the rise of the positive(ideological/occult*) sciences, and with this an intensification in skepticism about God and the claims of traditional religion, especially among the educated classes. This inclination became most marked after the publication of The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man, by the naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin ascribed man's immediate ancestry to the anthropoids, supposedly through a process of gradual evolution. Man was no longer a creature made in the image of God, but merely a natural extension of certain lower forms of life, a refined gorilla, as it were. It was these circumstances, and this intellectual milieu, that led philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to declare that "God is dead" and to predict the rise of new and terrible manifestations of barbarism in the century that was to come. As he put it, "For ... we shall have upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of mountains and valleys, the like of which has never been dreamed of ... there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth." The non-believer Nietzsche would agree wholly with the Christian believer Dostoyevsky about one thing: Without faith in God, all horrors, all of man's worst nightmares, would become possible. And so they did."

"What men... believe---really does matter."

*...my addition!

49 posted on 12/26/2002 1:42:00 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
They attracted it. Actually ASKED for it. Oh well. Makes for a horse race, anyway.

Tell me, my Pendular friend...where did typing dogs come from ? Right. Their mothers. Should have known.

I once read that redheads have Neanderthal genes for that. I know a redhead who has jeans from the '60s. Does that count ?
50 posted on 12/26/2002 1:59:48 PM PST by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson