Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Posting the link again is a rather childish thing to do - don’t you think?
And their is a different between “does not show significant promise of lasting” and outright rejecting.
In short, you reject it as a transitional species because it is a transitional species.
From your quote:
"It has not been shown to be significantly different from erectus to require the designation of a new hominid species ..."The burden of proof for you is indeed burdensome, isn't it?
“In short, H. ergaster does not show significant promise of lasting as a separate taxon due to several factors. It has not been shown to be significantly different from erectus to require the designation of a new hominid species, and it has not been shown to be closer to modern humans morphologically as has been claimed by some. At this time, ergaster basically means early H. erectus from Africa.”
Talk about not reading!
If you go back upthread and take a look at the text beside the photograph I posted you will find the following:
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
This multiplicity of names attributed by different researchers reflects the difficulty in establishing an exact taxonomic classification for this specimen. And that is one of the prime characteristics of a transitional--it shares characteristics of earlier and later groups.
The passage you cited just says that, in the opinion of that author, the Homo ergaster classification will not stand the test of time. This is no big deal! The three tentative classifications in the description I posted already specify that!
Cotts--it is clear that you have no understanding of the cut-and-pastes you are shoveling onto these threads. I don't know if you are reading them or not, but you sure aren't understanding them.
[[This multiplicity of names attributed by different researchers reflects the difficulty in establishing an exact taxonomic classification for this specimen. And that is one of the prime characteristics of a transitional—it shares characteristics of earlier and later groups.]]
Lool- You keep believing that is ‘one of hte prime difficulties’ - The reason it is rejected is because it does NOT have characteristics of two species but is fully one species-
[[The passage you cited just says that, in the opinion of that author, the Homo ergaster classification will not stand the test of time. This is no big deal!]]
Keep attempting to downplay- it’s amusing- the vast majority of scientsits REJECT it as any sort of transitional ‘ergaster’ classification
[[Cotts—it is clear that you have no understanding of the cut-and-pastes you are shoveling onto these threads. I don’t know if you are reading them or not, but you sure aren’t understanding them.]]
It’s not I that is having hte difficulty- I understand it perfectly- but judging by the manner in which you attempt to downplay this, I see that it is you who has difficulty understanding the situation-
[[In short, you reject it as a transitional species because it is a transitional species.]]
You know somethign the vast majority of scientists don’t? please, do fill us all in- I reject it because it is full erectus- just as practically every other scientist who understands the difference between species KIND variances and ‘transitional’ differences.
[[And their is a different between “does not show significant promise of lasting” and outright rejecting.]]
That was simply the author of that site’s opinion on the matter- the fact is that again, sigh, the vast majority of scientists REJECT it.
[[Cotts—it is clear that you have no understanding of the cut-and-pastes you are shoveling onto these threads. I don’t know if you are reading them or not, but you sure aren’t understanding them.]]
Lol- just reread this- Again, I understand em just fine- but I change my mind, apparently you too understand htem, which is why you run away fro mthem by throwing your hands over your ears and “refusing to read my posts” anymore
why do you attempt to reason with a bag of rocks?
Possibly because this used to be a place for reasoned discourse.
Happy Anniversary!
>>A Darwin post that mentions Hitler in the first paragraph. You can’t get more FAIL than that.<<
In Germany it was Nazism. In the US it was eugenics.
Both based on the logical conclusions and ramifications of belief in Darwinism.
you call that ‘reasoning’?
First of all, he claims it is a ‘classic example’ of hte ‘difficulties’ associated with transitionals, when the plain simple fact is that nearly every single scientist rejects ergaster for perfectly valid scientific reasons, yet is is ONLY a couple of scientists tryign to make a name for htemselves who are tryign to get the rest to go along with htem by ignoring that there are NO transitional features worthy of seperate classification,
Secondly, he claism it’s ‘no big deal’ (apparenrly meaning if it doesn’t ‘stand hte ‘test of time’), Yet it MUST be a big deal if Coyoteman keeps attempting to sneak this silly example through as a ‘transitional’ when he clearly knows that it isn’t
Thirdly, if you follow his posts, in other htreads as well, and still coem to hte conclusion that he is ‘reasoning’, then apparently you have a very low threshold for what you consider sound science.
[[Possibly because this used to be a place for reasoned discourse.]]
Translation- Because htis apparently used to be a place hwere Evos could peddle whatever htey wanted without being called to the carpet to answer the tough questions, but htings have now changed as more and more people are startign to see hte propoganda behind the wild claims of Macoreovlution.
Wouldn't want to ruffle feathers and all.
I have learned to steer clear of crevo threads, but just this one time I swooped in for a looksee.
Samo samo
Perhaps bag of rocks is too generous.
Whatever. You win, game , set and match. Have a good life.
I am trying to keep rationality a part of these discussions, which otherwise are increasingly dominated by fundamentalism, superstition and other forms of irrationality.
And I am used to teaching. Judging from the mail I receive there are many here who benefit from my posts.
lolcat likz ur spellinz
You make a good case for that theory about a million monkeys typing.
godspeed.
Hey- look everyone- the 5 year olds have come out to taunt- Golly- name calling! Whatever will I do?
BTW- Excellent rebuttle and ‘support of the facts’ you’ve presneted- You’ve done your case tremendous good by your whitty little playground tauntings- Yes- you wish Coyotmean godspeed as the two of you zip along with your hands firmly clamped over your eyes and ears-
[[You make a good case for that theory about a million monkeys typing.]]
And oyu make a good case for the anally obsessive word nazis- so IO guess we’re even
[[lolcat likz ur spellinz]]
Golly, like I haven’t seen that wittle taunt before- bahahahaha- good one- Bzzzzzt- whoops- that was the bell for you to run along and get your milk and cookies!
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.