Human brain result of 'extraordinarily fast' evolution

The Guardian (UK) ^ | Wednesday December 29, 2004 | Alok Jha, science correspondent

[Shryke]

Moreover, describing punctuated equilibrium as the "quantum jump" was semi-literate boobery.

Hehehehe, "semi-literate boobery". That defintely wins the Prose of the Week Award. Keep em coming!

[Matchett-PI]

"A creationist trying to use logic. How cute."

Don't embarrass yourself

"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."

You pointed out no such thing. This is exactly and precisely what you wrote:

"Interesting source. Not only did it cite to Watergate-era jailbird Chuck Colson, but to 19th Century financier Jay Gould and his amazing theory of the "quantum jump." What a scientific lineup."

Therefore what I wrote still stands: "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief.

If a controversial claim could be established as true because it is supported by experts, then contradictory beliefs would be true, which is absurd.

Do you know what a genetic fallacy is? One can't legitimately judge a proposition or belief by the person who is stating it, rather, one must judge it through the arguments for and against it. Please don't expect those capable of critical thought to take you seriously if you use ad hominem in place of valid argumentation." ~ Matchett-PI

"Finally, since you seem so enthralled by logical fallacies, I'll point out a couple. When these are made by your creationist cohorts, as I am sure they will be, I trust you'll be as enthusiastic to point them out as you were in my case:

"Appeal to Authority: "If the Bible says the Flood happened, then it happened." Appeal to fear: "If you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, you're going to hell." ......blah, blah, blah ....Again, these are just a few of the standard creationist logical fallacies. I trust you'll point them out as they pop up."

Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.

[malakhi]

There is indeed a tendency among many Christians to focus only on the New Testament

I've noticed that. It is surprising how many self-described 'bible Christians' know so little about the Hebrew scriptures, aside from the most well-known narrative portions, mostly in Genesis, Exodus and the books of Kings.

I think He was warning us not to see Him as something separate and disconnected from the events of the Old Testament, but as an EMBODIMENT thereof, a parallel extension of God's love for Israel.

Can you go into this in greater depth? How does this relate to the belief that he "fulfilled the Law", and what, specifically, does it mean to say that he "fulfilled the Law"?

What are your thoughts on Daniel 9, specifically 9:25?

Heheh. Daniel is the "Old Testament" equivalent of the Book of Revelation. Be highly skeptical of anyone who claims to have it all figured out. ;o)

Needless to say, Christians and Jews differ on how they calculate the weeks, and what events they think were prophecied.

Before I respond further on this passage, can you tell me which translation you are using?

[atlaw]

Funny, I don't recall being nasty to you. Perhaps you should take your own admonitions against ad hominem to heart.

That said, was I somehow wrong in my assessment of your stand on the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, perhaps you could correct me (as opposed to simply ducking and dodging).

[atlaw]

"Your "examples", here and elsewhere, make my point. Where's "the" momma that bore these transitions? Was it one or many? Was it simultaneous? Why are there no co-located fossils of mom & offspring?

Are you under the impression that the theory of evolution posits, for example, a cat just up and giving birth one day to a hyena?

[G Larry]

I'm under the impression that for something to "evolve" the baby had to be different than the mother.

[VadeRetro]

In sexual species, every baby IS different from the mother. Once again, the refutations of evolution seem to depend upon the refuter not having the tiniest inkling of what evolution is or how it works. The observed differences between parent and child are enough for evolution. It isn't a crocodile mama having an ape baby.

[atlaw]

"I'm under the impression that for something to "evolve" the baby had to be different than the mother."

In rudimentary terms, you are correct. But the mutational "differences" are small and are not necessarily morphologically apparent within one or even many generations. For a very rough analogy (and one that by virtue of human intervention is itself foreshortened), think of the time and the number of generations it takes for humans to selectively breed plants and animals.

[atlaw]

And Vade provides (as usual) a perfect example. Although I expect that you will object because, despite the differences from one generation to the next, humans are still humans and double-tailed goldfish are still goldfish. But ... one step at a time.

[William Tell]

G Larry, in post 344 said: As for your bear/dog "example", ...

The posting on the dog/bear relationship includes:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).

Is it your position that this creature was unrelated to either dogs or bears and was a unique species created by "intelligent design"?

Evolutionists believe that it is an ancestor of both dogs and bears. Are they wrong? You seem to have ignored the most important data and complained because other date is missing.

What relationship, if any, do you believe this species has to dogs and/or bears?

[MississippiMan]

My hard-copy Bible is a NKJV called The Prophecy Bible. On the computer, I use a program called Bible Pro that has a similar translation called MKJV. (M presumably = modern)

Matthew 5:17 -- Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. -- The "or" conjunction makes it clear that the Law and the Prophets are two different issues under discussion. As for the Law, I think He was referring primarily to the requirement for blood sacrifice as atonement for sin. Jesus's innocent life and coming death were literally the fulfillment of that central element of the Law. As for His fulfillment of "the prophets," I see the primary meaning to be, quite simply, that He was indeed the fulfillment of their Messianic prophecies. And as already noted, I think it's also a reminder to future Christians that the entire Bible is important.

Daniel 9:25 -- Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

This is one of the coolest verses in all the Bible to me. Using 360-day (12 x 30-day months) biblical years and seven-year "weeks" yields...

7 x 7 x 360 = 17,640 days
62 x 7 x 360 = 156,240 days

Total = 173,880 days

Exactly 173,880 days after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued, Jesus rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on what we now celebrate as Palm Sunday. It was the one and only day during which he allowed Himself to be treated like royalty. Gives me goosebumps.

How do you interpret/calculate Daniel 9:25?

Interesting trivia question that you probably know the answer to: What ultra-common phrase of our modern lexicon came down through the ages from Daniel 5?

MM

[A CA Guy]

Eating meat and radiation make a great compbination.

[JimVT]

After nearly 70 years on this planet and after almost 60 years of studying this question, I have come to the conclusion that.....

I DON'T KNOW!....

and neither does anybody else.

We will learn the answer in the next existence!

[Trinity_Tx]

"The evidence over the past 2,500 years--admittedly a very short sample--is that man is devolving, not evolving--in terms of brain power."

Yes, the article is referring to changes that go back many more thousands of years.

"Compare the tendency to produce the higher levels of genius, today, in any population group, with Sir Francis Galton's example of the population of Attica about 2400 years ago, where 90,000 produced a dozen men who throughout all history since, have remained at or near the top in their respective disciplines. Or contrast even the top 25% of the voting population of America today, with those who were persuaded to ratify the Constitution, by reading the scholarly disertations in the Federalist Papers, to witness the dumbing down of our own population. "

Interesting. But don't those examples still appear to suggest more of a culturally-driven phenomenon?

It seems we'll always see ups and downs in the # and expression of great minds, depending on the circumstances in which men live.

[G Larry]

Bears yes, dogs no.
Creation yes, Intelligent Design no.

[ashtanga]

Francis Bacon, the philosopher. Little knowledge resulteth in atheism, while much knowledge leads to belief. I don't use quotes because I don't have the exact saying at hand. On the subject of "rapid evolution," I just don't know if I can buy the selective reshaping of human organs in response to differing circumstances. I tend to poo-poo Darwinism because of its uncanny power to act as a substitute religion for the congenital atheist. This is not quite enough, I realize, so I look for transitions in my bumbling layman manner. Now, if one looks at dogs, one realizes that some mammals are capable of endless permutation, given selective breeding, and one might find a "transition" in a wolf-dog offspring, so I don't consider myself as closed minded. It goes without saying that this phenomenon is not a transition proper, but things of this nature keep me from closing the door on evolution.

[ashtanga]

I think that the "days" in Genesis are actually periods of time. I don't consider much of the Bible to be science or history, though some books can be seen as an attempt at a true interpretation of historical flux in the Middle East. Some of the Bible is simply beautiful literature, sublime without edification. As in most great literature, the truth lies in the metaphor.

[WildHorseCrash]

"A creationist trying to use logic. How cute."

Don't embarrass yourself

My only embarrassing moment in recent memory was being forced to admit to a friend who is a moderate voter that some conservatives actually do want to teach a 4000-year-old Mesopotamian creation myth as fact in science class, and that the people who espoused this belief were not children.

* * *

"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."

You pointed out no such thing.

Yes, I did. If you didn't understand it, then that shows that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, not that I didn't point out the silliness in Reverend Fast Eddie's article.

Did I state, "The two most ridiculous thing in this source are..."?? No. I just went ahead and criticized it by pointing out the two most ridiculous things in it: citing to Chuck Colson and Jay Gould's fantastic "quantum jump" theory. Why are they ridiculous? Anyone who doesn't already know that Chuck Colson and Jay Gould have absolutely no authority to discuss the merits of an argument on evolution should seriously consider reading a science book...

***

Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.

Some definitely are. Creationists who assert, as historical fact, that the Earth was created on a Wednesday morning in October of 4004, B.C. are religious kooks. But you're right, not all creationists are religious kooks.

But every creationist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that God or some supernatural creative power exists. That takes "creationism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that the science of evolution is factually incorrect because it offends your religious sensibilities, and don't force the state to spread your doctrine in schools.

And as for whether I am a "blind-faith Darwinist": I have neither discussed by faith, my views on Darwinism, nor such things as the work of people such as Mayr, Gould, Eldredge and Dawkins. So you can not know that I am "blind-faith Darwinist". You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That is also committing a logical fallacy. It's called talking out of your ass.

[stands2reason]

If your faith can't handle a few questions on this board, it is not much of a faith.

Oooops!! Kinda big slip-up there for a so-called Christian to make. "Your" faith means it's not something you are a part of. Which is obvious to us, but it's nice to see you acknowledge it.

Leave the Christians alone. Grow up. Get a life.