Faithful Ancestors

Science News Magazine ^ | 6-11-2005 | Bruce Bower

[RightWhale]

If there was a planet 3 million years ago, and it had monkeys on it, they looked exactly like monkeys do today.

We did not descend from monkeys or apes. The deal is that if we evolved, so did they, so we would be looking at evolved species for both, not at the evolved species and the non-evolved species.

[marylandrepub1]

They jumped ship a few hours ago, just like on that creationist thread yesterday. Asking them to explain what the Bible says usually does it. I don't think they have any ideas at all.

[blam]

Thanks. That's exactly my understanding of things.

[Mylo]

You ARE looking at evolved species for both. A monkey, subject to evolutionary pressure and natural selection for the same amount of time, is just as "evolved" as a man. Evolution does not mean or imply progress.

Maybe if you understood evolution you would be able to post an opinion about it that didn't make you look quite so clueless.

[Junior]

This is fascinating. Of course, I figure the luddites will do their hootin' and hollerin' from the sidelines, but the article's a great read.

[Junior]

And I swear, my ancestors were not monkeys. If there was a planet 3 million years ago, and it had monkeys on it, they looked exactly like monkeys do today.

The evidence doesn't support your contention, but hey, if it makes you feel good to believe this, more power to you.

[Junior]

What malarky. The creationist argument has much more science on it's side than does the evolutionist argument, which has none, other than theory and wild guesses. try again.

Do you have any POSITIVE evidence for creationism? Note, sniping against evolution is NOT POSITIVE evidence for creationism, as the latter does not win by default.

Until you come up with that POSITIVE evidence, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

[Junior]

I guess you haven't heard, as apparently lots of people haven't, that lucy was discounted in the 1990s as a chimpanzee species.

Horse hockey. This is an ancient creationist canard debunked countless times on these very threads. Of course, being a creationist means never retaining information from day to day.

[Mylo]

The Coolidge Effect:

President Calvin Coolidge and his wife were touring a government chicken farm (not sure which of the enumerated powers in Article I section 8 covers the federal gov raising chickens, but there it is) and used their typical 'divide and conquer' strategy.

The farmer was quite embarrassed when a rooster made a loud production of mating with a hen. The first lady, nonplussed, asked him "How many times a day, would you say, does that rooster have his way with a hen?"

"About 20 times a day" the farmer replied.

"Be sure to point that out to the President" she told him.

So when President Coolidge came by the farmer said "See that Rooster Mr President? The first lady wanted me to tell you that rooster has his way with a hen about 20 times a day."

"Every time with the same hen?" Asked Cal.

"No, every time with a different hen." answered the farmer.

"Tell THAT to the First Lady." Cal quipped.

When Scientists studies the phenomenon, they dubbed it "the Coolidge Effect".

[Mylo]

The validity of a Scientific theory cannot be assessed by the psychological comfort one derives from it.

[Mylo]

The validity of a Scientific theory cannot be assessed by the psychological comfort one derives from it.

[Junior]

I understand, but they're like little children in this regard, and it often helps to humor them a bit.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 280 names. See the list's description at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Junior]

Thanks, but appears you only pinged me.

[PatrickHenry]

Remedial ping.

[Oztrich Boy]

You don't get it. Lucy is a vivid and exciting book because the authors are excited by the subject.
Johanson and Eday would have written the exact same book if Creationism and Creationists didn't exist

If Evolutionists didn't exist, Creationists wouldn't write one darn thing because they are nowt more than parasites.

[RightWhale]

Thanks for repeating what I said. Maybe if you understood evolution you would be able to post an opinion about it that didn't make you look quite so clueless.

Barely paraphrastic.

[Mylo]

Say what?

I didn't repeat what you said because claptrap about species being "more" or "less" evolved is only spoken of by people with barely a nascent understanding of what evolution entails, assume that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and evolution entails progress (it doesn't), or are racist scum who think that they are somehow "more evolved" than other humans despite the fact that there is very little genetic variation among humans, and none of the variation makes anybody "better" or "more evolved".

[RightWhale]

You might be reading something into a post of mine that isn't there. None of that reflects my view on anything. Perhaps you are responding to another poster, but I have no interest in your analysis.

[Gumlegs]

It would appear that RW's understanding of evolution requires species to die out once they have descendants. Efficiently filling an ecological niche has nothing to do with it. Competition, or the lack thereof, for resources has nothing to do with it.

This is apparently also the theory of evolution that would require fish to give birth to rabbits and individual dinosaurs to suddenly sprout wings for birds to have appeared.

No wonder no one believes it.