Posted on 06/17/2005 8:33:25 AM PDT by blam
I am not interested in arguing strawmen.
Well what you said was...
"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"
And we DID evolved from Apes (not monkeys). No "if"; we did indeed evolve, and so did they. We ARE looking at evolved species for both monkeys and humans. There is no such thing as a "non-evolved species".
You are repeating my observation.
There is no serious theory of evolution that states what you said in your post 21 to this thread. It essentially the argument that once you're born, your parents die.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.
I've compared it to other ridiculous interpretations of evolution posted on other threads by other FReepers for the purpose of illustrating common misperceptions of the theory. However, I'll happily withdraw the fish and dinosaur examples as applying to you. I'm glad to discover you consider them straw men. They are exactly that.
Thanks. I am, however, interested in the evolution of thinking on the nature of the State. The biological analogy is one of the possible ones, but ultimately not the most fruitful.
Obviously I am repeating what you said, and taking issue with it (isn't this usually how these things go?)
The statement that "We did not descend from monkeys or apes." is not an observation, as there is nothing factual in that statement to observe, it is an article of faith and nothing more.
The statement "An analysis of all genetic, physiological, and paleontological data indicates that humans evolved with apes from a common ancestor" is an observation. See the difference?
What does that have to do with your previous post, my replies, Mylo's replies, or the subject of this thread?
Should have pinged you in my post 48. Sorry.
I understand what you are saying, but it is not an issue that concerns me.
My post, the one that brought me onto this thread was to someone else about something else. I am not interested in reviewing the history of the evolution of evolution.
LOL. Now you know why I usually abandon a thread when the 'creationists' arrive. (It gets completely out of hand)
I know. Maybe it is time for MY nap.
Where did you come up with that? The article didn't say that the female didn't know, only that the male couldn't tell by female physiology. I hate to tell you, but saying that females can't/couldn't tell is a load of crap. True, some women are more tuned in than others. For females paying the least bit of attention there is nothing cryptic about it. The release of the ovum produces a twinge, akin to a small cramp. Hormone levels give the woman other clues.
The combination of babies large heads & being bipedal forces a female to be more selective about who and when. Saying no is necessary for survival. Recreational sex helps to keep the timing a mystery to males. Being receptive when outside of the fertile part of the cycle is a good strategy to help space children, while still keeping the male interested. A female breeding at every possible opportunity & then being left to her own devices is not going to help much, in bringing the next generation to breeding age. Birth to independence takes work. Smart, desirable females demand that males use their resources to help raise her children, including her children from a previous hook ups. Males have no way of *knowing* that the ones they are expected to help raise are their own, though they've come up with tons strategies to make their odds better. Even still, everyone looks for father's features in babies, to help quiet male doubts.
Among humans there is significant overlap in our sizes, but males are slightly larger; indicating that we are a slightly polygynous species (highly successful human males throughout history have had more than one female).
When you face the possibility of death by giving birth, you want to make sure the ones you have are "good" ones. Throughout history, plenty of highly successful males have been duped. The female will name the male that is most likely to help & many times, the highly successful are the best candidate. If a woman has sex with a bunch of men, who is going to be the one most likely to be named? Who would question that the most successful could possibly be less fertile or lucky than some other guy?
The data indicating similarities between humans and apes may indicate a common ancestor to those whose faith is in the religion of evolutionary science.
To those who believe in creation as related in the Bible, those same similarities indicate a God who is economical in design.
The data is observable and objective. But the conclusions one reaches based on that data are based on faith and not by sight as no man was present to see life created or evolved.
However, reviewing your posts presents an excellent history of the evolution of obfuscation.
Good. I have no interest in these points and arguments.
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.