Posted on 02/18/2007 11:40:54 PM PST by LibWhacker
Where's the "Bling?"
Somewhere between bacteria and Brad Pitt.
Just the ones who roll their own.
non-filtered...no wonder the dinosaurs died out....
but some apes are greater than others.......
Science magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. According to one regular 'evo' here on FR, the AAAS is a political organization and has little to do with science.
Can this be the truth when it comes to global warming issues, but not true when it comes to evolution isues?
Scientists are politically motivated in one area (GW) but not politically motivated in any other areas, especially regarding evolution?
Does anyone else have a problem with this?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
That's a good one. I will add it to my list of evolutionary just-so stories.
If there was a gene for dying at age 50 in women... So it's not really a coincidence... Evolution has made it that way.
There are no such genes, but I bet you think your philosophical ramblings in a priori biology prove something about them anyway.
I thought it was in the front row of the White House press briefing room.
Of course. Several AAAS presidents were also members of the American Eugenics Society, and many more AAAS members were also AES members, and so on. Bentley Glass was both president of AAAS and director of AES in the sixties. David Hamburg was director of AES from 1989-1991 and president of AAAS 1984-85. Hamburg was president of Carnegie Corporation, which financed Davenport's ERO (Eugenic Record Office) and his Station for Experimental Evolution. So of course the AAAS has a political interest in promoting darwinism. So did all the eugenics societies, starting with Huxley's.
Would you believe it is nothing but gaps.
The world is filled with species who reached their evolutionary peak and went no further. That’s like saying that because there are alligators that dinosaurs must still be around.
This political interest wouldn't influence the reports and findings in, let's say, Science magazine, would it?
Or, what wasn't reported?
Or, how easy it would be to dissent from the "proven" worldview?
Naah...
How about a few quantitative differences:
HUMANS: MILLIONS OF INVENTIONS FROM THE WHEEL TO STEAMBOATS TO AUTOS TO ROCKETS TO SILICON
CHIMPS: NOTHING
HUMANS: WRITTEN LANGUAGE, ART, SCIENCE, MATH
CHIMPS: NOTHING
HUMANS: VERIFIABLE AWARENESS OF WHO THEY ARE; ASK ANY HUMAN WHO THEY ARE AND THEY CAN TELL YOU
CHIMP: CAN'T
Clearly, DNA is important, but it's not everything. What humans actually know about the details of the creation of life is, qualitatively, equivalent to one pebble of sand on a Destin beach.
Of course it would. There's more info about AAAS and related activities in this article.
Or, how easy it would be to dissent from the "proven" worldview?
About as easy as it would be to dissent from a marxist world view in a soviet peer-reviewed journal.
Who knows, but one thing is certain, some darwinian will give you an a priori reason for it.
Basically they're saying these 13 million year-old monkeys ate bananas because modern monkeys with the same dentition eat bananas. They've discovered that the ancestor of modern banana-eating monkeys was a banana-eating monkey.
Maybe evolution doesn't mean change, after all.
The "fruit-eating" factoid is symptomatic of ape-man evolution literature. A reader can be lulled into thinking he is learning something from dreck like 'prehistoric chimps ate bananas, they probably went for a dump now and then, climbed trees, mated, ate, and slept, blah, blah'. I'm sure you've read ape-man stories that go... "ape-man possibly ran around naked, or perhaps wore rudimentary clothing, he used his feet for locomotion, and ate foodstuffs found in nature. He mated with the opposite sex and had children. When mauled by tigers, he possibly made lound sounds. etc. etc." There's reams of that sort of rot in evolutionary literature, and if it were all pushed into the sea one day, the loss to human knowledge would be zero.
Come now, the difference between a mind of a human and that of a monkey is merely one of degree. Anyone who has spent an afternoon tea-time with monkeys can testify to that. Monkeys can even play chess, though perhaps not well or with familiar rules. Lloyd Morgan offers this apology for Darwin,
In "The Descent of Man" Darwin dealt at some length with intelligence and the higher mental faculties... His object, he says, is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties... Darwin was too good an observer and too honest a man to minimise the "enormous difference" between the level of mental attainment of civilised man and that reached by any animal. His contention was that the difference, great as it is, is one of degree and not of kind.So, yes, humans have mental faculties for cathedral-building, art, mathematics, music, literature, chess-playing, rational discourse, and engineering - while monkeys merely have less of it.
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.