Debate Is Fueled on When Humans Became Human

New York Times ^ | February 26, 2002 | JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

[Petronski]

I guess when one is making up an origination, there are a lot of details that need to be made up on the way. This replacing-God-business is tough work...

[dead]

I doubt that it will be traced to one place in particular. It may have been a natural product of time and evolution, cropping up in different ways in different parts of the world over millennia.

[AndrewC]

And when did the wolf become the dog?

When he was named Fido. A more interesting question is where did the household cat come from?

[AndrewC]

It may have been a natural product of time and evolution, cropping up in different ways in different parts of the world over millennia.

Well gee, you've solved it. What then is all the fuss about?

[Pete]

Not as much fun as making up facts and imagining the unheard giggles of people you’ve never met, oddball.

The only way you could possibly come off as more pathetic is to deny it. Make up facts? Geez, just read the thread.

You know, everybody is laughing at you and talking behind your back. I can hear them, can you?

Better get back on your meds. Also, you might want to try reading instead of listening.

[Logophile]

Most humans don't become human until their mid-twenties.

[Ward Smythe]

A more interesting question is where did the household cat come from?

From a very, very, very dark place...

[dead]

The only way you could possibly come off as more pathetic is to deny it. Make up facts? Geez, just read the thread.

I’ve read the thread. I still don’t know how you concluded I was giggling. I wasn’t until I read your silly response.

Better get back on your meds.

Wow, that’s quite original. You should copyright it.

[Prodigal Son]

"The earliest Homo sapiens probably had the cognitive capability to invent Sputnik," said Dr. Sally McBrearty

Hmmm. I wonder what they called a preborn child?

I'm not going to stake out a personal position on creationism/evolution because I've seen how those threads deteriorate into hair splitting and logical gymnastics and I see nothing useful to be gained from it.

But I always find the irony in these articles striking. Here, we can get a majority of scientists and many, many lay people to agree that man evolved and their main question is how many millions of years ago we started being human- but we cannot even agree in this day and age that what's inside a woman's womb when she's pregnant is even human at all.

Those that consider a preborn baby "human" are publicly stigamtized by a significant portion of the population and the scientific community- while those "enlightened" humans that call it "parasite" only argue over when it becomes inappropriate to smash its head with rock. And the irony is magnified by the fact that it doesn't really make one whit of difference if it was 5 or 7 million years ago does it? That's all, quite literally, Ancient History. But if we think of a baby, preborn, as a parasite- an actual human dies.

[Pete]

I’ve read the thread. I still don’t know how you concluded I was giggling.

Please tell me you don't think I was accusing you a physically giggling. That and only that could make my previous post erroneous.

[dead]

Please tell me you don't think I was accusing you a physically giggling. That and only that could make my previous post erroneous.

Wrong again.

Your post also said I was complaining, when I did not complain a whit.

I merely noted an interesting phenomena.

You need to be more exact in your use of the language.

[balrog666]

But I always find the irony in these articles striking. Here, we can get a majority of scientists and many, many lay people to agree that man evolved and their main question is how many millions of years ago we started being human- but we cannot even agree in this day and age that what's inside a woman's womb when she's pregnant is even human at all.

The first is a question of using science to find the best explanation for phenonema that have been repeated countless times in the geological record. The second, depending on whom you ask, is a question of defining legal terms, personal morality, or religious belief. Where is the irony?

[Notforprophet]

Hey dead, just let it go. Unless you want this thread on a legitimately intersting topic to degenerate into a Pete vs. dead thread.

Oh wait, let me ping the "P v d ping list!"

Notforprophet

[dead]

You're right, I'll start a new thread if I plan on continuing to argue with Pete.

Now I just have to think of a snide title. 8-)

[NittanyLion]

No, evolution is a lame theory without a sufficient fossil record that contradicts scientific observation throughout human history (like in regard to mutations).

How so?

[Prodigal Son]

The second, depending on whom you ask, is a question of defining legal terms, personal morality, or religious belief. Where is the irony?

Murder is not morally relative. It's either a human or it's not, full stop. I don't care if all the legal systems in the world call killing an innocent human okey dokey, nor whether it's democratically decided upon or if someone's personal morality gives them carte blanche.

The Big Bang either happened or it didn't. We either evolved or we didn't. These concern truths and science is a method for discovering the truth. Whether a preborn infant is a human or not also has a yes/no- true/false answer and I find it ironic that much time energy and money is thrown into answering truths from long ago concerning the "origins of man" that have little if any bearing on today's human condition yet we don't spend an equal amount of scientific time and public funding to answer this very significant question of "is the thing in a woman's belly a human being or not?"- being as how that is also an "origins of men" issue.

What got me thinking on the irony is I thought I was opening an article related to the abortion issue when I clicked on it because of the title. It turned out to be an interesting article but it just got me thinking on this whole thing and now here we are. I'm not criticizing anyone or anything. The evolutionary roots of man is also something I'm very interested in but if I had a choice to solve that riddle or the "riddle" of "is abortion murder?" I'd have to go for the latter one and save some real here and now lives.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Evolution cannot and in fact does not explain origin of new species. It can only (at best) explain change and adaptation to environment. Biologists today differ as to how exactly one life form makes the cross species jump. They only assume it occurs because they "believe" evolution is the process...