Posted on 05/18/2008 8:47:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The first-ever chimpanzee fossils were recently discovered in an area previously thought to be unsuitable for chimps. Fossils from human ancestors were also found nearby.
Although researchers have only found a few chimp teeth, the discovery could cause a shake-up in the theories of human evolution.
“We know today if you go to western and central Africa that humans and chimps live in similar and neighboring environments,” said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences. “This is the first evidence in the fossil record that they coexisted in the same place in the past.”
It had previously been thought that chimps never lived in the arid Rift Valley — they prefer more lush environments like the Congo and jungles of western Africa. For years, scientists believed that early human ancestors left the jungles and moved east to the less wooded grasslands, and that this move caused the evolutionary split between the human and chimp lines.
But now, with the discovery of ancient chimps and humans in the same area, evolutionists may have to rethink what caused humans to become humans.
“For many years people have used this kind of geographic split in environment as an explanation as an origin of humans and bipedalism,” co-author Sally McBrearty of the University of Connecticut told LiveScience. “People have still retained this idea of a split geographic distribution of chimps and humans. This shows it certainly wasn’t true half a million years ago, and may not have been true before that. We need to look for another reason for the evolutionary split.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Yes, that's already been tried, by the Nazis, based on the “evolutionary hypothesis.” But it's even worse than that. Most evolutionists use evolution to push concepts of anti-individualism (collectivism) and any absolutes in values (hedonism and subjectivism). It has become very doctrinaire and anyone who questions it in academic circles is in danger of being ostracized.
It has now been combined with another pseudoscience, psychology, and is actually called “evolutionary psychology,” and is being used to put over the worst of anti-human ideas, such as sexuality and behavior being determined by one's evolution—a direct assault on the volitional moral nature of man and individual responsibility.
Thanks for the comment.
Hank
Chimps have nothing to do with humans.
Media hype.
One of his sisters, or a niece. Biblical genetics only address the fathers in most cases. The only exception is Israelite kings, whose mothers are always listed.
It has now been combined with another pseudoscience, psychology, and is actually called “evolutionary psychology,” and is being used to put over the worst of anti-human ideas, such as sexuality and behavior being determined by one's evolution—a direct assault on the volitional moral nature of man and individual responsibility.
Where do get all of this ridiculous nonsense? Do you read it somewhere or do you come up with it all by yourself?
Because it has become the “accepted” doctrine of academia, politics, and the media. Those who question it are stigmatized and ostracized. It is used to put over the worst of social ideas such as collectivism and altruism, and to justify all kinds of irrational human behavior (in collusion with psychology) to justify any hedonistic nihilistic human practice.
If it were merely a viewpoint of some individuals about origins, I'd have no interest in it at all. But it is used as the basis for so many wild assertions in every field from politics to individual values, it has become very dangerous.
Hank
I'll forgive the insulting nature of your question, giving you the benefit of the doubt—that is that you are a lot more ignorant of this subject than you avow to be.
This is from UCLA, and what is taught regarding evolution;
Evolutionary Psychology
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/index.html
Read it, and remember everyone else here can read it too. Everything I said is represented here. It is duplicated in every major university in the country.
Hank
And UCLA is not exactly a cow college.
Do you have an alternative to evolution to offer? Are you willing to defend it?
Do you have an alternative to evolution to offer? Are you willing to defend it?
Alternative for what?
The fact that no one knows a thing about origins does not require an alternative. Neither creationists or evolutionists have a clue about what they are talking about. It is enough to point out the absurdities of both hysterical positions. There is no need to know what origins are, we are and we can objectively study what is. Conjectures, especially wild ones like those of evolutionists, are useless, but can be very dangerous.
You want an alternative? Here is mine. The world we now live in and know has a specific nature and we can objectively study that and learn its nature. The principles we learn from that objective study can be used to produce the things that improve the quality of life of human beings. Whatever came before is interesting, but of no practical importance, relative to what is.
Hank
It's amazing how much scientific charlatanry, fraud, and all-round specious philosophico-religio-pseudo-science Darwinism has left in its wake. Evolutionary psychology is patent nonsense, but considered hot stuff in some circles. I remember some ev psych textbook with a chapter on 'imagine what it would be like if college students were bonobos' and all that. You can read loads more crap like that in The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Psychology. Don't you like the study on "short term mating" in college students? Isn't that a hilarious way to put it? This is where your tax money goes.
A presupposition of ev psych is that absolutely everything about your mind is hereditary. But this is not really surprising because Darwinians since Darwin have supposed pretty much anything to be hereditary, if it suited them to suppose so. And yes, in the end, it boils down to making moral judgements - and a lot of them. Think about how many books and articles they have written about how we plebians are supposed to live our lives, or articles 'proving' we are all selfish, or articles proposing who should and should not have families, who should be sterilized, and how we are all wicked and stupid if we don't believe them. From altruism to adoption to one-night-stands to heroism to clerical celibacy--you name it and some Darwinian has already spewed out a moralizing treatise explaining 'what it's really all about', whatever it may be.
We can study and observe chemical evolution up to the creation of viruses in the lab. And, we can study and observe the evolution of living things from prokariots upward, but you discount origins because we haven’t discovered the precise mechanism in between. We will very soon. Pure science has it’s place. If nothing else, it provides innoculation against being infected by fools.
Thank you so much for your response and the link to the evolution resources. I have a question about that in a moment.
“From altruism to adoption to one-night-stands to heroism to clerical celibacy—you name it and some Darwinian has already spewed out a moralizing treatise explaining ‘what it’s really all about’, whatever it may be.”
Oh yes, and they “know” all that by studying the genome of present day species and their story-telling explanations. If evolution had not become the anti-science anti-human sledgehammer it has, most of their outrageous claims would be quite hilarious. Unfortunately it is today a dangerous accepted view, along with psychology and ecology, being used to undercut every aspect of Western Civilization.
I am an atheist, but am very supportive of the religious who support individualism and individual liberty, especially those varieties of Christianity that emphasize individual responsibility and moral character. I do not agree with their Theology, but have discovered that on most social and cultural issues, they come down on the right side. My only gripe with Christians is that many issues they favor can be argued objectively, without reference to their religion (homosexuality, for example). When they use their religion to argue against the normalization of homosexuality or evolution it has a negative affect—while other Christians will agree with them, they do not need to be convinced, those who are not Christians simply dismiss their arguments as religious zealotry.
My quick look at your resources on evolution seemed mostly objective. I won’t mind if they bring in the religious aspects, which I personally will not agree with, but am mostly interested in the objective arguments. How would you characterize your resources?
Thanks again,
Hank
In your view, is the mind purely a product of conditioning and socialization?
The mind is not the “product” of anything, any more than the elbow is. The mind is a faculty—volitional consciousness. The content of the mind is determined all one chooses to learn and think. At birth it is tabula rasa.
Hank
You agree Ethan? (And by the way, if at birth the mind is tabula rasa, where does this "volitional consciousness" and capacity to "choose" come from?)
No, but is your habit of asking stupid questions a hereditary disposition on your part, or a product of your conditioning and socialization?
Of all the stupid things propounded on this forum, the argument that the past has no significance is the dumbest. It falls on its own face.
Taken to its logical conclusion it implies that there is no point in posting responses to posts like this, because they occurred in the past.
But on a more practical note, the argument implies that forensics is a waste of time, and therefore, criminal justice is impossible and futile. And without purpose, since crimes cannot be undone.
On a lighter note, it is comforting to note that Senator Kennedy has nothing to worry about. Since the mind is not the product of the brain, he has nothing to lose from surgery except a bit of purposeless tissue.
I'm just curious about your actual views. Care to also say whether there is any aspect of eugenics that you find acceptable (or at least non-reprehensible)?
Hi Ethan,
This thread is a good example of the disingenuous methods of evolutionists. The questions asked are always false dichotomies, you either swallow evolution or you a creationist; you either accept evolution or your believe you life is determined by conditioning and socialization. When you do not fall for that bait, they put words in your mouth, like: “the argument that the past has no significance,” which argument no one, as far as I know, has made.
What I cannot understand is why it does not occur to them no real scientist, or anyone involved in honest research in any field, has to resort to such chicanery. Why do they?
Hank
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.