Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
Yep. Have you ever had to ask for a letter of recommendation? Ever been asked? Ever refused a request? I have been on both sides and I believe the doc can set any criteria he wants for such a letter. If you object to his criteria, too bad.
Granting this, all it tells me, VR, is that humans had other than "modern" form before 100K years ago. That doesn't necessarily mean they were apes back then, and then on some magic date were somehow magically, alchemistically transformed from simian to man.
You're bending over backward to avoid inferring the obvious.
Sorry, VR, but it is not obvious to me. To me, it just flies in the face of reason that a thing "suddenly" becomes something it is not -- absent divine intervention, of course. :^) All that I have ever been able to observe in my life is that new individuals coming into the world always are of the same species as their parents. It would require a great leap of faith for me to "infer" a situation where this is not the case.
When I was a very little girl, I had a wonderful book on natural history that I simply loved. I was a real "horse nut," so was delighted with the beautiful color illustrations of the evolution of the horse -- from eohippus, to mesohippus, etc., etc., to the modern horse.
I understand now that what I was looking at in the pages of my favorite book was an example of microevolution. A horse is a horse is a horse, though it may have a great variety of forms over time, and still does in modern times.
But eohippus-to-modern-horse is not an analog of simian-to-human. The latter, of course, would be an example of macroevolution. Forgive me, but I simply cannot see what mechanism in nature could account for a thing changing into something that it is not. It's just that simple.
True, "proof is for geometry class." I stand corrected on that. But just to note -- "proof" is not something that philosophy is interested in. What philosophy is interested in is truth. And that's a very uncertain and sometimes quite slippery proposition....
Such a litany of denial! Doesn't any physical evidence mean anything?
It certainly doesn't mean exactly what you describe, but that's only because you made a mess of what it does mean. Before 100k years ago, "modern" H. sapiens was "archaic" H. sapiens, AKA Homo heidelbergensis. Before that, H. erectus. Before that, H. habilis, and so forth. Contemporary with archaic H. sapiens is H. neandertalensis, sometimes classified as H. sapiens neandertalensis, which may or may not have contributed to the modern gene pool.
I have no problem with that. Offhand though, the only career I can think of that meets that criterion is teaching evolution.
Not a valid dismissal. A horse is still a horse, except it started as something that only in retrospect was importantly different from a basal condylarth.
Fig. 22. Skeletons of condylarth and fossil equids. All are drawn to approximately equal length to facilitate proportional comparisons.From a good horse-evolution site.a: Phenacodus, corrected after Scott.
b: Hyracotherium, corrected after AMNH mount.
c: Mesohippus, after AMNH mount.
This is a logical fallacy. I'm sure a philosophy buff knows which one it is.
But the new individuals are not exactly the same as their parents.
Right again, BB. These things aren't sudden. It happens gradually, over many generations, mutation by mutation. Those individuals which are better suited for survival pass on their genetic material to the next generation. For any one individal, his relationship to his immediate parents is blindingly obvious. But over a stretch of a thousand generations, the progenitor at the start of your watch and his distant offspring might look rather dissimilar. If you could live long enough to watch the generations progress, you would actually see it happen. Alas, we can't do that. We have to make use of the fossil record and then reconstruct the past events. I know that you understand this. And I understand your reluctance to accept it. But if the Pope can deal with it, so can you. Keep mulling it over.
polite rejection---
nice paint job---bondo/chrome/blown engine...
totalled endlessly---bad rebuilds/recycles!
Real cruizer(on blocks/cartoons)
---govt b-52 video---only the scences-lies(background) move!
All the trophies are fake...never had track record!
Clowns---jason!
Ooh, now that was smooth - I'm taking notes. :-) A problem with your above statement is that BB doesn't accept your interpretation of the Pope's equivocal comments.
772 posted on 10/10/02 1:57 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Keep mulling...waxing---buffing it over.
773 posted on 10/10/02 2:03 PM Pacific by Jeff Gordon
Are you confusing technology/science with evolution....two different---opposite things!
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.