addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Fwd: Bogus Louisiana Teacher Survey Used to Support Centr...

From: Tim C.
Sent on: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:35 AM
Not sure what you would require as convincing evidence of Homo Sapiens relation ship with previous hominids or with other existing animals (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and so on).  Since ALL evidence for PAST evo is based on DNA analysis and comparative anatomy and fossil record, it may well be impossible to provide what YOU may consider to be "proof".  So, you can go into the night with your "probably,maybe,kinda,sorta" equivocation.  The INDIRECT evidence is pretty darn convincing, certainly more than adequate for any reasonable person who IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY RELIGIOUS DOGMA.
 
You and others are apparently in that group of people who prefer to imagine that humans are specially created children of God, or at least hate the idea that we may share lineage with monkeys, even though that lineage split millions of years ago!   Or you have your own reasons and your own standards of evidence. Whatever.  Neither you nor your clone Steven have seen fit to offer ANY sort of alternative explanation.  At least none that do not require "supernatural shenanigans" (Lawrence Krauss's phrase, not mine).
 
Tim Campbell
 
In a message dated 1/24/2013 4:25:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
I think I see the problem, I should have begun with my
specific point and not evolution in general.  Yes evolution
in general is a fact.  I use the word fact not in the "scientific"
sense, as describe in this thread, but as, a thing that has
actually happened or that is really true; a thing that has been
or is.   As in the examples I gave.  In general evolution is fact.

Evolution is not fact where a direct lineage cannot be associated
to a specific genius.  As with Homo sapiens.  It is to this point,
specifically that I said, "probably, maybe, kinda, sorta."  Until that
link is established, evolution is a working theory and not an
established fact.  Now, if you have information that establishes
this direct link from Homo sapiens to another genus, then my
information is out of date and I am wrong.  And I would appreciate
a correction.

Maybe this will help:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens


I'll post my comments regarding postmodernism on a separate
thread.


M. Orel


On[masked]:10, Glen wrote:
> Mark O,
> I have to agree with Tim. Your continual contrarianism and semantic quibbles are getting tiresome.  Often when asked direct questions, we get evasions or hair splitting replies of direct answers.       
>
> When Chris suggested you must have some believe in one or the other view of origins, you replied "No, I really don't, postmodernism describes my philosophical bent perfectly." Since not everyone agrees on exactly what postmodernism entails, or would know how you apply it to human evolution, your answer seems vague at best.  Part of the Wikipedia description of postmodernism is: "Postmodernism takes the relativistic position that there is no absolute truth or objective reality, that what we experience as reality is a social construct... that it consists only of our interpretations of what the world means to us individually.."
>
> Do you subscribe to this?  Do you question any objective reality? If that's the case, I for one am not sure it's even worth discussing further with you, or talking about fossils, DNA, etc. which to me and most others, have objective reality and meaning.  If they do to you too, please be more direct and plain about what you believe about human evolution. It seems like getting that has been like pulling teeth.
>      In a recent comment you suggests it's not a fact until it's "established." But we've already explained several times how and why human evolution IS well established (from extensive fossil and DNA evidence) even tho the exact status of various hominids is less certain. Do you not grasp or accept that distinction? Frankly, it appears that you just want to be contrary or play word games, rather than trying to have a productive discussion or understand the evidence.
>
> As a case in point, when I pointed everyone to the recent Australoputhecine find, you went on about how it's not necessarily in direct line with humans. But I never claimed it was, and whether it is or not is a side issue. The key point is, it's yet another example of a hominid with features intermediate between modern humans and earlier forms, and such beings make no sense except in light of evolution (whatever their position in the ancestral bush).  Again you avoided directly answering the question I asked twice before: if none of the hominids are human ancestors, what are you suggesting, that God planted them, or created them to fool us into thinking we evolved, when in fact he directly created us?  Please be plain.
>
> Let me take this approach, which might cut through quibbles about the word "fact". Assuming you've read some of the resources we've already directed you on human evolution, please tells us how certain you are that humans evolved, and why.  Is it 50%, 75%, 90% or what? Virtually all scientists except YECs are more than 99% certainty, which is why they also regard it as a fact, as much as anything can be a scientific fact. If after all the reading you still can't or won't say how certain you are, I think it's time to move on to another subject.
>
> As far as your comment about divine creation not excluding evolution, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and grant that you may have meant that even if evolution occurred, a divine being or force could have initiated or guided the process. Fine, but that doesn't address the question of whether you think evolution occurred or not.
> Thank you.
>
>
>



--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/
This message was sent by Mark R. Orel ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/members/3240205/
Set my mailing list to email me

As they are sent
http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/list_prefs/?pref=1

In one daily email
http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/list_prefs/?pref=2

Don't send me mailing list messages
http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/list_prefs/?pref=0
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy