align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

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

From: Glen
Sent on: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:06 PM

You wrote: "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;"

Mark, you're doing more needless hair splitting. As I see it, there is no substantial distinction between these meanings of fact. If something is well established scientifically, to over 99% certainty, then it's a fact scientifically and in everyday parlance.  

"In general evolution is fact. Evolution is not fact where a direct lineage cannot be associated to a specific genius. 

You're simply wrong about this.  As we've explained several times, the fossil and DNA evidence overwhelmingly show that humans are related to earlier primates, even though the exact pathway can be debated. For you to insist that specific genera of all ancestors be identified before accepting that a group evolved is a silly and illogical requirement. It also contradicts your comment that evolution is a fact.  By your definition you could not accept evolution for most organisms, for most we cannot identify every step (down to specific genera) in their ancestry. But there are lots of intermediates for lots of groups, a strong general pattern, plus confirming DNA evidene that they did evolve - that in fact all organisms are genetically related (sharing the same genetic code).  

In terms of human evolution, your stipulation is even more lame, because at least some of our ancestors are associated with specific gener, even tho the species are less certain. We're _Homo sapiens_.  Our ancestors within the last million years were undoubtedly members of the genus Homo as well, and certain members of that genus, such as Homo erectus, are thought with fair certainty to be in the line to us or close to it.  

So your objections to the fact of human evolution are contrived and moot.  I notice you STILL not answered the question I've asked several times before: if we did not evolve, then what are you suggesting, that we are not relate to any of the hominids, and that instead of evolving like all other creatures on earth, God created us separately? Really?  
I'm not even asking you to even commit to accepting human evolution or not, I am asking, hypothetically, IF we did not evolve, what is your explanation for how we got here, and why there are so many humanlike hominids, and why the DNA evidence suggests we did evolve from that group of primates. You also did not answer my question of how certain you are that we evolved, in terms of a percentage. 

"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.

Nonsense. DNA alone clearly shows we are related to earlier primates, and to any reasonable person, all the hominid fossils further confirm this.  Let me ask you this, do you dispute that fish evolved, or birds, or other mammals, even tho in many cases, the exact round is uncertain?  If you were consistent, you'd have to question evolution for the majority of other species, since most like humans, most have imperfect fossil records.
But you already said you had no problem with evolution. So which is it?

"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."

Again, there is strong evidence that earlier forms of Homo (such as homo erectus) are in our line or close to it; before that, it's very likely that one of the Australopithicine species were in our line.  Part of the problem is that there were at some points in the prehistoric past, several hominids living at once, with a variety of intermediate features.  Again, just because it is difficult to determine which particular species are on our direct line, is no reason to suggest maybe none of them evolved into us. Otherwise:

1. What is your explanation for how we got here? Please don't make another vague reference to post-modernism, but answer plainly. 

2. Why do you accept evolution in general, since for most organisms (perhaps all) we cannot trace their entire direct lineage in the fossil record down to the genus level?  


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