`In earlier days of dolphin study, people were testing dolphins to see what range of noises they made. The dolphins were quite responsive and provided the people with lots of data and then something eventually became clear when they played back some recordings; the dolphins were also testing humans to see what range of sound they could hear.
Oldest known human ancestor rewrites evolution theories
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Seems to me that elephants have had millons of years to catch up - how're they doing - Guess they should be in Harvard by now eh.
lol Harvard is picky. They'd have to learn English. Besides, where would they soak in the lectures at?
My position: I refute the original post. When I see an "ape-man" depiction being reported to me, I know there is more to the story, and it's usually a "spin".
Evolution has no direction or goal. What happens to different species depends on the selection pressures on them. We don't know what selection pressures drove the development of human intelligence, but they must have been pretty strong, because it's very expensive biologically, the brain takes a large fraction of the human body's metabolic output. It's possibly related to the fact that humans are physically very weak compared to other animals of similar size. An adult male chimp, for instance, is many times stronger than the strongest man. Greater intelligence, manifested as a better and more complex tool kit, better cooperative behaviour, better communication skills, stuff like that, can compensate. In terms of natural selection, it'd be get smart or die out.
Nice alley: I am criticizing those who conclude that man and ape are of common ancestry because I believe they are misinterpreting the evidence.
Still nice, but playing hard-ball alley: I'm not criticizing, I'm exposing how broad of a stretch we all are told to swallow. And when its preached to the masses so authoritative as it has been, it becomes lying - fraud.
I wanted to say harsh things in response to this, but since having mutual respect is important to me, I figure not. If I do choose to respond please understand that I prepare to fight back - and hard on this one. If I'm going to be accused(once again) that I may not be intelligent, or rational, then maybe I should consider playing hard with my words.
E.g. Instead of "the evolutionist scientists are mistaken about the evidence" it will be "the beady-eyed scientists are misleading the public in an effort to kill God"
I thought we had an understanding that two intelligent persons could have opposite views on our fave subject. Why are you getting on all "Dawkins" on me?
Answer now, or I'll assume your shaken cuz your departments fraudulent claims have be exposed. ;-);-);-):lol::lol::lol:
Is it any more authoritative than when you talk about god and Jesus? Or about absolute truths? No. But that is what happens with conflicting belief systems. What I find interesting is that science doesn't seem to be threatened by religious beliefs as religion seems threatened by science.
Personally I can't see why the two cannot live in harmony. In fact a lot of religions do, even christians. It seems that it is the fundamentalists that have the real problem because they choose to accept the literal interpretation of the bible when it has always been intended to be an allegory and a metaphor. It is not an histirical document or the literal truth. It can be a useful story but taken literally it is a dangerous document just like the Koran.
I realize I am sticking my neck out here but I don't think there are absolute truths in science or religion. But then, I think the truth is relative.
Dolphins Killing for Fun?
I don't find you unintelligent, but irrational, at times yes...
Sometimes it seems that you take the position of advocatus diaboli just for the sake of debate...which would be fine if you consigned yourself to inevitably looking foolish at times, but it seems you don't cope well with that...
irrational...:-?
Once humans developed intelligence, the evolution froze up completely, Goober (except for extinction of species). An intelligent species is not going to let any other species progress beyond animal level. Humans changed habitat, limited number of animals through hunting (e.g. it is generally considered that they wren instrumental in making the woolly mammoth extinct in USA, and they are well on their way to making the elephant extinct all over the world).
Once one species develops intelligence, most of the evolution comes to an abrupt end.
So exactly what do you believe alley? That earth is billions of years old and that man was created by God? When was he created?
Quite so, Cliffy. Hindus don’t have any problem with evolution; they readily accept it as a valid scientific theory (in fact, Hindu mythology ways that earth is millions of years old). I am not sure what position Islam takes. But mainline Christianity has no problem with evolution. Neither does the Catholic Church.
It is only Fundamentalist Christians (and a few extreme Catholics) who have problem with evolution. Unfortunately, they are quite strong in USA, and they are forever trying to limit the teaching of evolution and promote treating of creation.
As to absolute truths, I agree that there aren’t any in religion, but there may be a few in sciences.