quote:

---

this is really the only thing that bugs me about him

---

What if he were to pick his nose? And eat it?

In all seriousness, invite him to speak with you outside the classroom, maybe in a smaller group...
 

---

Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
 
no, i dont think it would really bug me if he picked his nose (and ate it), it's not like i'll be kissing( ) him anytime soon
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It also sounds like he was more interested in scoring debate points in public, rather than actually talk about anything.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Incidentally,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You might also be interested in the observed examples of speciation out there. Here's some: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
 

---

Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
No offense to Buddhists, but it is a pretty trendy religion - or at least it was in the 90s. Was he born into it?

And intelligent design - as a system - is distinct from young earth creationism. Which are you?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And as no "evolutionist" says humans evolved from monkeys, at all, you might want to reconsider that example.
 

---

Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
 
On an only marginally relevant side-note, it was a pastor in the anglican chruch that changed me from a die-hard "literal genesis" creationist into (at that time) a believer in standard evolutionary theory, albiet god-directed.

I know where you're coming from Peter, I once had the zeal to attempt to debate my science teachers in school the relative merits creationsim vs evolution to their eternal exasperation.

The question is, why do you want to?

This is an interesting site which covers some of the micro/macro evolution stuff.

Not that I have any interest in getting into a debate with you (or anyone), I simply found that site to have an interesting perspective, not necessarily representative of anything I personally believe.

[edit to say...] whoops... I'm on holidays and looking after my little nephew. Looks like lots of us like talk-origins... heh...

[ December 17, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Troubadour ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I think the whole idea of God going "poof" to start things going with a big bang or similar start to the universe, then guiding the universe's probabilistic processes through the creation of the cosmos, and then similarly guiding the process of biogenesis, life, and evolution here on earth, then taking the man-like animals and adding spirit to make the first human beings is a pretty powerful way to look at creation.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
It may be powerful, but it is totally useless : It does not make testable predictions. Why bother with the extra variable, then?

About the monkey : OK, we certainly aren't descended from any species of monkey alive today. Still, if you go back to our common ancestor, wouldn't it have a tail, live in trees, and all the rest? In short, it's an extinct species of monkey.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Something can still be useful without making testable predictions. Knowledge of right and wrong, for instance.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Peter, I would like to recommend a book to you called Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. He doesn't get everything right (in my opinion) But he makes a very convincing argument that Evolution is perfectly compatible with religious belief. Or rather, Catholic belief, as that's what he holds to be true (hence some of the small disagreements I have with him).

I read this for my BYU biology class at the recommendation (nay, insistence ) of my LDS professor. I rather liked it.

[ December 17, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Incidentally, how is it possible to believe in intelligent design, but not macro-evolution? I suspect comrade Peter has mis-understood the theory he claims to be an adherent of.
 

---

Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
 
It may not be testable, but it can solve a lot of contentious issues for christians who are having trouble reconciling some of the more fundamentalist attitudes towards evolution. There's no need to take everything in the bible as a literal truth. This kind of thinking made sense to me when I was a christian. I could quite easily believe that the creation tale was imparted to its author in such a way that it would make sense to someone of that era but not literally contradict evolutionary theory.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It may be powerful, but it is totally useless : It does not make testable predictions. Why bother with the extra variable, then?

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, I have also learned in recent years that debating is not something I like to engage in. I don't think that being eloquent and making witty rebuttals ever proves anything other than that you're a good debator. A good debator can make a convincing argument for anything - it's not a good technique for winning anyone to your side or convincing anyone of the truth. Thus, I usually try to avoid debates.

---

Well-formed rhetoric is capable of crystalizing issues and discovering where the insurmountable premises lie.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Gah, Dag agrees with me - I must be doing something wrong. *Adjusts debate position*
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
That's just my personal sentiment. I'm not saying anyone else has to take things that way. I thought it may be a good example of what the other boy in this scenario may be feeling.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Gah, Dag agrees with me - I must be doing something wrong. *Adjusts debate position*

---

quote:

---

I disagree with everyone on the board about at least one issue, too.

---

is incorrect, since

A) You do not disagree with yourself on any issue
B) You are a memeber of this board.

*Feels honour has been restored by use of nitpick*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

You do not disagree with yourself on any issue

---

You underestimate the extent of my mental instabilities.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
You may disagree with previous incarnations of yourself, but there clearly exists some granulation of time sufficiently fine that you do not change your mind within it.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
He has often been at odds with the evil Eenogad.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Now we're into metaphysics. Technically, by your reasoning, I probably never agree OR disagree with anyone, because I doubt I'm considering issues at the precise time as anyone else.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
True, but irrelevant to my purpose. I set out to prove that there exists at least one member of the board with whom you do not disagree. If, in the course of that proof, I manage to prove that you never disagree with anyone, so much the better - what was to be proved easily follows from that statement.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, I was relying on the unstated premise that a definition that makes a word useless is incorrect.

So your analysis is wrong. See - we're back to disagreeing.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I see no reason whatsoever to debate evolution vs creationism, unless attractive women could take up contrary positions and enter into a vigorous debate involving oil of some kind.

There's really no conclusion to reach, because each side (and there are many more than two) has a hefty element of faith mixed in. The most one could expect is to shift someone's position slightly.

Now, arguing about evolution in schools, that I'm always up for.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If he would explain what he believes, I would respect him more, it's just that I am farelly sure he doesn't even know what he believes."

Peter, I'm not sure that you don't want him to explain what he believes only so that you can attempt to pin him down in logical inconsistencies and/or flaws that you can address. I certainly suspect that he suspects this. And whether his own beliefs are tentative or unformed, or whether he is Buddhist enough to seek to avoid unnecessary conflict on this issue, you would do well to first assure him that your interest is not argumentative nor persuasive in nature; I think you need to show him that you're genuinely interested in understanding him as a person, and not in trying to find the right buttons to push.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In fact, I don't think the granulation of time needs to be made as fine as all that. If, for example, I had to divide time into Planck units (10^-43 seconds) then the definition would be reasonably useless. But I suspect there are many one-minute periods in which you do not change your mind on a given issue, possibly even one-hour periods. In periods of hours, we can probably find someone else thinking about the sme issues, judging by the post rates on the board. So I haven't - quite - defined 'agree' into uselessness.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Now, arguing about evolution in schools, that I'm always up for.

---

quote:

---

You underestimate the extent of my mental instabilities

---

So what exactly is the difference between creationist, evolutionist, etc. I'm having trouble figuring out where I stand on this issue because I don't really understand it to begin with.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Bah, lawyerly twaddle! Such hair-splitting has no place in a scientific discussion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
"Creationist" generally means a literal intepretation of Genesis - that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that the animals were created in the order specified in Genesis, that there was a world-encompassing flood survived by one family of humans and the animals carried on the Ark.

Evolutionists believe that species evolved from a common ancestor (or ancestors) via the mechanism of natural selection.

Some evolutionists believe that life was created essentially at random through chemical reactions. This is not properly a part of evolutionary theory.

Some evolutionists believe evolution is the method used by God to create the various species. Others are atheists or deists who believe it was entirely random.

There's also intelligent design, which I don't fully understand. I believe it states that examining the world can demonstrate it was not developed by chance.

Edit: One thing I hoped to make clear is that there are people who believe God created the world but do not fit under the common usage of "creationist." The word has been coopted.

Dagonee

[ December 17, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Quick rundown on the different schools of thought
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Bah, lawyerly twaddle! Such hair-splitting has no place in a scientific discussion.

---

Scientists are so cute when they have to deal with lawyers.

Next semester I take Quantitative Methods in Evidence and learn how to whore out scientists to juries.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I hold that there are virtual universes that are almost identical but not quite the same as ours that interact with each other only on the quantum level.

It is therefore important to realize that this interaction could result in a flow of negative entropy from the universe of highest possible order, therefore pockets of spontaneous order can occur at the quantum level.

These pockets are large enough to encompass DNA molecules and could give rise to very rapid evolution. This means that the highest possible order is dragging the rest of the universes along behind it.

I do not argue with Creationist because they embarrass me. I just feel bad for them, so I nod and go on and hope they have a good life! They are like children who believe in Santa!

BC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
One acronym you'll see somewhat if you do reading in the subject is YEC -- Young Earth Creationist.

Then there's OECs (though that's used less often), which means the obvious. These are somewhat less common, as then they have to explain the gradual appearance of species, and generally someone who is willing to accept the age of the earth is willing to accept some change.

An important point: Microevolution and macroevolution are not two different things. They are the same thing, except that they are somewhat descriptively useful ways of dividing evolution into "little bits of evolution" and "lots of evolution".

Intelligent Design relies on there being evidence for Intelligent Designer, which is why it is separate from the beliefs of "theistic evolutionists". Its important to note that there's no theory of theistic evolution or anything like that. "Theistic evolutionists" consider evolution to have happened in basically the same way as any other "evolutionist", they just also think its because of God. Most people who think evolution is the best explanation are "theistic evolutionists".

Also, its important to note that, while scientists do make inquiries into the probabilities involved, no part of any theory of Abiogenesis asserts it "happened randomly" or anything of the sort. Abiogenesis theories concern themselves with if it did happen, how it might have happened, and what the probabilities of that happening are under various circumstances. One can think a theory of abiogenesis is best supported by evidence and believe god did it.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dag -- You likely saw it, which would be good because I can't recall enough to pull it up quickly, but I saw a bit ago an article that found many judges were throwing out good scientific evidence (particularly in cases dealing with medical circumstances and the environment, iirc) because they didn't understand it (or its context in science). Sort of tangential to this topic, but thought it might be interesting.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I didn't see that article, but will go back and look.

There's a case (Daubert??) that mandates that judges keep out "junk" science. The standards have still not been clarified by SCOTUS - the Court actually encouraged the lower courts to experiment to come up with good methods.

The central problem, of course, is that a jury is no more likely to be able to understand scientific testimony than a judge. You can be sure scientists and engineers are kept off juries in cases with lots of scientific testimony.

If the information can't be understood, it can't be introduced, because likelihood of confusion is one of the standards.

Something radical is going to happen in this field in the next 20 years. One good provision is that judges can call their own experts. Judge Jackson, who handled the Microsoft case, does this very well.

But many judges just are not up on it. I think there needs to be a way to "qualify" judges in particular fields. Not as experts, but as knowledgable laymen.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
How many Lays make a knowlegeble Layman?

BC
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Some evolutionists believe evolution is the method used by God to create the various species. (...)

There's also intelligent design, which I don't fully understand. I believe it states that examining the world can demonstrate it was not developed by chance.

---

I think these two refer to the same position : Intelligent design proponents argue that evolution could not occur randomly, but would require a guiding hand. Some of them have also taken to using the 'anthropic principle' in physics and cosmology as proof for the existence of a designer. This principle rests on the observation that the physical laws and constants of our Universe are such that human life is possible. If any of the constants were changed, even by a fairly small amount, humans would not exist. Since there is clearly a large range of logically possible constants, and an even larger range of possible physical laws, the probability of our existing if the Universe was created randomly is (the intelligent designers assert) small.

To be clear about this, let me briefly explain what is meant by constants and what is meant by laws. A good example is found in Newton's theory of gravity; it asserts that the force between two objects is proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Now, I can change the constant of proportionality, conventionally denoted G; for example, it is easy to imagine a universe in which G is one thousand times its value here. Stephen Baxter has written an excellent book, Raft, set in such a universe. That is to change a constant, and even small changes in the constants of electromagnetism have large consequences for chemistry. Alternatively, one could imagine a universe in which the force was proportional to the cube of the distance, for example by assuming four spacelike dimensions. That changes the law, and - for this example - has the interesting side effect of making stable planetary orbits impossible. (IIRC)

Incidentally, there is another interesting example in Newton's theory. Consider F=ma, the second law. The mass that appears here is the same that appears in the law of gravity; but there is no good, logical reason for this to be true. Indeed, many relativity textbooks make no such assumption until the second or third chapter, where they (paraphrasing) "drop the subscripts g or i (referring to gravitational mass and inertial mass) in light of the experimental evidence that these quantities are always identical." This is a purely empirical fact! Yet if it were not true, again, planetary orbits would be unstable.

Some intelligent designers, then, assert that because only a particular and highly unlikely combination of laws and constants leads to humans, a Creator is required. There are some problems with this assertion. First, the fact that some given event is unlikely does not prove an intelligence produced. My birth was plainly quite unlikely : A hundred thousand sperm cells were competing, and then there is the issue of my mother's fertility on that particular day, not to mention that similar arguments apply to the births of my parents. Yet no-one asserts that a birth is miraculous, except in the sense that it is a profoundly moving event.

Second, while only one particular combination produces humans, we do not know what kinds of life might be produced with different combinations. The probability of life may even be quite high, and humans happen to be the type that emerged. This is analogous to a bridge hand, or lottery draw : Any given combination is extremely unlikely; with number lotteries, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is as unlikely as 1 4 6 11 21 22 36. But you know you are going to get some combination of numbers.

I should mention that the cosmological anthropic principle is only a subset of the main Intelligent Design hypothesis, which rests mainly on biology. Specifically, the assertion that life is too complex to have evolved purely by chance, and that some kind of guidance is required - presumably, God choosing this sperm cell rather than that one, or perhaps moving cosmic rays to cause a particularly desirable mutation.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
My pet theory also accounts for this, dumping all possible universes on top of each other results in this virtually flat universe preference. Of course having the solution to the great debate makes it dull every time it comes up. Nobody else understands it and bringing people up to speed is tedious.

BC
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Comrade BC, your so-called theory is nothing of the kind. Go play with your guns now.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Intelligent design, and evolution being the mechanism god uses, are different theories.

Intelligent design purports to show that god exists, scientifically, and that he created the world and designed it.

Evolution being guided by god is an idea that mixes science, and religion. In this case, god is not shown scientifically, but rather the scientist says "this is as far as science takes me. After that, I rely on non-scientific inquiry"
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 
If Chris' link is accurate, it seems to me that all 3 major belief systems have something I don't like about them. Naturalistic evolution believes that the universe was created at random, which I don't think is possible. Theistic evolution just seems to be trying to get the best of both worlds. And creationists just seem to completely believe the Bible, word for word, which I don't think is going to be accurate either. This is going to be harder than I thought...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
KoM: This is not correct, ID is a "theory" (actually, hypothesis would be overly generous) that evolution is guided by an intelligent, largely omnipotent being and that there is scientific evidence for it. The idea that evolution happens because of God is separate, similar to the idea that gravity happens because of God. The counterpart to the second example would be a "theory" that in the universe as it exists gravity did not happen, but that God moved everything in the ways they move (that we currently say are caused by gravitation), and that we could detect (as that's required by science) this causing, either directly or indirectly.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
At the very least, they strongly overlap. Intelligent Design people do assert, I believe, that evolution occurs, but is guided by God. It is possible that not all guided-by-God-asserters are Intelligent Designers - though I don't quite see how else to classify them. Perhaps they believe that God guides evolution towards random results? If so, seems to be a particularly striking example of defining a concept into uselessness.

Edit : This was in response to comrade Paul.

Edit 2 : But in light of fugu's post, I see that I was wrong. Very good point, and an important distinction.

[ December 17, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Jaime -- these aren't belief systems, in that "evolution" isn't something one believes in, at least any more than one believes the world is round (for instance).

I'm uncertain what problems you have with being someone who thinks evolution happens but thinks that it (like everything else) happens because of God. What's problematic with "trying to have the best of both worlds" (though this implies a conflict/dichotomy that's not there; plenty of people believe in God and think the evidence points clearly to evolution)?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
edit: heh, looks like this was unnecessary, but I'll leave it, it might help someone else.

KoM -- by far most people who think evolution happens (most scientists, definitely) think it happens because of God. Incredibly few of these are ID proponents.

Its not a useless division at all -- ID people think they can scientifically prove God's involved, while most people don't (makes sense -- how many people have you heard of who try to scientifically prove God through gravitation?).

[ December 17, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

KoM -- by far most people who think evolution happens (most scientists, definitely) think it happens because of God.

---

quote:

---

Naturalistic evolution believes that the universe was created at random, which I don't think is possible.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps they believe that God guides evolution towards random results? If so, seems to be a particularly striking example of defining a concept into uselessness.

---

quote:

---

"evolution" isn't something one believes in

---

quote:

---

What have your likes and dislikes got to do with it?

---

quote:

---

I do not argue with Creationist because they embarrass me. I just feel bad for them, so I nod and go on and hope they have a good life! They are like children who believe in Santa!

---

Why's that? because we creationists don't have evidence to support our 'theory'? Where's the evidence of the evolution? There is a reason that they are called missing links. THEY ARE MISSING!!!

I literally believe in the Bible, every single word. I believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days, and that God spoke aimals and humans into existence. I know there seems to be a magical element behind this, but there is just as much magic behind the theory of evolution. Taking inatimate molecules and suddenly getting life seems harder to believe than the thought that an all powerful being created us.

I know I'm preaching, but then again, i believe in santa.

[ December 18, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Peter ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Where's the evidence of the evolution?"

Please read my link on the first page, in its entirety.

There's more evidence for evolution, than any other scientific theory except perhaps gravity and electromagnetism.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Peter, there have been several links provided that give evidence of evolution. If you want to debate this topic, it behooves you to understand the opposing position more fully.

Just as you would casually dismiss anyone who relies on "who is Cain's wife?" as not understanding Creationism, so too can evolutionists dismiss anyone who claims that speciation does not occur, or that transitional fossils do not exist.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
Let me just say that I love you all, and especially your timing.

I'm currently doing research into faith and belief and how people arrive at the belief systems that they hold. This is just the sort of thing I'm interested in, what you all have been talking about here. You all have given me some great food for thought here.

everyone who has participated in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

There is a reason that they are called missing links. THEY ARE MISSING!!!

---

quote:

---

The central problem, of course, is that a jury is no more likely to be able to understand scientific testimony than a judge. You can be sure scientists and engineers are kept off juries in cases with lots of scientific testimony.

---

quote:

---

Comrade BC, your so-called theory is nothing of the kind. Go play with your guns now.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but Dagonee, could you explain this? Why would people whose knowledge could assist in a case be kept away?

---

quote:

---

That said I will give you this to demonstrate that what I say is a based in sound scientific theory if you care to extend a few ideas to overlap each other. Specifically genetics and Quantum theory.

Virtual photons can effect photons as can virtual electrons, this is accepted physics. It is here that we see a mechanism to explain evolution, and to account for why it moves toward greater consciousness. Its speed, its rapid emergence and its direction. It is also an explanation for insight and genius. The uncertainty principle guarantees that molecularly significant areas of negative entropy do exist.

Combine this with the Sum over Histories theory and you have a mechanism that allows the complex possible to shape the real. Of course as complexity climbs you have some of your order bleeding away into less complex possibilities. That however is ameliorated by the nature of life, its robustness.

---

quote:

---

Darwin showed evolution within a species, then when he realized what they had turned it into, he protested it. He spent the last seven years of his life denouncing evolution, and his deathbed wish was that it would not be taught in schools.

---

Could you provide evidence for this? It seems strange that Darwin would protest that his work was used as evidence of macroevolution since he later wrote The Descent of Man which theorized that humans evolved from apes.

And I wanted to mention something along the lines of what Dagonee said, but he said it better and more succinctly than I could have.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Hehe. Did you even read my post, comrade Peter? But I agree with you : You are plainly not worth debating with.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Peter:

quote:

---

At the end of the day, if I'm wrong and your right, i lose nothing, we both go nowhere. But, if I'm right and you're wrong, i gain everything and you lose everything.

---

Unless I'm a Christian evolutionist, of course.

Which I'm not, but that's besides the point.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In any case, you left out several possibilities : Suppose we are both wrong, and the Roman Catholics are right? We both burn in hell; but according to Dante, apostates are punished worse than atheists. Further, suppose no Earthly religion is right, but there is a God who likes people who think for themselves? You burn, I get a harp.

In fact, now I think about it, let's do a quick probability argument. There are five major religions in the world today; but each of those has a large amount of subsects. Then there are any number of older sects, several hundred just among the American Indians, for example; there are also a bunch of extinct or nearly-extinct religions, like Mithraism and Asatru. Add in ancient stone-age gods, one per tribe no doubt, and you must have thousands of possible gods at the very least. Tens of thousands seems likely, hundreds of thousands possible. (And, to be sure, add one for atheism.) So, just what is the chance that you are correct? One in ten thousand, at a conservative estimate.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But, if I'm right and you're wrong, i gain everything and you lose everything."

Wow, Peter. I know you're new, and I know you don't know this, but you're like every straw man pro-creation argument I've ever wished I could make up rolled up into a little ball for my enjoyment.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Quit playing with your food, Tom.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, but he's so cute! I mean, what are the odds that someone would come on this site and not have had any of these conversations with other people before? To be honest, though, I don't really have the heart to get into it.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You're just afraid you wouldn't be able to stop.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, no.
Honestly, it's because I'm feeling rather grumpy right now about something else and very cynical, indeed. And the best I could accomplish would be to tick the poor guy off; in the worst case scenario, it would be like kicking a puppy in his fundamentals.

I've just had these conversations too recently to approach them with anything resembling subtlety.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Peter:

quote:

---

Here's what i know:

Darwin showed evolution within a species, then when he realized what they had turned it into, he protested it. He spent the last seven years of his life denouncing evolution, and his deathbed wish was that it would not be taught in schools. How many of you who claim to believe in evolution have actually read The Origin of Species? any? i have. the only proof for evolution is not for macro- but for micro-evolution.

---

quote:

---

The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism.

Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.

This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:

It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity...
In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it.

---