BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Dec 10 15:41:32 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >A short observation made at the infamous "Scopes Monkey trial" shows
>> >that everyone knew that scientists were saying in so many words that
>> >men evolved from apes....
>>
>> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
>>
>> is the textbook that Scopes used in his classes.  It does not say that
>> men evolved from apes.  It says just as we do that men and apes are
>> kinds of primates and are thus related.
>
>Apples and oranges are kids of fruits and thus are kinda related--but that
>doesn't mean that an apple "evolved" from an orange or a "common ancestor",

But they did evolve from a common ancestor.

>Don't you "evolutionists" ever think it's kinda strange that the bones of
>not a SINGLE "common ancestor" have EVER been found? 

au contraire.  Many common ancestors have been found.  The one that
hasn't been found is the most recent before the two lineages split.
But then that species might have been so small in number that no
fossils were left.

>You make all kinds of wild assumptions,

Nope.

>You claimed that Neanderthal and homo sapiens were "related",

They are.

>or had a "common ancestor",

That is what "related" means.

>or are "related".

You're repeating yourself.

>DNA evidence comes along and PROVES you're wrong,

DNA evidence has not proven me wrong.  It proved that Neanderthals
themselves were not ancestral to humans, but only cousins.

>you
>haven't found ONE single fossile which even BEGINS to demonstrate such
>"speciation",

We've observed speciation in real life without fossils.

>You're utter morons.

Whereas you are merely a nincompoop.

>With the way Gallup frames their questions, if they report that "Among
>scientists, only 5 percent hold the literal Bible view, 40 percent believe
>in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution
>without help from God" [which they did], then the odds are pretty high that
>far less than 55% of American "scientists" are "evolutionists"

Actually, of that is what Gallup says, then 95% accept evolution, and
are thus evolutionists.  They are evolutionists whether they are
theistic evolutionist or nontheistic evolutionists, because the theory
of evolution makes no claims whatsoever about God being involved or
NOT involved in the process.

>You "liberals"

Are you talking about the majority that voted for liberal Al Gore?  Or
are you using some sort of nincompoop definition of "liberal". Never
mind, we know the answer to that.

>This is why, even after DECADES of you
>"liberals" preaching "evolution" in our "public" "schools", 91% of Americans
>still do NOT accept your little "theory" of evolution.

Wrong.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list