brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Oct 4 14:51:14 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:o4eopu4hq8r46jjc3amtdin77deu2vr69i at 4ax.com...
> cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> ><"Evolution" CANNOT be observed, to any degree.  The *speculation* that a
> ><human "evolved" from some other form of life has NEVER been observed, to
ANY
> ><degree.
> >
> >Of course it hasn't.
>
> Actually, evolution has been observed.  But creationists consider the
> microevolution that is generally observed to not be convincing,
> because they cannot extrapolate from a few decades to a few million
> years to see the order of magnitude of changes that can result given
> enough time.

This makes four FALSE assumptions:

1)  That Earth has been around "millions of years".  This CANNOT be proven,
scientifically or otherwise.

2)  That humans have been around long enough to see this "microevolution",
something that has NOT been observed.

3)  That life has been around "millions of years", something that CANNOT be
proven, CANNOT be observed, and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.

4) "Given enough time" has NOT been observed, is a copout for their failure
to OBSERVE any of this, and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.

Other than that, it's a solid case, eh?

>
> We have observed the natural formation of new species, but the
> nincompoop pooh-poohs this just as he does the existence of 60,000-odd
> species of orchids (which usually cannot naturally interbreed because
> of geography, differing modes of natural fertilization (i.e. they
> attract different species of insect to carry pollen to the female
> cells), or genetic incompatibility, but which can be artificially
> induced to breed.
>
> lojbab

You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, yet again.  Do you feel
strongly both ways, again?

You're claiming that these process take millions of years at the same time
you're arguing that "We have observed the natural formation of new species".

WHICH is it?  We CANNOT observe speciation because it takes "millions of
years", or we HAVE observed speciation (and nobody believes it)?

We have not OBSERVED speciation, we have not a SINGLE fossile of even one of
the trillions of intermediate life forms which MUST have existed in order to
accomodate millions of years of speciation from one species to another, we
have not the slightest concept of what such an intermediate species would
have looked like, we don't know how a dynasaur speciating into a bird would
have survived as an environmentally challenged cross breed for so long, we
have NOTHING but evidence that each and every single existing species today
looks EXACTLY as it did the day it was formed.f

It is not a "theory" at all.  It is child's play, as Darwin himself
admitted.

John Knight






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list