brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Fri Oct 4 19:59:41 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:o4eopu4hq8r46jjc3amtdin77deu2vr69i at 4ax.com...
>> 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.

Science doesn't prove.  It tests.  Tests verify the age of the earth
being measured in billions of years, not mere millions.

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

Yes it has.  Just look at the pointers in the talk.origins FAQ

>3)  That life has been around "millions of years", something that CANNOT be
>proven,

It can and has been tested and verified.  Science doesn't "prove"
things.

>CANNOT be observed,

Evidence of the antiquity of life is observed.

>and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.

False.

>4) "Given enough time" has NOT been observed, is a copout for their failure
>to OBSERVE any of this,

False.

>and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.

False.

>> 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.
>
>You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, yet again.

No.

> Do you feel strongly both ways, again?

No.

>You're claiming that these process take millions of years

The process of macroevolution takes millions of years of steps of
microevolution which can take a single generation.

>at the same time
>you're arguing that "We have observed the natural formation of new species".

We have.

>WHICH is it?  We CANNOT observe speciation because it takes "millions of
>years",

We cannot observe macroevolution because it takes millions of years.

>We have not OBSERVED speciation,

Yes we have.

>we have not a SINGLE fossile of even one of
>the trillions of intermediate life forms 

No "intermediate life forms" are needed for minimal speciation.  The
new species themselves are the intermediate life forms in even larger
changes.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list