brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Cary Kittrell cary at afone.as.arizona.edu
Mon Oct 7 14:51:58 EST 2002


In article <NVko9.120025$S32.8303253 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:ansegv$l0n$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article <3d9e4765.8309914 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
<JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) writes:
<> <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<> <
<>     {...}
<> <>
<> <>If it says that -- and please, what encyclopaedia is this? --
<> <>then it's simply wrong.  Speculating about abiogenesis is a pleasant
<> <>parlor game, and there have been some interesting empirical experiments
<> <>too -- way too much is made of Urey and Miller, by the way, but they
<> <>were hardly the only ones -- but neodarwinism says nothing about
<> <>how organisms arose, it talks about what happens to them once they're
<around.
<> <>Classic Darwinism says exactly the same thing about abiogenesis
<> <>as well -- to wit: nothing.
<> <
<> <For your information, philosphers have been addressing evolution for
<> <centuries.
<>
<> For your information, they haven't.  The Great Chain of Being, which
<> is what you're doubtless talking about, was viewed as a static
<> and once-created thing, not as a dynamic and constantly self-
<> modifying process.
<>
<
<And "scientists" have not a shred of evidence that those species which
<became extinct weren't created at exactly the same time as ALL of the
<species which are still in existence were created.
<

Sorry, sport, but there are untold numbers of "shreds".  Read any good
book on paleontology.  You can make all the loud bald pronouncements
you like, but they carry zero weight in comparison to the opinions
of the hoards of gologists and paleontologists who have actually 
sat down and studied the subject -- and then researched, published, 
and presented their discoveries in the field.


<Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
<form [often misnamed "species"] 

Whatever in the world are you babbling about here?  


<is no reason to believe that ANY modern
<species wasn't orginally created in exactly its current form.
<

All species emerged approximately in their "current" forms.  When
they change significantly, they become new species.


<The sheer speculation that Neanderthal was an ancestor to humanoids was
<DISPROVEN by the DNA evidence which showed that this "common ancestor" would
<have had to have lived a million years ago.  But this is SPECULATION,
<because not one single fossil exists as evidence that Neanderthal
<"speciated" into humanoids.
<

I don't know of anyone up on all the current evidence who thinks they did.  
They're thought to be a conspecific -- hence _Homo neandertalis_ -- not an 
ancestor.


<In order for "speciation" to take place, the fossils of the intermediate
<species would have been a thousand or a billion times more prevalent than
<the original Neanderthal fossils--but not ONE has been found, leaving this
<as sheer SPECULATION.

And as you're the only who speculates this, so I suupose it's up to
you to provide your "evidence".



<
<> <It wasn't until the 18th century that science entered
<> <the discussion.  In other words, your Lord Darwin did not invent
<> <evolution like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
<>
<> Of course he didn't.  What he did do was to  1) provide for the
<> first time a plausible mechanism which moved evolution from
<> the realm of speculation to the purview of science, and  2)
<> provide great thundering encyclopaedic piles of evidence
<> and examples.  But I sure you, as "a Biologists", already
<> knew this.
<
<They already knew that the South American rhea can resembled the African
<ostrich, but no biologist was STUPID enough to claim that they both
<"evolved" from a "common ancestor".  From this STUPID assessment, Darwinists
<and
<"evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
<

"man evolved from monkeys"?  You really should learn a little about
a topic before you attack it.  It might make you look marginally
less sillier.


<NOT UNTIL YOU PRODUCE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR TO THE OSTRICH AND RHEA CAN YOU
<CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
<http://christianparty.net/evolution.htm
<

Don't be even sillier.  Just because no one speaks proto Indo-European, 
that doesn't lead anyone to believe that every Indo-European language
sprang into existance in an act of complete separate creation from
every other Indo-European language.  The last common ancestor of
all those languages is no longer spoken, nor did it leave any
records, but no one doubts there was such a language.  Except
perhaps Biblical literalists, but even they don't get all upset
about it.  

Incidentally, cladistics, being far more honest than you, stipulates
that even if there are a zillion fossils of species A, which was
in fact the last common ancestor of species B and C, there is still
no way to prove that it was a common ancestor -- it may be another
conspecific, and there's no way to settle the issue one way or the
other.



<>
<> But the idea that species weren't necessarily timeless entities
<> had been in the air for over half a century, ever since the
<> fossil evidence made it undeniable that large numbers of very
<> strange animals had once roamed the planet, but then disappeared.
<>
<> <
<> <It's people like me and Mr. Knight who keep you guys from perverting
<> <dictionaries, encyclopdias and bibles and turning civilization into
<> <mass meanigless chaos.
<>
<>
<> You mean like Mr. Knight's definition of "adultery"?
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<
<Well, thanks, cary, it's sure nice to know that you believe that it was I
<who developed the Hebrew language and thus caused the Hebrew word "toebah"
<to mean miscegenation and adultery, but I must decline that honor.
<

Hey, you're the one who claims dictionaries are the final arbiter
of meaning, and only "liberals" will try to weasel out of their
certain authority.  Here, allow me to quote you:

    "Liberals" don't ever permit themselves to be constrained 
    by dictionary definitions, encyclopedias, nor facts.  It's 
    how they "feel" which is at issue.

or how about:

    Mr. August's point is that "combatting EVIL" is the PREREQUISITE 
    to living a Christian life, something nobody expects someone like 
    you who can't even read the dictionary definition of "race" to understand.

or again:

    The 91% of Americans who disagree with half of our "scientists", or the 
    small minority of affirmative-action-educated, affirmative-action-trained, 
    and affirmative-action-hired "scientists" who can't even read a dictionary?
    
    
and my dictionary says

    adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man
    and someone other than his wife or between a married
    woman and someone other than her husband; 


Q, at least by your strange point of view, ED.


-- cary



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list