An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.
Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html
Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
jcrawford
Grumpy :2gun:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
[/quote]
Then you are in error. I am not angry but I am offended by your continued falsehoods. It has become extremely evident that you have no clue about what constitutes real science and what does not. Hint: the real thing is the one with all the real evidence and is being taught in all the public schools and does not have to resort to "then a miracle occured" when something is not yet understood. Also we don't assume that we evolved, we know it to be a fact, get used to it, it's not going to change.Grumpy: promise not to get angry or offended if I tell you that I don't consider neo-Darwinist charts, diagrams or fossil photos as scientifically demonstrable or empirical "evidence" of human evolution in or out of Africa. Rather do I see evidence of scientific racism inherent in the diagramatic labeling of unfounded neo-Darwinist assumptions about the origin of the human race and human 'species' in Africa from common ancestors of African monkeys and apes.
Grumpy :2gun:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
[/quote]
Post #62
It's a little hard to tell what you're talking about here. On the one hand, of course there must be diversity within any population, and H. habilis is no exception. However, the fact that there is diversity--maybe even to the extent of races or subspecies or even species--does not at all require that "continued evolution of one racial group within H. habilis must be contingent upon the extinction of all other racial groups within the H. habilis species." That just does not make sense. After all, think of what you are saying: If the evolution of a new species requires extinction of the prior species, then there would be no way for an ancestor species to give rise to more than one descendent species. There would be no diversity of life. There would be only one species--since all of the others would have gone extinct. Obviously, this notion of old species going extinct when new species arise must be bunk.jcrawford wrote:I am only using the obvious scientific fact that racial diversity undeniably exists within H. sapiens sapiens to claim that H. habilis must also have racially diversified over a period of .5 million years. Thus, the survival and continued evolution of one racial group within H. habilis must be contingent upon the extinction of all other racial groups within the H. habilis species. Obviously, if other racial groups within H. habilis survived extinction in isolation over the given hundreds of thousands of years, they too could have genetically mutated, and through 'natural selection,' evolve into another neo-Darwinst 'species' of human beings in Africa.
Now we have two African species with racial diversity within them competing for scarce resources in Africa. How might neo-Darwinist theorists account for the 'natural selection' and further evolution of one racial group within these 'species' into a new neo-Darwinst 'species' artificially and superficially labeled H. rudolfensis?
Now, if two populations of one species evolve in different ways, one of which is an ancestor of H. sapiens, and the other of which is not, then it's not possible to have what you have said: "another neo-Darwinst 'species' of human beings." The 'species' of human beings is H. sapiens--us. It is not our ancestral species. If you insist on including our ancestral species in the term "human," then you must include all of them, back through the amphibians and lobe-finned fish, all the way down to primordial ooze. You have previously expressed reluctance to do so, but you have also been unable to define where to draw the line between our ancestors and...uhhh...whatever we were before our ancestors were alive...nothing, I guess.
Otherwise, it sounds like you are talking about normal evolution, in which population A splits into two groups, which we can call A and B, and then B splits into two groups, which we can call B and C. With the inevitable microevolution, we're pretty much guaranteed that A, B, and C will end up being different in one or more characteristics. If this is all you are saying, then what's the big deal?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #63
Yes, but I am not talking about the necessity of former human 'species' becoming extinct in order for a new 'species' to arise and to continue evolving, although that does seem to be the eventual pattern in the history of human species, since there is only one now. Even the fossil record dates H. erectus as living contemporaneously with other human species for almost 2 million years until it's mysterious disappearance within the past hundred thousand years.Jose wrote:It's a little hard to tell what you're talking about here. On the one hand, of course there must be diversity within any population, and H. habilis is no exception. However, the fact that there is diversity--maybe even to the extent of races or subspecies or even species--does not at all require that "continued evolution of one racial group within H. habilis must be contingent upon the extinction of all other racial groups within the H. habilis species." That just does not make sense. After all, think of what you are saying: If the evolution of a new species requires extinction of the prior species, then there would be no way for an ancestor species to give rise to more than one descendent species. There would be no diversity of life. There would be only one species--since all of the others would have gone extinct. Obviously, this notion of old species going extinct when new species arise must be bunk.
What I am trying to draw your attention to are the evolutionary conditions and racial diversity which must prevail when a small population of humans within a species genetically mutates adaptively and advantageously in an environment and becomes isolated, separated or insulated from the rest of the population. At this point, the group may be regarded as becoming racially diverse from the rest of the 'species' and/or recognized as a sub-species. This elementary evolutionary process involving the twin engines of genetic mutation and natural selection may also occur randomly throughout the rest of the species and depending on whether the mutations turn out to be beneficial or harmful in terms of adaptation and survival, several small groups of indivuals start to diversify on the racial level, some of which will survive or become extinct through the consesequences of natural selection.
Now we come to the stage and time where the 'species' (say, H. habilis) is going to evolve into another species of humans. (H. rudolfensis) I say, human, because that is what it means to be classified as under the genus, Homo. H. habilis has been around long enough to racially diversify and several of those groups may have already have genetically failed to be 'naturally selected' for continued survival due to a variety of maladaptive reasons. Two, three, four or maybe more groups have racially evolved into different tribes which peacefully co-exist or even fight each other from time to time.
The problem for evolutionist theory is now focused on which one of these racial groups (tribes) within H. habilis further evolves into H. rudolfensis, and what happens to the other habilis tribes (racial groups) once one is 'naturally selected' to become a new species which will further diversify racially and be subject to the same species 'selection' process all over again until reaching the stage of H. sapiens sapiens.
As I see it, the remaining racially diverse habilis tribes are still able to interbreed, being the same species, and are still candidates for further evolution themselves, but as the neo-Darwinist charts and diagrams show, only one habilis tribe evolved into rudolfensis and the rest eventually became extinct. I wonder why those other subspecies or racial divisions within H. habilis eventually became extinct? Could more advanced racial groups within H. rudolfensis have wiped them out over time or did they all just get sick and die. One thing seems sure. All former species and races of human beings seem to have come to an untimely end, sooner or later. At least according to neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.
Post #64
jcrawford
If you understood modern evolutionary theory you would know of punctuated equilibrium, which describes the long periods of little change in organisms followed by relatively short periods of rapid change, usually brought on by evolutionary pressures caused by environmental changes or catastrophies(meteors,vulcanism,ice ages) which reduce populations to smaller numbers(bottlenecks) and separate them from contact with others of their kind. Concentration of gene pools can cause rapid mutation(beneficial or not) which then gets selected(or rejected) for survival purposes. The human species went through a genetic bottleneck some 170,000 years ago(according to fossil and Mitochondrial DNA evidence) where the only creatures to survive then differentiated into Sapiens and Neanderthalus which coexisted until close to modern times, their legends were even included in the Bible(there were giants in the land). Unfortunately, Sapiens is not a good neibhor,we killed millions of ourselves over the period covered by written records, why would we hesitate to kill off the Neaderthals??? Most of the above follows the work of Steven J. Gould but has been substantiated by many others and has generally accepted as valid.
You can learn something every day, if you have an open mind.
Grumpy
If you understood modern evolutionary theory you would know of punctuated equilibrium, which describes the long periods of little change in organisms followed by relatively short periods of rapid change, usually brought on by evolutionary pressures caused by environmental changes or catastrophies(meteors,vulcanism,ice ages) which reduce populations to smaller numbers(bottlenecks) and separate them from contact with others of their kind. Concentration of gene pools can cause rapid mutation(beneficial or not) which then gets selected(or rejected) for survival purposes. The human species went through a genetic bottleneck some 170,000 years ago(according to fossil and Mitochondrial DNA evidence) where the only creatures to survive then differentiated into Sapiens and Neanderthalus which coexisted until close to modern times, their legends were even included in the Bible(there were giants in the land). Unfortunately, Sapiens is not a good neibhor,we killed millions of ourselves over the period covered by written records, why would we hesitate to kill off the Neaderthals??? Most of the above follows the work of Steven J. Gould but has been substantiated by many others and has generally accepted as valid.
You can learn something every day, if you have an open mind.
Grumpy
Post #65
In this case, the current candidate for immediate ancestor of H. sapiens is H. heidlebergensis. Correct? Are you saying that H. heidlebergensis was not a human being? Why is heidlebergensis classified as Homo then if not a human being? If Homo doesn't = Human then our genus name should be changed to Human. When I type H. I mean Human. Therefore, H. sapiens and H. habilis are both Human 'species' in neo-Darwinist nomenclature. Otherwise, Homo becomes a meaningless genus.Jose wrote:[Now, if two populations of one species evolve in different ways, one of which is an ancestor of H. sapiens, and the other of which is not, then it's not possible to have what you have said: "another neo-Darwinst 'species' of human beings."
That's ridiculous and would render the genus Homo meaningless. This is where neo-Darwinism becomes absurd. Calling our ancestors amphibians and fish is even more ludicrous than calling them apes. Why the adamant refusal on the part of neo-Darwinst race theorists to call our human ancestors in Africa human beings while not hesitating to label them fish, amphibians and apes?The 'species' of human beings is H. sapiens--us. It is not our ancestral species. If you insist on including our ancestral species in the term "human," then you must include all of them, back through the amphibians and lobe-finned fish, all the way down to primordial ooze.
No, Jose, I define where to draw the line between humans and other neo-Darwinist primates by reference to the Bible. You know I don't fall for those neo-Darwinist monkey tales and fish stories about Human beings in Africa decending from apes, amphibians and fish.You have previously expressed reluctance to do so, but you have also been unable to define where to draw the line between our ancestors and...uhhh...whatever we were before our ancestors were alive...nothing, I guess.
THE BIG DEAL:Otherwise, it sounds like you are talking about normal evolution, in which population A splits into two groups, which we can call A and B, and then B splits into two groups, which we can call B and C. With the inevitable microevolution, we're pretty much guaranteed that A, B, and C will end up being different in one or more characteristics. If this is all you are saying, then what's the big deal?
When human species S1 becomes racially diversified and microevolves into observable racial variations, "being different in one or more characteristics," and which may be anthropologically referred to as sub-species, tribes or simply racial groups (R) within the species, we end up with racially diverse populations of human beings R1, R2, R3 etc. within S1.
Further genetic mutation and natural selection result in continued evolution of the 3 or more original R groups to the point where one of them becomes qualified to be called a new Human species (S2) by neo-Darwinists. There is no reason or evidence that S2 can no longer interbreed with the remaining R's of S1, but neo-Darwinists theorize they do not because it is necessary to keep the gene pool of the new species from being contaminated with the regressive genes of the earlier species.
The 3 R's continue can racially interbreed with each other, but for some strange custom or tribal reasons, prefer not to, and continue on their evolutionist way for a few hundred thousand years, with some new racial variations evolving and some dying out by 'natural selection' which also fails to genetically qualify and select any of them for elevation to the 'species' level of human being. Meanwhile S2 has begun to diversify racially and a similar sequence of evolutionist events befall S2R1, S2R2, S2R3, etc. over the years until S3 suddenly appears.
Just as suddenly though, R1, R2, R3 etc. of the original Human species become exinct for no apparent or explainable reason other than the whole original neo-Darwinist human species did. No one suspects that R1, R2, R3 etc. of S2 had anything to do with it, and evolutionist theory in African marches on.
Big deal. All those mass extinctions of human racial groups throughout the world over hundreds of thousands of years of human history by new neo-Darwinist 'species' are just fanciful racial theories, thank God. Even if they are 'scientific' and backed up by theoretical 'evidence.'
Post #66
jcrawford
Grumpy
The genus name Homo doesn't indicate anything except that the specimen is on the line which lead to modern humans(Sapiens Sapiens) Habilis,heidlebergensis, erectus and prior specimens, though they had some human traits, were no more human in the modern sense than a chimpanzee or a gorilla. Basicly the only thing they had in common with us was an upright stance, opposable thumbs and the acident to be in the direct line which lead to humans. You seem to be hung up on the artificial classifications that man has imposed on the continuum of hominids. They existed, they evolved from common ancestors of apes to us,more intellegent and less hairy apes, and despite you inability to imagine how, nature alone is responsible for the whole thing(6 or 7). You can believe any superstitious nonsense you like, it doesn't change the facts.Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:22 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose wrote:
[Now, if two populations of one species evolve in different ways, one of which is an ancestor of H. sapiens, and the other of which is not, then it's not possible to have what you have said: "another neo-Darwinst 'species' of human beings."
In this case, the current candidate for immediate ancestor of H. sapiens is H. heidlebergensis. Correct? Are you saying that H. heidlebergensis was not a human being? Why is heidlebergensis classified as Homo then if not a human being? If Homo doesn't = Human then our genus name should be changed to Human. When I type H. I mean Human. Therefore, H. sapiens and H. habilis are both Human 'species' in neo-Darwinist nomenclature. Otherwise, Homo becomes a meaningless genus.
Grumpy
Post #67
Well, Grumpy,Grumpy wrote:You can learn something every day, if you have an open mind.
it's nice to see you in a more studious light and your vastly improved writing style reflects it. I really appreciate your POV much more when you do the writing instead of referring me to other websites since we are only debating their POV's in the first place. I'm sure that you also appreciate it when we don't insult each other's intelligence just because we have different religious POV's.Yes, I am familiar with Eldrige and Gould's theory of 'punk-eek' and have even read several good books by Gould. You must realize, of course, that the theory of a population bottleneck caused by catastrophic flooding and vulcanism leading to an Ice Age separating human populations, is at the heart of creationist theory of how the world was repopulated after one such cataclysmic event.If you understood modern evolutionary theory you would know of punctuated equilibrium, which describes the long periods of little change in organisms followed by relatively short periods of rapid change, usually brought on by evolutionary pressures caused by environmental changes or catastrophies(meteors,vulcanism,ice ages) which reduce populations to smaller numbers(bottlenecks) and separate them from contact with others of their kind.
Yes, even Lubenow points this out.Concentration of gene pools can cause rapid mutation(beneficial or not) which then gets selected(or rejected) for survival purposes.
Here's where we run into semantic and interpretive difficulties, Grumpy, because what you call fossil and DNA "evidence," I only refer to as 'theory.' I am familiar with the important fossils from 170 tya and they show no evidence of having gone through a 'bottleneck' of any kind, population, genetic or otherwise. I don't even know what human species you are referring to when you just write "The human species." Don't tell me you only regard H. sapiens sapiens as "human" and consider Neanderthal people sub-human!The human species went through a genetic bottleneck some 170,000 years ago(according to fossil and Mitochondrial DNA evidence) ...
Differentiating Sapiens and Neanderthal people into 'species' gets tricky, Grumpy. Why do you suppose neo-Darwinists classify different racial groups as 'species' on the basis of physical appearances alone. Do you think they have any preconceived ideas about what constitutes human racial and species differences?... where the only creatures to survive then differentiated into Sapiens and Neanderthalus which coexisted until close to modern times, their legends were even included in the Bible(there were giants in the land).
What makes you assume that "we" did kill of the Neanderthals in the first place, Grumpy? After all, from the muscular pictures and physical descriptions of their big game hunting abilities I've seen of them, they look and sound rather formidable to a computer nerd like me. Besides, we weren't even around back then, so we can't be held liable for their theoretical genocide by ornery Homo sapiens like Charles Darwin.Unfortunately, Sapiens is not a good neibhor,we killed millions of ourselves over the period covered by written records, why would we hesitate to kill off the Neaderthals???
Dear departed Stephen J. Gould. No more evolution for him.Most of the above follows the work of Steven J. Gould but has been substantiated by many others and has generally accepted as valid.
Yes, Grumpy. I like that saying. You keep your mind open now too, hear?You can learn something every day, if you have an open mind.
Grumpy
That way, we may both learn something every day.
Post #68
Grumpy wrote:jcrawford wrote:In this case, the current candidate for immediate ancestor of H. sapiens is H. heidlebergensis. Correct? Are you saying that H. heidlebergensis was not a human being? Why is heidlebergensis classified as Homo then if not a human being? If Homo doesn't = Human then our genus name should be changed to Human. When I type H. I mean Human. Therefore, H. sapiens and H. habilis are both Human 'species' in neo-Darwinist nomenclature. Otherwise, Homo becomes a meaningless genus.So only neo-Darwinist H. sapiens sapiens is fully and truly human, and all other 'species' found in the human fossil record are progressively de-humanized in a descending order until we get back to more apish looking fossils and people in Africa. Sorry. Associating "primitive" African people with neo-Darwinist monkey and ape ancestors is a prejudicial form of scientific racism originally conjured up by neo-Darwinst race theorists.The genus name Homo doesn't indicate anything except that the specimen is on the line which lead to modern humans(Sapiens Sapiens)
I see. Since all these neo-Darwinist sub-human 'species' originated in Africa from African monkey and ape ancestors, it's only natural that most of them had few human traits and more closely resembled gorillas and chimps. Nice theory.Habilis,heidlebergensis, erectus and prior specimens, though they had some human traits, were no more human in the modern sense than a chimpanzee or a gorilla.
And you say this is more than mere theory? That it is historical fact and not mere superstition, fantasy, fancy or myth?Basicly the only thing they had in common with us was an upright stance, opposable thumbs and the acident to be in the direct line which lead to humans.
Speaking of artificial classifications being imposed on man, who put the Human family on a branch of the Hominidae family tree?You seem to be hung up on the artificial classifications that man has imposed on the continuum of hominids.
Your facts don't seem to agree with my facts at all.They existed, they evolved from common ancestors of apes to us,more intellegent and less hairy apes, and despite you inability to imagine how, nature alone is responsible for the whole thing(6 or 7). You can believe any superstitious nonsense you like, it doesn't change the facts.
Grumpy
And that's a fact.
Post #69
jcrawford
Grumpy
Your facts??? What facts???Your facts don't seem to agree with my facts at all.
And that's a fact.
Evolution did that and left behind copious amounts of evidence which we are finding every day. We are the ones who put in the artificial dividing lines between specimens based on where on the continuum that fossil appears to be(based on arbitrary classifications of physical characteristics).Speaking of artificial classifications being imposed on man, who put the Human family on a branch of the Hominidae family tree?
The fact that evolution occurred(in humans as well) is undeniable by anyone who has studied the fossil evidence, the only ones who can deny that are those who are ignorant of that evidence or those who resist and reject it's reality due to religious or other reasons. The theories explaining the processes causing what we see in the evidence can change when our understanding changes.And you say this is more than mere theory?
By Jove!!! I think he's got it!!! But sub-human is your word, not mine, a product no doubt of your prejudice towards modern human superiority, a viewpoint I do not share because I feel it to be racist.I see. Since all these neo-Darwinist sub-human 'species' originated in Africa from African monkey and ape ancestors, it's only natural that most of them had few human traits and more closely resembled gorillas and chimps. Nice theory.
Of course only Sapiens Sapiens is considered "modern human". But I prefer to see each step up from the common ancestor of all great apes to us as an advancement upward toward more "humanness" rather than the racist "superior human" view looking down their noses at "inferior" ape-like ancestors. I believe in the dignity and value of each and every one of those noble creatures as well as our present day cousins the chimps and gorillas. I have more respect for them than I do for some humans.So only neo-Darwinist H. sapiens sapiens is fully and truly human, and all other 'species' found in the human fossil record are progressively de-humanized in a descending order until we get back to more apish looking fossils and people in Africa.
I did not mention your mythical flood deliberately because I know a worldwide flood to be impossible. Don't seek to put words in my posts that aren't there.You must realize, of course, that the theory of a population bottleneck caused by catastrophic flooding and vulcanism leading to an Ice Age separating human populations, is at the heart of creationist theory of how the world was repopulated after one such cataclysmic event.
Here you are simply wrong. But this is America, you have the right to be wrong if you want to. The fossil and DNA evidence are facts, to call them anything else is in error.Here's where we run into semantic and interpretive difficulties, Grumpy, because what you call fossil and DNA "evidence," I only refer to as 'theory.' I am familiar with the important fossils from 170 tya and they show no evidence of having gone through a 'bottleneck' of any kind, population, genetic or otherwise.
There is only one branch of Homo Sapiens which had two variants, Sapiens and Neanderthalus, both were human, only one survives today, Sapiens. Sub-human is a racist concept on your part, I wish you would stop showing such prejudice against creatures which were just "not us". To measure our ancestors and cousins(including apes) as being "less" than us shows a racist "superiority of humans" attitude that is not justified by the scientific evidence.I don't even know what human species you are referring to when you just write "The human species." Don't tell me you only regard H. sapiens sapiens as "human" and consider Neanderthal people sub-human!
Sapiens and Neanderthalus were two very simular species just like the horse and donkey are very simular but divergent species. There were a great many differences between them besides just appearance(we can go into that if you wish). Could they inter breed?? We don't know. Did they inter breed? The genetic evidence says no. We also were likely to be competing for the same resources and territory as we coexisted. And Sapiens, being the greatest killer ever to walk the face of the Earth, probably had a lot to do with the disappearance of Neanderthalus, if for no other reason than they were "not us". "Race" is not an evolutionary classification. Species is the last classification and, in evolutionary terms, humans are all one species. Your obsession with race is unhealthy and disturbing.Differentiating Sapiens and Neanderthal people into 'species' gets tricky, Grumpy. Why do you suppose neo-Darwinists classify different racial groups as 'species' on the basis of physical appearances alone. Do you think they have any preconceived ideas about what constitutes human racial and species differences?
Grumpy
Post #70
Homo sapiens is just a meaningless label biologists use to call Human beings, Grumpy, and Neanderthals were just human beings who lived during the Ice Age.Grumpy wrote:There is only one branch of Homo Sapiens which had two variants, Sapiens and Neanderthalus, both were human, only one survives today, Sapiens.
If creatures are not human, Grumpy, it's no more racist to call them sub-human than it is to call them non-human.Sub-human is a racist concept on your part, I wish you would stop showing such prejudice against creatures which were just "not us".
That's what neo-Darwinists do though, Grumpy. they think their scientific attitudes are superior to creationists.To measure our ancestors and cousins(including apes) as being "less" than us shows a racist "superiority of humans" attitude that is not justified by the scientific evidence.
Sapiens and Neandertals aren't species like horses and donkeys, Grumpy. They are human beings.Sapiens and Neanderthalus were two very simular species just like the horse and donkey are very simular but divergent species.
Why not, Grumpy? Human racial groups are observable whereas human species are not."Race" is not an evolutionary classification.
Yes, all human beings and their fossil remains are all one human species.Species is the last classification and, in evolutionary terms, humans are all one species.
Neo-Darwinist obsessions with imaginary human species are unhealthy and disturbing.Your obsession with race is unhealthy and disturbing.
