Hard News: Kids these days
78 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
We share a common ancestor, from about 6 million years ago.
i'll own to being a pedant.
shouldn't that read ancestors?
i read somewhere that you need at least 50 individuals in a population to make it viable. otherwise you start to breed fundies.
afaik it wasn't the evolution of a person, it was the evolution of a big group of apes. they found this big black monolith...
-
Web 2.0: I have a serious bugbear about that term. It is purely a buzz word - these ideas around 'social interactivity' ignore the fact that the entire web is (almost by definition) a form a social interactivity. Web 2.0 is a code word for mainstream types who are only now discovering the wonder of "digging" a "blog", like teenagers discovering Led Zeppelin for the first time and letting everyone know about it.
And Myspace? I hate that Myspace is used as a prime example of a Web 2.0 application. Myspace looks positively beta to anyone at all! It's a poorly made hack of a website - the only reason it is held up as the shining light of the future of the web (__shudder__) is it's size.
</rant>
-
We evolved from a combo of mainly the paranthropus boisei & the homo ergaster / erectus - both of whom had adaptable hunting styles.
Them pesky neanderthals just didn't adapt fast enough... rolling boulders off cliffs onto migrating woolly mammoths seems like a cinch but evidently they didn't wake up their ideas much further than that.
Take the Caveman Challenge! Each challenge allows you to move along the evolutionary scale from ape to man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/games/cavemen/
(No I don't work for government - I'll do some work now I've completed my jigsaw cave art - but it was fun in a Te Papa interactive kind of way)
-
afaik it wasn't the evolution of a person, it was the evolution of a big group of apes. they found this big black monolith...
I heard they were wandering along a beach and they found this buried statue that looked just like the statue of liberty.
-
Over the time period most creationists are talking, evolution probably hasn't changed any species very much, except in so far as quite a few have become extinct.
So if you buy into the world starting around 4004BC, the statement that creatures are now pretty much as God made them at the beginning of time (well actually 4 days later if you really buy into that), is pretty accurate. I imagine creationists mentally exclude selective breeding, or they'd have a great deal of trouble explaining the kiwifruit.
Obviously buying into the world only being 6000 years old is pretty unscientific, though. God must have been making a hell of an effort to hide the age of the universe when he buried all those dinosaur bones and put all those light photons in motion from anything more than 6000 light years away (such as most of our galaxy, and pretty much all of the rest of the known universe).
-
merc,
I blame that damn guy with his peas.
-
I blame that damn guy with his peas.
See, the problem's not the monkeys, it's the monks.
-
Yes, there are some things we were not meant to mendel with.
-
merc,
That's why we must always mind our p's and q's.
-
It's funny that so many people think God created man, when really the converse is true. God evolved too, probably starting off as an idealized version of particular humans, and then becoming more abstract and powerful as time passes. I wonder what the next phase is?
-
God evolved too, probably starting off as an idealized version of particular humans, and then becoming more abstract and powerful as time passes. I wonder what the next phase is?
it learns subcontracting.
-
I think this an opportune time to reference the following work to once and for all settle all arguments here:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ecb1327dc03ab345e618
-
Disappearing?
-
but on the serious side, i think the final stage in the evolution of a god is, "and then we realised that the god was us, and we were the god".
or summin' beautiful and metaphysical.
-
merc,
it learns subcontracting.
Now that's funny. -
Excelllent. God has a Myspace page. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=146471940
-
God has a Myspace page.
-
Homo Silicons, that's the next stage... downloading conciousness to a slightly more durable vessel.
It is rather ironic that those least willing to accept Pan troglodytis as our nearest relative are those most befitting some association with the name, what.
Paul L, wasn't it the case that if mary was avirgin then the marriage hadn't been consumated and therefore jesus was born a bastard?
-
I blame that damn guy with his peas.
See, the problem's not the monkeys, it's the <i>monks</i>.
Yes, there are some things we were not meant to mendel with.
Well played, team!
-
Kim Hill will be providing the opportunity to see how it's not just conservative Christians who have a problem with evolution but left-wing scientists as well.
She's interviewing Steven Rose, co-author of Not in Our Genes,
this Saturday.It could be argued that it's the resistance to Darwin from left-wing academics that's hindered science far more than conservative Christians.
-
It could be argued that marmalade is moonshine. Since I've spent a lot of time among left-wing academics and never heard a word against evolution, this is, prima facie, completely specious....
-
"t could be argued that it's the resistance to Darwin from left-wing academics that's hindered science far more than conservative Christians."
Go on, Neil. Make that argument.
-
yeah can't says i know many lefties that think the world was made in 7 days just a few thousand years ago - that is the preserve of the fearful and ignorant right wing voter (not the hopeful and ignorant left wing voter).
-
It was Mary who was immaculately conceived, so that she could be born without Sin
I didn't know this! (which is not particularly unusual I suppose).
-
And if it comes to that, I understand that Rose is in a tiny and probably wrong minority with his views on the role of genes in determining behaviour. But what has he done that could possibly compare with the efforts of the Discovery Institute?
This really seems like false equivalence, Neil.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.