I have come to the conclusion that it doesnt matter whether one dominates, the fact is we know we exist, and no matter the outlook on the situation, the origin of existence/evolution can be determined by the life we posses. Perhaps we should ask destruction or de-evolution, it is that question that poses a bigger role in our meaning.
Without reading previous posts
I have come to the conclusion that it doesnt matter whether one dominates, the fact is we know we exist, and no matter the outlook on the situation, the origin of existence/evolution can be determined by the life we posses. Perhaps we should ask destruction or de-evolution, it is that question that poses a bigger role in our meaning.
Their discovery displaces the Proganochely, another class of turtle previously thought to be the oldest. With fully formed upper and lower shells, the Proganochely was found in Germany and was 10 million years younger than the Odontochely.
"What we found (Odontochely) is an intermediate missing link," lead researcher Li Chun at the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a telephone interview from Beijing.
"The German turtle is already very similar to the turtles we know of today. But we had never known how the turtle shell evolved. It couldn't have just appeared suddenly."
Just a quickie:
Yet another transitional fossil discovered:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081126/sc_nm/us_china_turtle_1
Their discovery displaces the Proganochely, another class of turtle previously thought to be the oldest. With fully formed upper and lower shells, the Proganochely was found in Germany and was 10 million years younger than the Odontochely.
"What we found (Odontochely) is an intermediate missing link," lead researcher Li Chun at the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a telephone interview from Beijing.
"The German turtle is already very similar to the turtles we know of today. But we had never known how the turtle shell evolved. It couldn't have just appeared suddenly."
Hi Mary...my feeling on this one is I don't care. the fact is we are here regardless.(not (TBD) Now instead of debating what I see as a moot subject (no offense) what can we do here to make things better?
warmly,
Kenny
Hi Mary...my feeling on this one is I don't care. the fact is we are here regardless.(not (TBD) Now instead of debating what I see as a moot subject (no offense) what can we do here to make things better?
warmly,
Kenny
1) There is no single recorded piece of evidence in the fossil record that conclusively records a species in the midst of transition, which we certainly would have if it had occurred over a process of billions of years.
2) I wasn't always a Christian, in fact there was a time when I didn't even believe in God. I have actually lived life.
3) The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
3a) If someone published something like this in this day and age, I would HOPE there would be a public outcry for the obvious racial discrimination Darwin held. Labeling these people as "animals evolved into almost human "our ancestors" - incredible. It's actually worse than the Constitution giving black men 1/2 a vote, if you can believe that.
To me, as a Native American, I take this offensively. I would question, highly, the rantings of a man who thought that indigenous tribes of peoples he encountered were "savages", and preferred to be descended from an ape rather than admit that these people he encountered were human beings.
4) It's weird how Darwin judged so harshly other human beings...but then, he thinks all of us are nothing more than slime anyway.
One of the most troubling aspects of evolutionary thought has been its racist implications. The logic is simple enough: If humans evolved from simpler, less intelligent primates, then perhaps some humans are more “evolved” than others. Such racist thinking has accompanied evolutionism from the very beginning, starting with Darwin himself. Darwin visited the South American tribe of the Tierra del Feugians on his journeys and commented that “the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a European is greater than the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a beast.” Eventually, Christian missionaries discovered otherwise, living among the Feugians and documenting their rich culture and language.
1) There is no single recorded piece of evidence in the fossil record that conclusively records a species in the midst of transition, which we certainly would have if it had occurred over a process of billions of years.
2) I wasn't always a Christian, in fact there was a time when I didn't even believe in God. I have actually lived life.
3) The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
3a) If someone published something like this in this day and age, I would HOPE there would be a public outcry for the obvious racial discrimination Darwin held. Labeling these people as "animals evolved into almost human "our ancestors" - incredible. It's actually worse than the Constitution giving black men 1/2 a vote, if you can believe that.
To me, as a Native American, I take this offensively. I would question, highly, the rantings of a man who thought that indigenous tribes of peoples he encountered were "savages", and preferred to be descended from an ape rather than admit that these people he encountered were human beings.
4) It's weird how Darwin judged so harshly other human beings...but then, he thinks all of us are nothing more than slime anyway.
From Bible.org:
One of the most troubling aspects of evolutionary thought has been its racist implications. The logic is simple enough: If humans evolved from simpler, less intelligent primates, then perhaps some humans are more “evolved” than others. Such racist thinking has accompanied evolutionism from the very beginning, starting with Darwin himself. Darwin visited the South American tribe of the Tierra del Feugians on his journeys and commented that “the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a European is greater than the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a beast.” Eventually, Christian missionaries discovered otherwise, living among the Feugians and documenting their rich culture and language.
So much to respond to, and so little time!
And to think that I thought this thread had closed down!
To address a few of your points:
1) Yes, there is. There is plenty. See my previous post for only one of the more recent examples.
"A species in the midst of transition" makes it sound like you need to barge in through a closed door to find some species with it's evolutionary pants down around it's ankles before you'd be satisfied.
2) I know it wasn't your intent (I *HOPE* it wasn't your intent), but "Before I found God...I actually had a life" ??? Man! You're playing right into my hands with that!
3) What wou transcribed does not reconcile with what you later purport to be Darwin's attitude towards mankind's ancestors. He recognized that those "savages" are his ancestors, as are the "monkeys" (again, I'm overly simplifying evolutionary theory for the sake of this discussion).
He doesn't call tham "almost human," and he doesn't show a preference for monkeys as ancestors over these particular savages...he shows, instead, a disdain for HUMANS who "delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions"
He does NOT attibute these traits to the Fuegian savages. Unless, there is more to the chapter you transcribed than you posted (always possible)--but what you posted certainly does NOT support the claims you are making.
I certainly understand your offence at Darwins "savages" description, since aboriginal peoples were commonly referred to using derogatory terms. But this was how many years ago that Darwin wrote? It was, unfortunately, common for his time period. And I believe that Darwin's evolutionary theories had a lot to do with placing Indo-Europeans and the world's various indigenous aboriginal tribes on equal humaitarian footing, rather than the other way around.
So much to respond to, and so little time!
And to think that I thought this thread had closed down!
To address a few of your points:
1) Yes, there is. There is plenty. See my previous post for only one of the more recent examples.
"A species in the midst of transition" makes it sound like you need to barge in through a closed door to find some species with it's evolutionary pants down around it's ankles before you'd be satisfied.
2) I know it wasn't your intent (I *HOPE* it wasn't your intent), but "Before I found God...I actually had a life" ??? Man! You're playing right into my hands with that!
3) What wou transcribed does not reconcile with what you later purport to be Darwin's attitude towards mankind's ancestors. He recognized that those "savages" are his ancestors, as are the "monkeys" (again, I'm overly simplifying evolutionary theory for the sake of this discussion).
He doesn't call tham "almost human," and he doesn't show a preference for monkeys as ancestors over these particular savages...he shows, instead, a disdain for HUMANS who "delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions"
He does NOT attibute these traits to the Fuegian savages. Unless, there is more to the chapter you transcribed than you posted (always possible)--but what you posted certainly does NOT support the claims you are making.
I certainly understand your offence at Darwins "savages" description, since aboriginal peoples were commonly referred to using derogatory terms. But this was how many years ago that Darwin wrote? It was, unfortunately, common for his time period. And I believe that Darwin's evolutionary theories had a lot to do with placing Indo-Europeans and the world's various indigenous aboriginal tribes on equal humaitarian footing, rather than the other way around.
Posted: Jun 20, 08 1:37am
Without reading previous posts
I have come to the conclusion that it doesnt matter whether one dominates, the fact is we know we exist, and no matter the outlook on the situation, the origin of existence/evolution can be determined by the life we posses. Perhaps we should ask destruction or de-evolution, it is that question that poses a bigger role in our meaning.
Posted: Nov 26, 08 12:18pm
Just a quickie:
Yet another transitional fossil discovered:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081126/sc_nm/us_china_turtle_1
Their discovery displaces the Proganochely, another class of turtle previously thought to be the oldest. With fully formed upper and lower shells, the Proganochely was found in Germany and was 10 million years younger than the Odontochely.
"What we found (Odontochely) is an intermediate missing link," lead researcher Li Chun at the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in a telephone interview from Beijing.
"The German turtle is already very similar to the turtles we know of today. But we had never known how the turtle shell evolved. It couldn't have just appeared suddenly."
Posted: Nov 27, 08 8:45pm
Hi Mary...my feeling on this one is I don't care. the fact is we are here regardless.(not (TBD) Now instead of debating what I see as a moot subject (no offense) what can we do here to make things better?
warmly,
Kenny
Posted: Nov 28, 08 10:13am
1) There is no single recorded piece of evidence in the fossil record that conclusively records a species in the midst of transition, which we certainly would have if it had occurred over a process of billions of years.
2) I wasn't always a Christian, in fact there was a time when I didn't even believe in God. I have actually lived life.
3) The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
3a) If someone published something like this in this day and age, I would HOPE there would be a public outcry for the obvious racial discrimination Darwin held. Labeling these people as "animals evolved into almost human "our ancestors" - incredible. It's actually worse than the Constitution giving black men 1/2 a vote, if you can believe that.
To me, as a Native American, I take this offensively. I would question, highly, the rantings of a man who thought that indigenous tribes of peoples he encountered were "savages", and preferred to be descended from an ape rather than admit that these people he encountered were human beings.
4) It's weird how Darwin judged so harshly other human beings...but then, he thinks all of us are nothing more than slime anyway.
From Bible.org:
One of the most troubling aspects of evolutionary thought has been its racist implications. The logic is simple enough: If humans evolved from simpler, less intelligent primates, then perhaps some humans are more “evolved” than others. Such racist thinking has accompanied evolutionism from the very beginning, starting with Darwin himself. Darwin visited the South American tribe of the Tierra del Feugians on his journeys and commented that “the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a European is greater than the difference between a Tierra del Feugian and a beast.” Eventually, Christian missionaries discovered otherwise, living among the Feugians and documenting their rich culture and language.
So much to respond to, and so little time!
And to think that I thought this thread had closed down!
To address a few of your points:
1) Yes, there is. There is plenty. See my previous post for only one of the more recent examples.
"A species in the midst of transition" makes it sound like you need to barge in through a closed door to find some species with it's evolutionary pants down around it's ankles before you'd be satisfied.
2) I know it wasn't your intent (I *HOPE* it wasn't your intent), but "Before I found God...I actually had a life" ??? Man! You're playing right into my hands with that!
3) What wou transcribed does not reconcile with what you later purport to be Darwin's attitude towards mankind's ancestors. He recognized that those "savages" are his ancestors, as are the "monkeys" (again, I'm overly simplifying evolutionary theory for the sake of this discussion).
He doesn't call tham "almost human," and he doesn't show a preference for monkeys as ancestors over these particular savages...he shows, instead, a disdain for HUMANS who "delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions"
He does NOT attibute these traits to the Fuegian savages. Unless, there is more to the chapter you transcribed than you posted (always possible)--but what you posted certainly does NOT support the claims you are making.
I certainly understand your offence at Darwins "savages" description, since aboriginal peoples were commonly referred to using derogatory terms. But this was how many years ago that Darwin wrote? It was, unfortunately, common for his time period. And I believe that Darwin's evolutionary theories had a lot to do with placing Indo-Europeans and the world's various indigenous aboriginal tribes on equal humaitarian footing, rather than the other way around.