Education's Greatest Crime!

[NYcarbineer]

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

The desire to survive is not a moral issue. The instinct to survive is not a moral issue. Mortality is the survival problem; a religious belief that conquers mortality is the survival solution.

 

[Newby]

Evolution doesn't require a new trait to have pre existed. It's a mutation.

But - morals, or codified behaviors, are definitely observed in nature. If you think the "moral compass" requires religion, I can give you a valid & logical explanation for where each and every one came from without it (Religion) and so that necessarily debunks that notion.

What did we 'mutate' from?

Simple celled organisms first appearing roughly 3 and a half billion years ago

Go on.... continue with the stages, up to when it resulted in a human being..

 

[Newby]

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

The desire to survive is not a moral issue. The instinct to survive is not a moral issue. Mortality is the survival problem; a religious belief that conquers mortality is the survival solution.

I don't believe I ever said that the instinct to survive was or wasn't a moral issue, never mentioned religion. You are arguing with yourself.

I asked a simple question..

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait?

 

[Newby]

Simple celled organisms first appearing roughly 3 and a half billion years ago

Go on.... continue with the stages, up to when it resulted in a human being..

Well heck, if you want to know about something as in depth as evolution - you should first know you're not going to get it inside of a message board post.

But usually if you want to discuss something on a message board, it's that the participants each have a knowledge base to discuss a certain topic and a neat little convo ensues.

Here - you're asking me for the entire thing!?!?!?! That's ridiculous.

Do you want some starter points? Sources? What...

Oh my... too much for you to handle?? Okay, how about you just name the stage or type of animal we were just prior to evolving into a human?

 

[Newby]

Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian outlines it in lamen's terms for anyone really just starting out.



But, more specific to your not so hidden agenda: The Missing Link Fallacy

I know how evolution works..

I just want you to tell me what we evolved from, it should be easy, right?

 

[Newby]

Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian outlines it in lamen's terms for anyone really just starting out.



But, more specific to your not so hidden agenda: The Missing Link Fallacy

From your 'Missing Link Fallacy' article...

We are not out of the woods yet, though. The likelyhood of finding a fossil that represents an ancestor of any sort of other organism, a member of one of those queues of organisms between known organisms on a cladogram, is astronomically low. The chance is even lower when we look very deep into the fossil record - so much so, that we have almost certainly never found one.

Surprising? It shouldn't be - think about it. Groups of organisms are continually evolving, groups migrating, changing, constantly splitting from one another in a fractal way. Are we really likely to accidentally stumble across one particular animal that is a member of a group that is a direct ancestor of another group we know about? No, of course not.

Seriously? Are we in an 'in between' stage of evolving right now? Aren't we constantly evolving into whatever the next stage is? Is it going to be difficult for future scientists to prove this stage existed? That's the most ridiculous argument that I've seen to date. Thanks for the chuckle..

 

[Newby]

Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian outlines it in lamen's terms for anyone really just starting out.



But, more specific to your not so hidden agenda: The Missing Link Fallacy

I know how evolution works..

I just want you to tell me what we evolved from, it should be easy, right?

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimps (which does not mean that we evolved from chimps). It is often referred to as the "missing link," but the abundance of data makes it all but 100% certain it exists.

Also - evolution in some other species (such as whales) does have discovered its "missing link."

Fossilization is a rare occurrence.

^that phrase is key.

A beautiful way to explain evolution is the Sagan video I just posted.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl89HIJ6HDo]Carl Sagan On Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

So you don't know what 'it' is, you have no proof that 'it' ever existed, and your excuse is that fossilization is rare? Seriously?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian outlines it in lamen's terms for anyone really just starting out.



But, more specific to your not so hidden agenda: The Missing Link Fallacy

From your 'Missing Link Fallacy' article...

We are not out of the woods yet, though. The likelyhood of finding a fossil that represents an ancestor of any sort of other organism, a member of one of those queues of organisms between known organisms on a cladogram, is astronomically low. The chance is even lower when we look very deep into the fossil record - so much so, that we have almost certainly never found one.

Surprising? It shouldn't be - think about it. Groups of organisms are continually evolving, groups migrating, changing, constantly splitting from one another in a fractal way. Are we really likely to accidentally stumble across one particular animal that is a member of a group that is a direct ancestor of another group we know about? No, of course not.

Seriously? Are we in an 'in between' stage of evolving right now? Aren't we constantly evolving into whatever the next stage is? Is it going to be difficult for future scientists to prove this stage existed? That's the most ridiculous argument that I've seen to date. Thanks for the chuckle..

It takes millions of years. Your argument makes no sense. You do know that we have MANY of the fossils of human evolution, don't you? That alone proves that we are still evolving.

"...many of the fossils of human evolution, don't you? That alone proves that we are still evolving."

Only if you base that on faith.....not fact
Darwinism is a religion.





Watch.....the following is the "if" or "maybe" type of report that the acolytes of said religion take as fact......as 'gospel.'


" Together, the studies suggest that this hominin was close to the family tree of early humans — although it remains controversial whether it was one of our direct ancestors.

Nevertheless, “from what we’re seeing, Au. sediba is a possible ancestor of Homo”, Berger says. “But if the creature is an ancestor of Homo, then the genus arose in a very different way than previously hypothesized.”

However, ancestry and close kinship are two different things, and some within the palaeoanthropology community dispute that the hominin was a direct human ancestor. One such researcher is Donald Johanson, a palaeoanthropologist at Arizona State University in Tempe who wasn’t involved in the new studies. In Ethiopia in 1974, Johanson and colleague Tom Gray discovered the fossils of “Lucy” (Au. afarensis)— a 3.2-million-year-old hominid whose 40-percent-complete skeleton is one of the most renowned fossils in the world.

“From what I have seen of the fossils, I think Au. sediba is another species of Australopithecus that confirms species diversity in early hominin evolution,” says Johanson. Although Au. sediba “abundantly demonstrates a unique set of anatomical features”, he notes, the species was probably a dead-end branch on the hominin family tree."
Ape-like fossils show hints of human ancestry : Nature News & Comment






Look closely at the vague and unsure and indefinite terminology.

Only a moron would be convinced by such.....

....raise your paw....the one which is related to other chimpanzees.

 

[Newby]

We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimps (which does not mean that we evolved from chimps). It is often referred to as the "missing link," but the abundance of data makes it all but 100% certain it exists.

Also - evolution in some other species (such as whales) does have discovered its "missing link."

Fossilization is a rare occurrence.

^that phrase is key.

A beautiful way to explain evolution is the Sagan video I just posted.


Carl Sagan On Evolution - YouTube

So you don't know what 'it' is, you have no proof that 'it' ever existed, and your excuse is that fossilization is rare? Seriously?

This is incorrect. You have not genuinely studied evolution. This is *proof.*

I don't need to prove that you have more studying to do, you've just done it for me. And for the record - you know that as well. You must, unless you're sick or something.

I never claimed to study evolution, to be an expert on it, nor have I denied the science of evolution. Your article denies creationism, yet at the same time says that the origin of life has no place in a discussion on evolution. So which is it? Then quit calling it 'creationism'. I agree that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive... Life originated somehow, someway, the theory of evolution has no bearing on that one way or the other. Those who believe in evolution seem to think that it also proves no intelligent design for some reason, I'm not sure how that logic works? There is no proof of species evolving into other species, which is the other subject your article tried to expound on, that there's really no difference between macro and micro evolution, as if it's that simple to make a statement such as that. Actually, the person that Oliver wrote the article for gave a very good rebuttal down in the blog comments. I suggest you go read it.

Also, anyone that writes an article from his lofty pedestal, looking down on people who believe differently than he does, and makes insulting comments about them is immediately dismissed on my part. As was pointed out further down in the blog, it's like it's some kind of war to bring people over to his side, as if to 'save' them... sound familiar??? What saving do they need? They die and return to dust, what possible difference does it make to an atheist what anyone believes since it's all irrelevant in the end?

 

[Newby]

Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian outlines it in lamen's terms for anyone really just starting out.



But, more specific to your not so hidden agenda: The Missing Link Fallacy

From your 'Missing Link Fallacy' article...

We are not out of the woods yet, though. The likelyhood of finding a fossil that represents an ancestor of any sort of other organism, a member of one of those queues of organisms between known organisms on a cladogram, is astronomically low. The chance is even lower when we look very deep into the fossil record - so much so, that we have almost certainly never found one.

Surprising? It shouldn't be - think about it. Groups of organisms are continually evolving, groups migrating, changing, constantly splitting from one another in a fractal way. Are we really likely to accidentally stumble across one particular animal that is a member of a group that is a direct ancestor of another group we know about? No, of course not.

Seriously? Are we in an 'in between' stage of evolving right now? Aren't we constantly evolving into whatever the next stage is? Is it going to be difficult for future scientists to prove this stage existed? That's the most ridiculous argument that I've seen to date. Thanks for the chuckle..

It takes millions of years. Your argument makes no sense. You do know that we have MANY of the fossils of human evolution, don't you? That alone proves that we are still evolving.

Yes, the human species has evolved into different forms of human species...

You have no clue what the human species supposedly 'evolved' from, you have no proof that a single cell organism can evolve into the complex forms of life that exist today. And as was pointed out in the blog, a species that changes via evolution is due to a loss of genetic information, it does not change due to new genetic information. How does that fit with the single cell organism evolving into life as it exists today? If anything, it's the exact opposite of what evolution tries to infer about creationism.