Slashdot Mirror
Macaque Monkey Goes Totally Bipedal
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan, Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain functions."
was that both of the monkey's front arms had to be amputated because of the illness. So...it's no real mystery why it walks on its hind legs! Geez...
John Kerry is a Joke!
When are people going to quit assuming evolution is a proven fact? Hello? theory? A stupid monkey walking upright becuase of a stomach problem or whatever does not make it a missing link.
you see, the funny thing is that we didnt evolve. god made us prety much just as we are today, perhaps a little healthier
Nathan Friedly
THE EVERLASTING MAN
.
G.K. Chesterton
[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]
PREFATORY NOTE
This book needs a preliminary note that its scope be not misunderstood The view suggested is historical rather than theological, and does not deal directly with a religious change which has been the chief event of my own life; and about which I am already writing a more purely controversial volume. It is impossible, I hope, for any Catholic to write any book on any subject, above all this subject, without showing that he is a Catholic; but this study is not specially concerned with the differences between a Catholic and a Protestant. Much of it is devoted to many sorts of Pagans rather than any sort of Christians; and its thesis is that those who say that Christ stands side by side with similar myths, and his religion side by side with similar religions, are only repeating a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact. To suggest this I have not needed to go much beyond matters known to us all; I make no claim to learning; and have to depend for some things, as has rather become the fashion, on those who are more learned. As I have more than once differed from Mr. H. G. Wells in his view of history, it is the more right that I should here congratulate him on the courage and constructive imagination which carried through his vast and varied and intensely interesting work; but still more on having asserted the reasonable right of the amateur to do what he can with the facts which the specialists provide.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
THE PLAN OF THIS BOOK
There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place; and I tried to trace such a journey in a story I once wrote. It is, however, a relief to turn from that topic to another story that I never wrote. Like every book I never wrote, it is by far the best book I have ever written. It is only too probable that I shall never write it, so I will use it symbolically here; for it was a symbol of the same truth. I conceived it as a romance of those vast valleys with sloping sides, like those along which the ancient White Horses of Wessex are scrawled along the flanks of the hills. It concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on such a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen-garden, shining flat on the hill-side like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some such gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen. That, I think, is a true picture of the progress of any really independent intelligence today; and that is the point of this book . .
[ . . . ]
* * *
PART I. ON THE CREATURE CALLED MAN
* * *
I. THE MAN IN THE CAVE
Far away in some strange constellation in skies infinitely remote, there is a small star, which astronomers may some day discover. At least I could never observe in the faces or demeanour of most astronomers or men of science any evidence that they have discovered it; though as a matter of fact they were walking about on it all the time. It is a star that brings forth out of itself very strange plants and very strange animals; and none stranger than the men of science. That at least is the way in which I should begin a history of the world, if I had to follow the scientific custom of beginning with an account of the astronomical universe. I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanised spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanised in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even someth
IC XC NIKA
Creationism is science like my ass is presidential material.
Creationism is not empirical. It is not repeatable. It is not provable. It is not math. It is not researched by millions of scientists the world over, at the cost of trillions of man hours and trilliions of dollars. It is not science. It will never be science. What it espouses is purely religious hum-drum that has been prettied up by contrarian ass wipes that fancy themselves scientists. Not by actual scientists (read: people with impressive degrees and the published works to prove them)
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.
What makes it 'good?' What small scale proof is there? Don't confuse natural selection with evolution, if that is what you are thinking about
Who said anything about God?
Going all the way back to the breeding of livestock, mankind has been one way or another 'designing' living beings. Go to gene splicing. Then go to attempts to create something living entirely from non-living. If you look at the earth, it seems as though it was someone else's experiment - where either they got better as they kept working, or intentionally fertalized the earth before setting man loose on it.
The strongest arguments for evolution are just as strong for ID. Common genetics between, say, man and chimp are as much evidence for a common designer template as they are for a common ancestor. And the statistical improbability of particles to people - if you do the actual math - is incredibly unlikely.
I don't like to speculate about the intentions of those who disagree with me, but since someone already started toward me I'll simply state in return that is almost seems as though many pro-evolutionists need evolution because otherwise they think they would have to believe in a god. Well, this is a bad basis the hold onto a theory and it's also an incorrect line of reasoning. It may also have arisen because they were not yet cognizant of, for lack of a better terms, the possible existence of extra terrestiral life.