Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover Common Ancestor of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans
reporter writes "According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, scientists have discovered the common ancestor of monkeys, apes, and Slashdotters. The 47 million year old fossils were discovered in Germany. The ancestor physically resembles today's lemur. Quoting: 'The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery. According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy. Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.'"
Consider the case of Ashkenazim Jews. Centuries of discrimination forced this ethnic Jewish group to evolve to adapt. In this case, adaption meant increasing intelligence. Albert Einstein is an Ashkenazim Jew.
By extrapolation, we can say that different races (and ethnic groups) have different levels of intelligence. For example, there are clearly differences in intelligence between Africans and, say, Japanese. The Africans turned a bounty of natural resources into abject poverty. By contrast, the Japanese turned a barren rock (that was devastated by 2 atomic bombs) into the 2nd wealthiest nation on earth.
God of the gaps. Pick-and-choose Christian.
I'd take insane fundies over your kind any day of the week. You are the worst kind of cowards. At least they follow their beliefs you just use a religious construct as a shield.
You insult the religious by contorting their beliefs to your will. Taking their name and their religion and then doing as you please. I'm sure the republicans are uncomfortable with a tree-hugger like ron paul in their party. And you piss off the non-religious because of your pure cowardice.
You aren't bravely walking a fine line. You are a cowardly fence-sitter.
There is no proof of evolution. There is, however, much proof that species have been dying out at an astounding rate. No one can point to a scientific--observed--example of a species having evolved into another species or "kind" as the word is in Genesis. While you're spewing coffee, keep in mind that everything you're saying is merely believing what someone else has told you he believes happened.
Cranky educator.
Yes that true. However most of them just refuse what the official word is from their religion and believe whatever they think they should. Heck they even refuse to believe that Catholics are Christians ...
I'm a bit lost here. Are you saying that most Protestant churches have it as an article of faith that Catholics are Christians? From the various bases of faith that I've read I think most would say that being a Catholic doesn't make you a Christian or a non-Christian, but what matters is that the individual has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. A refusal to believe that Catholics can be Christians would be heterodox, but that's a rather different matter.
...and that Catholicism is Older then their form of christianity.
I think (or at least hope!) most would recognise that their denomination is newer than Catholicism but claim that the Reformation was a return to the New Testament faith and hence to a form of Christianity which predates Catholicism. The extent to which they're correct is a different question about which I'm not trying to start a debate.
Ok, not a load of crap, but is far from convincing. Don't get me wrong. I believe in evolution but I find the fossil record to be suggestive, not definitive. I find other evidence, (genetics, etc) more convincing. Think about it: how many fossil samples do we have? Of those how many are intact? I'm not sure I would hazard a scientific theory on so few samples. And how do they determine relatedness? By similar appearance. It's kind of ridiculous. It seems to have all of the legitimacy of phrenology. I can see how creationists have a hard time accepting the fossil record as definitive proof of evolution.
I've lived in California for quite a few years now, and I wouldn't call it a "center of reason". There's plenty of new-age woo-woo bullshit around here.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Consciousness is the ability to think. Thinking is the process of deduction over time.
I assert that God is timeless. Thus, he cannot think, and cannot be conscious.
If God interacts with the natural world, and is not conscious, he must obey the laws of physics. Adhering to the laws of physics excludes any possibility of supernaturality. (W. V. Quine used an alternate line of reasoning to demonstrate that a supernatural God cannot exist as defined by the traditional assertions of the Catholic church, meaning the assertions are inconsistent or that God does not exist.)
The actions of God are therefore indeterminable from the laws of physics themselves.
So, for God to create humans, he must perform an act in the natural world. These acts are indistinguishable from the laws of physics. The laws of physics entail evolution.
God is the laws of physics is the Universe.
If you assert that God is omniscient, he must be timeless in order to be consistent.
I know this is a very loose, weak chain of reasoning in need of serious rigor, but, my point is: if God is all-knowing, then creationism is bollocks.
There is no way to reconcile creationism with omniscience.
People also love to anthropomorphize God. STOP IT, HE HATES IT! ;) Anthropomorphizing something and allowing it to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnivolent is a contradiction in terms.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive