On Human Evolution

by TD 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Um... thanks, Bohm :)

  I'm not against evolution, btw - human or otherwise. I just think we're missing a lot of info (pieces of the puzzle), still. I think most scientists would agree with that statement.

  Tammy
• 

  snowbird

  How would you decide which of these are truly ape and which of these are truly human and why? Where would you draw the line and why? There's no right or wrong answer here. I'm not interested in what you think nearly so much as why you think what you think.

  I wouldn't attempt to decide either way. I would leave that up to an anthropologist.

  There's only one rule. --No logical fallacies. No ad hoc explanations, no special pleading, no generalization, etc.

  Tee hee hee.

  Good luck with that.

  Syl
• 

  sabastious

  I'm not against evolution, btw - human or otherwise. I just think we're missing a lot of info (pieces of the puzzle), still. I think most scientists would agree with that statement.

  Evolutionary blasphemy!

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Here is L Ron Hubbard who gave us Dianetics

  Wouldn't be the type of legacy I would choose to leave behind, but who am I?

  -Sab
• 

  Deputy Dog

  bohm

  To return to the species-problem, which of the two ideas, evolution or creation, is our inability to properly define species and/or fit them with fossils a consequence of?.

  Why did YOU inject "creation" into the discussion? As TD seems to want to point out, belief is irrelevant in this discussion. If evolution is as sound as you believe, redefine it with new terms, which is what I think TD is trying to do. Why blame the creation idea for evolution's philosophical problems?

  I'm simply questioning the "science" of evolution. If we can agree on the WHAT, maybe we can start to discuss the HOW. Should we try to think about the difference between science and philosophy, and the consequence of confusing the two.
• 

  TD

  This question was based on a personal observation:

  When presented with a gradient ranging from strongly pongid on one end to strongly human on the other, people who accept creation typically do not place the point of demarcation at the same point as people who accept evolution do.

  People who accept evolution tend to draw the line nearer to the human end, often with H. heidelbergensis as the farthest limit that would still be considered "Man."

  People who accept creation tend to draw the line nearer to the pongid end. Lubenow for example excludes all the Australopithicines and H. habilis as "Extinct apes" and includes almost everything else as "Human." (Including a bunch of extinct hominids I didn't show.)

  This surprised me and was not what I expected, but from his perspective made a certain kind of sense after I thought about it.

  Cofty pointed out that such a line would be arbitrary and Abbadon point out that the term, "Human" really needs to be defined first and I agree with both. The "Why" is what I'm interested in here and your definition of "Human" would necessarily be part it.

  Thanks everyone!
• 

  moshe

  Human is being self aware that you will die and then inventing the mind trick that you that you don't really die, because your spirit lives on someplace else- otherwise you would go crazy worrying about your impending death.
• 

  bohm

  DD, what philosophical problem? I brought in creation because i think its the main competing idea floating around on this forum.
• 

  thetrueone

  ......... This is a skull of a Creationist

  ....... This is a skull of a atheist, you'll notice the difference in size of the cranium between the two
• 

  Found Sheep

  tiss why i want to be cremated... can you think that your skull will be looked at by 100's of people 100's of years from now? your not just naked your dead and naked... just saying... I don't know what I think yet, I want to believe in God, but?