You owe me some Mexican Food on Newport Avenue in OB, girl!
Oh, my, didn't we have FUN that day (peace to you, dear Daddy-O!)?? I would LOVE a repeat... and in Ocean Beach, of course! Alas, it may have to be a local taco shop in your neck of the woods, but since you're treating, you're on! Same place as last time? Oh, and I think I would have gotten that one 10 years ago. Maybe not a more complicated one, but surely that one (let's see, when did I take logic? 2000-2002? Okay, maybe not. LOLOLOLOLOL!
I teach lots of classes. If a student says to me "explain how this file re-direction works, but don't get technical", I would tell him that he needs to understand file systems, soft links, hard links, redirection, stub files, metadata. If he then responds with "just tell me in laymans terms, I don't need to understand all of that", I am done with him. He doesn't want to learn, he wants a soundbite. That was my point. Your example was about a professor yelling at students that are struggling. Struggling is NOT at ALL the same as what I was talking about.
Ahhh, dear EP (peace to you!). First, no one was struggling; they were just lazy and had spent their weekend doing "kid" stuff. The lesson wasn't that difficult. They just chose to believe it wasn't important. Given that it was Freshman year, it probably wasn't for them. Second, while I understand your expectation, I believe the kind of classes you teach (at Dell, etc.) require students to have the level of knowledge and understanding you expect. That is not necessarily true in the case I shared... and obviously isn't true here. It would be like me trying to share what I do to folks who've never been JWs... using gross amounts of JW-isms... and getting all condescending because they don't "get it." The issue is just as much whether I truly WANT them to get it... as much as it is whether they want to get it.
"A new study has found".... Yet "For decades the conensus view - among the public as well as the world's preeminent biologists - has been... that human evolution is over."
And THIS is exactly what I mean, dear TTO (peace to you, as well!). For DECADES the public and preeminent folks stated... AS TRUTH... that human evolution was "over." Then, a new study "debunked" that. Tell me, when some evolved brain "discovers" that what we THOUGHT was true about humans evolving from lower life forms... is NOT... will THAT be the "truth"? If, say 20-50 years from now, some experiment, tool, or whathaveyou says, "Oh, oops, yes, humans share common DNA with such and so life form... BUT... just like chimps are Pan and humans are Homo... even further back there's evidence that while one IS hominid, the other actually ISN'T, but some other phylum/class/family that we didn't KNOW about until the recent excavation at Such and So place revealed a NEW phylum/class/family that didn't know existed (and all of our evidence indicated didn't exist)"... what will be the TRUTH? What we know NOW? What we know THEN? Does truth CHANGE? Or does our knowledge and understanding of what is true change? If TRUTH changes... how can it be TRUTH? And if it's our knowledge and understanding that changes... how can we say we KNOW... for absolutely unequivocally SURE... if our knowledge, understanding, and... in MANY cases... the "evidence" keeps changing?
evolution does not mean becoming something "better".
I would agree, dear J (peace to you!), if you said "does not necessarily mean". But given what evolution is said to accomplish, it would seem to ME that the teaching is that something DOES become "better"... at least, as far as the adaptation to environment is concerned. Otherwise, doesn't the thing risk extinction (if it doesn't become "better" somehow)?
there's no final goal in evolution.
I understand that. I never asked as to a goal, per se, but what would/could be next. Given where man is today, physically, what could be next? He already stands upright and walks on two legs. He communicates with language. He hunts, preps, and cooks his food. He builds substantial, even elaborate shelter. He builds technological fantastic machines... some of which can "outthink" (so long as he feeds it information) him. He has flying machines that go far beyond the earth's atmosphere... and submergible apparati that go far below its surface. I GET that he can build all kinds of machines to do all kinds of things. While that may indicate to some the "evolution" of the brain... to me it is merely evolution of intellect driven more by necessity (which is the "mother" of invention) than by changes in physicality.
MY question, though, had to do with man's physicality, since the primary depiction (and thought) of evolution is the much-touted primate to upright walking "man." Now, if that is NOT what folks means by "evolution" then someone should really consider correcting that view as it is the main one put out there and the main one believed to be meant by those who reject evolution (of humans).
I don't dispute that we share 94-98% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos. But that's because I believe ALL life came from the same Source... who was/is NOT a one-celled creature that originated in a primal "soup"... but one BEING... from which all life forms originated. I believe that the commonalities in ALL living things originated with the Source... which is why such commonalities exist at all. I believe the same initial DNA/gene components that resulted in primates... was the same used to create man... with slight variations in order to create the two as separate and distinct. As an illustration... I believe life started with one lump of pink Play-Doh... and in order to create the various "kinds" other "colors" of Play-Doh given a bit of this Pink. For instance, man... green Play-Doh, with a bit of the Pink. Primates... blue Play-Doh... with a bit of the Pink. And so on. So, sure, both man and primates have a commonality: the PINK Play-Doh. And since the Pink clay is dominant (because in IT is the source of life - the blue and green only affect the physical attributes of the being)... it permeates and makes up most of the DNA. BUT... man does not and never did have blue... and primates do not and never did have green.
I believe this because I have seen, heard, and come to know that Source. So, while all of your arguments make sense from the standpoint of THIS world, the physical world, your restriction to this world is what blinds you, IMHO. Don't get me wrong: I would LOVE to see things as you do, which is why I asked. Unfortunately, none of the responses thus far contain anything that would cause me to reject what I have seen, heard, and come to know from someone who has been a part of BOTH worlds, the physical AND the spirit(ual). I do not ridicule your beliefs and understandings - I just do not accept them. I can't, sorry to say... because I would then have to deny what I have come to know is TRUE: that there is more... WAY more... that what exists in the physical world. As one responder offered, there are things (like light and sound waves) that we just cannot SEE with the physical body. Doesn't mean they don't exist. True, we NOW have instruments to help us see/hear them.
There are "instruments"... or rather, an Instrument... that can help us see and hear other things that aren't readily discerned by the physical body, as well. I know it sounds far-fetched and I would be as skeptical as the next person... had that Instrument not made itself available to me.
Is my position logical? I believe so. Maybe not by the conventional methods of defining and proving logic, but that's only because all is not known to those who create such... ummmmm... parameters. Is it provable? Again, I believe so, but, again, maybe not in the conventional manner.
I believe we are adapting... as all living things must do to survive. But I do not believe that adapting is the same as evolving, as MOST of the world understands that term to mean. And for those who say, "Well, it isn't limited to coming from primates/non-human beings and things of that nature"... I would say that perhaps, then, there needs to be a new vocabulary formulated to depict just what it does mean, if it's different."
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
it just means that a mutant is still able to live and reproduce for some time. due to technology, part of humanity is probably evolving into some kind of cyborgs. there's even the possibility of some autonomous technological evolution with "artificial" intelligence, think terminator.
