0
   

Am I wrong?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:35 am
Quote:
We all evolved, in the last step, from apes.
I am unfamiliar with that concept, it certainly does not come from Darwin even though it has been used by anti-evolutionists in sarcasm. To say a species evolved along similar lines is not to say that one developed from this to that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:37 am
Quote:
May 1991

When the official subject
is presidential politics, taxes, welfare,
crime, rights, or values . . .
the real subject is
Race

by Thomas Byrne Edsall with Mary D. Edsall

RACE is no longer a straightforward, morally unambiguous force in American politics; instead, considerations of race are now deeply imbedded in the strategy and tactics of politics, in competing concepts of the function and responsibility of government, and in each voter's conceptual structure of moral and partisan identity...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/edsall.htm
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:41 am
McG
McGentrix wrote:
ummm... no. We didn't evolve from apes.
Apes and humans evolved at the same time from a common ancestor around 7-8 million years ago. It's a split in the tree.


Who/what was the common ancestor?

BBB
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:45 am
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
We all evolved, in the last step, from apes.
I am unfamiliar with that concept, it certainly does not come from Darwin even though it has been used by anti-evolutionists in sarcasm. To say a species evolved along similar lines is not to say that one developed from this to that.

Humans didn't evolve from apes; rather, we and apes evolved from a common ancestor (who is no longer with us, but has been identified in fossil form). The relationship is more like cousins than parent-child.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:46 am
The common ancestor of man and the great apes was ramapithicus, and the two lines diverge roughly fourteen million years ago, not seven or eight million.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 08:50 am
Where We Came From
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Where We Came From

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

2. How did humans evolve?

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

3. Is culture the result of evolution?

A society's culture consists of its accumulated learned behavior. Human culture is based at least partly on social living and language, although the ability of a species to invent and use language and engage in complex social behaviors has a biological basis. Some scientists hypothesize that language developed as a means of establishing lasting social relationships. Even a form of communication as casual as gossip provides an ingenious social tool: Suddenly, we become aware of crucial information that we never would have known otherwise. We know who needs a favor; who's available; who's already taken; and who's looking for someone -- information that, from an evolutionary perspective, can mean the difference between failure and success. So, it is certainly possible that evolutionary forces have influenced the development of human capacities for social interaction and the development of culture. While scientists tend to agree about the general role of evolution in culture, there is still great disagreement about its specific contributions.

4. How are modern humans and Neanderthals related?

There is great debate about how we are related to Neanderthals, close hominid relatives who coexisted with our species from more than 100,000 years ago to about 28,000 years ago. Some data suggest that when anatomically modern humans dispersed into areas beyond Africa, they did so in small bands, across many different regions. As they did so, according to this hypothesis, humans merged with and interbred with Neanderthals, meaning that there is a little Neanderthal in all modern Europeans.

Scientific opinion based on other sets of data, however, suggests that the movement of anatomically modern humans out of Africa happened on a larger scale. These movements by the much more culturally and technologically advanced modern humans, the hypothesis states, would have been difficult for the Neanderthals to accommodate; the modern humans would have out-competed the Neanderthals for resources and driven them to extinction.

5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?

Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another -- that all life is interconnected.

6. What happened in the Cambrian explosion?

Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:00 am
Guess PBS should have consulted with Setanta first.

"Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:10 am
Your avatar is so appropriate, McWhitey . . . attempting to poke people in the eye is the height of your rhetorical contributions.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:13 am
BBB
That what I was trying to say with some of us got out of the trees, some didn't. I didn't make it clear I was describing the split. I'll do better next time.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:19 am
Careful but brief research online shows that it is no longer considered correct to refer to ramapithicus as a common ancestor. However, the dating which McWhitey offered is unreliable. The following is from the Guardian:

Quote:
The discovery of a new species of great ape that roamed Africa 10m years ago has forced scientists to rethink the earliest steps of human evolution.

Fossil hunters working along the Afar rift in central Ethiopia unearthed remnants of teeth they claim belonged to the primitive ape, a previously unknown species of gorilla they named Chororapithecus abyssinicus.

The finding, if confirmed, will redraw the evolutionary tree of primates, suggesting that humans and chimpanzees must have split from their gorilla-like ancestors 3m years earlier than thought. Geneticists have previously put the date at which the human and chimpanzee lineage split from gorillas at around 7m years ago, with humans and chimps diverging more recently, at 5m years ago.


Source

I am more than willing to admit that other paeleo-anthropologists remain skeptical of the significance of this find.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:21 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
That what I was trying to say with some of us got out of the trees, some didn't. I didn't make it clear I was describing the split. I'll do better next time.

BBB
The only reason i brought up the issue is that it represents sloppy but common thinking in the same vein as the concet of "race." there is no "negroid' or Mongoloid" or Caucasian" race even though it is a common understanding use in our society that there is. The only race is the "human" Homo Sapien race.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:23 am
Then why can't you and fellow libs forget the term, race, dys, instead of obsessing over it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:31 am
Setanta wrote:
Your avatar is so appropriate, McWhitey . . . attempting to poke people in the eye is the height of your rhetorical contributions.


Stop being wrong and I will stop poking you in the eye.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:32 am
okie wrote:
Then why can't you and fellow libs forget the term, race, dys, instead of obsessing over it?
Actually I don't think of you as a racist but rather just a simple minded bigot and I think it's important to get the terminology correct.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:35 am
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
Then why can't you and fellow libs forget the term, race, dys, instead of obsessing over it?
Actually I don't think of you as a racist but rather just a simple minded bigot and I think it's important to get the terminology correct.

I think of you as a misguided, confused, and unhappy liberal. Maybe some day you will see the light. There is hope for everyone. Have a good day, dys.

By the way, I think your thread here points up one thing, if you are looking for something, you will find it, and that includes failure and unhappiness. Self fulfilling prophecy, and thats what I think alot of people's problems are in regard to race and a whole host of other things. To wallow around in this is not productive, and my recommendation is to forget it for a while and the problem would subside. Thats why I said what I did about obsessing over it, and that is what alot of this is.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:38 am
okie
okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
Then why can't you and fellow libs forget the term, race, dys, instead of obsessing over it?
Actually I don't think of you as a racist but rather just a simple minded bigot and I think it's important to get the terminology correct.

I think of you as a misguided, confused, and unhappy liberal. Maybe some day you will see the light. There is hope for everyone. Have a good day, dys.


You got it wrong again. Dys is not a liberal, he's a moderate anarchist.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:40 am
Perhaps correct, BBB.

To repeat what I added in my above post when you posted, I think dys's thread here points up one thing, if you are looking for something, you will find it, and that includes failure and unhappiness. Self fulfilling prophecy, and thats what I think alot of people's problems are in regard to race and a whole host of other things. To wallow around in this is not productive, and my recommendation is to forget it for a while and the problem would subside. Thats why I said what I did about obsessing over it, and that is what alot of this is.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:49 am
Actually I subscribe to philosophical anarchism which is an anarchist school of thought which contends that the State lacks moral legitimacy but does not advocate revolution to eliminate the state. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the State, or conversely, that the State has a right to command. Philosophical anarchism "is a component especially of individualist anarchism." Philosophical anarchists of historical note include William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Henry David Thoreau Contemporary philosophical anarchists include John Simmons and Robert Paul Wolff.

According Allan Antliff, Benjamin Tucker coined the term "philosophical anarchism," to distinguish peaceful evolutionary anarchism from revolutionary variants.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:49 am
okie wrote:
Perhaps correct, BBB.

To repeat what I added in my above post when you posted, I think dys's thread here points up one thing, if you are looking for something, you will find it, and that includes failure and unhappiness. Self fulfilling prophecy, and thats what I think alot of people's problems are in regard to race and a whole host of other things. To wallow around in this is not productive, and my recommendation is to forget it for a while and the problem would subside. Thats why I said what I did about obsessing over it, and that is what alot of this is.


As I said in an earlier post, I think racism and tribalism have a lot in common. Some people are more evolved from tribalism than others.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2008 10:00 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
okie wrote:
Perhaps correct, BBB.

To repeat what I added in my above post when you posted, I think dys's thread here points up one thing, if you are looking for something, you will find it, and that includes failure and unhappiness. Self fulfilling prophecy, and thats what I think alot of people's problems are in regard to race and a whole host of other things. To wallow around in this is not productive, and my recommendation is to forget it for a while and the problem would subside. Thats why I said what I did about obsessing over it, and that is what alot of this is.


As I said in an earlier post, I think racism and tribalism have a lot in common. Some people are more evolved from tribalism than others.

BBB

Woe! Chew on that for a while, dys. In fact, that should arouse the interest of alot of people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Am I wrong?
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:53:47