I guess I am a bit pessimistic when it comes to scientific theories.
Anytime an actual fact is found, it disproves any theory related to the find.
Here is another case.
It should be a lesson that we should not go into a panic or frenzy solely on scientific theory.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
I thought you were a teacher. Do you not know the meaning of "theory"?
What theory is disproved here?
"It should be a lesson that we should not go into a panic or frenzy solely on scientific theory."
Absolutely. The conclusions of science are contingent, tentative, provisional, and are open to revision.
As the scientific racism of Louis Agassiz illustrates, it can be harmful to millions of people if the science of the day is taken solely as dogma. As even the case of Freeman Dyson shows, criticisms of the anthropogenic global warming model, no matter how mild, along with the proposed socialist solutions, can get you into a lot of trouble with the fanatics.
What the hell does this have to do with global warming?
Thanks for the name dropping, Jason. Care to at least LINK to something that would help us to learn about "Louis Agassiz" and "Freeman Dyson" and why we should give a crap about them?
Louis Agassiz has been dead for 135 years and his racism was an unfortunate product of his time. It has nothing to do with the Ethiopian fossils.
Freeman Dyson, of course, created a great vacuum even a monkey could use. There you go.
jim--
I know Democrats like Comrade Hillary are against the "on your own" society, but in an era where wikipedia.com is a click away, I don't think it is too much to expect you to at least *think* on your own.
charles darwin--
You realize Charles Darwin was a scientific racist himself, no? Evolution is a true description of events, yes, but let's not forget how Darwinisn gave scientific legitimacy to eugenicists like Margaret Sanger. I'll spell this slowly for socialist cavemen, since I know it pisses them off. Planned Parenthood was founded by progressive do-gooders in the eugenics movement who wanted to stop the lesser races from breeding. Even today Democrats say we need abortion since the "wrong people" are having kids who will grow up to be criminals. It doesn't take a physicist to figure out who the "wrong people" are.
I know Democrats like Comrade Hillary are against the "on your own" society, but in an era where wikipedia.com is a click away, I don't think it is too much to expect you to at least *think* on your own.
Jason, what a bullshit comment. If you are going to use names and studies to make your argument, you should provide links and citations. "Own" your argument by backing it up. Why should I have to go search for something YOU think is relevant to the debate?
Jason, "The Game" gets his little panties in a twist when visitors start babbling away about irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with his "topic."
Sorry to be off topic...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6959209.stm
"The monkeys grab their breasts, and gesture at us while pointing at their private parts. We are afraid that they will sexually harass us,"
"Planned Parenthood was founded by progressive do-gooders in the eugenics movement who wanted to stop the lesser races from breeding. Even today Democrats say we need abortion since the "wrong people" are having kids who will grow up to be criminals. It doesn't take a physicist to figure out who the "wrong people" are."
Okay, even if all of this IS true, who is to say there is no validity to it?
Parents who breed unwanted children, and children they cannot afford to support are a sin. A starving child, a child in the care of someone without the facility to cope with it is a sin. Why is it so unthinkable that, in any modern society, a majority of these unwanted children would come from households that share certain cultural or racial similarities to one another?
To help such parents out of such a jam is to help them out, and help our own society be the strongest it can be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a concept.
fanatic,
Because "parents who breed unwanted children" shouldn't be "breeding". Plain and simple!
Are we so far gone as a society that we can't control our baser emotions and stop rutting like dogs in heat in a ditch? At least use some damn birth control!!! And don't hand me this shit about failing birth control (which does happen infrequently), because most cases of abortion do not involve failed birth control, but it does involve a lack of self control.
Marshall Art is way more eloquent on this subject than I am, but unwanted births and abortions are simply a result of f'd up liberalism.
And of course hashfanatic you being a living non-aborted human-being have the luxary to debate.
What a sickening society we find ourselves in!
Jason is absolutely correct about the Planned Parenthood reference, the same happened with DDT in third world countries. Millions dead because of environmentalist scaremongering. Pathetic, knee jerking, bandwagon jumping, liberal opportuninst.
Well, about Planned Parenthood, its founder actually was a daughter who saw her mother die by the age of 40 from complications of childbirth -- too many childbirths, something like 17, with "only" 11 surviving children. And the mother was constantly pregnant and ill, leaving the elder children to raise the younger ones, and themselves, as the parents were Catholic and were not to practice birth control.
So the founder of Planned Parenthood became a public nurse to help pregnant women in the ghettos of New York but saw many women die in childbirth of preventable deaths -- and of self-induced abortions. She decided to find out about birth control methods and distribute the information to others. And for that, she ended up being prosecuted and sentenced to prison, so she had to flee this country -- and miss years with her own children, including a daughter who died soon after her mother's return.
Sadly, yes, she also later became part of the eugenics movement -- a widespread movement then. But to even suggest that was her only motivation is to tell us a lot more about you than about her. Was doing so a deliberate attempt to rewrite history or just ignorance?
"Are we so far gone as a society that we can't control our baser emotions and stop rutting like dogs in heat in a ditch?"
Yes, we are.
Look at the behavior of younger people. Look at the way the sexes behave in each other's presence, if given half an opportunity.
Yes, I would say things are quite out of hand.
But this is happening, and they are popping out puppies left and right.
Are we simply to wag our fingers at them and say, "Shouldn't!", when common sense would tell you such people should not be multiplying like rabbits?
This is simple biology. And if the lowlifes of our society continue to spawn at this rate of speed, I can PROMISE you you will not like the state of our nation to come.
anony
To simply look at the founder, without looking at the supporters/enablers is an incomplete picture. Regardless, motivation is a poor excuse, considering the consequences.
That her mother died at a young age may be a tragedy, but the fact remains, if you have sex, there may be consequences.
Fanatic,
I agree, that some who have children, shouldn't. But there are many who have come from "less than desirable" backgrounds that have become productive citizens of society. Who are you or I or anyone to stomp out this light of life because we don't see their parents as "desirable citizens"?
Again, we are not rabbits or dogs, while some may always engage in practices without thinking of consequences, if we as a society made people face their conseqences you'd see a lot less inappropriate behavior.
I've got a sixteen year old daughter. She's not a virgin, and I suspect she continues dangerous behavior. What if she saw many of her peers facing or "owning" up to the results of their actions, instead of a society that excuses, promotes, and glorified the "I want it all and I want it now" attitude?
To expect society to be mature maybe a pipe dream, but we damn sure shouldn't give up and take the "oh well their going to do it anyway" attitude.
Abortion is a barbaric practice that should be reserved for a select few special circumstances. The fact that it's viewed as a form of birth control or the control of "undesirables" just goes to show the sickness of our society.
anony,
I can't help but wonder if at least one time the mother of the "founder" didn't ask herself "should I do the deed for immediate pleasure, or abstain for fear of bringing another child into this world that I can scarcely take care of"? Hmmmm..., imagine, a human being capable of thinking ahead..., a society that didn't make excuses for giving in to immediate gratification..., a society that didn't extinguish the most helpless for a few moments of pleasure..
Ya, I know, we, as thinking, reasoning beings are incapable of thinking beyond the next few moments, therefore we should excuse, and justify, unjustifiable acts against the most innocent.
Even today Democrats say we need abortion since the "wrong people" are having kids who will grow up to be criminals.
I would like to see a single example of an elected Democrat or Democratic candidate who says this.
Just one.
That her mother died at a young age may be a tragedy, but the fact remains, if you have sex, there may be consequences.
According to what was written here, the founder's mother was married and catholic. Are you suggesting that a married woman abstain from sex because there may be "consequences"?
Jay,
Of course you'll find no sitting or aspiring politician admitting to beliefs in eugenics. BUT, many of the founders of todays so called progressive movement were big believers. They were one and all members of the "intelligentsia" that is the backbone of the progressive movement. You might could say they (the intelligentsia) are responsible for the "smugness" that is a common factor among todays progressives. Of course they were/are smart enough to back "all the horses in the race", but their basic beliefs (if sometimes shrouded under "alterior" reasoning) has found a home in todays Democrat party.
After all, at the root of socialism (modern day liberalism), is a belief that certain people can (or appoint those who can) better govern, direct, inform us all, of how we should live our lives.
To give into this belief "we know what's good for you, we'll take care of you" is one of the most horrific addictions facing modern civilization.
Jim,
If all do not understand that "every action causes an equal reaction" then it is our duty to educate them, instead of making excuses.
"Are you suggesting that a married woman abstain from sex because there may be "consequences"?"
That's what I'M saying, if they are unable or unwilling to accept the consequences. Of course, it's not just the wife's job, the husband has to be responsible with their sex life as well. Being married doesn't mean that you don't have to consider the ramifications, potential or otherwise, of your actions. Indeed, it requires even more diligence as it affects at least one other person, that being the spouse, and of course the people that are invited to live with you, that being the children. I'm fully aware that marriage is the one arrangement where sex is perfectly acceptable, but responsibility and maturity are still required.
As to the actual topic, Jim posed this question:
"What theory is disproved here?"
The theory that we all came from the same line, one mutation after another, while the articles speaks of the findings showing that multiple "versions" existed at the same time. Or something to that effect. Read the article.
So, blamin, you're willing to excuse Jason H. Bowden's libel of contemporary Democrats--scratch that.
You're willing to excuse Jason H. Bowden's bald-faced lies about contemporary Democrats because six or seven generations ago a small handful people that most Democrats don't know about, haven't heard of, and certainly wouldn't identify as their antecedents were supporters of eugenics?
Let me rephrase again: You have allowed your mental caricature of modern progressives, liberals, and Democrats both to obscure the easily observed reality of modern polity and to perpetuate lies spread by your ideological brethren online.
One more time: You don't know the first thing about real Democrats and so you revel in mudslinging instead of facts.
Oh, that's still not right. Once more, with feeling: You're a mindless git.
That feels more like it.
The theory that we all came from the same line, one mutation after another
Who believes in that "theory" today? Only the ignorant think that the theory of evolution holds that man is descended from gorillas or chimpanzees "one mutation after another." It is commonly understood that there are many branches of the evolutionary tree and that humans and great apes are two of them.
The article only shows that there is new evidence that would suggest that the splitting of the human and ape branches occurred earlier than previously thought. That disproves no theory.
Jay
Does the term useful idiots mean anything to you?
Jay,
I have to ask. What is it you Dems want in today's society? We're allready a social democracy. The debate is simply over where the line should be drawn. "Your" side wishes to cede more control to the gov't, while "my" side believes "we've ceded too much allready.
Yes, you can give several ancedotal examples of failings in our country, but I'd argue that's hardly a reason to create larger "undieing, self-perpetuating" bureaucracies whilst giving away more of our hard fought for freedoms.
On a final note, I guess if I were in your shoes, I'd pretend the beliefs of the founders of my party were irrelevant also. Whatever you have to tell yourself, (or "they" tell you) I suppose.
"I have to ask. What is it you Dems want in today's society? We're allready a social democracy."
Are you for real?
I don't know about Jay, but from where I sit, we are a fascist dictatorship.
Fascist, in that the perfect melding of government and business interests have been achieved.
A dictatorship in that, even a visitor from the most benighted, totalitarian banana republic would look at our government and see that in no way are our needs and desires for leadership are being met.
In fact, the government acts AGAINST our best interests, and the preservation of our personal freedoms.
How is any of this a "social democracy"?
I guess if I were in your shoes, I'd pretend the beliefs of the founders of my party were irrelevant also.
My party was founded by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. You have a problem with that?
jay,
You're absolutely correct, I goofed that one.
I should have said "founders of the modern day progressive movement."
fanatic
We are a social democracy – look it up putz.
You may believe our government has fascist qualities, and you may not be satisfied with the leadership. But, you know what? You’ll never be satisfied, because you’re a stark, raving-mad moonbat, and there’s no way in hell the people of this country would elect anyone that agreed with your views and opinions.
So I’m afraid you’re destined to live the rest of your life pissed-off and paranoid. Or you could move to another country.
"Or you could move to another country."
Gonna pay my relocation expenses, blame game?
Well, I guess you're just stuck with me....
To give into this belief "we know what's good for you, we'll take care of you" is one of the most horrific addictions facing modern civilization.
And yet, you are willing to excuse any actions by your dear leader even though that is his standard rationale
"...the same happened with DDT in third world countries. Millions dead because of environmentalist scaremongering."
Huh? The US outlawed DDT after malaria had been eradicated here. But due to a loophole in the US constitution, American laws do not apply in third world countries, and DDT continued to be used elsewhere.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, which is OK. I believe God put certain people on this planet for my amusement.
"I don't know about Jay, but from where I sit, we are a fascist dictatorship."
Where you sit must be a toilet judging by the quality of your comments.
Jim,
Don't want to split hairs, but the timing of the split is part of their theory, ain't it? But overall, does this discovery enhance or harm what they want to believe about evolution? Does it strengthen or diminish their theory? At this point, the effect is probably minimal.
heraldblog,
I’ll tell you what’s amusing, an uninformed, blind, ideologue.
The US and the richer countries of Europe have used tremendous pressure on other countries, particularly third world countries to stop using DDT.
UN protocols calling for banning of DDT, The World Bank refusing to use DDT in its malaria fighting in third world countries, US and European countries threatening to withhold funds from countries using DDT, and bullying others for using DDT when negotiating treatises and trade agreements (NAFTA for instance).
Good thing our current administration has come around on this subject, it appears they’re not as intimidated by envirofascist, who could care less about millions of human deaths, as some of our previous administrations.
Of course DDT is but one example of fanatical environmentalist’s blatant disregard for human life.
I can't expect for a person who doesn't believe in evolution to understand how mosquitoes build up resistance to DDT.
heraldblog,
DDT acts as a very effective repellant, even against those mosquitoes that apparently develop a resistance.
Herald - I've read about small children's permanent brain damage from bouts with malaria at an early age. Every time you post, I'm witnessing the devastating affects, first hand.
I would think that you of all people would be happy the truth about DDT and enviro-charlatans are coming to light these last couple years.
Are you talking about the descendants of the two mosquitoes Noah brought on the ark? Or the mosquitoes that swam for 40 days and 40 nights? Because the swimming mosquitoes were damned by God, so you may be right about that whole resistance thing.
See, liberals do change their minds every now and then!
Marshall, I agree the affect is minimal. And I would say the timing of the split is not really a part of the theory, that is, a basic tenet of the theory.
Post a Comment