Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Human Evolution

Posted by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 3:48 AM
  • 3 Replies
  • 306 Total Views



It isn't a "missing link" between human and non-human.

Instead there is a steady, gradual, well-evidenced curve covering millions of years over which brain size slowly doubles.

by on Jun. 16, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-3):
AdrianneHill
by Member on Jun. 16, 2012 at 4:32 AM
You know the Genesis promoters wouldn't buy that even if you threw in a new car with hookers in the trunk. They want us to be able to point to one fossil and say "That one is when we became human and the others were just soulless animals."
Without that single example, they will willfully blind themselves to any evidence that requires nuance and thought because they can't handle processing several species making slow progress. They also can't handle sideways or regression because they are convinced evolution means that things always change for the "better" which means more human like.
I went on a painful journey through some of the creationist sites recently and wouldn't even know where to begin to pick apart their arguments against evolution. It is like an ocean fish denying the existence of animals in landlocked deserts. They can't conceive of a desert so all evidence send fanatical and fantastical nonsense. All the anti evolution sites are convinced that evolution only goes one way and misunderstand the word "fittest" in just about every way imaginable. They think it means biggest, strongest, "smartest", and of course, most like a human. The idea of being fit for a specific environment that is subject to change is anathema as is the idea that we don't see cats becoming lions within a human's lifespan.
I guess the best place to start walking a creationist through real science is with a fifth grade science book that deals with generations, DNA, and a rudimentary glossary existing basic science terms. But I'm sure they would dismiss the textbook as more darwinist propaganda trying to corrupt youth with godlessness. I'd have to return the favor by throwing out their textbook (the KJV Bible) as pro monarchy, misogynistic, pro slavery, and poorly translated propaganda. The conversation likely wouldn't get very far.

ETA: As always, edited for spelling. Also edited for a little clarity and to have a quiet rant on the chasm between evolution and creation and the supporters of both. Y'all are just lucky my phone froze and I was unable to continue waxing poetic on the uber coolness of the swim bladder in many fish species and how it developed from the lung of various ancient lungfish species like the coelacanth. The swim bladder or the air breathing lung, or the absence of both, is used by biologists to place different species on the evolutionary timeline of fish development. So fricking cool. Learning stuff is awesome.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
tambrathegreat
by on Jun. 17, 2012 at 8:11 PM

 The missing link is an childishly over-simplification of a gradual process.  There is no such thing unless one subscribes to the punctuated equilibrium models, which haven't been proven to any extent.

DivingDiva
by Team Evolution on Jun. 22, 2012 at 9:11 AM


Quoting AdrianneHill:

You know the Genesis promoters wouldn't buy that even if you threw in a new car with hookers in the trunk. They want us to be able to point to one fossil and say "That one is when we became human and the others were just soulless animals."
Without that single example, they will willfully blind themselves to any evidence that requires nuance and thought because they can't handle processing several species making slow progress. They also can't handle sideways or regression because they are convinced evolution means that things always change for the "better" which means more human like.
I went on a painful journey through some of the creationist sites recently and wouldn't even know where to begin to pick apart their arguments against evolution. It is like an ocean fish denying the existence of animals in landlocked deserts. They can't conceive of a desert so all evidence send fanatical and fantastical nonsense. All the anti evolution sites are convinced that evolution only goes one way and misunderstand the word "fittest" in just about every way imaginable. They think it means biggest, strongest, "smartest", and of course, most like a human. The idea of being fit for a specific environment that is subject to change is anathema as is the idea that we don't see cats becoming lions within a human's lifespan.
I guess the best place to start walking a creationist through real science is with a fifth grade science book that deals with generations, DNA, and a rudimentary glossary existing basic science terms. But I'm sure they would dismiss the textbook as more darwinist propaganda trying to corrupt youth with godlessness. I'd have to return the favor by throwing out their textbook (the KJV Bible) as pro monarchy, misogynistic, pro slavery, and poorly translated propaganda. The conversation likely wouldn't get very far.

ETA: As always, edited for spelling. Also edited for a little clarity and to have a quiet rant on the chasm between evolution and creation and the supporters of both. Y'all are just lucky my phone froze and I was unable to continue waxing poetic on the uber coolness of the swim bladder in many fish species and how it developed from the lung of various ancient lungfish species like the coelacanth. The swim bladder or the air breathing lung, or the absence of both, is used by biologists to place different species on the evolutionary timeline of fish development. So fricking cool. Learning stuff is awesome.

Awesome rant - truly enjoyable to read.  I agree with all your points, especially the part in red. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)