Today on Blogcritics
Home » Evolution of Man

Evolution of Man

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

After reading the book that was the “Evolution versus Intelligent Design” Post yesterday (or did it start several days ago), all kinds of new questions came to mind. If you’ll allow me, here is one in several parts.

There are 6,450,000,000 of us humans on earth right now. There have been at least that many who have already come and gone. Maybe a lot more. We are supposedly the most advanced species. Under theories of evolution, we should be seeing various kinds of mutations that would result in better humans, who would generally take over for the lesser humans. Ultimately, there would be some new species, identifiable as such, that would be a super human, I suppose.

If those postulates are reasonable interpretations of current thought, I wonder why we don’t see aberrational humans on even minor skill sets. For instance, we don’t have any 100 m dash folks beating the record by a full second, or milers taking the best mile down by 20 seconds. The new bests are always only fractions of seconds better than the last. I don’t personally follow every sport and every record in all sports, but I can’t recall ever having seen someone completely devastate an old record.

This lack of mutation seems to be true across all aspects of our human capabilities. No big brain that eclipses the talent by a huge gap, no musician who can play a song so much better than another that it just changes everything, no writer who just sways people so easily that everyone else runs and hides.

Why do you suppose this is? I know we have our prodigies, but I don’t recall any that would fit the bill like a calf being born with a leg out of its back.

A similar question is why don’t we humans use the techniques of animal husbandry to develop super humans. We do it for dogs, horses, chickens, cows, etc. Why aren’t we trying to mate really outstanding athletes with other outstanding athletes over several generations to come up with a breakthrough.

I’m not suggesting the opposite, eugenics, or the idea of keeping the less successful from having any or many kids, but surely there can be no ethical reason why we don’t try to develop super brains or super athletes. In fact, one would think that we would naturally do so. But it seems that our progress as humans (such as it is) comes from better engineering (better food, medicine, housing, etc.) than it does from a better gene pool.

Powered by

About Randy

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    We are supposedly the most advanced species.

    So far.

    we should be seeing various kinds of mutations that would result in better humans

    I forget what this is called, but it’s a fallacy arising from an incorrect understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

    Besides, how do we know that the increasing frequency of Asperger’s syndrome is not just that, a beneficial mutation whose purpose we, not being clued into the “big picture,” cannot perceive?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I was taught that evolution takes millions of years and since Christ was only 2,000 years ago there wouldn’t be any change over that amount of time. If you look at the humans from millions of years ago, then you see the changes.

    I’m curious as to what your definition of the perfect human is? It seems to be someone into sports. You wonder why a fast sprinter isn’t born, you wonder why people don’t breed superathletes, etc.

    A similar question is why don’t we humans use the techniques of animal husbandry to develop super humans. We do it for dogs, horses, chickens, cows, etc. Why aren’t we trying to mate really outstanding athletes with other outstanding athletes over several generations to come up with a breakthrough.

    I would think it would be smarter to try and breed someone smart, with great mental capacity. That to me would be more valuable to humanity than trying to breed someone who can run past a goal post faster than anybody else.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Run, Forest, Run!

  • JR

    If those postulates are reasonable interpretations of current thought…

    To be honest, they don’t sound reasonable to me, but these are just such easy pickings…

    For instance, we don’t have any 100 m dash folks beating the record by a full second, or milers taking the best mile down by 20 seconds. The new bests are always only fractions of seconds better than the last. I don’t personally follow every sport and every record in all sports, but I can’t recall ever having seen someone completely devastate an old record.

    Poll vault or high jump, can’t remember which. Check the records.

    This lack of mutation seems to be true across all aspects of our human capabilities.

    I once saw a “professional regurgitator”. Can you do that?

    no musician who can play a song so much better than another that it just changes everything

    Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker. Art Tatum.

    I know we have our prodigies, but I don’t recall any that would fit the bill like a calf being born with a leg out of its back.

    We’d usually call that a deformity, and there are no shortage of those. Some are borderline, though, like that six-fingered guitar player.

    A similar question is why don’t we humans use the techniques of animal husbandry to develop super humans.

    Read much about the Nazis? They made some news a while back. See in particular, Heinrich Himmler.

    Anyways, that doesn’t really count as natural selection, does it?

    I’m not suggesting the opposite, eugenics…

    Look up “eugenics”.

    but surely there can be no ethical reason why we don’t try to develop super brains or super athletes.

    Wow, and I thought I was a radical! You just want to dive right into the Brave New World, don’t you?

    Run that by your priest.

    But it seems that our progress as humans (such as it is) comes from better engineering (better food, medicine, housing, etc.) than it does from a better gene pool.

    Over what, four or five generations? What would you expect? If evolution worked that fast, we wouldn’t have bothered with engineering. Unless we could use it to make changes even faster, in which case you’d be asking why we weren’t evolving fast enough…

  • Duane

    What JR said.

    but surely there can be no ethical reason why we don’t try to develop super brains

    Like those guys with the pulsing giant heads in the Star Trek pilot? Bad guys.

    Or the Outer Limits episode “The Sixth Finger” where David McCallum evolves about a million years into the future over the course of a few days? Bad guy.

    Prometheus Bound? Bad guy, had his liver eaten out by buzzards.

    The Professor in Felix the Cat? Bad guy.

    Flowers for Algernon Guy gets smart, loses all his friends. Bad guy.

    Remember, really smart people are bad. We would all be wished into the corn field.

  • JR

    Remember, really smart people are bad.

    Yeah, a disproportionate number of them believe in evolution. What more proof do you need?

  • Bennett

    Randy, you are such an infant (and a glutton for punnishment as well).

    “Oh, it’s been 50 years and I don’t see no ee-vo-lution yet. Is we condescended from monkeys? My folks ain’t condescended from monkeys!”

    This post is rediculous. Better you should post it to your church blog instead of a site where folks actually think.

  • Duane

    I feeling a bit conciliatory today. I, for one, appreciate Randy’s posts and observations. He has provided some good grist for the mill, and I think he’s shown a lot of spirit (pardon the pun). I mean it. No condescension intended. If you’re willing to put up with all of us wise guys, I say go for it. Keep up the good work!

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    my personal Observation is that it is all just evangelizing a dogmatic opinion, utilizing the infrastructure of ID websites, many of which have whole sections devoted to the topic of “how to argue for ID”, outlining topics and showing examples of distraction and utilizing fallacious axioms in an attempt to prove false postulates ni such a way as to get past cursory examination

    this Post is just more of the same

    just my Opinion…now i’ll stay off this thread since i have had my say on the other one linked in the Post

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Regarding the part about building ‘super humans’, the reason why I was thinking of building better brains rather than thinking of the horrors of government run breeding, was because there already is a large amount of choosing that goes on when having kids.

    We had a surrogacy and we got to choose the college level of the egg donor, the hair color, the race, etc. A lot of this stuff, you can say doesn’t matter and it shortens your waiting time, but it’s common practice to ‘sculpt’ your future generation that way, keeping in mind that nothing is exact, you get what nature gives you regardless.

    Even a woman who gives birth the ‘old fashioned way’ will choose a mate based on a lot of factors including the ability to provide for a family (educational level, etc.)

    So when the post said build a better human, I was thinking along those lines, not like Nazism or anything like that, which is why my response was what it was.

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan The Man

    I’m not sure if this applies to runners, but maybe it does. There was a study done as to why pitchers can’t throw more than 100 mph. If we have gotten stronger as a species (weight training and such) that we should be able to. Well the science tells us that pitching a ball involves the limit of how our bodies are designed. There is only so much that the way the arm moves that it only allows a limited amount of torque and stuff. The weights improve endurance much more than the speed of a fastball. I think this applies to runners too. Watching a sprinter sprint… how much faster could they get? The runner is really just limited by his body shape/size/bones/etc. Technique can help and so can weights and stuff but the body can only do so much. In terms of track, milliseconds is a long time.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Tan the Man. You are the man. This is what I’m trying to say. With all those humans, shouldn’t we have one who can pitch 120 mph because of a mutation.

    Or shouldn’t the 100mph guy marry up with the daughter of another 100mph guy. Not government run. Just because it should be the selfish gene way to do it.

    Gonzo. Now it is a vast Christian conspiracy. Please? I’m about as independent a thinker as you’re going to find. Gets me in lots of trouble with my “priest.”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Or shouldn’t the 100mph guy marry up with the daughter of another 100mph guy. Not government run. Just because it should be the selfish gene way to do it.

    That’s what I thought you meant. That’s what people do. It’s not exclusive, but it’s pretty general. The rich marry the rich. The beautiful marry the beautiful. The athletic marry other athletes, celebrities marry other celebrities, etc.

  • Duane

    One quick observatiion: yell at me if you think I’m crazy. I believe the rate of interracial marriages is increasing year by year (I had one myself). As the world becomes smaller, the taboos and prejudices against the practice will probably become less constraining, and will tend to mix the races more and more. If I were to carelessly extrapolate this to the future, say 1000 years, there might be a lot less variation in the physical appearance of humans, as the dominant genes will … uh … dominate.

    Now, I don’t want to get in trouble by comparing humans to dogs, but my girlfriend/future wife tells me that purebred dogs are subject to a lot more physical and temperamental problems than mongrels. And whether it’s just a form of exoticism, or whether there’s some objectivity on my part, a lot of mixed-race people are gorgeous. I wonder if, by analogy, the mixing of the races will lead to a healthier, more attractive human race.

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan The Man

    That’s also what the Nazis did to try to breed the perfect Aryan. THey bred the blonde and the beautiful together, but it didn’t work. It might also have to do with the fact that the blonde gene is recessive, but I don’t think they knew that. I don’t think the human gene can be pure enough to breed THAT successfully. We’re not horses.

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan The Man

    But I’m sure there are humans capable of great things. It’s a matter of finding them, or them finding what they are really great at doing. Some people never do, and some people – for some reasons or another – never reach their potential, that’s life I guess.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Could work that way. I couldn’t agree more with the observation about beautiful mixed raced folks.

    So, if breeding for one characteristic potentially results in temprement issues or weakness in other areas, how are we ever to know how to do this.

    Kind of reminds me of the problems associated with all tinkering around with our nature, nurture, etc. Global warming comes to mind. Beware the unintended consequences.

    In the meantime, however, no one has really given a serious answer to why there are no 120mph pitchers. Some asked me to do the research. HMMM. You make the observation, you do the reserch.

    I would think there should be lots of really break throughs. Not a 200 IQ. A 250 IQ. Someone for whom the rest of us would not be able to make an IQ test to confirm their IQ. A modern Soloman. I know, some of you don’t believe he lived or that he was that great.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    In the meantime, however, no one has really given a serious answer to why there are no 120mph pitchers.

    Nature evolves us in order to better our lot in life. We grew eyes so we could see, we stood upright to reach farther distances, etc. Perhaps nature doesn’t think we need a really fast pitcher in order to ensure the survival of the species.

    About the purebred dog comment, we have two labs, one is a mix and one is a certified purebred. The purebred drives me nuts. She is spastic, she cannot control her emotions, she flunked out of obedience school, she is destructive and an absolute pain in the ass 24/7. The mutt on the other hand is so laid back and patient, he’ll even let the little one ride on his back.

  • Duane

    Steve S, yeah, but but this kind of statement about dogs really can only apply to averages taken over large populations. I’m sure there are perfectly wonderful purebred pit bulls out there. I had a purebred cocker spaniel who was a holy terror, but it’s only one dog. Evidently, there is a higher incidence of certain kinds of problems with cockers that you wouldn’t find in a mutt. “Incidence” is the key word.

  • Evan

    Whose to say there isn’t someone who can pitch 120mph, or someone who can run a mile in 5 seconds flat? Just because they’re not playing baseball or in the olympics doesn’t mean they’re out there. There’s no doubt in my mind that somewhere out there there’s a man or woman who can run it in under 9 seconds or whatever the record is, but for whatever reason, they aren’t in the olympics. There could be countless reasons, perhaps they just haven’t ever really tried to run, perhaps they don’t have a school or track accessible, maybe they’re too poor.

    My imagination has always led me to think that somewhere in Africa a man is living in a hut, but boy can he run.

    It seems childish to think that people in the MLB, or who compete in the Olympics are the best of the best. No, they’re the best of the ones with access.

  • nihilan

    You overlook the fact that for this mutation to fix itself in the population it has to confer a reproductive advantage. Last time I checked, running the 100m dash extremlely fast doesn’t lead to any more offspring in todays world, then say, living in a trailer park in Tenessee collecting welfare. Not to mention, there is no mutation that would directly translate into “breaking the world record in the 100m dash”. Even with a genetic advantage, you need to be raised in the right environment and recieve the proper training.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    You guys better be careful…last time I heard someone talking about humans being bred for success he lost his job as an analyst on CBS!

  • Antfreeze

    You know what’s really remarkable? People who believe every word of a 2000 year old book on nothing more than faith, and then incessantly argue against a theory with a million pieces of evidence to back it up. You can’t even keep your arguments in the same arena, the short term breeding issues are genetics, the long, long, long term issues are evolution. As Tan the Man says, there are limits to the physicality. They’ve been breeding the fastest horses together for years but none have been faster than Secretariat. A physical limit has been reached. Why is it so hard to believe that if running faster kept you alive longer, ergo you had more kids, ergo those kids could probably run fast and thus, have more fast kids? Add millions of years and stir = evolution.

  • Richard Scharf

    Comments, such as those by Randy Kirk, are not unusual when someone gets all their information about evolution from the He-man Science-Hater’s Club. The critics of evolution, when writing for an audience of non-scientists, often paint a false picture of evolution, and then attack the false picture that they created.

    Why would anyone expect evolution to produce giant leaps of “progress” when the theory doesn’t predict them?

    And what’s this crap about applying animal husbandry to humans? In the next breath he states that he’s not suggesting eugenics! News Flash: Applying animal husbandry to humans IS eugenics.

    Sheesh.

  • Nancy

    Actually a case can be made that our government has engaged in a eugenics conspiracy for almost a century now: consider that when drafting the (male) population, they always took the strongest, most intelligent, healthiest males. This leaves the weak, stupid, & genetically inferior behind to be the breeders. The object of this is to reduce the general intellectual capability of the population to the point where eventually politicians need not ever have to answer questions, or have their policies, actions, or questionable activities queried. The proof of this is that most politicians do not serve in the military, but get out by special connections, etc. or if they do serve, do so in some ‘safe’ position. Like Bush, or Cheney, or Dan Quayle.

  • JR

    Randy Kirk: Tan the Man. You are the man. This is what I’m trying to say. With all those humans, shouldn’t we have one who can pitch 120 mph because of a mutation.

    How do you know it requires only one mutation? Sounds like it’s not that simple.

    Anyway, why would you expect that a mutation to help people play baseball would occur within a couple hundred years of the game being invented? That doesn’t sound very random to me. You’re the one who believes in a Designer, you tell me why He hasn’t magically fiddled with the genes.

    And while you’re at it, why don’t you explain how He fiddles with the genes. ‘Cause that might actually be relevant to science, which is what some of us would like to be taught in high school science classes (hint hint).

    In the meantime, however, no one has really given a serious answer to why there are no 120mph pitchers. Some asked me to do the research. HMMM. You make the observation, you do the reserch.

    Actually, you made observations. A bunch of them, up there in the post. And they were demonstrably false. HMMM.

    I would think there should be lots of really break throughs.

    And I would think that’s because you have a poor understanding of the subject. Probably because you haven’t done any research. How is that my problem? Perhaps you should take personal responsibility for your ignorance.

    And can you please make up your mind on “tinkering around on our nature”? First it’s “surely there can be no ethical reason why we don’t try to develop super brains or super athletes”, then it’s “beware the unintended consequences”. WTF?!?

  • Nancy

    #25 was made in jest. There are some good conspiracy threads on BG at the moment; I’m feeling inspired.

  • Shark

    I read Randy’s “essay.”

    Oy. Just friggin’ Oy.

    PS: JR, I haven’t said it lately: I love you, maaaaaaaaan!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I didn’t expect so much polarization from this post. It was kind of mind stretching. We have 7,000,000,000 folks. One example of a positive beneficial mutation that catapulted a person to a new level. Doesn’t even have to be seen as proving evolution. Why don’t we see larger variation?

    Those who question my credentials don’t want to get into a war on that. Not bragging, just old and well read.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Nancy, Randy, (Shark): Current thinking is that intelligence is determined more by the mother’s gene-input than the father’s, a theory roughly dubbed the “Shaw Conundrum.”

    Supposedly George Bernard Shaw, approached by a lovely brainless thing for the eugenic purpose of producing a baby with “all your brains and all my beauty,” declined, saying, “Just consider, madam, what a calamity it would be for the world if we produced a baby with all my beauty and all your brains?”

    Evidence is statistical, and flawed by changes in intelligence-measuring modes within the three generations of the statistical universe.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Randy sez…
    *Why don’t we see larger variation?*

    ok..can you set up an experiment to show how ID postulates the differences between Africans, Caucasions and Orientals..specifically, the difference in leg musculature, the epicanthic fold and the various eye colors?

    the theory of evolution has some thoughts on this

    how does ID explain it, better yet..how does ID propose to set up an experiment to prove ANY of it’s postulates

    hell, i’ll settle for how and what empirical data ID is gathering to add credence to itself via empirical evidence

    once again..evolution = scientific theory

    ID = metaphysical sophistry

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • JR

    Randy Kirk: Those who question my credentials don’t want to get into a war on that.

    Sure, tell us what your degree is in. I dare you.

    Not bragging, just old and well read.

    So you’ve said many times, but it just isn’t obvious from what you write. Are you counting the porn?

  • Nancy

    DrPat, considering people of either gender (plus a few who haven’t made up their minds yet) that I know, that isn’t comforting news.

    I’m gonna stick my neck out and get fried/flamed, here, but I think anyone who talks on a cell phone, puts on makeup, shaves, talks with their hands, or dresses while driving a car should be sterilized as undesirable for procreating.

  • http://www.spam.com Misanthrope

    Haven’t humans gotten taller in the short time that real buildings have been built? I seem to find doorways in very old houses, buildings, castles, etc to be quite low compared to today. Also, humans have only been around for 10,000 or 15,000 years, so I don’t think that we’re going to see large evolutionary changes in that span of time, which to this planet is the blink of an eye.

  • JR

    Haven’t humans gotten taller in the short time that real buildings have been built?

    Most likely diet. Except for that Chinese basketball player. No amount of protein shakes can account for him.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    my understandning for low ceiling heights was heat conservation…much easier to heat a house with a 7 ft ceiling than one with an 8 ft ceiling…I could be wrong.

  • Nancy

    When exposed to a western diet, most populations grow to an average height more in line with current western averages of 5’10” to 6′ for men, 5’5″ to 5’7″ for women. Westerners weren’t that tall, either, until the last 100 years or so when nutrition in general (and food additives) went up. However, average height gains seem to be limited to approx. the heights listed above. After that the increases are all sideways. 😉 Ceiling height is a function of fashion & wealth display: If you’re poor, in a cold climate you have a low ceiling for conservation of heat and fuel. If you’re rich, or you live in a warm climate like Greece or Italy, it’s higher. In the case of high ceilings in colder climes, it’s a form of conspicuous consumption, as were glass windows.

  • Duane

    It’s not the diet. It is an evolutionary imperative that the average heights of humans will continue to increase. After all, short people got little hands and little eyes, and they walk around telling great big lies. When it comes down to it, short people got no reason to live. Natural selection.

  • Nancy

    ROLFLOL. I’ll have to remember that. Serves me right for having short ancestors.

  • Bennett

    One thing no one has mentioned is the concept that most evolutionary advances are the result of needing to survive or procreate more efficiently.

    I’ve read that once humanity started changing or adapting the environment to meet his/her needs (building houses & growing food), the human race basically stopped evolving in dramatic ways, there was no longer a need for it.

    And could someone please tell me how throwing a baseball faster in any way provides greater likelyhood of survival?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Actually, I can give you an example. I was watching Real Sports on HBO and there was a story about aluminium baseball bats….it seems that the ball flies off an aluminium bat so fast that some pitchers don’t have time to react. One in fact died from a hit to the head from a hit 94 mph fastball.

    If he HAD been able to throw a 120 mph fastball, the outcome may have been different.

    Don’t get mad…you asked and I provided an example!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    JR

    Masterful hit. Almost choked on my coke. I’m still cleaning up my computer screen.

    Credentials are listed on my blog http://www.ideaplace.blogspot.com.

    The reason I made the challange, however, is that I find that most who believe in science only read the science materials, mags, books, etc.

    I read those AND Books like the one posted above. I read articles from all sides. I go to museums and natural wonders all over the world and hear the guides and see the movies with pure evangelism for Darwinism.

    Have any of those who are arguing for Darwin read Darwins Black Box or any of the other books put out by the ID folks over the last 10 years? Of course not.

    In addition I have spent countless hours debating Mike Shermer of Skeptic Mag and even helped him in editing one of his books. To the extent that he considers me a worthy opponant, you might also.

  • Bennett

    andy – somehow I doubt that the situation you note is common enough to impact humanity or its survival.

    good job derailing the question though…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    like I said…you asked for an example. But it did impact the survival of one…or maybe more…maybe the only pitchers that are reproducing are the ones that are throwing a litle faster now…and it’ll get faster and faster…baseball is a relatively new game in the whole scheme of things…man hasn’t had time to evolve into a player that can throw 120…but they couldn’t throw 100 mph 100 years ago!

  • http://blogcritics.org/ waterlounge

    Please forgive me if I’m wrong but I didn’t read any mention of the fact that the larger the population the smaller the chance that any benificial mutation would become part of the population as a whole.

    So if there was one guy that was born in the last few decades that could throw a ball over 100 mph he could have likely been born in china or india (countries that have huge populations) and never even knew he had the abililty. Because he never knew he had the ability he never came to the US and became a pro ball player. Where he would have had the ability to mate with large numbers of women as he travelled the country which would have actually given his special DNA the chance to be passed on.

  • Bennett

    Good point waterlounge.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Why are we concentrating on the pitcher. It was an illustration. Where are the breakthroughs on any part of the human characteristics? If not, why not? I have joked with friends that maybe humanity is actually devolving. With much smaller populations we seemed to have more people who were contributing original ideas.

  • Bennett

    Two words Randy: Satellite TV.

  • Evan

    Waterlounge,
    That’s basically what I said!

    Randy,
    “The reason I made the challange, however, is that I find that most who believe in science only read the science materials, mags, books, etc.”

    It’s not a matter of believing science. It’s a matter of accepting what’s been proven. In general terms that is.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    As you left that comment, Evan, did you want to quick remember how to do the edit thing. PROVEN?!?!?

    No one claims macro evolution is proven
    No one claims that they even have a solid theory for origins. Chaos theory is the favorite for a couple of years, but after the primordial soup fiasco, it was years before anyone even ventured out.

    So, belief is the word. And I still want to know if any of the scientist out there who are so quick to call the ID folks close minded, have read articles, magazines, books written by ID and Creationist writers. There is at least a small chance that I have consumed far more mainstream scientific material on the subject than you have. Both during the time I bought it, and since I became a skeptic.

  • Duane

    It depends on what you mean by “proven.” What do you think has been proven?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    to comment #50

    i’ve read them…sophistry and , as Mr Nalle puts it, twaddle

    most of the material is specious bullshit laid out with the sole intent of showing gullible folks how to argue for the “hypothesis”

    NO experimental data…no scientific methodology at all, sophistry and philosophical masturbation

    and your own grasp of evolutionary Theory and science in general is highly suspect after reading what you have been putting up here the last few days

    so lay out your evidence FOR what you propose, NOT speculation with no foundations in data

    but you , and those who propose ID, don’t want to have to subject their “pet” to the rigors of peer review and scientific methodology

    what experiments do you propose to help prove your hypothesis?

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    On to self-esteem

  • Evan

    Randy Kirk,
    I knew you’d do that, you’re so predictable in your faith, but hey, that’s what passion does. That’s why I added “In general terms that is.”

    What’s been proven meaning all the countless discoveries by scientists about the world and the human body. Cures for diseases? Penicillen? Gravity? There’s too many things that are scientifically proven to even count.

    Look at what you said:
    “The reason I made the challange, however, is that I find that most who believe in science only read the science materials, mags, books, etc.”

    Note how you generalized your ideas about macro evolution, theory for origins, and chaos theory into a broad statement about the field of science.

    It is not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of accepting what’s proven, you know, the truth.

    You contribute nothing of value to any of these discussions.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Thanks Evan. Don’t tell my Warner Books.

    I suspect that you think I’m such a throw back that I don’t accept the advances of science. Sheesh. I manufacture bicycle water bottles. Its all about the science of plastic molding, printing with various inks on various surfaces, finding better methods for getting the cap to fit and not leak.

    I love science. That’s why I’m a skeptic. And I have no beef with you. There seems to be a playful mood in these comments which I enjoy, but was nervous about when I first visited. I had no intent to offend.

  • Evan

    “I suspect that you think I’m such a throw back that I don’t accept the advances of science.”

    Nope, I suspect you pick and choose what to accept to fit your perfect, steadfast world view.

    To each his own.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    But you, Evan, on the other hand, are able to determine the truth of things without bias, and your world view is in chaos?

  • Evan

    Well if that’s what you think…

    But in all seriousness, please direct me to where I said that.

  • Evan

    It’s just more word games…

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    You didn’t say that, Evan. But by suggesting that I am somehow flawed or different because I pick and choose, the implication is that you don’t.

    When you suggest that there is something wrong with having a perfect, steadfast worldview, it either suggests that it is somehow better not to have such, or that you personally don’t have a perfect, steadfast worldview. The opposite I offered was chaos. It was hyperbole, which I suppose is a word game, but not one that is unreasonable in my view.

  • Evan

    I was implying that your method of argument is flawed, because you pick and choose. Was that really too hard to pick up on?

    I never said there is anything wrong with having a steadfast world view, I merely said that you appear have one.

    You continue to twist the words of others to your advantage, which is, again, a flawed method of argument.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I am trained as a debater, lawyer, psychologist, saleman, and writer. Would you expect me to use words to my advantage. Sorry if you feel I do it poorly. My ability with words has made me a good living, and a lot of friends.
    But, obviously, you can’t please em all.

  • Evan

    I’d like to think that they trained you to debate using logic and common sense, not word games. But I guess not.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I have a perfect steadfast world view…wanna know what it is???

    Life is Good!

  • Shark

    Lemee see,

    SHOULD I:

    1) read another thread on Fundamentalist Christian ‘Science’ of Orig… (ooops, I just got the euphemism update email from Karl Rove) — the “Intelligent Design” theory, especially containing WAY TOO MANY comments and speculations by Capt. Kirk of the U.S.S. Check My Resume —?

    – Or –

    2) Take a scalding hot arsenic enema while gargling with Diazanon?

    Hmmmm. Life’s full of tough choices.

    (Yeah, I know you’re saying to yourself: “Why do you read this stuff, Shark?”

    All I can say is that I also stop and stare at car wrecks — and I just LOVE Tom Cruise.)

    Carry on.

  • Nancy

    Randy, you must be either a minister or you’re an editor? :)

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Nancy, according to comment 55, he manufactures water bottles.

    I would imagine he doesn’t use his debate/writing/lawyerly/psychological training in actual practice.

    (No slight meant, Randy.)

  • JR

    If I managed employees, I expect I’d be using exactly that skill set.

  • Nancy

    Taking a hot arsenic enema while gargling w/diazenon? Kind of an extreme way to keep them all in line.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Decided not to be a lawyer because in general its a scummy profession. Decided not to be a shrink, because I knew I would be hard pressed to leave the issues at the office. Still debate. Still write. 6 books, countless mag articles. New books coming out next year.

    Minister? Yes, but only a few people at a time. Not as a profession or for $$.

  • Shark

    Randy: “…Decided not to be a lawyer because in general its a scummy profession.”

    With logical reasoning like that, it’s apparent you made the right decision!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    And thats why they call him Shark.

  • WTF

    We’re bigger than even 200 years ago. Movie seats made in the ’40’s won’t even hold a big-assed American.

    Wouldn’t bigger mean slower? Sprinters are huge, if not in size then in proportion. All muscle.

    People of the past were leaner, had lower nutritional levels than today (despite junkfoodjunkies), and on average lived shorter lives. Wouldn’t that indicate some type of evolution going on?

    OF COURSE NOT….

    Everyone here is using terminology associated with Darwin’s other thesis…

    “The adaptation of the species” which is seperate from his work on evolution. Which I might add… he had doubts about toward the end of his life.

    I’ll agree with adaptation principles… but you all are not talking about evolution… unless Sasquwatch takes over… or a pandemic wipes us out and squids rule the world sometime prior to the sun imploding.

    The passage of time it would take to see any sort of evolutionary change is mind boggling… you could start today and count from 1 to 100 billion and reach old age and die before you got there…. and that’s just counting, not the actual passage of the time in earth time (which is different than astromical time).

%d bloggers like this: