Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01181)

Bart-

You wrote:

"I am not going to teach you evolutionary theory from the ground up."

I haven't asked you to.  Just back up your assertions when you make 
them.  Be constructive.  Not derogatory.  There's a difference.

"However, I will state that, in the idea of "survival of the 
fittest", the term "fittest" has a specific meaning other than what 
is normally associated with "superiority", and the idea of 
individuals in a species being "fittest" was discarded decades ago."

Thank you.  I'm well aware.  Albeit you're specifically referring 
to 'materialistic' evolution, as opposed to the metaphysical 
evolution of consciousness.  Next point please.

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> 	I am not going to teach you evolutionary theory from the 
ground up. 
> However, I will state that, in the idea of "survival of the 
fittest", 
> the term "fittest" has a specific meaning other than what is 
normally 
> associated with "superiority", and the idea of individuals in a 
species 
> being "fittest" was discarded decades ago.
> 
> 	Bart
> 
> Vincent wrote:
> 
> > Bart-
> > 
> > You wrote:
> > 
> > "Maybe because the only people making that claim are those who 
are 
> > disputing it?"
> > 
> > An assumption on your part.  And a projection.  I've commonly 
been 
> > shown linear timelines on evolutionary development that show 
only 
> > one line of progression, as opposed to two lines.  Namely, from 
ape 
> > to human, as opposed to apes and humans from a common ancestor.  
My 
> > assessment is that many scientists today have simply veered from 
> > Darwin's original theories.
> > 
> > Perhaps you can do a little better than narrow-minded 
> > presuppositions and actually answer questions when they are 
posited, 
> > if indeed you have an answer.  Your misrepresentation is not a 
valid 
> > debate tactic, if in fact you are attempting to validate some 
point.
> > 
> > You also wrote:
> > 
> > "...demonstrate that you know little about evolutionary theory."
> > 
> > Then explain your stance and why you believe it, instead of 
simply 
> > resorting to petty intellectual condescension.  When you make a 
> > scientific assertion, then back it up, instead of just expecting 
me 
> > to believe it like the dogmatic religionists do.  I think that 
> > you're just offended that I didn't take your word for it.  And 
> > instead of actually presenting a case for your assertions, you 
> > prefer to use a mode of counter-attack through the use of 
> > misrepresentation and intellectual condescension.  It's not 
working 
> > here.  Try again.
> > 
> > Vince
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@> wrote:
> > 
> >>Vincent wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, I've had some minor debate with scientists before over 
> >>>internet forums, and when the concept of genomes was brought up 
> > 
> > to 
> > 
> >>>me, it seemed to show little more than a familial relation 
> > 
> > between 
> > 
> >>>humans and apes, but no actual evidence that humans had 
actually 
> >>>evolved from apes.  
> >>
> >>	Maybe because the only people making that claim are those 
> > 
> > who are 
> > 
> >>disputing it? This, and...
> >>
> >>
> >>>You can tell an ape's evolutionary superiority above humans by 
> > 
> > their 
> > 
> >>>advanced stregth and agility.  Apes are clearly superior to 
> > 
> > humans 
> > 
> >>>in many ways, and so it only stands to reason that apes 
> > 
> > descended 
> > 
> >>>from humans.  The similarity in the genones clearly evidences 
an 
> >>>interfamilial relation.
> >>
> >>	...demonstrate that you know little about evolutionary 
> > 
> > theory.
> > 
> >>	Bart
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >
>