Re: Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything


"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BF67E17F.2FCAD%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
> in article E0l0f.94$Nu5.3431@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard Dawkins at
> Richard_Dawkins@xxxxxxxx wrote on 10/3/05 9:36 PM:
>
> >
sniparoo>
> That human beings do not seem to evolve as rapidly as other creatures
seems
> apparent. However, there is a behavioral component to this.
>
> Human beings tend to shepherd their sick and infirm. The strong often
> sacrifice themselves for the weak. Thus the weak and "less fit" continue
to
> survive.
>
> Since human beings naturally tend to support emotional behaviors that run
> counter to behaviors that influence natural selection in the rest of the
> animal kingdom, it is easy to see why physical changes have not been quite
> as apparent in human evolution.


As is the custom for evos, the evidence is negative:
Human emotions tend to run counter to evolution but that's OK because we
don't need evidence.
Evolution must be right.
The fossil record is scant, but we don't need it.
I seem to recall that there is evidence for our more primitive ancestors
being altruistic also.
> Care of the sick- flowers in graves---

> There are, however, several instances of isolated populations
demonstrating
> evolution. African pygmies, for example, demonstrate that in isolation and
> with time, morphological changes can occur within a human population.
>
> Human beings, with their increasing tendency to mix, will experience
> significantly less evolution than the rest of the natural world at large.
> But this does not demonstrate a problem with evolution at all.

So birds and ocean creatures don't mix?
>
> Of course, relying on such stuff as "Evolution Crunchers" for your
> scientific information will give you stunted knowledge and an unhealthy
dose
> of misunderstanding. Interesting how "Christians" feel compelled to lie
for
> God.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>


.

Relevant Pages