Re: 1.23 percent

On Dec 10, 5:23 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:17 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:25 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:11 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:27 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But to return to the point: Since we share so much genetically
with the chimp, then we should be more like them, or they
should be developing more like us. We see neither pal. Because
man was created and shares no common ancestor with chimps apes
or fish.

wrong, dead wrong

minor genetic differences between humans, let alone chimps, can
prevent learning. humans can have genetic disabilities so severe
that virtually no learning is possible. yet you say that vastly
greater differences between chimps and humans is of no
consequence

such a statement is false.

So you are saying that our common ancestor had genetic
disabilities so severe that virtually no learning is possible...
BUT... via evolution, they shed these genetic disabilities as
divergence to humans took place WHILE the chimp kept the
disability after the divergence?

goalpost shifting...a time honored creationist tactic

you mentioned "genetic disabilities " first. I addressed it. Even
though you moved the goal post with it.

ROFLMAO!! is this how creationists argue?
goalpost shifting? inbility
to follow their own arguments? backpedaling?

This would be you

yeah...we've seen it all before

You obviously cannot read.

you're a loser

THAT would be you as well.

--

gee. let's see...you proposed a failed idea and said that it proves
evolution was wrong

it's obvious why you're so hostile. someone peed in your cheerios

You evolutions are full of word games and generally an intellectually dishonest bunch.

But this time you have no excuse NOT to the accept logic.


No, Adman, you are coming at us with a strawman and putting more on
our plate than we can sensibly expect your mind to process.

Firstly, you are getting two ideas mixed up: 1) The accumulation of
written knowledge over the years 2) The average, genetic, inborn
intelligence of the human species.

The advancement of 1 not due to genetic change or biological
evolution. The advancement of 2, is. So the comparison between the 1
in humans and 2 in chimps, doesn't make any sense.

If you were to go back in a time machine, kidnap an infant from 5000
years ago, and raise him today, there's no reason why he couldn't grow
up to be head of NASA.

But there is also a big strawman underpinning your main question.

We would not even expect the average genetic intelligence of the chimp
species to increase over the years, not even by biological evolution.
If you assume this must happen, you're considering a strawman version
of evolution.

Species adapt to their environmnet. Each species evolves according to
its reproductive needs within its particular environment. There is no
particular reason why this would have anything to do with
intelligence.

Evolution can lead a species to become stupider over time, if
intelligence becomes less relevant to the species' survival.

~Iain

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... >> be born with pre-wired knowledge about one's environment. ... I think that humans inherit of a lot less knowledge than they learn ... You can believe in the magic of evolution all you ... species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"... ... human prehistory and the origin of species does not mean that those ... Macro) evolution has been tested, ... logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be? ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading