Archaeologica.org

john wrote:
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

john

That's a pretty chilling verse!

Yeats was well-known for also being one who communed with the spirits. So this verse shows very clearly his views on religion, and particularly monotheistic Judaeo-Christianity.

But this leads to me wonder if our belief in a common ape-like ancestor is not a kind of monotheism in itself - 'monobiology' if you like. Could it just be this over-riding need that we have, in our post bicameral consciousness, to categorise everything so that we can reduce it down to a common denominator? For instance, there are many different kinds of birds - but do we attribute this multi-variety to a common bird ancestor? Or do we think one bird evolved from another? And if we do, do we have any actual evidence for such, or is it just, because of the way we think, this solution makes sense to us.

Another example is the Big Bang theory. If there was a big bang of matter, could not that matter have contained a multitudinous cornucopia of micro-species all ready prepared from its common source, DNA - an explosion of life, if you like?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here..... it's fun to play with our beliefs - so please don't hit me too hard!

I feel that any contribution I may have towards this debate of whether or not Darwin got it wrong (sorry but ) is adequately expressed by this picture.

I'm not saying that Darwin 'got it wrong', War Arrow. It's not as black and white as that. It's a theory anyway. But I think also that the ridiculous Creationist argument may be making us disinclined to question any part of Darwin's work for fear that, if we find a hole in it, the fundies will rush in to fill it.

I don't question so much On the Origin of Species, his first work, as I do his later work, The Descent of Man, which could have been a reaction to all the publicity his friends, like Thomas Huxley, were drumming up for him at the time, and the controversial headlines they were sparking. They were 'running with the ball' so to speak and I can just imagine the pressure on him to come up with another work to support them:

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/darwin.htm

The popular view - after Darwin's hypothesis was accepted widely - was that Man is descended from the apes which led Disraeli to say that as between Man an ape or an angel, he was "on the side of the angels."

In a letter Darwin himself expressed his own doubts about his revolutionary thinking: "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"

However, T.H. Huxley did not see any reason to hesitate and published in his Man Place in Nature (1863) an application of the theory and Darwin followed him in THE DESCENT OF MAN, AND SELECTION IN RELATION TO SEX (1871) and EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS (1872), which sold almost 5,300 copies on its first day. This work showed the similarities between animals and man in the expression of emotions and was the start of the science of ethnology.

Darwin was 150 years ago. He lacked most of the amenities of modern scientific research. He is roughly akin to Ben Franklin flying a kite to prove that there was electricity.

Others have picked up the standard and carried on and Charles Darwin provides no more than a starting point for modern research. He is due respect as a "founder" but I rather imagine that most of his theories have been surpassed by his colleagues.

"Darwin" also provides a convenient rallying cry for the lunatic fringe which prefers to be derived from a lump of dirt rather than some early primate ancestor.

Minimalist wrote:
"Darwin" also provides a convenient rallying cry for the lunatic fringe which prefers to be derived from a lump of dirt rather than some early primate ancestor.

OK, I know this is a suicide mission but ...why is it more lunatic to be derived from a lump of dirt than an early primate ancestor? When Darwin and his mates first postulated the idea of man being descended from an ape, they were also considered lunatics.

So isn't that just a value judgement? And what have you got against dirt anyway?

In the absence of proof of the descent of man from a common ape-like primate, they both could be considered lunatic ideas - it just depends upon your point of view.

Read Genesis Ish. Somebody got there before you.

Dig - I'm not talking about what Genesis says ...and it's not really helpful that the argument has become so polarised in that way, because of Creationism which is lunatic - as it means everyone takes really entrenched positions rather than examining the issue objectively.

When Darwin and his mates first postulated the idea of man being descended from an ape, they were also considered lunatics.

By the holy dirt crowd...which considered anything that wasn't in its book to be "lunatic."

So we have a theory that man was descended from an ape - not proved, but lots of people believe in it..

We also have a theory that the earth was created in seven days and man was made of mud - also definitely not proved, but lots of people believe in it.

Are there no other options?

I think I'm going to bail out of this ... I knew I was on a hiding to nothing anyway. This issue is too contentious in the States.

Actually Ish I don't think you'll find that Darwin made such a claim. This was why I raised the matter ealier about our supposed split from Chimps. He suggested I think you'll find that there was a common ancestor.
Things can take on a life of their own if they make good headlines, and the Bishop of Oxford new a good line when he saw it.
It is unlikely that that our ancestors split from Chimps 6 million years ago as it is rather unlikely that Chimps, as we know them, have existed for such a period of time unchanged.
In fact references state that early hominids split from early chimpnzees, we are not talking about modern chimps here, rather a common ancestor.

He suggested I think you'll find that there was a common ancestor.

That's precisely what he suggested but the concept is simply a little too deep for our Fundies to handle.

Ishtar wrote:So we have a theory that man was descended from an ape - not proved, but lots of people believe in it..

We also have a theory that the earth was created in seven days and man was made of mud - also definitely not proved, but lots of people believe in it.

Are there no other options?

I think I'm going to bail out of this ... I knew I was on a hiding to nothing anyway. This issue is too contentious in the States.

Ishtar -

Don't bail.

All forms of life, on Earth, seem

To be descendants of single-celled organisms

Which are a billion plus "years old."

You must look at this in terms of geologic time,

Not species-specific time,

Which is arbitrary, capricious, and

Entirely up to the eye of the beholder.

Darwin's great intuition was that of

"A common ancestor"

Which was not species specific, goddammit.

I think of the biblical "begats"

Which assumed a (false) Patriarch.

Not only species specific but also

A politically motivated temporal heirarch.

Who also took away the bicameral world flow

And turned it into political/religious power & profit.

Stay the course on this thread,

If you will.



hoka hey

john

john wrote:

Ishtar -

Don't bail.

Stay the course on this thread,

If you will.

hoka hey

john

The reason I want to bail is because others (no name, no pack drill ) are trying to push my suggestions into the Creationist camp - probably because that's the opposing stance they're most comfortable arguing their case against.

This is because it has become an emotive issue in the States, with Creationists trying to get their theory put on schools curriculums - and I know if I had a child at a US school, I would feel equally passionate about opposing them.

Maybe that's why no-one here, apart from Dig (perhaps because he's not American) seems to be able to approach this problem objectively.

Min - Darwin's theory is not too deep for the Fundies to grasp, because its actually quite a simplistic one. They just don't believe in it because it goes against their belief system. It's as simple as that.

But because the 'descent of man' theory has never been proved, it is also just another belief system (albeit a more sensible and logical one).

So what you have here is to two belief systems opposing one another, neither of whom can provide the definitive proof.

That's why I thought that this would be a legitimate matter for discussion on this board - but first, we have to put down all our prejudices.

I don't believe in the Creationist argument. I also think it's unlikely that we're descended from apes or any other common ancestor. But I'd like to see the theory of the descent of man taken and examined on this board entirely on its own merits, which so far it hasn't been.

I don't believe in the Creationist argument. I also think it's unlikely that we're descended from apes or any other common ancestor. But I'd like to see the theory of the descent of man taken and examined on this board entirely on its own merits, which so far it hasn't been.

That is a pretty surprising statement Ishtar. As you say, we should examine it here. Unfortunately, it's going on midnight here, and I have things to do tomorrow, but I'll be happy to join the discussion as I am able.

And most people would not describe Darwinism as a "belief system", but as science. Creationism, however, is a belief system. I'll join the discussion tomorrow.

It's a theory, Beags. An unproven scientific theory which means you have to have some kind of faith in it to believe in it. More of science is like that than we would care to admit.

Look forward to talking to you tomorrow. Good night.