Calico Site (California, +/- 200K Ago)

[Minimalist]

Are people saying that Charles Darwin was interested in where life originally came from?

Perhaps they are saying that he wasn't and should have been because they are, J. Who knows?

Like my earlier analogy. It's like saying the Wright Brothers should have developed the Lunar Excursion Module.

[Digit]

My defence of Darwin is based entirely on trying to set the record straight, virtually no scientist has ever been so badly reported.
Much work has indeed been done since Darwin, as much has been done since Einstein, but both men laid the groundwork.

Roy.

[Ishtar]

I read an interview with Ms. Steen-Mcintyre and she says she's unhappy with Darwinism because it ruined her career. I'm not sure that's a valid reason to reject a scientific theory, but whatever, people are complex. Certainly it shouldn't have ruined her career, and apparently the scientific establishment dropped the ball there, but it doesn't follow that the theory of evolution is wrong because of it.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre is first and foremost a scientist, and so when she says that Darwinism ruined her career, she is talking about the mindset of the science establishment and the peer reviewing process within it. She is not talking about religion.

What she's specifically referring to are the problems caused to her work by the cognitive argument put forward by Darwinists ~ that as we evolve, we are getting more and more intelligent and knowledgeable ~ of which there is no evidence, and in fact, the reverse. So when she pulls stuff out of the ground that shows that man had advanced cognitive processes and an appreciation for the aesthetic 250,000 years ago, it is ignored or ridiculed because it does not fit this Darwinian paradigm. And even more in a culture that barely believes in Pre-Clovis, to accept her artefacts would mean accepting that 250,000 years ago, man was in the Americas, Thus, if the Out of Africa theory is to hold true, how could he have got there if not by boat? So once more, we're back in the area of the advanced cognitive processes of men who could design, build and sail boats 250,000 years ago.

As far as I know, Virginia is not criticising Darwin or the theory of evolution. But the trouble is, Darwinism dazzles everyone like deer in the headlights, so they are unable to think for themselves, and separate out the wheat from the chaff.

[Minimalist]

You know what, Ish, I'll buy that but suggest that she phrased her complaint very, very, badly. And that's okay, she's a scientist not an English Lit major.

[Digit]

And that's okay, she's a scientist not an English Lit major.

I'd have to disagree with that Min, I would expect a scientist to be accurate with their words, after all, that is the only way they have of explaining their ideas.

Roy.

[JSteen]

Why are you calling these people Darwinists? It seems to me that they're just locked into one mindset and are unable to think outside the box. Why tarnish Charles Darwin by associating his name with them?

There is plenty of room for tool-using people in the americas 200k years ago under the theory of evolution. Homo erectus was all over the place then. He made tools. I'm not seeing a problem. I don't see any reason to make the early development of intelligence (as opposed to later) a mystical issue either. There's room for it in evolution - we've been evolving for *millions* of years. It's unlikely we only got smart in the last 50,000. In my unexpert opinion of course.

[Minimalist]

And that's okay, she's a scientist not an English Lit major.

I'd have to disagree with that Min, I would expect a scientist to be accurate with their words, after all, that is the only way they have of explaining their ideas.

Roy.

Give her a break, Roy, she's an old lady. We both know about that.

Anyone can have a bad day.

[Minimalist]

It's unlikely we only got smart in the last 50,000.

Actually seems as if we've gotten pretty stupid in the last 20.

[Digit]

Why tarnish Charles Darwin by associating his name with them?

Hooray! My point as well.
I'm an old man Min, but I only blame me for my failures, I don't need anyone elses help there I'm afraid!

Roy.

[Ishtar]

They associate themselves with Darwinism.

Case in point, Richard Dawkins and his followers consider themselves Darwinists.

There are many others ... and they stupidly believe that evolution of the species must mean "getting better and better every single day in every single way", including cognition.

And by the way, JSteen ... who mentioned mysticism? I certainly didn't and neither does Virginia.

So now JSteen, you've unfairly associated a brilliant scientist and courageous archaeologist with first creationism and now mysticism. This is exactly the sort of mud slinging she gets from the Club so that they don't have to engage with her evidence.

We are talking about scientific evidence for early advanced COGNITION that gets ignored by those who are caught up in a certain paradigm.

She is not a shaman. I am ... but I'm just engaging with the scientific evidence ... you should try it sometime.

[JSteen]

This is what Ms. Steen-Mcintyre said. It's an interview.

"AND IS "SOMETHING WRONG" WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?


Not if you realize it is JUST a theory, and a shaky one at that.

But think for a moment. Every major despot and would-be dictator since Darwin has loved that theory -- Marx, Hitler, Mao. It gives them such freedom to kill off those they don't like and to mess around with genetics to create superman.

After all, when the Theory of Evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, the only moral imperative demanded is "survival of the fittest".


SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

No, I don't like it, for scientific reasons: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics for one thing. I don't like it for philosophical and religions reasons. I especially don't like it because it helped ruin my career."

She then goes on to explain what happened to her. What happened to her sounds shameful- a low point for the scientific establishment, for sure. Nevertheless, above she's listed a series of touchy-feely reasons to not "like" the theory of evolution (only things we like are true?) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics which just doesn't apply because species don't live in closed systems - not for long. She specifically says she doesn't "like" evolution for religious reasons. Religion = mysticism.

What is your problem with Dawkins? He definitely doesn't equate evolution with progress or "getting better." He understands that natural selection is simply about survival and adaption. Maybe being smarter works, maybe it doesn't. Depends on circumstances. Remember, intelligence has a lot of cost associated with it - brains are expensive.

[Minimalist]

There are many others ... and they stupidly believe that evolution of the species must mean "getting better and better every single day in every single way", including cognition.

I'd love to see where they say that, Ish, if you could exert yourself to find it.


T-Rex was the ultimate expression of theropod dinosaurs. He was superbly adapted to his environment. Yet, when that environment changes all of that getting "better and better" every day didn't mean squat.

As far as "cognition" goes.....I offer you:




If you ask me...cognition is hit or miss.

[Ishtar]

What is your problem with Dawkins? He definitely doesn't equate evolution with progress or "getting better." He understands that natural selection is simply about survival and adaption. Maybe being smarter works, maybe it doesn't. Depends on circumstances. Remember, intelligence has a lot of cost associated with it - brains are expensive.

What is my problem with Dawkins?

How long have you got?

1. He goes into schools preaching to children that the theory of evolution proves that there is no God.
2. He says that he bases his atheism on the theory of evolution.
3. He said in a recent interview that anyone who believes in any God must be stupid.
4. And yet he has never come up with any explanation, scientific or otherwise, for how the stuff that evolves ~ life ~ came into existence in the first place.

That's just for starters ...

I'm afraid I don't have any more time to spend on this forum, because I have to tend to my own. You're welcome to come over and discuss there if you want to, in the thread entitled An open challenge to Darwinists. Otherwise, there will be more on this subject in the Pleistocene Coalition Newsletter out at the end of November.

I just came in here to reply to the Virginia question, which, even after seeing the full interview, is not really the point is it? But it's a handy stick to beat her with when you don't want to acknowledge her archaeological findings.

[Digit]

Ms SM seems to be suffering an attack of female logic I think. Perhaps someone should expalain to her that her personal problems with the theory will have not the slightest effect on whether it is correct or not!

Roy.

[JSteen]

Ishtar, I have no problem with her findings and hope they are proven to be correct - I just don't see why they need be anti-Darwinist.

Digit, you didn't really say that did you? Female logic??? If it's a joke it's in poor taste imho.