Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Kids these days

78 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Che Tibby,

    We share a common ancestor, from about 6 million years ago.

    i'll own to being a pedant.

    shouldn't that read ancestors?

    i read somewhere that you need at least 50 individuals in a population to make it viable. otherwise you start to breed fundies.

    afaik it wasn't the evolution of a person, it was the evolution of a big group of apes. they found this big black monolith...

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report

  • Hamish,

    Web 2.0: I have a serious bugbear about that term. It is purely a buzz word - these ideas around 'social interactivity' ignore the fact that the entire web is (almost by definition) a form a social interactivity. Web 2.0 is a code word for mainstream types who are only now discovering the wonder of "digging" a "blog", like teenagers discovering Led Zeppelin for the first time and letting everyone know about it.

    And Myspace? I hate that Myspace is used as a prime example of a Web 2.0 application. Myspace looks positively beta to anyone at all! It's a poorly made hack of a website - the only reason it is held up as the shining light of the future of the web (__shudder__) is it's size.

    </rant>

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 155 posts Report

  • the E,

    We evolved from a combo of mainly the paranthropus boisei & the homo ergaster / erectus - both of whom had adaptable hunting styles.

    Them pesky neanderthals just didn't adapt fast enough... rolling boulders off cliffs onto migrating woolly mammoths seems like a cinch but evidently they didn't wake up their ideas much further than that.

    Take the Caveman Challenge! Each challenge allows you to move along the evolutionary scale from ape to man.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/games/cavemen/

    (No I don't work for government - I'll do some work now I've completed my jigsaw cave art - but it was fun in a Te Papa interactive kind of way)

    wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 42 posts Report

  • Kyle Matthews,

    afaik it wasn't the evolution of a person, it was the evolution of a big group of apes. they found this big black monolith...

    I heard they were wandering along a beach and they found this buried statue that looked just like the statue of liberty.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • BenWilson,

    Over the time period most creationists are talking, evolution probably hasn't changed any species very much, except in so far as quite a few have become extinct.

    So if you buy into the world starting around 4004BC, the statement that creatures are now pretty much as God made them at the beginning of time (well actually 4 days later if you really buy into that), is pretty accurate. I imagine creationists mentally exclude selective breeding, or they'd have a great deal of trouble explaining the kiwifruit.

    Obviously buying into the world only being 6000 years old is pretty unscientific, though. God must have been making a hell of an effort to hide the age of the universe when he buried all those dinosaur bones and put all those light photons in motion from anything more than 6000 light years away (such as most of our galaxy, and pretty much all of the rest of the known universe).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report

  • merc,

    I blame that damn guy with his peas.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report

  • Emma Hart,

    I blame that damn guy with his peas.

    See, the problem's not the monkeys, it's the monks.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd,

    Yes, there are some things we were not meant to mendel with.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

  • merc,

    That's why we must always mind our p's and q's.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report

  • BenWilson,

    It's funny that so many people think God created man, when really the converse is true. God evolved too, probably starting off as an idealized version of particular humans, and then becoming more abstract and powerful as time passes. I wonder what the next phase is?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report

  • Che Tibby,

    God evolved too, probably starting off as an idealized version of particular humans, and then becoming more abstract and powerful as time passes. I wonder what the next phase is?

    it learns subcontracting.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report

  • Ben Austin,

    I think this an opportune time to reference the following work to once and for all settle all arguments here:

    http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ecb1327dc03ab345e618

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1027 posts Report

  • Rob Stowell,

    Disappearing?

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2120 posts Report

  • Che Tibby,

    but on the serious side, i think the final stage in the evolution of a god is, "and then we realised that the god was us, and we were the god".

    or summin' beautiful and metaphysical.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report

  • merc,

    it learns subcontracting.
    Now that's funny.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report

  • Lambert,

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 27 posts Report

  • Heather Gaye,

    God has a Myspace page.

    Jehovah!!

    Morningside • Since Nov 2006 • 533 posts Report

  • Riddley Walker,

    Homo Silicons, that's the next stage... downloading conciousness to a slightly more durable vessel.

    It is rather ironic that those least willing to accept Pan troglodytis as our nearest relative are those most befitting some association with the name, what.

    Paul L, wasn't it the case that if mary was avirgin then the marriage hadn't been consumated and therefore jesus was born a bastard?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report

  • Lyndon Hood,

    I blame that damn guy with his peas.

    See, the problem's not the monkeys, it's the <i>monks</i>.

    Yes, there are some things we were not meant to mendel with.

    Well played, team!

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report

  • Neil Morrison,

    Kim Hill will be providing the opportunity to see how it's not just conservative Christians who have a problem with evolution but left-wing scientists as well.

    She's interviewing Steven Rose, co-author of Not in Our Genes,
    this Saturday.

    It could be argued that it's the resistance to Darwin from left-wing academics that's hindered science far more than conservative Christians.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report

  • Rob Stowell,

    It could be argued that marmalade is moonshine. Since I've spent a lot of time among left-wing academics and never heard a word against evolution, this is, prima facie, completely specious....

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2120 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd,

    "t could be argued that it's the resistance to Darwin from left-wing academics that's hindered science far more than conservative Christians."

    Go on, Neil. Make that argument.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

  • Riddley Walker,

    yeah can't says i know many lefties that think the world was made in 7 days just a few thousand years ago - that is the preserve of the fearful and ignorant right wing voter (not the hopeful and ignorant left wing voter).

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report

  • andrew llewellyn,

    It was Mary who was immaculately conceived, so that she could be born without Sin

    I didn't know this! (which is not particularly unusual I suppose).

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd,

    And if it comes to that, I understand that Rose is in a tiny and probably wrong minority with his views on the role of genes in determining behaviour. But what has he done that could possibly compare with the efforts of the Discovery Institute?

    This really seems like false equivalence, Neil.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.