Floyd, my dear chap,Thanks for the response.
: Again, this is a religious organization with a specific agenda to try to disprove the theory of evolution.
It was not only Lady Hope who testified to Darwin's conversion. Dr. Croft of Salford University, in his book "The Life and Death of Charles Darwin", chronicles the revival that was taking place in Kent at the time. Rev. Ismael Jones wrote an article in the Christian Herald on 21 December 1881 describing Lady Hope's temperence work. Why did Darwin invite her to his room? His father was an alcoholic and he had concerns in this area. The details of these visits were confirmed by Booth Tucker. She witnessed Darwin calling the book of Hebrews the "Royal Book". Darwin requested that Tucker speak to some neighbours, he requested that she speak to them about, "Christ Jesus and his salvation." He even encouraged hymns to be sung. These revival meetings were confirmed by Darwin's wife Emma reported by James Fegan in "A Century of Letters" vol. 2, p.244. Mr. A. N. Nichols heard Darwin's regrets for evolutionism and reported them in the Bromley and Kentish Times. So one would have a difficult time with the American conspiratorial view that you espouse.
: : Moreover it was Farinata who first stated that races are different species,
: Find me a post anywhere on this list where Farinata, I, or anyone else actually said that. I dare you. Just link your response to that post and get it over with. I know that you can not do this because none of us have ever made that assertion.
In "Try taking your hands off your eyes..." (April 26, 1999) Farinata said: "Yes it is. In fact, it's what speciation is all about, according to the sciences. The point at which two similar races can no longer interbreed is when they become separate species; thus, the above is a valid example."
That's fairly clear to me. I read her to say that one race will not be able to breed with another race if they remain isolated long enough. She even gave the Martian example a few posts later to reinforce this view. To which I would say, extreme rubbish!
: Uh, yes, I recall that post. I remember seeing the illustration you're talking about in a childrens book that was released in the 1960s. That illustration was an artist's rendition. "Stooping" is not part of evolution. There was no "stage" wherein human ancestors were "stooped" like that. The transition from quadrupedalism to bipedalism was an "all-or-nothing" change. Locking knees, a broad, short pelvic girdle and a basally-located foramen magnum all appear in bipeds and none of these appear in quadrupeds. The theory does not predict "stooped" hominids.
That was my point all along that stooping "ape-men" were imaginary. So why did you criticize me then, and now you are conciliatory towards the imaginary (ie. stooping doesn't exist) part? A little credit due here for me, perhaps? (Maybe one for the "trailer park" bloke as I've been characterised by one of your collegues, up against tenured professors.)
: : Now both you and Farinata confirm that these chaps such as Neanderthalis are not related to us in any way.
: False. I have explicitly stated that neandertals are not our direct ancestors. My cousin is also not my ancestor. This does not mean that we do not share common descent. In fact, all life on this planet appears to be related, some more distantly, some closer. This is true of extinct species as well as extant ones.
I've visited the museum in the Neandertal valley near Dusseldorf. They have a "Neandertal" maniquin smartly dressed up in a business suit. Now, hasn't that been my point all along, that there is less than truth in advertising going on here. After all this is 1999 not 1960 and the deceptive exhibit (ie. that he is somehow our recent ancestor) still stands. You have admitted this is not true yourself above.
: I'm a vegeterian and an anti-capitalist, so I avoid these products. Thanks for the offer though.
Floyd, you are brutal. Perhaps we'll have a socialist salad somewhere. Cheers.
By His Grace,
Robert
