Is it just me, or does it seem like scientists who presuppose evolution are arbitrary in thier standards and selection as to "how" and "when" to apply lessons learned from monkeys in relationship to the human condition?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I examined this very issue a while back.
See Of Apes and Men
Great article.
The issue extends well beyond homosexuality though.
For example, in an article today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7167878.stm) it was suggested that since primates and humans may be shown to have in common some voluntary/involuntary responses then it must "clearly show" that humans and primates must have had a common ancestor...
Question: Why is it that this/these common response(s), and not other common responses (or common behaviors, common traits, common systems, common structures, common abilities, etc., the list could be endless) would not suggest or show the same? ... and Who is it that determines which ones point to common ancestry and which ones don't, and on what basis are these decisions made?
For example, on what basis does one determine that one common involuntary response (building blocks of laughter) shows (/proves) common ancestry while other common involuntary responses (i.e., both dogs and humans blink when something is flashed toward their eyes) do not point to common ancestry. Evolutionists pick and choose between the myriad of commonalities and lack of commonalities to suit their agenda.
This is clearly shown in the article mentioned above when it is stated "What is clear now is the building blocks of positive emotional contagion and empathy that refer to rapid involuntary facial mimicry in humans EVOLVED PRIOR to humankind." (Caps, my emphasis). This was clearly an "evolutionary" jump!
Post a Comment