Discussion:
Paleontologist Simpson: 'Man's ancestors were monkeys'
(too old to reply)
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-12 13:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12

Gaylord Simpson


Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
viva padrepio
2017-10-12 14:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
The ook ook monkey?
A***@yahoo.com
2017-10-12 14:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by viva padrepio
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
The ook ook monkey?
That is correct. And some evolutionists go ook ook too.
Yap Honghor
2017-10-13 01:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by viva padrepio
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
The ook ook monkey?
That is correct. And some evolutionists go ook ook too.
You ook ook because your evolution process met up with a problem, so sorry about that!
Marvin Sebourn
2017-10-13 02:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by viva padrepio
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
The ook ook monkey?
That is correct. And some evolutionists go ook ook too.
And even at that level their speech is well above your comprehension.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-12 16:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
Now quote the eleven words that preceded that.

You know, the ones you carefully exchanged for an ellipsis.


Atlatl Axolotl
Gronk
2017-10-16 03:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
Now quote the eleven words that preceded that.
You know, the ones you carefully exchanged for an ellipsis.
Not that it matters, Simpson is somewhat outdated.

"On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting.
Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descendant of any living ape -
a statement tht is obvious to the verge of imbecility - and go on to
state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey
at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier
ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech
by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by
popular useage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively
both). It is pusillanimous (cowardly) if not dishonest for an
informed investigator to say otherwise."

"This View of Life" 1964

The key phrase is "popular usage".
Yap Honghor
2017-10-13 01:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
You are a cousin of apes, whether you like it or not!
And you cannot show there is a creator to create you, so you are beaten flat!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-13 02:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
In the 1960s, Simpson "rubbished the then-nascent science of exobiology, which concerned itself with life on places other than Earth, as a science without a subject".[8]

He was raised as a Christian but later became an agnostic.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_02.html


George Gaylord Simpson: Natural Selection and the Fossil Record:


The early part of the twentieth century saw evolutionary theory embattled by disagreements over Darwin's emphasis on natural selection. The then-newly rediscovered work of Gregor Mendel in the nineteenth century was an uncomfortable fit with evolution, as many scientists saw it. They weren't at all certain that natural populations contained enough genetic variation for natural selection to create new species. So they entertained other explanations, including inheritance of acquired characteristics, "directed" variation toward a goal, or sudden large mutations that resulted in new species.

In the field of paleontology, the scientist who did most to resolve these questions was George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984), who was on the staff of the American Museum of Natural History for 30 years. At a time when other paleontologists were convinced that the fossil record could best be explained by directed variation, Simpson disagreed. He said that fossil patterns needed no mystical or goal-oriented processes to explain them. For example, where others saw the modern horse as having arisen in a single advance toward the specialized form, Simpson saw the path as that of an irregular tree that had many side-branches leading off to extinction.

Simpson argued that the evolution of mammals, as seen in their fossilized remains, fit perfectly well with the new mechanisms of population genetics being studied at the time. He used the then-new mathematical methods to clarify how evolution occurred in "gene pools" in populations, not in individual members of the population.

Importantly, he showed that gaps in the fossil record reflected periods of substantial change through rapid "quantum evolution" in small populations, leaving little fossil evidence behind. At other times, he observed, rates of change could be so slow as to seem almost nonexistent.


Life arose as a living molecule or protogene, the progression from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from ameba to man. All the essential problems of living organisms are already solved in the one-celled (or, as many now prefer to say, noncellular) protozoan and these are only elaborated in man or the other multicellular animals. The step from nonlife to life may not have been so complex, after all, and that from cell to multicellular organism is readily comprehensible. The change from protogene to protozoan was probably the most complex that has occurred in evolution, and it may well have taken as long as the change from protozoan to man.
— George Gaylord Simpson

https://todayinsci.com/S/Simpson_George/SimpsonGeorge-Quotations.htm
Andrew
2017-10-13 08:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Life arose as a living molecule or protogene, the progression
from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from
ameba to man."
~ The "goo to you" fantasy, food for the gullible
Davej
2017-10-13 11:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
~ The "goo to you" fantasy, food for the gullible
And yet you know that you yourself emerged from a pile of goo
inside your mother.
Andrew
2017-10-13 15:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
~ The "goo to you" fantasy, food for the gullible
And yet you know that you yourself emerged
from a pile of goo inside your mother.
Yes, but that "goo" contained
an awesome genetic program.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-13 17:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
progression
Post by Cloud Hobbit
from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from
ameba to man."
~ The "goo to you" fantasy, food for the gullible

So you keep saying. Unfortunately the evidence says otherwise. The real fantasy is belief in that which actually is a fantasy and for which there is no real evidence like gods and angels, Leprechauns and so on.

You repeating the same bullshit doesn't make the bullshit true.

There is no way you can demonstrate your creator exists or that it ever created anything.

You have been hammering away with this crap for a long time and there's no sign it has changed anyone's mind.

One thing that is true, is that there are more and more atheists every year.

Your bronze age myths will eventually be nothing but a stain on history and eventually just a footnote.

Your species is becoming extinct.
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 18:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:25:24 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
progression
Post by Cloud Hobbit
from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from
ameba to man."
~ The "goo to you" fantasy, food for the gullible
So you keep saying. Unfortunately the evidence says otherwise. The real fantasy is belief in that which actually is a fantasy and for which there is no real evidence like gods and angels, Leprechauns and so on.
You repeating the same bullshit doesn't make the bullshit true.
There is no way you can demonstrate your creator exists or that it ever created anything.
You have been hammering away with this crap for a long time and there's no sign it has changed anyone's mind.
One thing that is true, is that there are more and more atheists every year.
Your bronze age myths will eventually be nothing but a stain on history and eventually just a footnote.
Your species is becoming extinct.
The gabs, in which Homo creaturae forages and nurses its offspring,
are shrinking too rapidly for it to be able to adapt.
--
Malte Runz
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-14 03:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
In the 1960s, Simpson "rubbished the then-nascent science of exobiology, which concerned itself with life on places other than Earth, as a science without a subject".[8]
He was raised as a Christian but later became an agnostic.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_02.html
The early part of the twentieth century saw evolutionary theory embattled by disagreements over Darwin's emphasis on natural selection. The then-newly rediscovered work of Gregor Mendel in the nineteenth century was an uncomfortable fit with evolution, as many scientists saw it. They weren't at all certain that natural populations contained enough genetic variation for natural selection to create new species. So they entertained other explanations, including inheritance of acquired characteristics, "directed" variation toward a goal, or sudden large mutations that resulted in new species.
In the field of paleontology, the scientist who did most to resolve these questions was George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984), who was on the staff of the American Museum of Natural History for 30 years. At a time when other paleontologists were convinced that the fossil record could best be explained by directed variation, Simpson disagreed. He said that fossil patterns needed no mystical or goal-oriented processes to explain them. For example, where others saw the modern horse as having arisen in a single advance toward the specialized form, Simpson saw the path as that of an irregular tree that had many side-branches leading off to extinction.
Simpson argued that the evolution of mammals, as seen in their fossilized remains, fit perfectly well with the new mechanisms of population genetics being studied at the time. He used the then-new mathematical methods to clarify how evolution occurred in "gene pools" in populations, not in individual members of the population.
Importantly, he showed that gaps in the fossil record reflected periods of substantial change through rapid "quantum evolution" in small populations, leaving little fossil evidence behind. At other times, he observed, rates of change could be so slow as to seem almost nonexistent.
Life arose as a living molecule or protogene, the progression from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from ameba to man. All the essential problems of living organisms are already solved in the one-celled (or, as many now prefer to say, noncellular) protozoan and these are only elaborated in man or the other multicellular animals. The step from nonlife to life may not have been so complex, after all, and that from cell to multicellular organism is readily comprehensible. The change from protogene to protozoan was probably the most complex that has occurred in evolution, and it may well have taken as long as the change from protozoan to man.
— George Gaylord Simpson
https://todayinsci.com/S/Simpson_George/SimpsonGeorge-Quotations.htm
It would appear that he changed his mind or that somebody quotemined.
Davej
2017-10-13 02:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we
came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
What's funny is that a YEC monkey-brained moron like you
feels this particular distinction is super important.
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 08:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we
came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
What's funny is that a YEC monkey-brained moron like you
feels this particular distinction is super important.
If the scientists can't agree 100% on every little detail, then God is
real and created everything just the way it is now.
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2017-10-13 13:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:46:58 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we
came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
Why can't the proven serial liar keep his deliberate lies to himself
instead of obsessively and nastily posting them in new threads
regularly for more than twenty years?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Davej
What's funny is that a YEC monkey-brained moron like you
feels this particular distinction is super important.
If the scientists can't agree 100% on every little detail, then God is
real and created everything just the way it is now.
And they wonder why we know they are mind-numbingly stupid, not to
mention dishonest and deliberately rude.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-10-16 02:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we
came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
What's funny is that a YEC monkey-brained moron like you
feels this particular distinction is super important.
If the scientists can't agree 100% on every little detail, then God is
real and created everything just the way it is now.
Yep, their credulity is astounding.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
hypatiab7
2017-10-13 02:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
"This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.

Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you aware that such information is easily available? Your religious fervor blinds you to reality.
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 08:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
"This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you aware that such information is easily available? Your religious fervor blinds you to reality.
At least it's a bit more recent than Pildown man and Ernest Haeckel's
drawings.
--
Malte Runz
hypatiab7
2017-10-13 16:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
"This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you aware that such information is easily available? Your religious fervor blinds you to reality.
At least it's a bit more recent than Pildown man and Ernest Haeckel's
drawings.
True, but John Monkeyboi is such a sad case. He never uses anything
current. And, he only reads material that he knows will agree with
his personal beliefs. Not checking out all sides of an argument is
a religious belief he hones to. Unfortunately for him, it never works.
He stomps in pounding his chest like a male gorilla and slithers out
bedraggled like someone just dipped him in the mud puddle of his beliefs.
That's what his degree from the School of Ookery has done to him.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-13 15:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.

What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped -- was:

"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or
monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest
for an informed investigator to say otherwise"

In other words he's saying that if you're arguing with an evolution
denialist, don't get picky about distinctions like this. In the
uneducated mind of the anti-evolutionist, monkeys, apes, they're all
the same to him. So don't sweat the small stuff, correcting them
on what is a rather minor point.

aa
Post by hypatiab7
Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you aware that such information is easily available? Your religious fervor blinds you to reality.
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 16:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped ...
You're giving him way too much credit there. He gets his mined quotes,
prêt-à-porter, from various websites, and has of course never read,
probably never heard of, George Gaylord Simpson before.

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-13 17:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
.> >What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped ...
.> You're giving him way too much credit there. He gets his mined quotes,
.> prêt-à-porter, from various websites, and has of course never read,
.> probably never heard of, George Gaylord Simpson before.

Actually, after I chased down the quote (Google books), I then came
across where he's quoted the full thing before -- from 1996 up till, actually, yesterday:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/cYBbHkZe0v0/XMOGRD3uAQAJ

Andrew certainly goes out and finds pre-edited nuggets and then looks no further,
but with Astie starting a brand new post and omitting those words, I'm leaning
toward malice.


aa
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 17:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
.> >What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped ...
.> You're giving him way too much credit there. He gets his mined quotes,
.> prêt-à-porter, from various websites, and has of course never read,
.> probably never heard of, George Gaylord Simpson before.
Actually, after I chased down the quote (Google books), I then came
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/cYBbHkZe0v0/XMOGRD3uAQAJ
Andrew certainly goes out and finds pre-edited nuggets and then looks no further,
but with Astie starting a brand new post and omitting those words, I'm leaning
toward malice.
I must agree.
--
Malte Runz
John Locke
2017-10-13 17:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:30:28 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped ...
You're giving him way too much credit there. He gets his mined quotes,
prêt-à-porter, from various websites, and has of course never read,
probably never heard of, George Gaylord Simpson before.
Bingo !
Christopher A. Lee
2017-10-13 17:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by hypatiab7
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to science, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed since then.
"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or
monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest
for an informed investigator to say otherwise"
In other words he's saying that if you're arguing with an evolution
denialist, don't get picky about distinctions like this. In the
uneducated mind of the anti-evolutionist, monkeys, apes, they're all
the same to him. So don't sweat the small stuff, correcting them
on what is a rather minor point.
The problem is that they don't believe there were monkeys millions of
years ago.

Heck, they believe there wasn't even a "millions of years ago".

So they're talking about modern monkeys.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by hypatiab7
Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you
aware that such information is easily available? Your religious
fervor blinds you to reality.
Because he's a mentally ill moron who has been playing the same
psychopathic game here to try and annoy, for more than twenty years.
hypatiab7
2017-10-13 18:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys. Here the denial stops.
snip snip goes the lying fundy.
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson > .>died in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to > .>science, a book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one > .>definitely is. Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals > .>has changed since then.
"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or
monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest
for an informed investigator to say otherwise"
In other words he's saying that if you're arguing with an evolution
denialist, don't get picky about distinctions like this. In the
uneducated mind of the anti-evolutionist, monkeys, apes, they're all
the same to him. So don't sweat the small stuff, correcting them
on what is a rather minor point.
I would have agreed with him at the time, but it's no longer such a minor
point. At this point in time, it would seem more like a surrender to
religious ignorance. These fundies need to know the facts. We know a lot
more about paleoanthropology now than we did in 1964. Even Simpson would
probably have second thoughts about what he wrote 53 years ago, if he were
still alive today.
The 16 year old kid who first came to this newsgroup has grown up to be a
liar, a hypocrite and a full blown troll. That's very sad. But, it's good to know that John McCoy/Asteroid7/John Monkeyboi can't be trusted at all. I've
known that for quite awhile, but now everyone knows that he is a liar. A very
typical troll.
Post by hypatiab7
Why do you always make a fool of yourself this way? Aren't you aware that such information is easily available? Your religious fervor blinds you to reality.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-10-16 05:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is p=
usillanimous [cowardly=E2=80=94DP] if not dishonest for an informed investi=
gator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
=20
Gaylord Simpson
=20
=20
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkey=
s. Here the denial stops.
=20
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson =
died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to scienc=
e, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely=
is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed si=
nce then.
What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped -- =
"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or
monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest
for an informed investigator to say otherwise"
=20
In other words he's saying that if you're arguing with an evolution
denialist, don't get picky about distinctions like this. In the=20
uneducated mind of the anti-evolutionist, monkeys, apes, they're all
the same to him. So don't sweat the small stuff, correcting them
on what is a rather minor point.
And they'll never answer the very simple question of why they are so ashamed to be so closely related to the great apes and monkeys.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-10-16 07:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:12:12 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is p=
usillanimous [cowardly=E2=80=94DP] if not dishonest for an informed investi=
gator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
=20
Gaylord Simpson
=20
=20
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkey=
s. Here the denial stops.
=20
.> "This View of Life" by George Gaylord Simpson came out in 1964. Simpson =
died
.> in 1984. You couldn't find anything more recent? When it comes to scienc=
e, a
.> book written over 50 years ago is probably obsolete. This one definitely=
is.
.> Even the system of listing modern and prehistoric animals has changed si=
nce then.
What Simpson actually wrote -- and what Astie ever so carefully snipped -- =
"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or
monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and
monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or
monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest
for an informed investigator to say otherwise"
"Popular usage" does not get to tell the experts what to say, when
they stress that these are ancestral forms. They say primates,
hominids, etc, and when they want more detail they use specific labels
- all of which the Liars For God replace with "monkey".
Post by Jeanne Douglas
In other words he's saying that if you're arguing with an evolution
denialist, don't get picky about distinctions like this. In the=20
uneducated mind of the anti-evolutionist, monkeys, apes, they're all
the same to him. So don't sweat the small stuff, correcting them
on what is a rather minor point.
Did Simpson _really_ not understand that creationists are talking
about modern forms, not the ancient ancestral ones they deny?

Which is where the arguments and disagreements with them over this,
come from.

It doesn't remain a minor point when raving loonies crash this or any
other group and attack us over their distortion - which is nothing to
do with atheism anyway.

This distortion isn't meant for us but their fellow loonies - it's a
caricature designed to be rejected out of hand as one side of a false
dichotomy with what the Bible says.

And the loonies like the McShitsforbrains McGuinness and McCoy are so
stupid they repeat them where people know rather more than the dumbed
down, oversimplified story.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
And they'll never answer the very simple question of why they are so
ashamed to be so closely related to the great apes and monkeys.
That's also a bit of a misrepresentation. They aren't ashamed of it
because they deny it in the first place - they imagine modern man and
modern monkeys were poofed into existence exactly as they are now,

So in what passes for their minds, there was no common ancestral
species, anyway.

You need to try and see it from their dumbed down POV. In this case,
what they mean by "monkey", which makes "descended from monkeys" a
dishonest caricature.

They don't care about getting things right. In fact, the more
ridiculous the better because it makes it easier to dismiss in front
of an ignorant audience.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-10-16 09:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't care about getting things right.
Hi, jackass, have you told your 'Fox created new life' lie lately?
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
hypatiab7
2017-10-16 16:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't care about getting things right.
Hi, jackass, have you told your 'Fox created new life' lie lately?
It's MattB, Christopher. Ignore him.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-10-16 19:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:27:26 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't care about getting things right.
Hi, jackass, have you told your 'Fox created new life' lie lately?
It's MattB, Christopher. Ignore him.
There was no lie.

Christianity brings out this combination of nastiness and dishonest in
too many Christians.

Instead of just saying it was a lie, these liars (because that's what
they are, themselves), need to give an honest critique - which none of
them have ever done.

They don't even bother to read his presentation, and on the rare
occasions they respond, they quote a page by Duane Gish on the
"Institute" for Creation "Research" web site without any attribution
and whichshows that Gish clearly never read the presentation either.

His results won't un-happen, and giants like Jack Szostak stand on his
shoulders.

I only bring up Fox because his presentation is not too technical,
easy to follow and includes micro-photographs
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-10-17 14:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Hi, jackass, have you told your 'Fox created new life' lie lately?
There was no lie.
Fox did not create new life therefore, jackass, you repeatedly lied.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
a322x1n
2017-10-13 03:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is
pusillanimous [cowardlyâ€"DP] if not dishonest for an informed
investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p.
12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from
monkeys. Here the denial stops.
Stop denying this, Astroid 86:

<http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/19/intelligent-design-stil
l-dead/>

<http://tinyurl.com/kwyrtku>

<https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/07/a-n-wilson-stale-unor
iginal-banal-cliche-ridden-hack/>

<http://tinyurl.com/ybu9u4et>

<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-tha
t-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hor4bam>

Modern Christian: Someone who can take time
out from blasting evolution as "perpetrated fraud"
and "junk science" to demand the latest medical
advances from evolutionary biology be used on them
when THEY get sick.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling
-amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>



<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-ber
linski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answe
rs-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_
r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debun
ked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-fu
ture-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-t
hink-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>



<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 08:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—DP] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (emp. in orig.) This View of Life, p. 12
Gaylord Simpson
Why did he say that? Because evolutionists believe we came from monkeys.
So what? Are you trying to shame atheists? Ape or monkey... it doesn't
matter.
... Here the denial stops.
There is no denial. There's a debate among palaeontologists about how
to classify our early ancestors, no whether or not we evolved into
what we are now. It doesn't change the facts: We all came from Goo.
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2017-10-13 15:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
It doesn't change the facts: We all came from Goo.
A fantasy story, believed only by the gullible masses.
Malte Runz
2017-10-13 16:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:35:45 -0400, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Malte Runz
It doesn't change the facts: We all came from Goo.
A fantasy story, believed only by the gullible masses.
Physical evidence points to only one plausible scenario, and that's
G002U. Your 'mud to man and rib to chick' story has no scientific
evidence to back it up, only a series of ancient myths, that also
contain stories about talking snakes and a dude walking on water
before turning into a zombie.
--
Malte Runz
hypatiab7
2017-10-13 17:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Malte Runz
It doesn't change the facts: We all came from Goo.
A fantasy story, believed only by the gullible masses.
Allow me to reword that for you. It's not believed by
the gullible religious masses. The religious believe
what they're told to believe and never learn to think
for themselves. They're trapped like birds in a cage
by their fear of a non-existent hell. And they accept
their entrapment unless they are smart enough and
strong enough to realize that religion is mythical
and harmful nonsense used to control them and keep
them ignorant and which they have to reject.
Loading...