IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.com
Mon Oct 7 17:40:38 EST 2002

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 

>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 
>>>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>>>From the first line in my encyclopedia concerning evolution...
>>>>"the complex of processes by which living organisms originated on
>>>Then your encyclopedia is wrong.
>>I should've known.
>Your unnamed encyclopedia vs. the Britannica
>>theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and
>> plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the
>> distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive
>> generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental
>> keystones of modern biological theory. (See also human evolution.) 
>or encyclopedia.com (which uses the same text as the Columbia
>>concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants
>> developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously
>> existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification,
>> constitutes organic evolution.
>And we can turn even to the Catholic encyclopedia for a religious
>>As a scientific hypothesis, the theory of evolution seeks to determine
>>the historical succession of the various species of plants and of
>> animals on our earth, and, with the aid of palæontology and other
>> sciences, such as comparative morphology, embryology, and bionomy, to
>> show how in the course of the different geological epochs they
>> gradually evolve from their beginnings by purely natural causes of
>> specific development. The theory of evolution, then, as a scientific
>> hypothesis, does not consider the present species of plants and of
>> animals as forms directly created by God, but as the final result of
>> an evolution from other species existing in former geological
>> periods. Hence it is called "the theory of evolution", or "the theory
>> of descent", since it implies the descent of the present from extinct
>> species. This theory is opposed to the theory of constancy, which
>> assumes the immutability of organic species. The scientific theory of
>>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of systematic
>> ^^^^
>> species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them
>> according to natural series of descent (genetic trees). 
>So I suggest that you discard your unnamed encyclopedia and get one
>that actually has information in it.

This proves 2 things. 1) that you do not have all the available
information on the subject at hand and 2) you kick out all data
points which do not fit your pre-established curve. Both 1 and 2 are
a result of the mindset which operates by trend analysis.

As far as discarding my encyclopedia, I don't rely on it much to
begin with so it's as good as discarded (well almost) anyway.  But
the portion I quoted was just the first line.  It has plenty of info
in it and I agree with some here that all info in encyclopedias is
not 100% truth.  That's why we need Bibles.  You will find in the
Bible that science began with Adam.

God gave Adam the duty of starting the Scientific Classification

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19)

It's good that men seek their God given duties.  And it's good that
we agree not all encyclopedias have all the answers.  



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net