RE: News on fossil man

Susan Brassfield (
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:10:24 -0600

>> On the contrary; Darwin described evolution as the descent with
>> modification
>> of all modern lifeforms from previous lifeforms. This predicts that some,
>> if not most, species should share a common ancestor.
>Evolution does not predict that all humans share a common human ancestor.
>Remember, it's populations that evolve. If some, if not most, species are
>demonstrated to share a common ancestor (of essentially the same species)
>then Evolution has sunk even further in the deep doodoo it's in.

But evolution *does* predict that all humans share a common ancestor. Where
did you read that it didn't? And if species are demonstrated share a
common ancestor, how does that refute evolution? Even in broad outline all
species fall into dovetailing categories. Linaeus, who invented the naming
system that shows this, was a creationist and hotly denied that it hinted
that similar species were related to each other. I'm sure he was spinning
in his grave when Origin of the Species was published!

>> These common ancestors
>> have been found in the fossil record, plus we can reproduce the descent of
>> two new organisms from a single common organism in the laboratory, so the
>> prediction has been verified.
>Is that an attempt at humor?

is this? the first time speciation was observed was in 1908 (I think).
Since then, speciation has been observed many times under laboratory
conditions. It's not a huge surprise you've never heard of it--even though
it was widely published. I have a feeling that you, like a lot of
creationists, have a keen interest in remaining ignorant.

>> If evolutionists censored that information, how was Glenn able to
>> read about it in a scientific journal?
>Didn't I say 30 years. It's like some decades ago when some Evolutionists
>claimed that whites were move evolved than blacks because of larger cranial

We all know that. Stephen J. Gould wrote an entire book about it called
"The Mismeasure of Man." I think it sold millions of copies. My local
library has 2 copies of it. Dern. That information is going to be *tough*
to suppress!

>Now, Evolutionists not only deny that they (as a group) even
>considered cranial capacity (in humans) to be an indication of degree of
>evolution, but that all those old studies of cranial capacity were all
>fatally biased. (and, what new studies have they replaced the old ones

They are detailed in Gould's book. I highly recommend it.



Life is short, but it's also very wide.