Only when she cites facts to back up her opinion. Arguments from authority
from either the Pope or Mary do not impress me. The one thing that both
science and the law depend upon is evidence. Personal opinions without
evidence is no more valid in science than in law. So why do you cite opinions
rather than evidence that Neanderthal is not human? Find evidence that
Neanderthal was green and used chloroplasts to create food and I will agree
with you that he is not human.
>
>Leakey said it is impossible for scientists ever
>to pinpoint exactly when prehistoric man became fully human...."We shall
>probably never know where humans began and where hominids left
>off," she said in an interview at her home near the eastern-most edge of
>the Great Rift Valley.
I don't disagree, otherwise why are you and I disagreeing on whether
Neanderthal is human or not. But Jim, you always avoid a discussion of these
activities which you must admit is very, very human in nature.
> Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario
>of human evolution, Leakey said:"All these trees of life with their branches
>of our ancestors,that's a lot of nonsense."
It is in the same sense as trying to ascribe causality to World War 1. I heard
this a few years ago on the Rest of the Story. Concerning the cause of the
war, you can talk about alliances, and economic relations and the assasination
of the Archduke. But when push comes to shove, I believe that the
assasination was caused by the driver of the carriage getting lost and by
chance stopping across the street from the guy who had tried and failed to get
close enough to the ArchDuke to kill him earlier in the day. Thus the
causality streams for WWI are equally nonesense.
Of course this does not mean that WWI didn't happen and neither does the above
mean that evolution didn't happen either.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm