[asa] RE: Introducing Sin (once again)

To answer Keith and Murray's objection, let me modify the premise to be more precise. (Their specific objections will be addressed in later steps.)

Was: Step 1. Therefore: There was no 'first human.'

New: Step 1. Therefore: There was no 'first human' biologically speaking.

Any objections to the rewrite, from biology experts? For now, the subtopic is the biological construction of humans ONLY. Then I will build upon that if we can get agreement.

...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:50 PM
To: asa
Subject: [asa] Introducing Sin (once again)

Let me try again.

Important: Suppose we grant that humans biologically evolved from an apelike creature (I don't care if either God-guided or fully gifted evolution is assumed).

Step 1. Therefore: There was no 'first human' biologically speaking. (This is because evolution works over populations over time in a continuum.)

Does any biology expert want to debate this (Dr. Campbell)?

If all the biology experts can agree to this, we can move to the next logical step, step 2. If not, let's debate it to see if consensus can be reached, as I suspect it can.

(Under this subject title, please don't change the subject, and I know it is tempting... let's see if we can focus with pithy responses.)

I think Denis Lamoureux is with me (strongly) so far on this step. (One of Denis' rallying cries is "There is no Adam! (like there is no firmament)")

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 16:01:20 2009