When Reich entered college, in 1992, most of what scientists knew
about human evolution came from fossils.
In the past, most of the big news
about human evolution came from remote dig sites in places like Africa or Indonesia.
Not exact matches
You're talking
about the type of «
evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging
about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT
HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even
come close to the complication of macro
evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.
For Bergson, like many process thinkers (Peirce, James and Dewey
come particularly to mind), the entire concept of «necessity» only makes sense when applied internally to abstractions the intellect has already devised.11 Of course, one can tell an evolutionary story
about how the
human intellect
came to be a separable function of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative
Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270).
The
Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say
About Human Origins by Peter Enns — This book
came along and just the right time for me.
From stem cell research to global warming,
human cloning,
evolution, and beyond, the science debates are not exactly
about science, but
come down to a dispute between liberals and conservatives
about the right way to think
about the future.
Over the past decade or so, researchers have learned so much
about canine genetics, the differences and similarities between dogs and wolves, the
evolution of the domestic dog, and the niche the dog
came to inhabit in terms of its relationship with
humans.