Evolution, true, fact of life, false or God made?

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas, I often wonder whether I write in English or not. I cannot see how my comments are not understandable. I am not saying that you cannot understand plain English, rather it seems quite simple to me to read back what I have written. I get this quite a bit. Is it that there is little direct attention to detail or opinion, being that the opinion is subtle or is it that I am either opposing or agreeing with both arguements that I do not seem to express myself clearly.

Perhaps it happens so often because you are making a lot of assumptions that we do not share. I tried to point a few in my previous post, but apparently you don't want to know about that.

Anyway, if you are saying human has been on the Earth for some 250,000 years, my point is that we have nothing to show it.

Of course we do. We've survived to this day, learned tool use, created civilization and culture. In what sense is that not enough for you?

Therefore I claim that human has been around a lot less time than that. By biological definition, especially of the brain, wouldn't you say that 243,000 years was spent doing SFA.

If you mean "Success For All" and is saying that as a supposedly smart*** way of implying that we ought to have done more during that time, well, I can only say that it is foolish to ignore pretty much all archeological evidence out of pride.

That, and also that there is such a thing as a critical mass where cultural developments are concerned. For nearly all of its existence the human species was indeed not all that different from chimpanzes and bonobos. When an efficient spoken language, agriculture and other revolutionary discoveries came, they had impressive (and fast) effect indeed.

Would you concur that, if evolution is the path we took,

Biologically speaking, evolution is the path that all living species took.

that humans as we are, are not of the time frame you have mentioned but something a little closer to say 7-10,000 years in existence. My guess it is less but I can settle with that.

No, I would definitely not concur with that at all. This timeframe you propose is hurried enough for human civilization, and completely delusional for human species.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hence my point about humans and their existence, Darkendless and I will reiterate, I do believe in evolution, to a point. Now you along with science make astounding claims about the origins of human, bridging this great divide with simple expectation of belief and blind adherance to the Theory. If it works for A it must have worked for B. I understand that the works in progress are still incomplete, do you.

It's not a matter of faith, however. The evidence is ample and clear. You apparently don't have much information about the subject yet.

 

[darkendless]

Hence my point about humans and their existence, Darkendless and I will reiterate, I do believe in evolution, to a point. Now you along with science make astounding claims about the origins of human, bridging this great divide with simple expectation of belief and blind adherance to the Theory. If it works for A it must have worked for B. I understand that the works in progress are still incomplete, do you.

Do you think we were designed by some magical divine being? Right now i take you for a very intelligent individual, if you do think ID is possible and that our origins lie there, would you care to explain what makes you believe its so?

To me, i think ID is a stretch because there is NO evidence to suggest. I clould be wrong but the main instigators of ID probably didnt understand the chemistry behind our development from bacteria to humans over 4.4billion years.

To me it just doesn't seem possible that we just popped out of nowhere when there are logical steps (eras) showing distinct changes in history.

 

[rock hop]

The evidence may be ample and clear if you want to speculate. LuisDantas, please give me a round about date for the earliest human as we are existence fossil. That is the curernt history of human existence, compare it to the round about date of the last human like step on the ladder found and tell me what you have.

 

[LuisDantas]

The evidence may be ample and clear if you want to speculate.

Or even if you don't.

LuisDantas, please give me a round about date for the earliest human as we are existence fossil.

If you mean biologically, that would be about 400 to 250 thousand years ago. But see below.

That is the current history of human existence, compare it to the round about date of the last human like step on the ladder found and tell me what you have.

I puzzled this ladder thing for a bit, then it occurred to me that it is probably a roundabout way of meaning "the date of origin of the current human species". The ladder imagery is misleading, you know. Evolution is not "upwards". It is just adaptation, not Manifest Destiny.

Assuming my guess to be correct, you are then trying to imply that the fossil record is unreliable. I shouldn't really encourage you to ask me for what you may find by a simple google search for "fossils talkorigins", but please look at these links.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
Hominid Species

Exact dates, as you may see, depend on whether you mean Homo sapiens (about five hundred thousand years ago) or Homo sapiens sapiens proper (about two hundred thousand years ago).

But really, those dates are not and can not be exact, because the criteria for defining a human are so arbitrary.

Anyway, if I read you correctly, you want to believe that mankind must be a very recent species (perhaps only seven thousand years old) because you assume that mankind is somehow able of building cultures and civilizations from its very start. Sorry, but there is simply no reason to assume so, and on the contrary, all available evidence suggest otherwise.

 

[rock hop]

Those links were a great read. It is a shame history does not equal exisistance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Those links were a great read. It is a shame history does not equal exisistance.

How do you explain the paleological and genetic evidence?

 

[doppelganger]

are you saying that god can't and nature can???????

A small "God" found in a holy book can't. The Living God certainly can, with the help of an observer and some words.

 

[darkendless]

are you saying that god can't and nature can???????

A god wouldn't waste time with such complex evidence of biogeochemical evolution. So no, God cant. Sure you can insert God in a human lifetime, but how do you explain the fact that the earth is 5.4 billion years old? Where does your scripture assert this accepted age of the earth?

 

[gnostic]

I took no offence, I was however intrigued. I solemnly believe in evolution to a point. If we are classified as human when we were homo erectus, then I disagree with us being human. Did not other creatures use tools as well. Evolution does not account for the past fifty thousand years or so that, humans are said to exist for.

Not 50,000 years. At least 200,000 years. I am not certain, but I think this figure have been revised, and now pushed the homo sapiens further back in time. We, modern humans, were most likely the descendants of the type of Homo sapiens, known as the Cro-Magnon, who lived between 40,000 to 10,000 years, which is the last stage of the Upper Paleolithic period; and the end, it is the beginnng of the Neolithic period.

I am no expert of the human evolution, but I recalled that the Homo neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man did use stone tools, and had existed perhaps as early as 300,000 years ago, if not earlier. The Neanderthals died out earlier in Asia than in Europe, possibly tens of thousand years earlier.

I don't remember if the other species, those earlier than the Homo erectus, used stone tools or not, but the Homo erectus certainly did.

As to the question of fire, the Homo erectus were responsible for that.

 

[Runlikethewind]

a giraffe used to have the same structure as a horse, until one day a mutated gene caused an offsping to have a long neck. Due to natural selection it survived becuase it could get to leaves in the trees ETC, so the mutated giraffe reproduced and passed the gene on...

The way I learned it is that the male giraffes will get into a kind of sword fight with their necks in order to become the dominate male and hence forth procreate and pass its genes on. So having a long strong neck isn’t so much about getting food, although that is certainly a benefit, its about mating. One could be the fittest creature in the world but if one does not pass on ones genes then there is no survival. Therefore it should not be survival of the fittest, it should be survival of the promiscuous.

We're too complex and biogeochemically aesthetic to be designed.

Now this is an interesting position. You say that the complexity of life precludes design while proponents of intelligent design argue that the complexity in some way proves design. I would tend to think that complexity is better evidence for design than evidence against it.

 

[Halcyon]

Therefore it should not be survival of the fittest, it should be survival of the promiscuous.

Actually it's the same thing, the definition of a fit organism in terms of evolution is one that is strong enough to survive and pass on its genes, the more offspring it has the fitter it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way I learned it is that the male giraffes will get into a kind of sword fight with their necks in order to become the dominate male and hence forth procreate and pass its genes on. So having a long strong neck isn’t so much about getting food, although that is certainly a benefit, its about mating. One could be the fittest creature in the world but if one does not pass on ones genes then there is no survival. Therefore it should not be survival of the fittest, it should be survival of the promiscuous.

That's part of it, but if that promiscuous organism's offspring don't survive to mate themselves, then their promiscuity doesn't do them much good.

Sexual pressures can be a strong force for evolutionary change: for instance, take the famous example of the male peacock. Having to cart around an unweildy tail would be a detriment in almost every area of its life, but because it's a large part of its attractiveness to potential mates, the trait of large tails is selected for.

Now this is an interesting position. You say that the complexity of life precludes design while proponents of intelligent design argue that the complexity in some way proves design. I would tend to think that complexity is better evidence for design than evidence against it.

Depends on your point of view, I suppose. If you haven't assumed an omnipotent God, then I think it's a very valid question to ask whether a particular thing is within the capability of a potential designer/creator to actually design and create.

Also, I think that taking the position that complexity implies design may set theists up for a difficult problem; after all, if the complexity of life implies an intelligent creator of that life, what would the presumable complexity of a God capable of creating life say about Him? You either end up having to resort to special pleading, or you end up in an endless cycle of having to swallow the metaphorical bird, cat, dog, goat, etc.

 

[Storm]

Depends on your point of view, I suppose. If you haven't assumed an omnipotent God, then I think it's a very valid question to ask whether a particular thing is within the capability of a potential designer/creator to actually design and create.

But if you're assuming a Creator God of any type, you're talking about a mind capable of callibrating the cosmos. We're child's play after that.

 

[gnostic]

For the OP, I would have to say evolution is true, fact of life and I must add, natural.

 

[darkendless]

The way I learned it is that the male giraffes will get into a kind of sword fight with their necks in order to become the dominate male and hence forth procreate and pass its genes on. So having a long strong neck isn’t so much about getting food, although that is certainly a benefit, its about mating. One could be the fittest creature in the world but if one does not pass on ones genes then there is no survival. Therefore it should not be survival of the fittest, it should be survival of the promiscuous.

Now this is an interesting position. You say that the complexity of life precludes design while proponents of intelligent design argue that the complexity in some way proves design. I would tend to think that complexity is better evidence for design than evidence against it.

I am referring to biogeochemical processes that have shaped us. To cite a major example the introduction of oxygen to our atmosphere a few billion years ago forced organisms to develop respiration in order to survive. In a way i guess we're superior as we are the survivors of great change.

 

[rock hop]

LuisDantas, I think you should google, 'The Hobbit Enigma', as it is from the details in your link, there is much more to it. The details of the Hobbit Woman seem more outstanding than the link observes. I will say this again, for those others that just can't seem to read well, I do believe in evolution, to a point.

The Homo floresiensis is 'The Hobbit Enigma', thought I better put that in.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

IOV evolution is true and God-made, and science and religion dovetail very nicely!

Best,

Bruce

 

[Runlikethewind]

Actually it's the same thing, the definition of a fit organism in terms of evolution is one that is strong enough to survive and pass on its genes, the more offspring it has the fitter it is.

It may be true that passing on genes is involved in the definition of what makes a creature fit but I don't think that is something that most people consider. I was just trying to emphasis the importance of the sexual component in the process of evolution. 9-10ths_penguin Illustrates a good example of this with the male peacock. I think that when most people think about survival of the fittest they think the fastest, strongest, smartest, etc without thinking about the fact that such things only contribute to their fitness if procreation is involved as well.