The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[YoursTrue]

Bones are not thoughts. Such a shame you are so misinformed.

Like I said, too bad they can't find the reason why the brains of apes (non-human, that is) have not evolved to the point of publishing newspapers. No record exists, and no ape (non-human, that is) today is in the process of publishing newspapers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Took a long time for smart human beings to figure out these things, hmm? How do you know about the musical instruments? Those time estimates really do make humans to appear to be very stupid indeed, took such a long time. (Still, though, animals haven't figured out instruments or newspapers yet, have they? Despite the MUCH LONGER time they supposedly have been in existence. I mean even the one closest to man hasn't yet felt the need for instruments or newspapers, have they?)

What is or was your profession? Why isn't everyone doing your profession? Surely we have been around long enough?

There is no goal to evolution. All the different branches of life are not going the same direction. None of their circumstances are the same. Just because humans evolved to the intellectual capabilities that we have does not mean everything is supposed to do the same.

 

[ChristineM]

Like I said, too bad they can't find the reason why the brains of apes (non-human, that is) have not evolved to the point of publishing newspapers. No record exists, and no ape (non-human, that is) today is in the process of publishing newspapers.

Sheesh, why does an ape need a newspaper?

Even humans dont actually need them.

However i would love to see how long a human lasted in a jungle environment without tools. Wild apes have skills we have lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many people would consider the entire episode in the Bible about Moses and the nation of Israel as a fantasy.

I don't expect animals to publish newspapers. But the real question is: why don't they? (Don't they have the capacity to do so?) Oh, and to clarify, by animals I mean non-human animals.

Yes, it is an inability of other animals. It was also an inability of humans a mere ten thousand years ago. Your arguments are incredibly weak. All they do is tell others how little you understand this topic. Instead of fighting against allowing yourself to learn why not do the opposite? Why not try to understand the science that appears to frighten you so much?


It would make you a better debater. One cannot refute what one does not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hahaha, it doesn't matter if most of the record is missing. I love it. Thanks!

Here is a simple analogy. There are pictures of you over your life. But over 99% of the time there is no photographic or video e evidence for you. In fact I get there are periods of over a month with no pictures of you at all to be found. Yet you would laugh at someone that said the existing pictures do not prove that you are up. Instead he insists that you were created Last Thursday.

That is the sort of argument that you just made.

 

[Polymath257]

I was particularly speaking of animals that live on grasses and plants. But since you are the expert in these things, how do you feel about the following? "The fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened." (From New Scientist -- Timeline: The evolution of life)

Well, what it says is true, but not particularly relevant to what we have been discussing. There are more 'frames' for more recent events and fewer 'frames' for events further into the past. And the fact that there are missing frames means we often cannot tell *exactly* when something happened, but we *can* say it happened between two of the frames we have. And each new site we find adds more frames to the puzzle.

Also, some species are very poorly preserved: our evidence skews towards animals with large bones or shells. So it is often difficult to determine what happened in the evolution of, say, bats.

 

[Polymath257]

Many people would consider the entire episode in the Bible about Moses and the nation of Israel as a fantasy.

Which, based on the evidence, it is. Might I suggest you look into the archeology of ancient Israel and Egypt?

I don't expect animals to publish newspapers. But the real question is: why don't they? (Don't they have the capacity to do so?) Oh, and to clarify, by animals I mean non-human animals.

Humans didn't until very, very recently. Why not?

 

[Polymath257]

Hahaha, it doesn't matter if most of the record is missing. I love it. Thanks!

There is enough of the record left to be able to say a great deal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I haven't heard that they broadcast the deaths of those within their group to other elephant groups. Or erect monuments to their dead companions. Again -- humans are in a unique category insofar as communication and thinking goes. After so few years of human life, newspapers came into existence, instruments, and much more. Not so with animals, although here much longer.
Also, animals do not supposedly--conjecture--wonder? about life everlasting. Again, that puts them in a different category than humans, who do wonder and consider if there is the possibility of living forever somehow, somewhere. The Bible tells us the answers to these questions, but not all believe or understand.

Again I have to ask, so what? Other animals do things humans aren't capable of. And humans are indeed, animals.


What is so special about contemplating everlasting life? I don't contemplate it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The forces of nature are an example.

Which ones? How can we tell?

The human behavior is another.

How is human behavior evidence for god(s) interacting with the world?

Why our brain works as it does, how can you change how your brain works.

What do you mean, and how is that evidence for god(s)?

The lack of chance in things that happen in your life. things might seem random to you, when you understand how God's creations work, you find that it is not so. things can be anticipated in your life. things happen as a consequence of your behaviors and actions.

Evidence should be evidence, regardless of whether one already believes in god(s) or not. So no, empty assertions that random things actually happen for a reason is not evidence for any god(s).

Science begins to realize that today, but God explains it in far more details

Nope. "God did it" explains nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hahaha, it doesn't matter if most of the record is missing. I love it. Thanks!

We have far more evidence for evolution than what is found in the fossil record. You should have continued reading down the page. And you should have read the pages I provided for you that explained genomics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just because humans evolved to the intellectual capabilities that we have does not mean everything is supposed to do the same.

Agreed.

You are probably already aware, but our ancestors lived under very different conditions than their arboreal ancestors, conditions that allowed the mutations leading to increased intelligence to result in increased biological fitness and a survival advantage.

North and South America converged creating the isthmus of Panama eons ago altering the ocean currents, changing weather patterns, and causing some of the jungles of Africa to transform into relatively treeless savanna. This forced the arboreal apes in those regions to come down from the trees and trade their limb-to-limb swinging, leaf and nut eating lives into a life of cooperative hunting for meat while running on the ground.

The articulate, grasping hands needed for brachiating through the canopy were freed for weapon making and deployment. Identical mutations leading to increased cranial capacity and intelligence would not give the arboreal apes the competitive advantages that it conferred upon their terrestrial cousins given their new lives, and certainly would not be worth the high cost of possessing and operating brains that consumed such a large percentage of the animal's oxygen and calorie intake, and exposed it to the dangers of difficult deliveries of large-brained babies.

Man developed a unique form of intelligence - intellect, or the ability to ponder and communicate using symbols such as words. If intelligence is defined as the ability to identify and solve problems, something many of the lower beasts such as my dogs also do, and intellect is defined as the ability to do so with language and mathematics, we must consider under which circumstances that symbol using ability confers a competitive advantage even after the biological costs are subtracted out.

If worms or fish could somehow evolve such thinking skills, would it benefit them overall given their lack of hands with opposable thumbs and the absence of the fine vision primates developed before descending from the trees? Probably not, which is probably why we don't see such creatures possessing human intellect.

It is our unique heritage and the circumstances of our ancestors' lives that are likely the reason that man went in a unique direction in evolution. If the increased intelligence can't be put to use immediately as was likely the case for our hominin ancestors, then it won't be selected for.

For me, this is a plausible explanation for why only humanity has newspapers.

 

[Valjean]

Like I said, too bad they can't find the reason why the brains of apes (non-human, that is) have not evolved to the point of publishing newspapers. No record exists, and no ape (non-human, that is) today is in the process of publishing newspapers.

Brains are metabolically expensive. There are few niches where human-like mental capabilities would be worth the metabolic cost. In fact, the short-term advantage our intelligence has conferred may prove a disadvantage, in the long run, since we're rapidly destroying our own ecological life-support system.
Humans may prove a catastrophic, biological dead-end.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed.

You are probably already aware, but our ancestors lived under very different conditions than their arboreal ancestors, conditions that allowed the mutations leading to increased intelligence to result in increased biological fitness and a survival advantage.

North and South America converged creating the isthmus of Panama eons ago altering the ocean currents, changing weather patterns, and causing some of the jungles of Africa to transform into relatively treeless savanna. This forced the arboreal apes in those regions to come down from the trees and trade their limb-to-limb swinging, leaf and nut eating lives into a life of cooperative hunting for meat while running on the ground.

The articulate, grasping hands needed for brachiating through the canopy were freed for weapon making and deployment. Identical mutations leading to increased cranial capacity and intelligence would not give the arboreal apes the competitive advantages that it conferred upon their terrestrial cousins given their new lives, and certainly would not be worth the high cost of possessing and operating brains that consumed such a large percentage of the animal's oxygen and calorie intake, and exposed it to the dangers of difficult deliveries of large-brained babies.

Man developed a unique form of intelligence - intellect, or the ability to ponder and communicate using symbols such as words. If intelligence is defined as the ability to identify and solve problems, something many of the lower beasts such as my dogs also do, and intellect is defined as the ability to do so with language and mathematics, we must consider under which circumstances that symbol using ability confers a competitive advantage even after the biological costs are subtracted out.

If worms or fish could somehow evolve such thinking skills, would it benefit them overall given their lack of hands with opposable thumbs and the absence of the fine vision primates developed before descending from the trees? Probably not, which is probably why we don't see such creatures possessing human intellect.

It is our unique heritage and the circumstances of our ancestors' lives that are likely the reason that man went in a unique direction in evolution. If the increased intelligence can't be put to use immediately as was likely the case for our hominin ancestors, then it won't be selected for.

For me, this is a plausible explanation for why only humanity has newspapers.

Well written and very well said. It is a very plausible explanation for me as well.

 

[Muffled]

Evolution is simply change. I think most would agree there are differences between an offspring and it's parents. Overtime a species changes. People get taller, shorter, more/less hair. Some folks are more susceptible to a disease and die before they can procreate. Those more resistant live longer procreate more. So it's not that they developed an immunity because of the environment. Genetic drift causes changes. Sometimes those changes allow one set of genetics to win the race in procreation. Sometimes it's environmental survivability, sometimes it may because blue eyes become popular to procreate with. Like albinos is a genetic change. If albinos suddenly became popular, folks would want to procreate with them passing their genetics more often.

I believe evolution is a form of change but the Theory of Evolution is more detailed than that. One aspect of TTOE is natural selection. The Neanderthal race of humanoids no longer exists in essence but traces of the race are left in many people's DNA.

 

[Muffled]

That is a valid complaint. But if you are a creationist then you probably have a faulty understanding of the concept of evidence. If you understood the concept of evidence, and I would gladly go over it with you, then it is easy to show the evidence for evolution. Since this is a scientific discussion to keep it in context the best definition of "evidence" to use is that of scientific evidence. It is also a well defined version so it is easy to see if something is evidence or not:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with data collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation.

I believe just as the Bible is interpreted in many ways and analyzed likewise, one may also interpret and analyze the facts differently from those who hold to an orthodox view. I am a heretic after all.

I believe that doesn't work because scientists are not in control of the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with data collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation.

I believe just as the Bible is interpreted in many ways and analyzed likewise, one may also interpret and analyze the facts differently from those who hold to an orthodox view. I am a heretic after all.

I believe that doesn't work because scientists are not in control of the past.

What does this have to do with my post? And statistics may or may not support the Bible, but until it does you have nothing and there was no point in bringing that up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Took a long time for smart human beings to figure out these things, hmm? How do you know about the musical instruments? Those time estimates really do make humans to appear to be very stupid indeed, took such a long time. (Still, though, animals haven't figured out instruments or newspapers yet, have they? Despite the MUCH LONGER time they supposedly have been in existence. I mean even the one closest to man hasn't yet felt the need for instruments or newspapers, have they?)

For one, many species haven't been around longer, some have. Extinction has thus far eliminated over 99% of every species to have lived. We aren't last new species, and we aren't the last.
Also, seriously study animal behavior. They may not have instruments, but some such as chimps do seem to display what seems possibly musical and even religious behaviors. And many of animals do display behaviors that we humans would indeed call singing and dancing.
You should probably also study more history. We weren't stupid, but throughout history we tend to every once in awhile make a monumental discovery that completely changes the course of our species (such as learning how to create, harness, and control fire, which likely played a very significant role in our biological and social evolution).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Many people would consider the entire episode in the Bible about Moses and the nation of Israel as a fantasy.
I don't expect animals to publish newspapers. But the real question is: why don't they? (Don't they have the capacity to do so?) Oh, and to clarify, by animals I mean non-human animals.

I think even many religious leaders in Jesus' day considered Scripture as fantasy preferring to teach Greek mythology.
Seems to me Jesus is Not interested in quantity (many) but in quality as per Matthew 7:21-23.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

However i would love to see how long a human lasted in a jungle environment without tools. Wild apes have skills we have lost.

As I recall, when the early settlers landed in the United States in winter they did Not know how to keep from starving.
The Native-American Indians who lived among them were Not starving, so even humans at that time frame even with tools did Not know how to keep from starving. Says something about the good use of bows and arrows.