evolution vs. biblical theory

[chopiabin]

Thank you.

[DAwud7]

First off ive been absent duiring this whole thing but the statement that the bible is 100 percent historically accurate is the most ignorant statement ever made. First off there is no Tower of Babel. No garden of eden. The account of jesus in India is not even mentioned. The stories are that mere stories and fables and tall tales. The only thing significant of the bible is the language it was written in, and the shapes of the actual letters and thier relation too man and the universe. Absurdity the bible is historically correct and the earth was created in 7 days mind u before the creation of the sun. Ill put a 1000 quotes from the bible that show how ignorant that statement is.

[liszmaninopin]

The bible could in many ways be trusted just like old roman manuscripts. Archeological sites have been found to support that. As for the 900 year olds, I know this number is ridiculously large, but I said after that they became not even up to 200. Now don't look at the numbers, forget them, but look at the more than four times earlier they died.

In some ways it could be trusted-but all we have are translations of translations of translations of the Bible.  We have no way of knowing that the books were not altered for theological purposes-but nobody would alter some Roman manuscript on road building, for example; as there is no reason to.  Also, isn't it a bit suspect that few other cultures report people living that long?

You don't know that.

Actually, I do.  I can't remember the specific name of the book, (it was a library book, and if you really want I can find out what it was called) but for matter to be compacted into a singularity with practically infinite mass in so small a space, atomic structure could not exist-because atoms are in fact mostly empty space.  In order to create such density, the atoms can't exist, all that a singularity is is pure matter.  Also, atoms can't exist above a certain temperature.

I meant that at that time they did not have a name here for some animals that lived there, and just gave these animals a name of something they knew. And you are right about these copiers. The catholic church even used to say the earth was flat in the bible.

Tell me then, what species do modern scholars think was meant by four-legged locusts and cud chewing rabbits?  It seems to me that a rabbit is a rabbit no matter where it is, I don't see how they could not have a name for it.  Yes, the Christians did think the earth was flat-they could have used some lessons in basic math and astronomy from the pagan Egyptians, Greeks, and Mayans.

The difference between relativity and evolution is that the last is about how the world was created. Relativity can be proven, the way the world was created will never be proven. It's a different kind of theory.

Evolution is not about how the world was created, that would be theories of origins.  Evolution only deals with genetic progression and change from one generation to the next.  Life arising from non life is abiogenesis, not evolution.  Evolution is the simple fact that species change from one generation to the next.  If Relativity can be proven, why do they call it a theory, and not a law?

Then it's not only the fittest one that survives, but also the less fitter ones.

Under certain circumstances, the less fit ones can survive to an extent, that's true.  As long as they survive to reproduce, they are fit enough.  If something is unfit enough that it can't reproduce, then it dies out.

I mean, apes would not have had a reason to become humans if they were able to survive in their habitat. If they were not because their habitat was destroyed or dramatically changed, they would not have survived, and they would never have had enough time to become humans.

Imagine one species of proto ape.  It inhabits a whole continent.  In certain areas, the climate stayed the same, and so the ape stayed fairly similar, slowly perfecting itself to live in this one habit through natural selection.  In another area, imagine a highly volatile climate where intelligence aided in survival.  Eventually, the whole population in that area would become more intelligent as more intelligent genes survived than did non-intelligent genes.  Similar adaptions occured, so that the species could survive in a highly volatile climate, and this species eventually reached what humans are today.  This is just one example of how a species can evolve into a different species, but still have the ancestor species in existance.

That's micro-evolution. (Macro-)evolution and micro-evolution are not the same thing. Micro-evolution is a fact, evolution itself is not. People knew about micro-evolution before Darwin wrote his theory. When Darwin made up his theory, he called this phenomenom micro-evolution, thus, small evolution, evolution that changes the genes of one single kind. Just because this exists, does not mean the entire theory about evolution is true, and you know it.

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing!  One just takes place over much greater time spans.  Actually, the fact that we can observe small changes in genes does imply that the same thing could continue indefinitely.  Imagine a volcano that adds about 1 foot of rock to its top every year.  It has consistently been observed to do this for hundreds of years.  Is there any reason to suppose that it might stop?  The fact is that the gene pools of a species change with each generation, and it is silly to assume that it only goes so far.

I was wrong then. Thank you for clearing that up. But you were as well. 150 days is not even half a year. Ice caps of that are kilometers thick couldn't melt in such a short amount of time either. And watch out with that last statement; I could leave this week and when I come back next week I could be 17.

Here is a link, the flood took place in one year:

https://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/flood.htm

I'm reluctant to post links to faulty science, but it states in the paragraph that the flood took one year.  One time I read a summary of the exact day count, and the total flood event took 1 year; unfortunately, I can't remember which site had the exact day layout.

You simply don't think it's possible, but that does not mean it wasn't. I think it's possible, but that does not mean it was. And Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on the ark with him, the bible says that somewhere as well.

The flood story was not possible, period.  There are too many scientific, logical, and practical fallacies in it to warrant serious consideration.  It really hurts how Christianity appears to non-Christians when Christians try to assert that Noah's flood was a real, literal event, because it is simply not the case.  Just for example, what happened to whales?  They couldn't fit in the ark without seriously depleting room for other animals. (especially considering that they would need a massive tank for exercise)  Whales would die out in the extremely badly damaged oceans, so they needed to have been on the ark.

That depends on what logic is to one. And there's relatively more evidence for the flood than there is for evolution. All over the world clues have been found there was such a flood. Cuneiform writing, hieroglyphs, etc (so probably Noah and his crew were not the only survivors). And again, why would they lie about a big flood? They really have no reason to. Things might have gotten exaggerated in time, but there's really no reason to call the flood story a rediculous one.

Relatively more evidence for the flood than evolution!  Honestly, how much have you really read into the subject?  The flood story has multitudes of problems, and basically zero real evidence.  Would you believe the flood story if it was not in the Bible?  Evolution, in comparison, is supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence.

Noah and his crew not the only survivors?  Don't violate the book you're trying to defend, it says in Genesis that all flesh was destroyed off the earth that wasn't in the ark.  Perhaps it's the flood story with the holes.

I can buy into a local flood story, that might have flooded the Euphrates valley, for example.  Some guy might have built a boat and taken some farm animals along with him, and landed up on the hills.  That's entirely possible.  But a worldwide flood, with Noah landing on Ararat, is simply impossible.  Don't forget that when Noah sent the dove away from the boat while resting on Ararat, the dove found no place to land.  This shows that the ancients considered Ararat the highest mountain in the world, which it clearly is not.  Everest is over 10000 feet higher than Ararat, surely the dove couldn't have missed it.  Anyway, if this story is exaggerated, how do we know how trustworthy the rest of the bible is?

I'm afraid yours is science.

Science is not my god.  I am an agnostic of sorts, in that I don't know whether god exists or not.  I use science as an answer for practical questions or problems, and evolution is a scientific answer for the practical question of how life on earth is so diverse.

[trunks]

Interesting topic!
Some food for thought here. I was just wondering on the following:

1. Evolution means new form emerging from old form, old form emerging from ancient form . . . there must be one single, most archaic form to begin with. That was to be the very first form in history. Now from where did that one emege?

2. Monkeys? If monkeys (or apes or whatever) evolved into humans, why do we still see monkeys (or apes or whatever) around? If evolution is a proven scientific phenomenon that is all-time valid, why didn't it happen on some members?

3. Again that good old chicken and egg question. Whichever came first is not the focus of this question. How it came into existence is.

By the way I have scientific logic to deduce that the egg couldn't possibly have been the first to come into existence:

(1) Under no natural environment could an egg possibly hatch by itself. If the egg had come first it simply could not hatch without the body temperature of the hen.
(2) Without first having been fertilized by the male chicken sperm, the egg could not possibly hatch either.
CONCLUSION: The egg could not have come first. It must have been the chicken.

But again, how did the very first chicken, or even the very first egg came into existence?

[donjuan]

Hi PeterHK,
no one has evidence or really strong evidence to suggest where anything came from.  

However, I was watching The Simpsons and I heard a great GREAT line that made the most sense..

"If God is so powerful, why would he care whether or not people worship him?"

this is a great line- and I think the religious people will have a lot to say after I posted it.
donjuan

[trunks]

Hi donjuan,
I would say, for intimate reasons - out of love. Just like a parent, although having power over his or her dependent child, would yearn to be honoured, respected and loved by the child.

[donjuan]

Hi PeterHK,
I dont believe in any God of any kind.  Once I asked my deeply religious friend why bad things happen to good (pious) people.  He claimed that whenever something bad happened- eg. a family member is killed in a car crash- this is "God's" way of "testing" people's faith.  

I personally think this is ridiculous.  The way the religion states- good things happen as a reward for being pious, and bad things happen as a way to punish lack of faith.

How does anyone know what the heck is going on?  I believe the bible was created by popular citizens who chose to believe something ridiculous, and through peer pressure- managed to get an increasing number of followers.  These followers wrote books and made up rules to explain many inconsistencies (eg. bad things happening to good people) so their precious beliefs will be preserved to brainwash the next generation.

Another thing- IF religion in general (and by that I mean the concept of a "higher being") is true, then everyone will be punished in the end.  The Catholics will be punished for not being Buddist, the Buddists will be punished for not being Catholic...and so on...
face it- there are a few arguments FOR the existence of "God" (they are all made up by people), and a huge number of LOGICAL arguments AGAINST the existence of God.
donjuan

[Antnee]

I don't think man will ever know how he came to be...
But there has to be a reason...

 I have had a few thoughts such as, well, maybe our means of existence isn't obvious because there is something we can't understand. For example a dog or any other animal doesn't have the intelligence capacity to realize and inquire things like us humans can. Their brains simply aren't advanced enough. The world they live in is all they know and they really know nothing else like what a book is like or how a car works or how a star is formed.  The world we percieve and live in may seem pretty much the way it is, but maybe there is more to it. Maybe another being of higher intelligence could comprehend and realize things that we could never imagine!! you know what i mean? The thought boggles my mind!

Anyway, as for evolution, it seems prettly likely. Many people don't like how it sounds but there is not denying some of the hard evidence! I think many people just choose not to believe it because they loose the hope of life after death, but that still doesn't change the way things are. Just my two cents...

-Tony-

P.s. (isn't the term "life after death" a contradiction in terms?)

[donjuan]

I don't think man will ever know how he came to be...
But there has to be a reason...

 I have had a few thoughts such as, well, maybe our means of existence isn't obvious because there is something we can't understand. For example a dog or any other animal doesn't have the intelligence capacity to realize and inquire things like us humans can. Their brains simply aren't advanced enough. The world they live in is all they know and they really know nothing else like what a book is like or how a car works or how a star is formed.  The world we percieve and live in may seem pretty much the way it is, but maybe there is more to it. Maybe another being of higher intelligence could comprehend and realize things that we could never imagine!! you know what i mean? The thought boggles my mind!

Anyway, as for evolution, it seems prettly likely. Many people don't like how it sounds but there is not denying some of the hard evidence! I think many people just choose not to believe it because they loose the hope of life after death, but that still doesn't change the way things are. Just my two cents...

-Tony-

P.s. (isn't the term "life after death" a contradiction in terms?)

Hi Tony
I agree with absolutely everything you said..and that's why it's ridiculous for humans to actually know the answers...and further supports my idea that all religion is something created by people as a source of comfort- well, actually- insecurity.  Humans understanding something bigger than themselves is preposterous.  Finally! end of discussion!!

Tony, you are a very logical thinker- the kind I would like to be!
donjuan

[trunks]

(1) . . . He claimed that whenever something bad happened- eg. a family member is killed in a car crash- this is "God's" way of "testing" people's faith.

(2) . . . Another thing- IF religion in general (and by that I mean the concept of a "higher being") is true, then everyone will be punished in the end.  The Catholics will be punished for not being Buddist, the Buddists will be punished for not being Catholic...and so on...
face it- there are a few arguments FOR the existence of "God" (they are all made up by people), and a huge number of LOGICAL arguments AGAINST the existence of God.

Hi donjuan,

(1) His answer is one that I often get from church ministers. Always true? Not necessarily. We never fully understand. Suppose God the Universal Creator does exist. Then we are in no position to understand him any fuller than a piece of wooden furniture could ever understand its creator, the carpenter, let alone question his existence.

(2) That is why logically there must be only one God. And sadly that is why many Christians (and Muslims) are so exclusive, intolerant and narrow-minded. And as a Christian myself I feel the burden of disgrace from such negative attitudes. While maintaining my belief, I always respect people with other belief or no belief at all.

I don't normally take the initiative to tell other people that I'm Christian. But when asked I always admit that I am one. I would rather live the life of the Christian for others to see for themselves rather than being yet another one of the 'holier-than-thou' chaps telling people what to do and what not to do - or even go so far as to tamper with other people's private lifestyles.

[Antnee]

Thanks Donjuan...

-Tony-

[newsgroupeuan]

Hi donjuan,

(1) His answer is one that I often get from church ministers. Always true? Not necessarily. We never fully understand. Suppose God the Universal Creator does exist. Then we are in no position to understand him any fuller than a piece of wooden furniture could ever understand its creator, the carpenter, let alone question his existence.
.

Ah,  but wouldn't a father love his son enough to at least talk to him once in a while?

We cannot be compared to inanimate objects

But then,  what came first?  There must be something to begin with otherwise we wouldn't exist?

There must be a god.  But then....

there is no answer to this question...or if there is it is a very strange answer....not enough evidence for both side to fully disprove....we haven't seen.....but then there must....but then why does the world behave so coldly logically?

That is the real question.

[newsgroupeuan]

Ah,  but wouldn't a father love his son enough to at least talk to him once in a while?

We cannot be compared to inanimate objects

But then,  what came first?  There must be something to begin with otherwise we wouldn't exist?

There must be a god.  But then....

there is no answer to this question...or if there is it is a very strange answer....not enough evidence for both side to fully disprove....we haven't seen.....but then there must....but then why does the world behave so coldly logically?

That is the real question.

The even bigger question is do you exist?  We could argue about that and never come to a conclusion.

so we conclude from this....

[newsgroupeuan]

The even bigger question is do you exist?  We could argue about that and never come to a conclusion.

so we conclude from this....

If we are not able to see for ourselves what we are,  how much less are we able to know whether there is a god.  We don't know what to look for

[trunks]

Ah,  but wouldn't a father love his son enough to at least talk to him once in a while?

That is very true. The thing I see from the Christian faith is that God came and sought us - because the father loved his sons. That makes the major difference from other religions, where man is making attempts to seek God.

[BonnieMacD]

So you can't express your true opinions because if you do they'll decrease your grade ?? What kind of school is that ??

This is the case in many public schools everywhere. It is also especially so in liberal universities.

[Daevren]

There is no theory of creationism. Of it isn't fair to compare it to the theory of evolution. Creationism is a belief, a bit extreme and unrational maybe but that is what it is. It makes alot of people happier. But if has nothing to do with the truth so one shouldn't compare it with a scientific theory.

And about evolution, together with relativity and quantum electrodynamics, it is one of the strongest and best big scientific theories. Alot of people say alot of things about evolution but if you really want to know what it is all about you have to read a book on the topic.

[ThePhoenixEffect]

I'm Catholic and I've been taught from my high school theology/scripture course, that the Bible is not supposed to be taken completely fundamentally.

It matters not the "exact" way on how creation went about, but that God created the universe. That was the truth about Creation expressed in the Bible.  

I think Creationists miss the point arguing with evoultion because what Creation is defined as is that it is God's desire to communicate his self outside his self.  This is fulfilled in Christ.  Cur Deus Homo.  "Why God Became Man." To me this seems a much more esteemed discussion to talk about for believers in the Christian faith then wether or not God created "this way" or "that way"

[Daevren]

You can read the bible fundamentally, well if you read it the right way. And this makes some sense, it could be true.

Genesis says god created this and created that. Nowhere is said how he did this. Did he do it by just talking into empty space like it says literally?

Then after he created all the animals, through evolution because that is the only way god could have created all those living things, he says "Let us create man in your image". Who is us? And who is he talking to? It probably means that something like homo erectus, the soulless man, is already created as one of the animals. And now god creates man after his image.  

Now, if the bible is non-fiction this can mean two things. It is actually the omnipotent god that takes the last step in creating man by adding something that resembles himself.

The other thing it can mean is that this god that says "let us create man..." is not the god that created the universe. That makes some sense. THe universe probably has billions and billions of planets like earth. Why would the omnipotent god come to our planet to create life. He already created the universe  in which life is created by itself.

It could be that a number of smaller gods came to earth. That explains 'us'. And they added some of their DNA to the human species that was already on the planet, thus making 'man in their image'.

The story about Eve being created makes no sense to me. Isn't the female X gene and mitochondrial much much older than the male Y gene?

Then the story about the tree of life. Of course there was no real tree and no reas serpent. It says that the tree gives 'knowledge of good and evil'. It that is true than we didn't know about 'good and evil' before. What does that imply? I guess that before that we had no free will and we were slaves of god.

Face it, we were supposed to rule over the earth without the knowing the difference between good and evil.

Then god lies about the punishment of eating the fruit. He says 'you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.' Then the serpent 'tempts' Eva by telling her the truth. They eat from the tree and 'become more like god'. Now when I see pictures of Adam and Eve covering themselves with leaves I always laugh out loud. If you have just learned the difference between good and evil and you come to the conclusion that 'they were naked' then how do leaver help, hahaha.

God gets angry and looks for Adam and Eve. The Adam says: ' I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.' Uuh, was he afraid that god would rape him because god would get sexually arosed by seeing them? Hahaha...

Adam and Eve learn about good and evil and then they fear god and hide for him. What did they find out about god? Or about this god? I am not saying god is evil, but if they found out about good and evil and god was ooh so good wouldn't they get every happy instead of afraid?

Then god says: 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.' He again uses 'us' and to who is he talking? Then he says that if man would eat again from the tree that man would live forever. Becoming real gods maybe? What the hell was 'the tree of life'?

So Adam and Eve committed this 'sin' and they get kicked out of the garden of eden, or they are released from it, that is not clear to me.

And up to this part that is the conclusion. We are supposed to learn that men started sinning and that they spoiled the earth, that the betayed god in some way and that god was mercyful and good by not killing them like he promiced.

Then Abel and Cain are born. They both offer things to god. God respects Abel but didn't respect Cain. No reason is giving, I don' think there is one.

So Cain gets angry and kills Abel, not very nice. Also know that he knows good and evil. He knows god was being kind of evil to him and he was being very evil to Abel in revenge, not to god himself, which would probably not be in his power.


So god makes sure Cain is no longer a farmer and has to become a hunter/collector. Is Cain a total agricultural civilization that god back to the stone age?

Anyway, god wants to send Cain away but Cain says: "Anyone who finds me will kill me". Uuh Who? You would think that god would laugh and say "Who wants to kill you", but no, god understands and god even promises to kill 'them' if they touch Cain. And then Cain goes and marries.

Now maybe I am stupid but how can anyone ever think that Adam was the first man? The bible says the total opposite. Some chirstians are taking the bible so very literal but they use a interpretation that is totally senseless. I don't get it. And why do they not understand that the bible was translated 1000 times, that alof of books are taken out of the bible and that alot of the stories come from other civilizations. I don't understand all that.

Now if genesis is true, what does it tell one? If you think genesis=creation then what is creation.

I am no christian, maybe someone else can tell me...

[Locky]

  Greetings!
I'll try not to conspicuously take sides.
There are a few things I would like to comment on though.
 Although we can all research the subjects of creation and evolution, and form an opinion from what we read, it is most often the other way. That is, we first have an opinion, then we search in an attempt to find evidence to back up our opinion.
 Good science is analysing evidence with a completely open mind. Sadly though, this is more or less impossible. So in the end, a conclusion drawn from evidence will always be affected by a person's prior beliefs.
 Just for the book, I am a creationist. This is not because I have examined all the scientific evidence for and against, and objectively formed my opinion. I was brought up this way. And for now, though there is "evidence" which many in the mainstream scientific community would consider proof of evolution, until I myself have been able to analyse this "evidence" with significantly more knowledge and understanding than I currently have, I can't abandon my current beliefs. It would be accepting one person's point of view over another's.
 So I guess what I'm saying is:
      You can read books, but books are written by people who have opinions; and their books will often reflect their opinions. You have to re-examine what the books have claimed to examine.

By the way there should be an icon for "Boiling topic". This is the 119th reply.

Also, I'm currently studying Science at Uni. (first year). One of my subjects is "Genetics and Evolution".  

ps. some of you people are hillarious. I appreciate people lightning the atmosphere with humour.    

[willcowskitz]

Religions are an option for existentialistic crisis. Which one would you choose? If someone really thinks the Bible "explains" anything, its just an excuse to stop the thinking, growing and learning process in themselves, it gives "answers" on a plate. Does the Bible answer why God created man?  I don't know, does it?  Me personally, I'm interested in all religions, for the sake of it. I don't know why I am here, what I am, or where will I go, etc. etc.  Still, accepting a book as an ultimate authority is like a refusal to try understand the world. What makes the book special? Or the religion for that matter? Is it just that you have been "informed" of the dangers of going to Hell and you think its not worth risking it so better do what the book says, just in case its true. I haven't had a religious experience in the sense that I've heard about it, so I'm only speaking from my pathetic view from down here.

Couldn't it be that mankind HAS TO BELIEVE they're special, its same kind of pre-requisite for their existence that any instincts are for any animal (including humans). Nobody wants to believe life is just algorithmically organised information. Man gives things a reason, a meaning, that's the unique charasteristic in our species. We're also very controversial as a species, cause the more we think about the world rationally, the meaningless it becomes. Here comes religion, it gives a simplified metaphysical explanation or a ruleset about the universe, and it serves one purpose: to keep dumbass people in order cause in the end, everyone is a thief or a murderer.

[liszmaninopin]

Tomorrow I'll be debating creation/evolution at school.  I hope it goes well; it should be fun.

[Locky]

Just a quick comment....

There's definately something different about humans compared to other "species".

I mean, really; just look at us, listen to us. When was the last time you witnessed a group of chimps having a debate over who their prehistoric ancestors were.

BTW. I'll be interested to know what the outcome of the debate is Liszmaninopin. Give us a run down next time you visit.

[trunks]

Talking about scientific facts, they are reproducible, ie, they can always be demonstrated under the right conditions.

Photosynthesis is a scientific fact. Ohm's Law on electric resistance is another. Neutralisaton between acids and alkalis is yet another. Boyle's Law and Charle's Law concerning gas volume/temperature/pressure are still others. So is the natural reproduction of living organisms.

Evolution? No. As least not yet. It still remains a theory.
By the way the theory itself is an ipso facto contradiction to the Universal Principle of Increasing Entropy (entropy roughly means disorder).

[xvimbi]

Evolution? No. As least not yet. It still remains a theory.
By the way the theory itself is an ipso facto contradiction to the Universal Principle of Increasing Entropy (entropy roughly means disorder).

Not at all!!!!!
The second law of thermodynamics only asks for the entropy of a closed system, in this case the entire[\b] universe, to increase over time. It does not preclude the possibility of entropy decreasing locally as long as the entropy increases somewhere else at least by the same amount. Getting order from chaos is not a violation of physical principles. The earth receives a lot of energy (mostly in form of electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light). That energy can be used to create order. It drives evolution.

And by the way, evolutionary theories are testable. Evolution can be demonstrated on small, quickly growing organisms, so that we don't have to wait forever to see the results. How do you think so many bacteria acquire resistance against antibiotics? They react to external pressure and adapt accordingly. That is evolution in action!

[liszmaninopin]

Well, I was debating in favor of evolution.  I just got home minutes ago.  I don't mean this in any bragging way, but my partner and I absolutely crushed the creationists.  I almost felt bad afterwards, as they had almost no responses to any of our comments and evidences, I felt a bit sorry for them.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry for bringing this topic back to life. But what I say to evolution is this. If Human's evolved from Apes and we developed this intelligence:

1) Why are there still apes around? If we came from them why are they still in existance? Why does the old still remain if Evolutions proclaims how a species changes itself to suit its environment what is the use for the old? Wouldn't they have bred out because the smarter ape was more competitive? Evolution must then suggest that the territory of man and ape split, a group of smart apes bred and developed their intellience while the unintelligent ape keeps being stupid. So then I ask this,

2) Why is there no other example of animals which evolved intelligence like man? Why didn't the bird for example develop an intelligent brain like the human? To me it seems very odd that this intelligence only occured in 1 species out of billions. It is like someone said we will give choice and free will only to 1 animal and condemn the rest to instinct. Sounds like GOD to me.

If it was Apes that intelligence only could derive from why is there such a big gap in the intelligence of a man to an ape? One would think that the ape would have evolved more intelligence, but it hasn't it remains the same throughout its existance. So why should we suggest that we derive from apes?

[Nightscape]

Well to answer your 1st question, I'll use a hypothetical explanation.

Lets say there are 100 Gratys (a made-up animal) moving along in a herd.  However, at some point half of the herd migrates north, while the other half stays in the southern area.  While all Gratys have a little body hair (varying from Graty to Graty) none have a whole lot covering thier bodies.  As the first group migrates north, it begins to get colder and colder - yet they continue because they are following a tasty herd of Yettis (another made-up animal).  After some time passes, some of the weaker Gratys begin to die because of the harsh conditions.  Only the toughest ones survive (those with the most intelligence, and those with the most cold resistance).  The ones with the most developed brains and most body hair are the most likely to survive in these cold climates.  Only these Gratys are able to mate and produce offspring (with similar qualities to thier parents).  Among the next generation, thier are many Gratys with varying characteristics again - some are smarter than others, some have more body hair than other. The same process happens with this generation, as in the smarter and warmer ones survive in greater numbers and pass down thier "enhanced" genes more often.  Eventually, after a few hundred generations, this new "Northern" Gratys almost always has a lot of body hair, and they are much smarter than thier ancestors.  After this much time however, the Yettis have thinned in number, and have also gotten smarter and better at evading the ever increasing attacks by the Gratys.  In turn, the Gratys must develop better and better hunting skills each generation - the Gratys with higher intelligence and more developed brains are more likely to develop the necessary skills.  Another thousand generations have pass.  By now, the original herd of 50 Gratys has increased to more than 8,000 in number and all of them are covered with thick body hair.  They also have larger and more developed brains than thier ancestors.  They now use simple tools to hunt and can hunt many more types of animals than just the Yettis (of course, keeping in mind that only the Gratys who could develop the skills to use the tools would have been seen as desirable mating partners.  These tool-wielding Gratys would be more likely to pass on thier genes, because of thier higher prestige in the herd.  This indicates a society of increasing complexity - now elements of desire, prestige, and attractiveness enter into the mating game.)  After another thousand generations, the new Gratys are so advanced, that they now live in primitive shelters (to further protect them from the cold), use complex tools like the bow and arrow (requiring skill and mastery) and have an organized society with a leader who of course leads the group.  They have developed a vocabulary of simple grunts and clicks to help communicate (to increase the efficiency of hunting - after all a larger society requires more and more food).  The Gratys have also gotten used to eating berries and such during the summer to help supplement thier diet.  To accomodate for all of these new skills, the brains of these Gratys are much larger (although the brain size came first , then the skills).  They have also developed grooming habits to keep thier hair cleaner and disease free (all to ensure longer survival, of course).

This is exactly what "evolution" is.  It isn't some magical process where an ape transforms into a human - it's only common sense.  Think of our own human society - the ones with the most power, the most intelligence, and the most developed skills are the ones who get ahead and have the advantage.  Evolution is just like that, only on a larger scale, with thousands of thousands of "generations" involved.  Now to answer your question.  After a few more thousand generations of Gratys go by, they are so advanced and so many in number that they decide to expand thier borders and head south.  They are surprised by many things - the warm climates, the dense tropical jungles, all of the different plants and animals.  They also come into contact with the descendants of the original herd of Gratys that didn't go north - however, it never crosses thier minds that they are distantly related to these savage, hairless beasts.  For as you see, the original herd of Gratys never got so advanced because they had no need to.  They were content in thier enviroment - they had ample food, and no need for body hair, tools, or intelligence.  In short, they were happy and had no need to "evolve".  The stupid and hairless were just as likely to spread on thier genes as the hairer and smarter ones.  So in the end, the two herds of Gratys had become so different from one another that they were no longer the same species.

So like with Humans and Apes then - it is only feasable that a group of Apes spilt away and become isolated in a harsher enviroment and thus developed the "need" to "evolve" into humans over many thousands and thousands of generations.

Now for your second question - "condemn" to instinct is a bit harsh.  Need I remind your that there are several species of animals who fare better then humans and will probably ultimately last longer as a species? (Think rats and cockroaches)
As to why only humans are so smart, I believe it started out simply and spread uncontrollably to what it is today.  The original "humans" (who were only slightly smarter than apes) were just only barely smart enough to use simple tools.  Yet as it turns out, these tools were so effective at hunting that they humans became relient on them and lost whatever natural hunting skills they had.  These tools were so good at defense, that too humans never needed any sort of body covering or intstinctual evasion tactics - so these developments never happened.  So over time humans lost whatever natural body skills they had (like hair, and physical strength) as they began to rely more and more on outside objects.  It's almost as if we took our enviroment and began "exchanging" it for our own bodies.  The only body parts that would have to develop to accomodate for these tools would be the hands and the brain.  Thus the fingers and hands became quite agile and dexterous (fortunately for today's pianists!) and the brain became larger to accomodate for increasing complexity of movement and thought (keep in mind that developments happen in reverse.  A body part changes first by random mutation - not a big change mind you - then the skill is developed).  A sidenote, for those of you who don't believe in random mutation, it happens all the time in our lives.  I mean, we all now a few people who are much smarter, much stronger, much more talented than the average person right?  That's random mutation - simple as that.  In times past, these "mutants" would have been more desirable and more likely to pass on thier genes and thus thier intelligence and skills (note this is not necessarily true in today's times).  Anyway, back to what I was saying.  It seems as though the only reason why humans have such large brains is because we are the only species who relies so heavily on outside sources, instead of internal ones, to survive.  I mean, take any average person and strip him of technology and clothing, place him in a jungle (or any natural enviroment for that matter) and see how long he survives.  We are completely dependant on our technology and our cooperation amongst one another to survive.  Only a species with incredible intelligence could pull this off.  I believe that this did occur by chance.  It seemed harmless enough, as I believe the early humans never could have expected simple tools like sticks and stones could have turned them into today's human.

Besides, 1 in a billion isn't that high of an odd if you're talking about millions and millions of years.  I mean, it might be 1 in a billion odd that a person could be 8 feet tall, but that would mean there would be at least 6 of those people, right?
So if the chance of a species developing extreme intelligence is one in a billion, if there are a billion species of animals, wouldn't one of those be extremely intelligent?

[lostinidlewonder]

After some time passes, some of the weaker Gratys begin to die because of the harsh conditions.

So in the end, the two herds of Gratys had become so different from one another that they were no longer the same species.

So like with Humans and Apes then - it is only feasable that a group of Apes spilt away and become isolated in a harsher enviroment and thus developed the "need" to "evolve" into humans over many thousands and thousands of generations.

Ok so humans come from Apes and Apes are the "other" tribe which didnt evolve into something better like humans. However, Why are apes here? If we humans evolved into something better, why has there been 0 evolution in Apes? Not even a small % of evolution that Darwin finds from ape to man can be found in any other animal example. They are still the same million years as they are now showing currently no signs of evolution.

Secondly you still didn't reveal to me another example of evolution like Ape to Human simply because there is no other example. No other animals has intelligence like human, it is unique and only for 1 species. I say the others are condemed to instinct because they cannot make choices like us humans, not to say that it is inferior, but rather they cant help but do what they do, it is instinct not choice.

The original "humans" (who were only slightly smarter than apes) were just only barely smart enough to use simple tools.

The only body parts that would have to develop to accomodate for these tools would be the hands and the brain.

So humans using tools was from evolution. Why is there no other animal which developed tools to such an extreme? Sure birds pick up stones to break an egg, why didn't the develop that further? If evolution is so all encompassing why is it that humans are the only one which developed intelligence and developed their use of tools?

I believe that this did occur by chance.

By chance? Since when is CHANCE a science or truth? I rather place my CHANCES with God then.

Evolution makes us lose hope, makes us think that we are here only to evolve our species into something else. What a pointless existance that is then. Evolution is also only a few hundred years old, placed next to a concept of God which has been around since the dawn of time, I think God I better to stick to.

[calidris]

Lostinidlewonder,

You say that humans evolved into something "better".  While that may be the case here, that does not mean that the "lesser" species is not able to survive. 
The only way that a "better" species will drive the "lesser" species to extinction, is through competition.  This may be the direct reason why apes did not develop intelligence!  This has to do with "niches". 

Here's the definition of an "ecological niche" :
The status or role of an organism in its environment.  An organism's niche is defined by the types of food it consumes, its predators, temperature tolerances, etc.  Two species cannot coexist stably if they occupy identical niches.

Because one group started using tools (perhaps because of isolation, like nightscape explained), they were able to get other types of food.  They could catch bigger animals etc.  So the "smarter" group was taking in a new ecological niche, so that both species could live at the same time in the same place (even after getting back together, should the evolution have happened because of isolation). 

The niche of apes today, is one in which they have no need for the kind of intelligence like ours.  And if they start developing intelligence like ours, they'll enter our niche and have to compete with man.  Who's more likely to win that contest? 

And one other thing :
Do you think there would be many ape species left if it weren't for environmental protection programs? 

[Daevren]

Sorry for bringing this topic back to life. But what I say to evolution is this. If Human's evolved from Apes and we developed this intelligence:

I hope you aren't a christian who already made up his mind about darwinism vs creationism. I say this because you bring up arguments that come from misunderstanding darwinism and are often used by pro-creationists trying to discredit or destroy science for the sake of religion.

1) Why are there still apes around? If we came from them why are they still in existance? Why does the old still remain if Evolutions proclaims how a species changes itself to suit its environment what is the use for the old? Wouldn't they have bred out because the smarter ape was more competitive? Evolution must then suggest that the territory of man and ape split, a group of smart apes bred and developed their intellience while the unintelligent ape keeps being stupid. So then I ask this,

Why not? We didn't evolve from chimps, bonobo's Gorilla's or OrangUtans. We share a common anscestor. There was once a monkey or apelike creature that evolved into all the ape kinds we know now. Our anscestor wasn't a chimp or an ape like we know them today.

2) Why is there no other example of animals which evolved intelligence like man? Why didn't the bird for example develop an intelligent brain like the human?

Firstly, alot of animals do have intelligence. But they don't have human intelligence. Why not? Because humanlike intelligence isn't a evolutionary advantage. Almost all life on earth is one-cellular life. Complexity isn't a favored by evolution. Only a small amount of creatures on earth is actually complex and multicellular.
Also, the brain as humans have it also has disadvantages. It requires alot of energy. Our ape 'family members' actually have problems surviving. OrangUtans may become extinct in 40 years. And all kinds of animals with less intelligence, very little or no intelligence at all survive. So complexity and (human-like)  intelligence aren't favored by evolution.

Sounds like GOD to me.

Uuh why? Really, from a scientific point of view, God is an absurd explanation. Really, your argument is: "I don't understand, so it must be God."

Humans are unique animals. But this doesn't mean God must exist. I agree its a bit odd but many things in science are odd. We just have to accept we cannot know everything, which seems to be kind of hard for most people.

[Nightscape]

Ok so humans come from Apes and Apes are the "other" tribe which didnt evolve into something better like humans. However, Why are apes here? If we humans evolved into something better, why has there been 0 evolution in Apes? Not even a small % of evolution that Darwin finds from ape to man can be found in any other animal example. They are still the same million years as they are now showing currently no signs of evolution.

Please cite this.  How can you be so certain Apes aren't evolving?  It takes thousands and thousands of years for such a complex animal as an Ape to evolve - we really couldn't observe it in front of our eyes.  Simpler creatures, like bacteria and viruses do evolve quickly enough to observe in our lifetimes.  This is happening right now, as many bacteria and viruses are becoming resistant to various disinfectant products we overuse.  Look at the Syphilis disease too.  When it first appeared several hundred years ago, left untreated humans would bleed uncontrollably, flesh would fall from thier faces, and death would ensue shortly.  However killing a host quickly is not the best way for a disease to survive and repopulate so the human version of Syphilis has evovled into the less threatening and more annoying disease it is today (although still dangerous, of course).  If it takes a simple disease hundreds of years to evolve, how long does it take a mammal?  A long time.  Keep in mind too, that Apes will only evolve if there is a reason.  Is there a reason?  Are they struggling in thier enviroment as of now?  In many ways, due to human influence they are.  So it is certainly possible that Apes could be on the path to further evolution right now.

Secondly you still didn't reveal to me another example of evolution like Ape to Human simply because there is no other example.

Unfortunately, I have not studied evolution so I can't tell you how exactly humans or any other real species evolved.  However the conclusions I made above can easily be made using logical, rational thinking.

No other animals has intelligence like human, it is unique and only for 1 species. I say the others are condemed to instinct because they cannot make choices like us humans, not to say that it is inferior, but rather they cant help but do what they do, it is instinct not choice.

Sadly, there is no way to prove that even humans have a "choice" or not in what they do.  There are many you think that humans act according to cause and effect, only because we are so much more complex a species, that our actions are that much harder to analyze.

So humans using tools was from evolution. Why is there no other animal which developed tools to such an extreme? Sure birds pick up stones to break an egg, why didn't the develop that further? If evolution is so all encompassing why is it that humans are the only one which developed intelligence and developed their use of tools?

Evolution does not equal tool use.  Tool use is one development unique to humans - like how the long neck of a giraffe is unique to giraffes.  Every species is different and unique, according to their own needs.  The example you give of the bird simply shows that for one thing, how they use the stones is so simple that they need not even modify the stones.   However, it does prove that since birds are relying on stones (outside object), it means that thier beaks will never evolve to be hard enough to break eggs by themselves.  But the action of using the stone is not complex enough to further any brain developments.  Now if the bird was using the stone in some sort of mating ritual ( like whoever got the roundest, smoothest stone would be seen as most desirable) this would be different, because it would force the bird to begin discriminating between "good" rocks and "bad" rocks (smooth and not smooth), requiring a higher thought process.  But even then you would still have a long way to go to catch up with humans.

By chance? Since when is CHANCE a science or truth? I rather place my CHANCES with God then.

Evolution does not say that God is "non-existant".  An evolutionist is not always an atheist.  Many evolutionists are simply trying to figure out how God created everything! (Perhaps by evolution!!)  This is because many people are dissatified with the creation story in the Bible and in general distrustful of the accuracy of the Bible in revealing God and his word.  It is a 2000 year old document that has passed through corrupt times (medival popes) and been incorrectly translated many many times.  Who can say what left in it is still truth, and what has been added or changed over the years by overzealous fundamentalists.

Evolution makes us lose hope, makes us think that we are here only to evolve our species into something else. What a pointless existance that is then. Evolution is also only a few hundred years old, placed next to a concept of God which has been around since the dawn of time, I think God I better to stick to.

Just because something is older doesn't mean it is better or more right.  People have believed medicinal qualities of chanting longer than modern medicine, so does that mean chanting is better?

I also think humans are done evolving for now.  Evolution only works if natural selection exists, but we live in a society where we are obligated to respect the weak and stupid as much as the powerful and smart, which means that everyone is just as likely to pass on thier genetic material.  Evolution is merely just a way at looking at history.  I don't see how it could make you lose hope.... after all it is only the process by which an organism changes to suit its enviroment.  Shouldn't that be a comforting thought, that it is possible that your descents will be better off, healthier, and more adaptable?  This would mean they would be be able to live thier lives better, right?

[Daevren]

Ok so humans come from Apes and Apes are the "other" tribe which didnt evolve into something better like humans.

No, we come from the same anscestor. And we evolved into something different, not better.

However, Why are apes here? If we humans evolved into something better, why has there been 0 evolution in Apes? Not even a small % of evolution that Darwin finds from ape to man can be found in any other animal example. They are still the same million years as they are now showing currently no signs of evolution.

Uuh, this is all uncorrect and in violation with Darwinism and the fossil record. Chimps are different from Bonobo's and humans. This is a difference. Gorilla's are again different, plus there are several kinds of Gorilla's. Then there are Oerang Utangs, again way different and we have Gibbons. There are also many extinct apes.

Look at this picture: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg


(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens, modern

No evolution? Huh?

Secondly you still didn't reveal to me another example of evolution like Ape to Human simply because there is no other example.

Every creature is proof or evolution.

If evolution is so all encompassing why is it that humans are the only one which developed intelligence and developed their use of tools?

Several other creatures evolved using tools and have intelligence. Just not on a human leven.

By chance? Since when is CHANCE a science or truth? I rather place my CHANCES with God then.

What chance? Also, why does disproving darwinism proof the existence of God? If Darwinism turns out to be wrong altogether, which is really very unlikely, then there still is no proof at all for God. There is no scientific alternative for Darwinism. So in that case we are totally clueless.

Evolution makes us lose hope,

I agree, the idea of Darwinism is a terrible, brutal, ugly, harsh maybe even unbearable one. But its supported by observation. I can't help it. Scientists want to find out the truth, not create a terrible theory. If the truth turns out to be terrible scientists ignore this.

God I better to stick to.

That doesn't explain anything. You say you don't understand why Darwinism leads to only one creature with human intelligence. But does God give you this  explanation? Why did God only create one 'godlike' creature and trillions of animallike creatures? At least Darwinism has an explanation. Creationism does nothing. Darwinism helps people doing science, makes correct predictions and explains things. Thats why science cares about. Scientists don't look for 'the ultimate truth'. They try to find models and theories which are workable, make accurate predictions and explain things. Creationism doesn't do this. That is why it does not exist in science.

It may be better for some people to believe in God. And for some this means they must deny the accuracy of Darwinism, no matter how much evidence there is. But this does not say creationism is the better scientifici theory.

Some parts of religion are just crusading against Darwinism. Look here for the sometimes absurd claims and arguments they have made that 'proof' Darwinism is wrong: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Amazing list.

Also, there really is room for God in science. Just no room for the bible and genesis/creationism. So maybe room for theism but nog for Christianity.

[Dazzer]

GREAT not another evo vs bible debate...

First... my opinions.

Religion is the biggest fraud in the known history of mankind. Over the many years religion, god worship has been used as a tool of fear, or submission/obescience to a "higher power"or whatnot. Human sacrifices to gods in the aztec race. Egyptian mythology (NOTE that we don't call it a religion anymore. One wonders why...), greek mythology (oh so Zeus created the world? Wait i thought it was God?) and goodness knows what other "religions" there's been over the millenia. They've all been used as a TOOL to move people in a desired direction. Want to wage war with your next door neighbour? THE GODS ARE ANGRY WITH THEM! KILL THEM IN THE NAME OF XXX! Look what happened with the crusades? the world wars was filled with "may god bless us for what we do is right" on both sides of the front. In the medieval periods, people obeyed kings not because they were chosen. But because of the belief that they're blessed by God. Yes, its also a good plus that he's well respected and stuff, but the bottom line is still there.

Next. early ages also stated that EARTH was the centre of the known universe, and that heaven was above earth. This resulted in the misconception that the earth was flat. But now we know that, not only was the earth not round, and far from the centre from the SYSTEM, let alone the UNIVERSE,but there is no visible "Heaven" "above" Earth. In fact, there was no accounting for the rest of the universe, and the galaxies, the other stars and planets.

So what does the religion do? It evolves (isn't that amazing). Nowadays, the teachings aren't really about the creation of the earth. Or how God was almighty brilliant. But now it focuses on the MORALS. the TEACHINGS of Jesus. Avoiding the very plotholes that makes it look like a woolen sweater in a cupboard of moths.

So, in summary. This is just a huge propaganda campaign spanning thousands of years. In fact, even if the bible WAS an accurate historical log, who's to say that someone hasn't altered it to fit HIS own message/ designs? that's what propoganda is about!

This doesn't however mean that i'm in support of darwinism. Personally i don't give a rats ass. There are some things that better occupy the human mind. If there's going to be someone to discover the origins of life on earth, its not going to be me.

The crux of the matter here, is that you simply cannot use each side as evidence against the other What we've seen so far is each side using ITS knowledge to prove ITSELF. (its almost like saying in MATH 1+1=2. Because we all know that 1+1=2. Imagine if someone said 1+1=3? and started a complete new branch of mathematics? admitedly, a poor example, but an example nevertheless) and in return, each side picks at the other side's holes. But this is where the difference is. Scientificism (i made that up) at least, ADMITS there're holes in its knowledge. What lies OUTSIDE the universe for example. The universe before the big bang. That's why they have theories. RELIGION, on the other hand, refuses to believe anything other than itself. And that it, in itself, is perfectly flawless and accurate. And THAT'S what i dislike. Mind you, i failed physics and chemistry too.

DISCLAIMER: The above "essay" probably has countless errors in it, and i apologise sincerely for any disrepencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dazzer

[timothy42b]

Biologists don't know there is any difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.  The terms are meaningless to them in this sense (although you will find the terms used.)  The definition of evolution is simply the change of the frequency of alleles in a population.  Small changes in frequency show small changes in phenotypes;  larger changes give riese to new species, or orders, or kingdoms, etc. 

Creationists think there is a difference.  Micro happens, and macro doesn't, and this is their definition.  (for a long time they denied micro ocurred.  now they can't avoid this without looking silly.  well, come to think of it...)  That means there is some kind of barrier, some kind of physical mechanism, that prevents macro from happening.  No matter how long you had, micro evolution could never accumulate enough to form a new species.  Oops, we've made new species in the lab.  Well, a Genus, then, or something higher. 

So.  Why not look for that barrier?  It is physical and natural, it should be findable scientifically.  Mainstream biologists can't find anything like that.  But if there are any creationist scientists, wouldn't you think they'd be looking?

By the way, daevren said something about God creating animals first, then man.  Go back and read Genesis.  It is very clear.  In Chapter 1, the animals come first.  But in Chapter 2, man comes first.  Oops. 

[Torp]

Some parts of religion are just crusading against Darwinism. Look here for the sometimes absurd claims and arguments they have made that 'proof' Darwinism is wrong: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Amazing list.

Great site, thanks for the post.

[Daevren]

Yes, some creationists make a difference between micro and macro evolution. The only difference here is time.

Its just that you can't deny micro evolution because it is provable in a laboratory with bacteria or virusses. You could try to deny macro evolution.

But when these people try to express this idea in terms of science and when they try to accurately define micro and macro evolution they get into trouble.

Dazzer, you are arguing the validity or value of theism. This also has nothing to do with Darwinism. Plus, it is not science but theology. Theologists have solutions for all these problems. But since this is not science it is impossible to prove or disprove any of them.

[Dazzer]

No i'm argueing over why this topic should even be discussed. and adding my own personal rib at theism.

and who says i have to post something about darwinism? I'm just posting according to the topic. Sorry if the topic got a little sidetrack there. hehe.

[Daevren]

I kind of agree with you. You should only debate Darwinism with people that are really interested in science. If they are religious and enter the debating arena just to attack Darwinism discussion is useless. These people don' t want to understand Darwinism because they don't want this ugly theory to make sense.


Lostinidlewonder's points:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400_1.html

Also, Proof's of the existence of God some people use: https://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Feel free to find the one that Lostinidlewonder used and try to appriciate the absurdity of it. It must be on that site somewhere

[Dazzer]

i'm struggling to see which side you're on. lol

[Daevren]

Me?

I don't really understand what you are after. But I am on my own side, whichever side that is from your perspective, I don't know.

[i_m_robot]

 


everyone knows why humans have larger brains and are more intelligent

the answer is quite simple




BECAUSE THEY THINK SO

a monkey figures out how to get an M&M out of a tube faster than a man-

who is smarter?

when one monkey causes trouble in a group the other cast him out while men go to prison-

who is smarter?


self could come up with these all day

but self must go now

[Daevren]

More intelligent =/= being smarter

[mikeyg]

edited.  post later

[Derek]

Here's an interesting question for everyone: 

Can evolution evolve new internal organs into existence?

[Daevren]

Of course. Do you think the first life form ever had all the same organs as we have?

But when you are talking about a human with a new organ, no. Thats not how evolution works.

But if you look at the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas. This might one day become an independent organ. This gives you an idea how a new organ might evolve.

Note that all mammals (or most, I am not an expert on this) have these Islets too. There may one day be an animal living in such an enviroment that its food contains alot of sugar so it needs a more effective system of glucose control. Step by step the islets could become bigger and more effective. And at the end there could be one independent organ left.

But animals are evolving all the time. It is impossible to keep the genetic data constant. It has to chance because it is impossible to copy DNA without error. So it chances. Mutations happen. Change in inevitable. The DNA must change. Because most animals die before they can reproduce, depending on the kind of animal, only the best variations are selected. Not over time this is an amazingly powerful system.

The problem is, human brains cannot gasp the difference between 5000 and 500,000 or 50 million years. Really, they are statistics. We are build to last below 100 years so our brain aren't build for time spans like these.

[vences5]

[lostinidlewonder]

Firstly, alot of animals do have intelligence. But they don't have human intelligence. Why not? Because humanlike intelligence isn't a evolutionary advantage.

I feel it has been the reason why humans are on top of the food chain. I think it is a maxim of advantage to develop intelligence so why hasn't there been other examples of this on a macroscopic level? I am not talking about bacteria. It is obvious that in hospitals there are superbugs resistant to any antibiotics and that has come from years of the bateria having a chance to evolve and change themselves so they become resistant to what is killing them. That is blatantly obvious and tens of thousands of people die from them every year. But considering human intelligence there is absolutely no other example of an animal which we can compare to. So to say we come from Apes to me is ludicrous because the connection is so weak. But evolution on other levels yes I agree it exists. But it still does not explain the evolution of intelligence within a creature. It doesn't explain why evolution does not exist in this. It does not explain how humans gained their intelligence and why not one other creature which could have easily developed it, didn't.

Uuh why? Really, from a scientific point of view, God is an absurd explanation. Really, your argument is: "I don't understand, so it must be God."

EXACTLY!
It is not that I do not understand, it is that I DISAGREE. Yes the philosophy stands that you cannot Understand and Disagree, so then yes I do not understand, and I will tell you exactly what I don't understand. I cannot understand, if this human theory, which is only a few hundred years old relies on faith that Humans come from Apes, then I would rather place my faith on a system which has existed for much longer, which provides people with strength, answers in life and direction, rather than something which cannot provide that ever.

[i_m_robot]

More intelligent =/= being smarter

 

for all you know the apes could be mocking our ways

perhaps their level of intelligence is based on something we can comprehend and the other way around

perhaps little girls can come out of the tv and kill

[i_m_robot]

self has found the explaination

perhaps god created the universe in seven stages

then somewhere in translation these steps were called days

the actual time could be far longer right





theory solved