First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Discussion of theories on Evolution
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/24/09 , edited 2/24/09

crunchypibb wrote:
A good reason why christians deny evolution is because believing in it would mean that if a deme of early homids did evolve into the humans of today than that would mean that there was not just two humans that progressed the race but many humans..


And exactly how does that go against the fundamentals of the entire faith? I don't think that one of the main principles of Christianity is that the human race started with 2 people, it definitely isn't as important as the Ten Commandments, Jesus's prophecies and teachings, etc.



crunchypibb wrote:

-Now for myself, the thing that bewilders me the most is how we humans evolved from the homids and developed the skills to make sophisticated tools and develop a vastly creative mind. This is something anthropologists have not found yet and hopefully in my timeline I'll be able to see the bridge between the gap.

Actually there is an explanation for it (don't know how recent it is): When we became bipedal and stood upright, our spines moved down our necks, and I think that allowed our jaws to move lower as well (that may have happened separately, can't remember right now) which made more room in our brain case and allowed our brains to grow. As our brains became larger we had more room for non-essential functions like reasoning, imagination, language, etc until it developed into what we have today. Humans have the largest brain in proportion to our bodies than any other animal, which is why we're the only ones who have advanced so much.


-And that brings me up to another reason why people might skepticize on evolution. We've seen species 1 and linked it with species 2 but where is the process that happened inbetween? Just something I thought up.


We've seen links between many other animals that are very similar (dogs and wolves, sharks and fish, dolphins and land mammals, etc) so since we are very similar to other great apes then it's highly likely that there is a link between us.

But just because we haven't found a link between apes and humans doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur in any other organisms. Bacteria become immune to medication over time (within a few years, sometimes less) due to evolution, cow and chickens and pigs have become fatter and fatter because of artificial selection, there are so many different dog breeds because of artificial selection a.k.a evolution. So, like I said earlier, believing that evolution never occurs in any organism is just like believing that gravity doesn't exist. The evidence is right in front of you, you just have to accept it.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
A good reason why christians deny evolution is because believing in it would mean that if a deme of early homids did evolve into the humans of today than that would mean that there was not just two humans that progressed the race but many humans..


And exactly how does that go against the fundamentals of the entire faith? I don't think that one of the main principles of Christianity is that the human race started with 2 people, it definitely isn't as important as the Ten Commandments, Jesus's prophecies and teachings, etc.



crunchypibb wrote:

-Now for myself, the thing that bewilders me the most is how we humans evolved from the homids and developed the skills to make sophisticated tools and develop a vastly creative mind. This is something anthropologists have not found yet and hopefully in my timeline I'll be able to see the bridge between the gap.

Actually there is an explanation for it (don't know how recent it is): When we became bipedal and stood upright, our spines moved down our necks, and I think that allowed our jaws to move lower as well (that may have happened separately, can't remember right now) which made more room in our brain case and allowed our brains to grow. As our brains became larger we had more room for non-essential functions like reasoning, imagination, language, etc until it developed into what we have today. Humans have the largest brain in proportion to our bodies than any other animal, which is why we're the only ones who have advanced so much.


-And that brings me up to another reason why people might skepticize on evolution. We've seen species 1 and linked it with species 2 but where is the process that happened inbetween? Just something I thought up.


We've seen links between many other animals that are very similar (dogs and wolves, sharks and fish, dolphins and land mammals, etc) so since we are very similar to other great apes then it's highly likely that there is a link between us.

But just because we haven't found a link between apes and humans doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur in any other organisms. Bacteria become immune to medication over time (within a few years, sometimes less) due to evolution, cow and chickens and pigs have become fatter and fatter because of artificial selection, there are so many different dog breeds because of artificial selection a.k.a evolution. So, like I said earlier, believing that evolution never occurs in any organism is just like believing that gravity doesn't exist. The evidence is right in front of you, you just have to accept it.



We do know where Are links are, I must of forgot to post them???

"I find it for you, after I eat!"



4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/24/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
A good reason why christians deny evolution is because believing in it would mean that if a deme of early homids did evolve into the humans of today than that would mean that there was not just two humans that progressed the race but many humans..


And exactly how does that go against the fundamentals of the entire faith? I don't think that one of the main principles of Christianity is that the human race started with 2 people, it definitely isn't as important as the Ten Commandments, Jesus's prophecies and teachings, etc.



crunchypibb wrote:

-Now for myself, the thing that bewilders me the most is how we humans evolved from the homids and developed the skills to make sophisticated tools and develop a vastly creative mind. This is something anthropologists have not found yet and hopefully in my timeline I'll be able to see the bridge between the gap.

Actually there is an explanation for it (don't know how recent it is): When we became bipedal and stood upright, our spines moved down our necks, and I think that allowed our jaws to move lower as well (that may have happened separately, can't remember right now) which made more room in our brain case and allowed our brains to grow. As our brains became larger we had more room for non-essential functions like reasoning, imagination, language, etc until it developed into what we have today. Humans have the largest brain in proportion to our bodies than any other animal, which is why we're the only ones who have advanced so much.


-And that brings me up to another reason why people might skepticize on evolution. We've seen species 1 and linked it with species 2 but where is the process that happened inbetween? Just something I thought up.


We've seen links between many other animals that are very similar (dogs and wolves, sharks and fish, dolphins and land mammals, etc) so since we are very similar to other great apes then it's highly likely that there is a link between us.

But just because we haven't found a link between apes and humans doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur in any other organisms. Bacteria become immune to medication over time (within a few years, sometimes less) due to evolution, cow and chickens and pigs have become fatter and fatter because of artificial selection, there are so many different dog breeds because of artificial selection a.k.a evolution. So, like I said earlier, believing that evolution never occurs in any organism is just like believing that gravity doesn't exist. The evidence is right in front of you, you just have to accept it.


1
You obviously have never heard of the story of Adam and Eve have you? According to Genesis, the first ever human to appear was Adam and the second was Eve. The bible said all of humanity started with two humans (as well as some other creation stories from other religions) but the evidence we have from anthropology would suggests that a group of early homids were the pioneers for humanity. It's pretty easy to accept 7 days in the bible as seven periods but looking at two people as if they were many is not easy because of the way the story progressed.

2
I meant hard evidence like the complexity of the art from between the early hominids and the modern humans. There is obviously evidence from both sides but there actually hasn't been an inbetween evidence. The tools of the early homids and similar tools of the modern humans don't really have much inbetween evidence. It's like we see tools 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and then like tools 5.0. What you said is true but that's not what I meant.

3
Actually we have found a link between apes and humans, they're our cousins. Even further back we are in a way related to lemurs. Once again, I agree with you but that's not what I actually asking. I mean like where is the inbetween species between humans and early hominids. I know there are many species that lead up to humans but like we've never seen "inbetween" versions of the different species that have led up to humanity. Like we've seen 1, 2, 3, and 4 but if there is evidence of those then there ought to be evidence of 1.5, 2.3, and 3.6
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/24/09 , edited 2/24/09

crunchypibb wrote:
1
You obviously have never heard of the story of Adam and Eve have you? According to Genesis, the first ever human to appear was Adam and the second was Eve. The bible said all of humanity started with two humans (as well as some other creation stories from other religions) but the evidence we have from anthropology would suggests that a group of early homids were the pioneers for humanity. It's pretty easy to accept 7 days in the bible as seven periods but looking at two people as if they were many is not easy because of the way the story progressed.


I have heard of it and I think I know it fairly well. But why is it so hard to believe that God created other humans after them that were never mentioned? Didn't Cain marry some woman who randomly appeared out of nowhere who wasn't one of Adam and Eve's children (or at least it was never stated that she was one of their children)? I looked it up and the only answer that I could find was "all people came from Adam and Eve so she must have been their daughter," even though it's never stated that she is their daughter.

Or maybe the species that came before Adam and Eve weren't mentioned because they were just seen as animals, and those two were the first organisms to have every single feature that makes up modern humans, and the dirt story was made just to keep it simple (and because people didn't understand evolution at the time). Even if you only take evolution into consideration, there had to be a first human at some point in time, but since they obviously weren't too different from their parents it's hard to know where that line was first drawn (just like it's hard to know the exact moment you became a teenager, or the exact day you became 5 feet tall), especially since we don't have a fossil of every hominid ever born.


2
I meant hard evidence like the complexity of the art from between the early hominids and the modern humans. There is obviously evidence from both sides but there actually hasn't been an inbetween evidence. The tools of the early homids and similar tools of the modern humans don't really have much inbetween evidence. It's like we see tools 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and then like tools 5.0. What you said is true but that's not what I meant.

The chances of an artifact from every single stage of a tool's development staying in tact is pretty slim. But they may still be buried somewhere. It's possible that the in between versions weren't very sturdy and broke down, or they were completely organic and have decayed by now, or that what we think of as version 5.0 is actually version 2.0, with really huge improvements over the first version. Just look at computers, there wasn't much in between having computers that filled entire rooms to having computers that fit on desktops.


3
Actually we have found a link between apes and humans, they're our cousins. Even further back we are in a way related to lemurs. Once again, I agree with you but that's not what I actually asking. I mean like where is the inbetween species between humans and early hominids. I know there are many species that lead up to humans but like we've never seen "inbetween" versions of the different species that have led up to humanity. Like we've seen 1, 2, 3, and 4 but if there is evidence of those then there ought to be evidence of 1.5, 2.3, and 3.6


I thought by "link" you meant some species that looked half-chimpanzee and half-human. It's what people usually mean when they say that. But just like tools, the chances of an example from every single stage of development being preserved is very slim. It's possible that we have found those in between versions, but we can't tell based on skeletal structure and a few cultural practices (art) alone.


4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/25/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:
I have heard of it and I think I know it fairly well. But why is it so hard to believe that God created other humans after them that were never mentioned? Didn't Cain marry some woman who randomly appeared out of nowhere who wasn't one of Adam and Eve's children (or at least it was never stated that she was one of their children)? I looked it up and the only answer that I could find was "all people came from Adam and Eve so she must have been their daughter," even though it's never stated that she is their daughter.

Or maybe the species that came before Adam and Eve weren't mentioned because they were just seen as animals, and those two were the first organisms to have every single feature that makes up modern humans, and the dirt story was made just to keep it simple (and because people didn't understand evolution at the time). Even if you only take evolution into consideration, there had to be a first human at some point in time, but since they obviously weren't too different from their parents it's hard to know where that line was first drawn (just like it's hard to know the exact moment you became a teenager, or the exact day you became 5 feet tall), especially since we don't have a fossil of every hominid ever born.

About Cain's wife that is true and I totally forgot about that part, but the christian church always rejects anything controversial before calling it safe, like I said before they don't take those kinds of risks, especially when they have a lot of people looking up to them. It is also true that maybe we're possibly looking at the story from a limited angle and that there were perhaps other "human-like" species. The Neanderthals coexisted with our modern humans long ago and even though they are considered a different species we were still able to bred fertile young with crossbreeding species. There are people out there today with Neanderthal traits. Some churches probably have looked at that but most christian dogmas that every christian shares come from the Vatican who will make a final decision about it. But even then we technically don't have to follow the dogmas either although they are something to consider as they are the final decisions by the Vatican and aren't amended.


The chances of an artifact from every single stage of a tool's development staying in tact is pretty slim. But they may still be buried somewhere. It's possible that the in between versions weren't very sturdy and broke down, or they were completely organic and have decayed by now, or that what we think of as version 5.0 is actually version 2.0, with really huge improvements over the first version. Just look at computers, there wasn't much in between having computers that filled entire rooms to having computers that fit on desktops.

I totally get what you are saying and what I brought up was a proposition. Although the computer example isn't actually that good because computers didn't actually morph from their primative to their modern versions.


I thought by "link" you meant some species that looked half-chimpanzee and half-human. It's what people usually mean when they say that. But just like tools, the chances of an example from every single stage of development being preserved is very slim. It's possible that we have found those in between versions, but we can't tell based on skeletal structure and a few cultural practices (art) alone.

Well I'm taking anthropology, let me just show you what I mean.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/25/09

crunchypibb wrote:
Well I'm taking anthropology, let me just show you what I mean.


I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/25/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
Well I'm taking anthropology, let me just show you what I mean.


I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 2/25/09

crunchypibb wrote:
So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I still don't not understand how it couldn't never not be possible. [/obvious sarcasm]

Anyway, if those bipedal organisms you mentioned are primates and are predecessors to humans but still distinct from the other great apes, wouldn't they have to be in this tree as well? They would have to be under the homo genus, if I'm understanding what you mean by "subversion."
68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

crunchypibb wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I'm tired of the constant "missing link" argument... I mean honestly! If you see a rock falling, blink and then see it still falling would you then say: "It's most likely that it didn't fall while I closed my eyes"?? You'll NEVER reach a point where you have a total continuity of measurements! It's like having all the pieces to the puzzle but refusing to put them together because they're not "a whole" picture
Posted 2/26/09 , edited 2/26/09
Evolution = bullshit.
Because it pisses people off saying that.
:DD Jesus for the win!
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

Phasespace wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I'm tired of the constant "missing link" argument... I mean honestly! If you see a rock falling, blink and then see it still falling would you then say: "It's most likely that it didn't fall while I closed my eyes"?? You'll NEVER reach a point where you have a total continuity of measurements! It's like having all the pieces to the puzzle but refusing to put them together because they're not "a whole" picture


Thats exactly what they are doing, their all saying "Well it must be bullshit because a magical book tells me it is, also its not a 'complete' picture, so i can't possibly see how it all fits together because I don't use my intelligence" that ought to sum it up for you pretty well.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

Phasespace wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I'm tired of the constant "missing link" argument... I mean honestly! If you see a rock falling, blink and then see it still falling would you then say: "It's most likely that it didn't fall while I closed my eyes"?? You'll NEVER reach a point where you have a total continuity of measurements! It's like having all the pieces to the puzzle but refusing to put them together because they're not "a whole" picture


nobody asked you to butt in. What's wrong with skepticizing anyways? People ask stupid questions concerning religion all the time. Besides, it more about the evolutionary root of all the creatures that I'm really skeptic about. I've never really heard of how exactly we all, plants and fungi and animals, have somehow decended from single-cell organisms.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I still don't not understand how it couldn't never not be possible. [/obvious sarcasm]

Anyway, if those bipedal organisms you mentioned are primates and are predecessors to humans but still distinct from the other great apes, wouldn't they have to be in this tree as well? They would have to be under the homo genus, if I'm understanding what you mean by "subversion."


-Eh, I'm just skepticizing. I think I said this before, not sure, but I don't doubt the evidence that comes out of anthropology, just the conclusions. What ever don't kill ya will make you stronger right? What's interesting is trying to figure out what this means for religion. You probably won't care at all if you don't have an alligence to a religion. So far the conclusion I've came up with is that Adam and Eve were the first humans that God decided to give a special plan to and that the other humans were meant for something else. Besides, all the stories in the christian bible only revolve around the middle east. Even though Noah's Flood is proclaimed to have engolfed the entire world, it may have just a been around the Indian Sea since all the flood stories came around from that area.
-Like I said before, we may be having limited views of what we're researching in, both in religion and anthropology. Besides, once you get an answer you can't be satisfied with what you've just got right? You always want to know more don't you? I may come off as a resilient christian who's holding on firming to their conservative beliefs (like most christians I see on the internet that I, surprising to some, look down upon for various reasons) but before you get into something don't you want to make sure all doubts are cast aside? Just saying.
68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/26/09 , edited 2/26/09

crunchypibb wrote:


Phasespace wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I'm tired of the constant "missing link" argument... I mean honestly! If you see a rock falling, blink and then see it still falling would you then say: "It's most likely that it didn't fall while I closed my eyes"?? You'll NEVER reach a point where you have a total continuity of measurements! It's like having all the pieces to the puzzle but refusing to put them together because they're not "a whole" picture


nobody asked you to butt in. What's wrong with skepticizing anyways? People ask stupid questions concerning religion all the time. Besides, it more about the evolutionary root of all the creatures that I'm really skeptic about. I've never really heard of how exactly we all, plants and fungi and animals, have somehow decended from single-cell organisms.


Oh, sorry, I was under the impression that this was a forum (and thread) where every CR member was entitled to give their opinion and not just a closed debate for two... my bad I guess

Difference between stupid questions asked for religion and science is that science actually attempts to answer them while religion just says "There's this God-thingie who created it all. Unfortunately nobody can see him so you'll just have to believe". So now I ask you to apply your skepticism to BOTH religion and science (Ooooh, that's TWO things!) and see which one has the most missing links

You seem like a reasonable person so I don't think it should be that hard for you... (although you might have to question the knowledge you've been brought up with).
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/27/09

Phasespace wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Phasespace wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



I don't get it, from what I can read of that (it's really small) , I don't see how versions 1.2, 2.4, 3.5, etc of humans couldn't fit under the homo genus or the hominidae family.


So from reading what you typed, with that double negative statement you're saying that it is possible for subversions to fit in the primate family tree? Remember this is just primates in general, there's an even different tree for just bipedals, primates that primarily walk on two feet and don't use their hands for walking.


I'm tired of the constant "missing link" argument... I mean honestly! If you see a rock falling, blink and then see it still falling would you then say: "It's most likely that it didn't fall while I closed my eyes"?? You'll NEVER reach a point where you have a total continuity of measurements! It's like having all the pieces to the puzzle but refusing to put them together because they're not "a whole" picture


nobody asked you to butt in. What's wrong with skepticizing anyways? People ask stupid questions concerning religion all the time. Besides, it more about the evolutionary root of all the creatures that I'm really skeptic about. I've never really heard of how exactly we all, plants and fungi and animals, have somehow decended from single-cell organisms.


Oh, sorry, I was under the impression that this was a forum (and thread) where every CR member was entitled to give their opinion and not just a closed debate for two... my bad I guess

Difference between stupid questions asked for religion and science is that science actually attempts to answer them while religion just says "There's this God-thingie who created it all. Unfortunately nobody can see him so you'll just have to believe". So now I ask you to apply your skepticism to BOTH religion and science (Ooooh, that's TWO things!) and see which one has the most missing links

You seem like a reasonable person so I don't think it should be that hard for you... (although you might have to question the knowledge you've been brought up with).


Your sarcasm sucks, just to let it out there.

First off, religion solves different questions more effectively than science does and vice versa. Like science may be able to identify metaphysical things like love and conciousness but the field itself does not explain exactly how they function. Second, don't mix all the religions in a melting pot when you are talking about specifics, because I will agree with you that some out there are a little sketchy but some actually know what they're talking about. We'll just refer to christianity from here.

Now of course the christian religion does give specifics on how certain events occurred like how the earth was made, it makes specifics in morals and ethics. The reason why christians are so provoked by specific scientific discoveries is because some of them are really extreme ideas that challenge their their bringing ups in general, like the earth was round. Besides, if you were just anybody back then you would oppose the idea and skepticize it until you can't anymore.

I'm pretty sure most christians you have in mind won't agree to any points that are opposed to them at all and don't even give a second thought on it. On the thought on evolution and all the intellectual (the ones who actually think) christians take on it is that evolution isn't so bad of an idea to accept for creatures and plants, but for humans it's a different story. Not that because we humans consider ourselves above all animals and don't consider ourselves one like most people would defend but because humans have one thing that's given exclusively to them, the soul. And because evolution doesn't have that in the equation we don't fully embrace it.

Also take a look at my other posts that were meant for Cuddlebuns, I don't feel like repeating myself on further reasons for skepticizing the idea. Of course my questions before may have been of the contrary but i just asked those just to see how the responded would react. A debate's not a debate without conflict, eh?

Back to science and religion, you know the miracles that happened in the bible right? Now you know the one where Jesus was walking with a crowd and some ill-afflicted woman touched Jesus's clothing and she was healed right? How does science explain that? How does it explain anything about the relics today that continue to function in a similar way? It doesn't, it only explains things that are measurable to man.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.