If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes.
I answered this at some length the last time you asked it, and before that when Moff asked it. Were my posts suppressed?
|
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes.I answered this at some length the last time you asked it, and before that when Moff asked it. Were my posts suppressed?
I may have missed it, I took a little time of this topic to clear my head and could have easily missed it, I will go back and try to find it thanks Kirth. :)
EDIT: Any idea how far back it may have been? This thread is getting kinda long. lol
I want zoom, split screen, and x-ray vision.Well that depends on what you mean by better?
How about Tetrachromacy.
Zoom: Most birds of prey
Splitscreen: There is a fish that has eyes which allow it to focus both above and below the surface of the water at the same time. Though i cant for the life of me remember its name.
Moorluck, here it is:
What confuses(?) me the most is why did we evolve in such a way as to be inferior, physicly, to most other animals?
That's a very fair question. Let's look at two very successful species: cockroaches (around for the last 300 million years or so, about 100 times longer than humans) and alligators (around for the last 200 million years or so). Humans I'm excluding for now because we haven't been around long enough to determine how successful we'll be in the long run, but we're more like cockroaches than we are like alligators.
Cockroaches are "physically inferior" to alligators in terms of size, strength, natural weapons, etc. But they can live almost anywhere, whereas alligators require warm, swampy areas. They can eat almost anything (including cardboard), whereas alligators require prey. And they breed a lot faster than rabbits. Alligators, for their environment, have the best armor, weapons, etc. Cockroaches don't rely on those things. Both are enormously successful species, but in terms of numbers, and in terms of how much longer they'll be around, the roaches will almost certainly outlast the 'gators.
Humans have large brains that pre-date our tool use, enabling us to solve problems and avoid relying on brute armament. We can live in a wide range of climates (not so wide as cockroaches, but much wider than alligators) -- and unlike both of those others, our bipedal frame enables us to migrate extreme distances to colonize new areas, or to flee inhospitable ones. We are omniviorous -- again, not to the extent of the roaches, but WAY more so than the alligators. We have a social instinct that both of those others lack -- and pack/flock/swarm behavior is a more successful adaptation than solitary living in many ways -- we cooperate with each other much better than do cockroaches or alligators.
Like I said a few pages ago, there's not one perfect strategy; there are an infinite variety of possibilities, some better than others for certain environments. And, like I said from personal observation, the fossil record does not support special creation. It does support evolution over time. And I see no reason why God couldn't put the fist bacterium down on Earth, set evolution into motion, and watched with great pleasure what unfolded.
|
I want zoom, split screen, and x-ray vision.Well that depends on what you mean by better?
How about Tetrachromacy.Zoom: Most birds of prey
Splitscreen: There is a fish that has eyes which allow it to focus both above and below the surface of the water at the same time. Though i cant for the life of me remember its name.
Yeah, but I don't have those. I want those features.
Galileo lived in a world where not being a believer in god ment social pariahdom, fines, damnation to hell and potentially death. His parents where theists, his friends and extended family and his daughter a nun.Do you think he had any choice but to state that he believed in god?
Claimin that his belief in god lead to him proving the helio centric model, your saddly mistaken. Faith provably retarded his work on the subject.
'Faith probably retarded his work on the subject'
That made me laugh. I mean, faith did get him burnt at the stake, after all. That's a pretty big impediment to his work.
No. I think that was a guy named Bruno. Galileo recanted his belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun (the Creationist/evolutionist debate of the day, except with more serious consequences to the losers) in the presence of the Pope to save himself from that fate. Legend has it that he then muttered under his breath something like "But it continues to revolve anyway."
|
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
Our presence as the dominant species on the planet rather defeats your argument. We emerged triumphant because we descended from the trees, stopped using just pure physical strength and started to use tools. We may have become weaker then your average primate, but we became more adapted to our surroundings. We walked upright, for instance.
To some of us, frailty is a feature, not a bug. We may not always enjoy being frail, but we know that we can allow it to strengthen and humble us.
Then how do you explain frailty and imperfection in animals, which do not have the capacity to be prideful or humble, and can only suffer from such imperfections.
Really? This is what they are saying? "Yeah, this is what I'd do so it must be what the Almighty was thinking..."Seems like pretty poor logic to me.
They say evolution required a designer who operates like human designers, except so much better that no human designer could ever equal it. That's neatly falsified, of course. Just look at his alleged work.
And this is adapting? You're not as tall as I am...
That's an interesting question, evolutionarily. People on average ARE taller than they used to be. A lot of that is attributable to better nutrition, but some of it seems to be because most females have a tendency to select for taller men as mates ("tall=hot"). Natural selection at work!
|
|
Moorluck, here it is:
What confuses(?) me the most is why did we evolve in such a way as to be inferior, physicly, to most other animals?Alot of good stuff.Thanks for taking the time to answer my question yet again, food for thought.... Oh please don't bring cockroaches up again... I deal with those damn things all day! ;p
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
We are clearly not ill suited to survival. We surivive, our very culture is testimant to the fact that we survive and replicated very well.
Evolution by natural selection builds upon what is already present. Structures are where they are because we have very old genes that determine basic body structure are very resistant to substantial change.
Very little life does cope well with extremes, because it is very difficult to evolve into such conditions. But life from all kingdoms of life does find niches in extremes.
On the subject of Intelligence. Intelligence, tool use and changes in body co-evolved, driving each other.
To be honest this isn't something that you can cover easily in a thread like this. You can spend ten years studying this stuff and still be learning more about it on a daily basis. But ancestor's tale by richard dawkins is a nice place to start.
|
|
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
You missread my post as an argument, easy to do though. I really was looking for the answer to my question, one wich Kirth answered very well.
Our presence as the dominant species on the planet rather defeats your argument. We emerged triumphant because we descended from the trees, stopped using just pure physical strength and started to use tools. We may have become weaker then your average primate, but we became more adapted to our surroundings. We walked upright, for instance.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes.
Africa is pretty clement so far as temperature extremes go.
I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
I wouldn't. We have different niches from other primates. We share most of our failings with them, though. Evolution can only work with what's already there, changing it around and tweaking to create new diversity. It's not about an alligator giving birth to kittens. Hence things like our eyes and walking upright (both of which could have been better engineered) are constrained by the historical circumstances of our lineage. Our spines are built for four-legged travel, for example. If you've ever had a slipped disk, you've discovered what's wrong with them when it comes to walking upright.
He-He. Kirth thinks I'm "Hot"...
Sorry, buddy. I didn't evolve that way. Or wasn't designed that way. Either way, I was quoting chicks I know.
Why? (Forgive me, this is new to me.) What is their reasoning to say that the designer must have operated like human designers?
You'd have to ask them, but I suspect it has a lot to do with their supposition that we were created in the image of the intelligent designer. Anthropomorphic deities are anthropomorphic, and the design argument is anthropomorphic from start to finish, except for when it's an argument from personal incredulity.
And yeah, I mixed up Galileo and Bruno. :D Still, Galileo's house arrest wasn't the best experience, I'd have thought.
It certainly wasn't intended to be.
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
Our presence as the dominant species on the plane...
I think the Phylum Arthropoda includes some species who wish to dispute your claim ;)
but it is still that, a theory, unless that changed in the 18 yrs I've been outa school?
The scientific definition of "theory" is still the same as it was all the times I explained that, too -- a definition which is MUCH different from the sense in which you're using the word.
Steven Jay Gould has written extensively on the terminology and its misuse.|
|
Evolution is both a Fact and a Theory. It's similar to gravity, where you have the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity, which is constantly refined. Einstein's theories of relativity replacing Newton's theories, for instance, is a very good example of it.
Let me explain another way. Fruit Flies changing from generation to generation is proof of evolution. This is an observable event, and a fact. However, there have been many different explanations for how evolution happens, starting with Lamarckism, then being replaced by Darwin's theories, which over the past two hundred years have been refined into the modern theory of how evolution works.
Also, the arthropods can dispute my claim as soon as they can talk!
|
|
Anthropomorphic deities are anthropomorphic, and the design argument is anthropomorphic from start to finish, except for when it's an argument from personal incredulity.
When the Bible said "made in our image", I don't necessarily think that it means he eats and has bowel movements. I believe that thinking that we can think like God or that we understand what God understands is a bit presumptuous.
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
The explanation that I remember from biology class (a loooooong time ago) is that we lost all that neat stuff like hair and speed and body strength because we started to use things like clothes, fire, and tools back when we were strong hairy primates. Features that are unecessary for survival tend to die out.
Babies are supposedly born in such a helpless state because their big brains are not anywhere near fully developed when nine months is up. The reason they get pushed out before that is that a fully developed, larger brain requires a head that would be too big to fit through the birth canal. For some reason, mutations and the environment selected for an early birth for the baby rather than longer gestation and a bigger birth canal.
Thanks to every one who responded to my question, I have a smidgeon more understanding of where you guys are comming from. I try to be rational and I do get the princepal behind the theory but it is still that, a theory, unless that changed in the 18 yrs I've been outa school? ;)
Mmm...How to explain this. Theory doesn't mean 'unproven' in science. To say that something is a theory, is to say that it is pretty solid.
At this point, evolutionary theory is proably the single most solid theory in the entirity of science.
|
|
but it is still that, a theory, unless that changed in the 18 yrs I've been outa school?The scientific definition of "theory" is still the same as it was all the times I explained that, too -- a definition which is MUCH different from the sense in which you're using the word.
No jab intended, I would have to be brain dead not to see the mountian of evidence supporting evolution. Not denying it either. Just curious if it was accepted as "cannon" or if other possibilties are considered by the scientific community in general? Is that a little better way of putting it?
When the Bible said "made in our image", I don't necessarily think that it means he eats and has bowel movements. I believe that thinking that we can think like God or that we understand what God understands is a bit presumptuous.
Then I invite you to direct your criticism to the Intelligent Design lobby, who think exactly that. You may also wish to direct your ire at the authors of the various holy texts who have made the same presumptions about understanding the divine.
|
|
Babies are supposedly born in such a helpless state because their big brains are not anywhere near fully developed when nine months is up. The reason they get pushed out before that is that a fully developed, larger brain requires a head that would be too big to fit through the birth canal. For some reason, mutations and the environment selected for an early birth for the baby rather than longer gestation and a bigger birth canal.
But why? Survival instincts have worked just fine for EVERY other species.
|
The human mind is just an amazing thing...
It is so incredible complex! So much so, that science has yet to fathom its potential...
I mean, just look at the things we are able to do (look at this thread)...
With all these things we are capable of accomplishing (with our minds alone), I find it highly improbable that we are nothing more than just the by-products of something that just happened all on its own, and maybe even totally by accident...
But it is through faith, that I personally know that I have a creator who cares about each and every one of us...
And quite frankly, I would not want a god that I could fit nicely within the confines of my mind. My God is bigger than that...
Can I prove any of that to all of your satisfaction? No...
But then, it is not my job to do so...
All I can do as a Christian, is tell all I meet about what Jesus has done for me, and leave the rest to Him...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Let me ask a question that's been nagging at me. It's not meant to annoy anyone; it's an honest question, and I'll accept answers I'm given. The thing is, when I answer creationists' questions about evolution, geological evidence, etc. -- IRL more often than here -- I'm almost invariably asked the exact same things, in the exact same way, the next time I talk to that person, or sometimes later in the same conversation. ("Evolution is just a theory, isn't it?" is an excellent example.) My question is: is this an intentional interrogation tactic, like a cop hoping to get contradictory answers by asking the same thing a hundred times? Or is it a statement that my answers were considered beneath their notice? Or do creationists in general just not listen to the answers to their questions?
Again, I'm not accusing anyone here of any of these things, I'm just wondering why this is.
No jab intended, I would have to be brain dead not to see the mountian of evidence supporting evolution. Not denying it either. Just curious if it was accepted as "cannon" or if other possibilties are considered by the scientific community in general? Is that a little better way of putting it?
Yes, evolution is a well-attested theory over which there is no particular scientific controversy. It's agreed that it occurs and that it operates via particular mechanisms (genetic drift, natural selection, etc). The work in biology is about how these mechanisms interplay and the interrelationships of various lineages, as well as their histories in general, and how they shape the organisms we see today.
So it's exactly on the same level as gravity or the germ theory of disease and rejecting it is equally respectable in scientific circles.
Also, a cannon is a piece of artillery. A canon is a set of prescribed books. Science is equipped with neither, though you're certainly more likely to see some texts than others in the various fields. :)
|
|
As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!
And don't get me started on appendices...
Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.
If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.
Nothing is perfect. Someone mentioned earlier that evolution doesn't deal with perfection, it only deals with "good enough". And the incredible intelligence of humans is certainly good enough. Our intelligence is not a new thing, either. Hominid tool use is a good deal older than modern humans, stretching back at least 2 million years or so to Homo habilis. And even "primitive" humans have huge effects on their environment. Just look at the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna.
Now, how humans deal with the issues you presented: we simply avoid attack from predators by hiding and killing any rivals in our territory. We don't need natural weapons like claws. We make our own and have a highly developed omnivorous diet that allows us to eat basically ANYTHING. We care for our young like all mammals, just for a longer period of time. Our large brains do force us to give birth to creatures that would be considered fetuses by any other mammal species, but having huge brains and standing upright has its costs. As for temperature extremes, we are the most widespread species EVER. There isn't a single species that can survive in the Arctic and on the Equator with little to no meaningful physiological differences.
You may also wish to direct your ire at the authors of the various holy texts who have made the same presumptions about understanding the divine.??
I'm only telling you what the believers are saying. If you don't like it, then you can always join me in criticizing them for it. :)
|
|
Also, a cannon is a piece of artillery. A canon is a set of prescribed books. Science is equipped with neither, though you're certainly more likely to see some texts than others in the various fields. :)
Wow. With all the misuses of hear/here, you're/your, their/there/they're, etc. I've seen on this thread recently, I'm surprised to see a correction...
Did someone call me?
|
|
I'm only telling you what the believers are saying. If you don't like it, then you can always join me in criticizing them for it. :)
I guess that I'm wondering if there is a particular group or something more specific that you can provide. I'd like to know what my "side" is saying -- in theory. (Did I use that word right?)
Did someone call me?
You don't want to know...
Heh. From now on, whenever someone misuses the word "theory," I'll start misusing "god" the same way. I'll use the word in Christian contexts, but assume it means "any minor nature spirit."
|
|
Let me ask a question that's been nagging at me. It's not meant to annoy anyone; it's an honest question, and I'll accept answers I'm given. The thing is, when I answer creationists' questions about evolution, geological evidence, etc. -- IRL more often than here -- I'm almost invariably asked the exact same things, in the exact same way, the next time I talk to that person, or sometimes later in the same conversation. ("Evolution is just a theory, isn't it?" is an excellent example.) My question is: is this an intentional interrogation tactic, like a cop hoping to get contradictory answers by asking the same thing a hundred times? Or is it a statement that my answers were considered beneath their notice? Or do creationists in general just not listen to the answers to their questions?
Again, I'm not accusing anyone here of any of these things, I'm just wondering why this is.
Not meaning to antagonize you for my part in this, really did miss the answer the first time. I appreciate your taking the time to answer me, I guess what my follow up post should have read was "are their any other theories, other than evolution, that are being studied?" This in no way is meant to belittle that stance but instead to slate my own curiosity.
You don't want to know...
AWESOME!
Wow. With all the misuses of hear/here, you're/your, their/there/they're, etc. I've seen on this thread recently, I'm surprised to see a correction...
I only said something because I thought the idea of scientists toting artillery was funny. :)
The human mind is just an amazing thing...
It is so incredible complex! So much so, that science has yet to fathom its potential...
I mean, just look at the things we are able to do (look at this thread)...
With all these things we are capable of accomplishing (with our minds alone), I find it highly improbable that we are nothing more than just the by-products of something that just happened all on its own, and maybe even totally by accident...
But it is through faith, that I personally know that I have a creator who cares about each and every one of us...
And quite frankly, I would not want a god that I could fit nicely within the confines of my mind. My God is bigger than that...
Can I prove any of that to all of your satisfaction? No...
But then, it is not my job to do so...
All I can do as a Christian, is tell all I meet about what Jesus has done for me, and leave the rest to Him...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
So you don't consider it impossible, just very unlikely. Since you termed it improbable, perhapes you'd like to give up a value of how improable you think it is?
Not meaning to antagonize you for my part in this, really did miss the answer the first time. I appreciate your taking the time to answer me, I guess what my follow up post should have read was "are their any other theories, other than evolution, that are being studied?" This in no way is meant to belittle that stance but instead to slate my own curiosity.
No offense taken; I see it IRL more than here.
As far as other theories, there are none. Previous alternative hypotheses (e.g. Lamarckism) have been falsified and thus discarded. So far, the natural selection hypothesis, modified to its current form from what Darwin proposed, is the only hypothesis that has withstood enough testing to become a theory.
Also, as pointed out, the concept that species evolve is an observation, like watching an apple fall from a tree. We see it in real time among organisms with quick reproduction rates, and we see it in the fossil record for all organisms. The explanation that mutation, coupled with natural selection, is what drives this process is the theory used to explain those observations.
|
|
So you don't consider it impossible, just very unlikely. Since you termed it improbable, perhapes you'd like to give up a value of how improable you think it is?
Since the whole thing started because a bunch of protein molecules happened to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time with some other event happening that somehow fused it all into a living organism such that we can't duplicate (yet) even though we have a "template" we can go back to and try and duplicate...
I'd guess fairly improbable. At the same time -- here we are.