Evolution Makes Me Cry

Originally posted by twhitehead
And my cat purrs when sad, and dogs howl or yelp etc. We each have our own way of expressing emotion. Nothing really weird about it.

Tear ducts of course are not for crying with, they are for draining the liquid that keeps the eyes moist. The only relationship they have to crying, is that they fail to cope with the extra quantities.

As for crying it ...[text shortened]... have claimed elsewhere that you don't think evolution is responsible for the existence of man.

Tonuge in the proverbial cheek, that first post.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Male human beings have nipples. Weird that god felt it necessary to equip us so. Not to mention ear muscles. And RUBBISH TEETH! And whale hind legs bones. And why did he make kiwis lay such huge eggs? That's just cruel. And panda bear thumbs and cetera...

Males have nipples because the original model could have gone either way.

and cetera...
Pete?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If you cry when you are in distress, could that mean you would more likely receive help from others?
Pretty obvious if you think about it.

Very obvious now that you point it out.

What are you pointing out, again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No you don't. Instead, you're stalling for time, racking your brain for some evolutionary reason that man needs to emote.

Wrong again.

Originally posted by rwingett

There is no end product. It just keeps going.

"In your view, what is the directional zenith or end product?"

...................................................


With the catchy slogan, “It keeps going, and going, and going..."

shall we assume Energizer Bunny is presently leading the way?


....................................................

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
All kinds of mammals have tear ducts, but man is the only creature that cries as a result of emotional release. Weird that man alone is so unique...

Well, it's not absolutely certain that that is the case. Some animals have been reported to cry, like elephants. Not that I've seen an elephant cry myself. But I don't see the big deal here, really.

Anyhow -- what is it about evolution that gets you all emotional, so that you cry?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

shall we assume Energizer Bunny is presently leading the way?


....................................................

Yes, let's assume that.

But isn't there more than one Energizer Bunny?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
In your view, what is the directional zenith or end product?

There is no end product. For that it needs an intelligence. Evolution is blind. That's why there are flaws in organisms.

Originally posted by galveston75
No there is no flaw unless you look at the small picture and do not understand that animals were originally created by God to be under our subjection as was evident when God brought all the animals to Adam to be named and then later while they were in the Ark. God made them all and can make them to be peaceful.
So the human body as we are made would no ...[text shortened]... ave to have the strenght of a gorilla or elephant as we would never be in danger of any animals.

According to the legend... However, we don't believe in legends uncondtionally do we?

Originally posted by galveston75
Something I've thought of about humans and if we did evolve, it would seem to me that if we are the result of all the trial and error of evolution constantly improving a species and the end result as we see it now is the human, why would we not have the best attributes of all our former subjects.

The theory of Evolution suggests that life in general is constantly evolving. There is no 'final end result'. There are only all the examples of life we see today, which could be described as 'end results so far'.
The human being is not singled out as special in any way by the theory of evolution. He is not the pinnacle of evolution or the most successful life form.
We are alive, thus we are successful so far, but so are all other life forms currently in existence.

Some I know will argue that we developed the biggest and the most complex brain. But in light of let's say a lion that could kill us with one paw, why did we not keep the strength of the gorilla, or the climbing ability of a gibbon? Or the hearing of a bat to know the lion is coming from a greater distance? That radar would really help us out at times.
You are mistaken that the above attributes are the best attributes for an organism to have. Most of them come at a cost as well as a benefit, and evolution weighs the cost against the benefits.
If we had the strength of a lion, we would need to eat far more just to support ourselves. We would also be much bigger, and not have the ability of a gibbon.
The radar probably hasn't evolved because its usefulness is so minimal as to not really confer any survival advantage. We historically generally slept at night and did not need exceptional night sight. We don't even have good night sight like many animals that do move about at night do.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just some intersting differances that are posted here.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

Something I've thought of about humans and if we did evolve, it would seem to me that if we are the result of all the trial and error of evolution constantly improving a species and the end result as we see it now is the human, why woul ...[text shortened]... t that evolution could develope up to this point on all levels, but I just don't see that....

because you don't evolve to be the best you evolve to survive.

and even so, we are the most intelligent, what more do you want? why do you need now prefect eyesight when you can buy binoculars and you aren't even watching for predators? what use is that to you?

Originally posted by galveston75
Just some intersting differances that are posted here.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

Something I've thought of about humans and if we did evolve, it would seem to me that if we are the result of all the trial and error of evolution constantly improving a species and the end result as we see it now is the human, why woul ...[text shortened]... t that evolution could develope up to this point on all levels, but I just don't see that....

You have not understood what evolution theory says at all.
It says nothing about there being some kind of pinnacle of evolution.
Anyone that thinks that we humans are some kind of pinnacle of evolution is both supremely arrogant about human kind and completely in logical error.

Evolution implies that flaws will be produced because evolution is a totally blind unintelligent process. Thus evolution theory implicitly predicts that WE would have evolved flaws –just like in every other living thing. In fact, all the many flaws humans have ( both in body and in mind ) are all extremely good evidence that we evolved for that reason!
–an all knowing all powerful flawless deity making flaws in a design is a logical contradiction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Males have nipples because the original model could have gone either way.

[b]and cetera...
Pete?[/b]

I'm aware of that thank you. Makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective, less so from the creationist position I think.

Not sure what you meant by the rest of this post...

Originally posted by FabianFnas

There is no end product. For that it needs an intelligence. Evolution is blind. That's why there are flaws in organisms.

Do you hold that planet earth, the Milky Way, other galaxies and the unfathomable

universe itself also evolved as the handiwork of something unintelligent and blind?


................................................................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Do you hold that planet earth, the Milky Way, other galaxies and the unfathomable

universe itself also evolved as the handiwork of something unintelligent and blind?


................................................................................

“…universe itself also evolved as…”

When you use the word “evolve” above, do you refer to “Darwinian evolution” or do you refer merely to the fact that it continually changed with time?

If you mean Darwinian evolution then note that Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how the universe formed thus it isn’t relevant here.
If you mean merely the continuous changes with time then it is the laws of physics that do that to the universe and the laws of physics are surely “unintelligent and blind”?