1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:321 edit
    Having common ancestors is not the same as saying that these were the only ancestors. The Adam and Eve story claims that all humans are descendents of two and only two people, while Mitochondrial Eve and the common male ancestor were probably not the only two people who contributed to the gene pool. They contributed more than others did, maybe.

    It isn't the same, but it implies it. You have to add words like "probably" and "maybe" to get around what is implied by the evidence (namely Eve and later Noah).

    Think of it this way - with the Adam and Eve story, there was tremendous incest taking place as soon as the second generation began to mate. Brothers were mating with sisters. This is not a necessary consequence of the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis.

    No, but it is implied. And incest was not as negative an event back then, due to exponentially superior genes.

    Let me elaborate. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve perfect. Infinitely small negative mutation would have occurred in them before they procreated, and their child would have been slightly less perfect. When two of their children mated, slightly less perfect. Until enough distant relations were around to halt the defective sharing even more to what we have now (two distant cousins from Adam and Eve's line create a healthy baby).
  2. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:42
    Originally posted by Maustrauser

    Darfius,
    Humans and chimps share 99.4% of the same DNA. Chimps are hardly distant cousins!

    Henry
    We share over 50% of DNA with certain vegetables, I don't see your point.

    The body-building genes are in that 99 percent. Why don't we look alike?

    Design is just as much implied by that DNA evidence than evolution. It is logical to assume a Creator would use some of the same material to build certain creations.

    For instance, sidewalks and streets are made of the same concrete, but they serve different functions. You wouldn't assume they both evolved from a common ancestor, such as a path for a golf cart.

    A better explanation would be that there was a common designer who decided to use basically the same materials to construct similar, but functionally different, structures.
  3. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:441 edit
    Originally posted by belgianfreak
    but intelegence can. Short of inventing the gun or even a big pointy stick or fire your best chance of surviving a close encounter with a lion is to quell your natural instinct to run and instead hold your ground. Why? Because in simple lion logic, if it runs it's food.
    Herds outrun lions all the time. I see no logical advantage for intelligence at its conception in evolutionary theory. For instance a slightly smarter ape would still be eaten over it's slighty dumber--but faster--brother.

    You'd need to allow for tremendous amounts of time where intelligence was given free reign to grow.
  4. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:50
    It has been said that if a neanderthal was taken at birth, and raised as a normal 21st century child, it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between the neanderthal and the homo sapien.

    I would think the huge brow, huge nostrils, and retarded intelligence would be a dead giveaway.

    Also, believe it or not, but chimpanzees are the worlds most successful predator. Although they don't often eat meat, when they do decide to hunt something, their above average intelligence and ability to act cooperatively results in hunt success percentages much higher than your traditional predator, like lions, tigers, sharks, etc.

    I would need proof of this. And it wouldn't make sense for them to not hunt all the time, since more energy is received via meat than fruits and vegetables, and if their success rate is as you say, they could afford to expend the energy.

    Darfius:
    "Evolutionists, help me out, what was the purpose of huge brains even before we had agriculture and reliable sources of food?"

    Why do you think we need bigger brains just because we have a reliable source of food?

    D


    I don't think we need bigger brains because we have reliable food sources, I'm saying how did we get them before we had reliable food sources.

    Our brains consume an enormous amount of energy. While our brains hypothetically were growing, where was the energy to provide for this?

    Evolution would suggest that our brains would grow because we had energy in excess and time to experiment with natural selection. But natural selection would always select immediate advantages, not future.

    As I said earlier, a slightly smarter ape would be eaten before his slightly dumber--but quicker--brother.

    Are you proposing enormous leaps in evolutionary processes that aren't evident in the fossil record?
  5. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:51
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    Darfius,

    Your approach to these type of discussions come off as insincere and condescending. Please you are not "confused" on this issue. I think you are hoping all of us are going to say and you have presented what you consider all of your evidence is, "Wow Darfius is right and he has proven that the Christian God created everything". As in the p ...[text shortened]... se. Does anyone care to engage in friendly debate as to why you feel the Bible is inaccurate?"
    You are correct, Joe. I apologize for being so immature. I must partly blame exhaustion, but you are right not to excuse my gross breach of propriety. Please forgive me.
  6. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:551 edit
    All creatures evolve to suit their surroundings and humans stood up straight to compensate for their lack of strength and evolved huge brains to compensate for their physical frailness. If they didn't, they would have joined the dodos, long before the dodos died out.

    Why would they all not take to the trees? The chimps are rather frail, but sruvived well in the trees. A frail ape in the open plains is a dead ape, there is no "time to evolve huge brains". And if they evolved brains in the trees, then you must explain why chimps didn't also do this and where they got the excess energy to do so.

    An all knowing and all powerful being created man out of mud and woman out of one of his ribs.

    Actually out of dust (presumably natural elements).

    Tell me Darfius...which of the two sounds at least half believable?

    Given the possibility God exists? The latter. For several reasons but primarily a lack of ability for evolution to yield an answer.
  7. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 21:57

    As in the past, those who still don't believe will continue to do so.


    That comment scares me, Joe. It's as if you aren't open to the possibility God exists and that is anti-scientific and illogical.
  8. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    31 Mar '05 22:00
    Originally posted by Joe Fist

    I thought it was a mistake to re-enter the spirituality forum for these type of discussions because none of them go anywhere. For you, all answers are in the Bible and that's great but I think we (those of us who engage in this) have not been persuaded by the arguments you present. I doubt there will ever be a chance of that as I doubt there would ever be a chance for you to see things from a different perspective.


    A lack of success in persuading is not sufficient for me to stop, given the stakes.

    I am forced due to my presence in a material world to consider materialistic reasons for things, Joe. It is the atheist that must allow the possiblity that God exists, as theists are forced to concede the possiblity He doesn't, before they become theists.
  9. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    21779
    31 Mar '05 22:30
    Originally posted by Darfius
    [b]
    As in the past, those who still don't believe will continue to do so.


    That comment scares me, Joe. It's as if you aren't open to the possibility God exists and that is anti-scientific and illogical.[/b]
    I don't know if you realize this but your belief to me is as scary as my lack of belief is to you. I dare say I am not alone in this feeling.

    I never said I am not open to the belief in God. After hearing extensively your beliefs and from my own extensive experience with Christianity, I am pretty much not open to it. Throughout my life, I have given it more than a fair shake but, even if I didn't, that's my choice to do so. Just as it is your choice to never consider that Snoopy, William Shatner, a can of Coca Cola or anything that seems absurd not to be God. When have I ever presented a scientific position that God does not exist? I know I never have because for 1.Science is not my strong suit so I wouldn't know how to in the first place and 2.I think while Science can explain how many things work, I don't think it can answer the eternal question of what life is about and the question of God. Christianity does not satisfy me either and nor does any other belief or religion.
  10. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    21779
    31 Mar '05 22:372 edits
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    [b]
    I thought it was a mistake to re-enter the spirituality forum for these type of discussions because none of them go anywhere. For you, all answers are in the Bible and that's great but I think we ...[text shortened]... to concede the possiblity He doesn't, before they become theists.
    I have no clue what you are trying to say here:

    A lack of success in persuading is not sufficient for me to stop, given the stakes.

    Okay I suppose you mean that if you do not "witness" to the non-believers like myself we will be sent to Hell and it is your duty as a Christian to do everything in your power to prevent that from happening? If so, that is nice but it can also be considered borderline facist to try and force something against someone's will.

    I am forced due to my presence in a material world to consider materialistic reasons for things, Joe. It is the atheist that must allow the possiblity that God exists, as theists are forced to concede the possiblity He doesn't, before they become theists.

    I do much better when someone speaks from their mind and not something that sounds rather flowery or mystical. Please explain the above statement. Actually anyone who wants to who is reading this please give your explanation of the above statement.
  11. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    31 Mar '05 23:451 edit
    Are you proposing enormous leaps in evolutionary processes that aren't evident in the fossil record?

    I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I don't know where you got that from.

    Also, believe it or not, but chimpanzees are the worlds most successful predator. Although they don't often eat meat, when they do decide to hunt something, their above average intelligence and ability to act cooperatively results in hunt success percentages much higher than your traditional predator, like lions, tigers, sharks, etc.

    I would need proof of this.
    From http://www.unl.edu/rhames/chimphunt/chimphunt.html
    "A lone hunter captures a colobus about 30 percent of the time, whereas a hunting party of 10 or more individuals is successful in nearly every hunt."

    Also, I think a guy called David Attenborough mentioned it in one of his wildlife shows.

    From http://www.zoocheck.com/programs/entertain/Factsheets/lion.shtml
    "Lions hunting in a group have a 30% success rate, compared to 17% to 19% success rate for a single lion hunting in daylight"

    If you're that interested in further proof, then you can do your own research on the other species.

    I would think the huge brow, huge nostrils, and retarded intelligence would be a dead giveaway.

    Are you sure you're not a neanderthal? My point was that there was negligible difference in brain capacity of a homo sapiens and a neanderthal. With a normal 21st century upbringing, a neanderthal could theoretically coexist happily with homo sapiens.

    From http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Neanderthal_man
    "(Brain capacity of a neanderthal) 1200-1700cc capacity (slightly greater than that of Homo sapiens)"

    And it wouldn't make sense for them to not hunt all the time, since more energy is received via meat than fruits and vegetables,

    I dunno who taught you biology or nutrition, but its complete BS that more energy is received from meat than fruit and vegetables. In fact, its the complete opposite. Humans and chimps aren't designed to be meat eaters (we just like the taste). The amount of energy that it takes our bodies to digest meat is massively greater than the amount expended digesting fruit and veg.

    From http://www.bodymindresources.com/Class5/Class5theory.htm (and countless other nutrition web sites)

    "If you look at the digestive tract of a human, it is decidedly herbivorous.

    If you look at the digestive tract of a carnivore, is very short, usually only 3 times the length of it's body. The herbivore's digestive tract, like the human's, is usually 6 times the length of it's body. The carnivore secretes strong hydrochloric acid in the stomach to digest the meat. The herbivore, like the human, secretes 10 times less than that. A carnivore a claws and sharp pointed front teeth whereas an herbivore, like the human, does not. Our body is set up to be herbivorous. For optimal performance, we are meant to be living on raw produce."

    Our brains consume an enormous amount of energy. While our brains hypothetically were growing, where was the energy to provide for this?

    Evolution would suggest that our brains would grow because we had energy in excess and time to experiment with natural selection. But natural selection would always select immediate advantages, not future.


    More complete BS. Our brains grew due to the complexities involved in our hunting gathering existence. Having to fight day to day to survive (rather than watching the idiot box 6 hours a day) ensured that the brain was constantly being honed.

    Also the need to avoid predators constantly would have helped the brain expand. You seem to take great pride in your "quicker ape is more likely to survive than a smarter ape" analogy. I honestly don't know why, cos it is weak beyond measure. How do you classify a ape/antelope/random other prey as being smart or dumb? Surely the smart 1 is the animal which spots the leopard first, or uses its sense the best to avoid being within the range of the predator. I hate to rain all over your analogy, but there ain't many prey that are going to outrun a leopard in a straight race.

    Its pretty obvious why you don't believe in evolution. Its because whatever religious propoganda you have been spoon fed over the years, is full of inaccuracies, lies and just plain ol BS. Try to get an education before trying to convert me next time.

    Thanks,

    D
  12. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    31 Mar '05 23:471 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    What was the brain capacity of the CE and how do you know this?

    I don't know, and the fossil record.

    Because our closest relatives, the chimp, the bonobo, and the gorilla, all mostly live in the forests of Africa. Sometimes t ...[text shortened]... c and Neanderthals...seems like superior intelligence means squat.
    I don't know, and the fossil record.

    Then why did you say

    Our "common ancestor" (what apes and us supposedly branced off from) had ridiculously small brains.?

    You're making a habit of making claims that support your worldview with a lot of confidence and conviction and absolutely no support and then telling other people they have to prove you wrong or you must be right. This is very poor logic. It's an attempt to fast talk and manipulate others into thinking you are right and I resent it.

    What if I said out common ancestor had brains as big or almost as big as a chimp's? Why do you believe your claim and not mine? Why would I have to prove my claim and you don't have to prove yours?

    That's another case of circular reasoning...

    I disagree. The premise of this entire thread is that evolution is true. Your question asked for specifics about how a particular species evolved. You brought in creationism out of nowhere. If you want to debate whether the TOE is correct, then please ask us to do that instead of asking specific questions that presuppose the TOE is correct.

    If there was a CA, then it's most likely that it was in the trees, because all except one species of ape (us) are in the forest.

    Here's how to analyze this: The TOE claims that humans and chimps evolved from CA1. Gorillas and CA1 evolved from CA2.

    If CA1 were plains dwelling, then there would have been a change in lifestyle for the chimp to move to the trees. If CA1 were tree dwelling, there would have been a change in lifestyle for the human to move to the plains.

    If CA1 were plains dwelling, then either it or gorillas would have had the change their habitat, as one was plains dwelling, and the other forest dwelling, regardless of whether CA2 were plains or forest dwelling.

    If CA1 were forest dwelling, nobody would have had to change their habitat, if CA2 were also forest dwelling. If CA1 were forest dwelling, and CA2 plains dwelling, both descendent species would have to change it's habitat.

    Keep going back, and the farther back you claim plains dwelling evolved, the more times evolution would have had to reverse this trend and have a descendent move back to the forest. Whereas if you assume CA1 was tree dwelling, the change in lifestyle only had to happen once. Therefore the TOE tentatively assumes the common ancestor of chimps and humans was forest dwelling.

    Now, if there were evidence of apes which could run incredibly fast and lived on the plains, that might be important evidence that humans evolved from them or had a common ancestor with them that was also plains dwelling. However, as this has not been found, the most likely outcome is the CA was tree dwelling.

    The chimps outlived Homo erectus, Homo sapien archaic and Neanderthals...seems like superior intelligence means squat.

    The chimps weren't in competition with these species. Homo sapiens sapiens were. Chimps and Homo erectus could coexist just fine. HSS and HE could not. Seems like superior intelligence was not as useful for tree climbing primates as for plains dwelling primates.
  13. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    31 Mar '05 23:561 edit
    No, but it is implied. And incest was not as negative an event back then, due to exponentially superior genes.

    Let me elaborate. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve perfect. Infinitely small negative mutation would have occurred in them before they procreated, a ...[text shortened]... distant cousins from Adam and Eve's line create a healthy baby).
    I do believe you are arguing that humans evolved since the days of Adam and Eve, albeit negatively.

    Fantastic.

    : D
  14. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    01 Apr '05 00:48
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I do believe you are arguing that humans evolved since the days of Adam and Eve, albeit negatively.

    Fantastic.

    : D
    Yes, but most assuredly not for the better. 😉
  15. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    01 Apr '05 00:50
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    I don't know if you realize this but your belief to me is as scary as my lack of belief is to you. I dare say I am not alone in this feeling.

    I never said I am not open to the belief in God. After hearing extensively your beliefs and from my own extensive experience with Christianity, I am pretty much not open to it. Throughout my life, I have given ...[text shortened]... tion of God. Christianity does not satisfy me either and nor does any other belief or religion.
    We know conclusively when Snoopy, William Shatner and coke cans began existing. This is not the case for God and He demands more respect as a hypothesis.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree