As Evolutionists, do you consider yourselves, or future man more evolved than Jesus?

Proselyte · #11 4th July 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dannager

Mmm, not quite. You see, evolution favors traits that allow for improved survivability in the environment the organism inhabits. We are perhaps more adapted to the environment we live in, but we cannot say that we are better adapted to our environment than Jesus was adapted to his.

Hmm, could we then become "devolved" if conditions were right? Or I suppose the term is called Dysgenics...

Proselyte · #12 4th July 2006, 02:07 PM

In the way Cro-magnon or Neanderthal is looked back on as inferior in terms of mental prowess, if that is the case, will someday a new group of the human species look back on us in a relative primitive light? In reference to the original question then, will this "future man" look back on Jesus and his contemporaries as primitive and perhaps less evolved even mentally?

Mallon · #13 4th July 2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Proselyte

In reference to the original question then, will this "future man" look back on Jesus and his contemporaries as primitive and perhaps less evolved even mentally?

Are you denying the deity of Jesus by implying that He didn't have in mind the thoughts of God? Are you denying the Trinity? If God does not change, and if He is now as He was since the beginning (which we all believe), I don't see how your question can hold any water.
Again, you should direct the question at your creation science bretheren as I think you may get some more interesting answers.

Dannager · #14 4th July 2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Proselyte

Hmm, could we then become "devolved" if conditions were right? Or I suppose the term is called Dysgenics...

While theoretically possible, an actual case of dysgenic evolution hasn't been observed. Humans are probably the only species capable of undergoing dysgenic evolution at this point, as we're the only ones where selection pressure is relaxed enough to allow for it.

Proselyte · #15 4th July 2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Are you denying the deity of Jesus by implying that He didn't have in mind the thoughts of God? Are you denying the Trinity? If God does not change, and if He is now as He was since the beginning (which we all believe), I don't see how your question can hold any water.
Again, you should direct the question at your creation science bretheren as I think you may get some more interesting answers.

This question is open to anyone, Creationists feel free to chime in if they wish.

gluadys · #16 4th July 2006, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Proselyte

Under Evolution, wouldn't man be continually evolving passing on favorable heritable traits, ala natural selection? So fast forward however thousands or hundred thousands of years to when we see some marked difference between man then and now? At that point would we consider humans as a species more evolved than now, or in Jesus' time?

But what is "favorable"? "Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment. So we can be better adapted to today's environment, while Jesus and his contemproraries were better adapted to theirs. And our great-grandchildren will be better adapted to theirs.

But the differences are just differences. They don't imply a progress, only adaptations to changing environments.

gluadys · #17 4th July 2006, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Proselyte

Hmm, could we then become "devolved" if conditions were right? Or I suppose the term is called Dysgenics...

Not really. If an environment swings between alternate states, a species will adapt one way for one environment and back the other when the environment reverts to the other state.

Two examples of this are the pepper moth adapting to a polluted industrial environment and then back again as the pollution was cleaned up. Also the Galapagos finches adapting to a dry climate during a drought, then to a wet climate when the rains returned.

Both phases are evolution, since both make the species more fit for the environment of the present time. "Devolution" doesn't really have any scientific meaning.

Proselyte · #18 5th July 2006, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

But what is "favorable"? "Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment. So we can be better adapted to today's environment, while Jesus and his contemproraries were better adapted to theirs. And our great-grandchildren will be better adapted to theirs.

But the differences are just differences. They don't imply a progress, only adaptations to changing environments.

So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?

rmwilliamsll · #19 5th July 2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

But what is "favorable"? "Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment. So we can be better adapted to today's environment, while Jesus and his contemproraries were better adapted to theirs. And our great-grandchildren will be better adapted to theirs.

But the differences are just differences. They don't imply a progress, only adaptations to changing environments.

Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment.

interesting, just a minor disagreement.
the generations of creatures are not better adapted to their environment but to their parents environment. the assumption is the relative continuity of environmental factors, a decent assumption overall.

look at darwin's finches.
start with the generation alive today. their demographics, their population mix of beak sizes for example, are the result of environmental pressures in their parent's generation. their offspring's generation will be a result of today's selection pressures. it is as if evolution is a generation behind the environment.

artybloke · #20 5th July 2006, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Proselyte

So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?

Put it another way:

Were Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man any less adapted to their particular environment than we are? The reason they died out is because in the end they either changed into something else, or didn't adapt as a species quickly enough to their environment when it changed.

The problem is that you're tacking a philosophy (the idea of "progress") onto a scientific process that has no inherent purpose. Human beings, of course, do tend to look down their noses at people from the past and think they're "better" than they were then. But that's a subjective, not a scientific, judgement, certainly as regards evolution.

Pure science doesn't make those kind of judgements: it merely reports on what it sees happening. Science has no teleology; it's descriptive not prescriptive.