The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

Status
Not open for further replies.

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to it's anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and
gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way
home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heissonear

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,237
36,550
Los Angeles Area
✟829,243.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat

I've done it. So you're wrong. Case closed.
 
Upvote 0

Simmeh

Flying Bugbear
Apr 11, 2014
103
33
✟15,847.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've done it. So you're wrong. Case closed.

Yeah... and doesn't fish count as meat? There's raw fish on sashimi, and lots of people eat that.

Also, he's forgetting the Inuit.

EDIT: Also, I think the OP should go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon Basin and observe the lifestyles of people who are basically still living in the Stone Age.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,125
6,336
✟275,519.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've eaten beef, fish, squid, prawns, goat, chicken, deer and horse raw. Living in southern Japan for 14 months was fun.

There's a guy in the US that was having a series of health issues and eventually settled them with an all raw meat diet. As of 2013, he'd been living on an all raw meat diet for five years, with no reported health problems.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,218
3,837
45
✟925,893.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
On the bipedal thing, it's more energy efficient over the long haul. Humans are endurance hunters not ambush predators, we wear down our prey.

Also, as people have said, there's a greater chance of bacterial infection, and it's harder to chew and digest, but eating raw meat is certainly possible.

(But, I'm assuming copy paste, post and go for this thread anyway. Using evilution makes me think it's probably a poe anyway.)
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,125
6,336
✟275,519.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ohh, a Gish gallop.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

In an upright gait, you sacrifice speed for endurance. Man may not be able to outsprint prey animals, but he can run them down over a longer period. The Kalahari bushmen are known to run down large animals like the African buffalo to the point where the animal simply sits down from exhaustion, and becomes an easy kill.

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

That's the evolutionary trade off for a big brain. Its also one of the reasons why we're the most social primate species on the planet. Also, please define 'survival of the fittest' for me, as I suspect you're not using the term correctly.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

See above about the benefits of sociability.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to it's anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

Survival for an individual without tools in the wild may, and its a big may, be impossible. Humans, with our big brains and opposable thumbs, are tool using creatures, and have been for better than 200,000 years. Humans are also social creatures - we live and move in large, interdependent social groups that offer significant survival advantages to a lone individual walking the savannah.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

You may want to look up sexual dimorphism and predatory behavior in Chimpanzees (one of our closest genetic relatives), before claiming that in "Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting".

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

See my earlier response

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth.

Citation needed.

Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

Sight and memory aren't enough. Are these not an inbuilt navigation system?

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

Are you Just Asking Questions? Are you to lazy to do the research yourself? Can you substantiate any of your points? Do you, in actuality, know anything about the research into cave dwelling in early humans?

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

Really, is it? If I dropped you 500 miles from civilisation tomorrow, naked and tool-less, would you survive?

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Where did you get the idea that anatomically modern man inhabited trees? What an odd notion.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeah... and doesn't fish count as meat? There's raw fish on sashimi, and lots of people eat that.

Also, he's forgetting the Inuit.

EDIT: Also, I think the OP should go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon Basin and observe the lifestyles of people who are basically still living in the Stone Age.
Hello Simmeh.

Good point, though I was angling more for a scenario with early man on the plains of Africa.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I've eaten beef, fish, squid, prawns, goat, chicken, deer and horse raw. Living in southern Japan for 14 months was fun.

There's a guy in the US that was having a series of health issues and eventually settled them with an all raw meat diet. As of 2013, he'd been living on an all raw meat diet for five years, with no reported health problems.
Hello Gene2memE.

So why is raw fish okay to consume, while raw beef, pork and other land animals are typically not on the menu?

For one thing, the parasites and bacteria that set up shop in raw animal meat are different and more dangerous
than the ones you’d find in raw fish, says Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne
and Environmental Diseases within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
On the bipedal thing, it's more energy efficient over the long haul. Humans are endurance hunters not ambush predators, we wear down our prey.

Also, as people have said, there's a greater chance of bacterial infection, and it's harder to chew and digest, but eating raw meat is certainly possible.

(But, I'm assuming copy paste, post and go for this thread anyway. Using evilution makes me think it's probably a poe anyway.)
Hello Shemjaza.

Bipedal motion may be more efficient, on a plain in Africa it would be not be advisable to wander around too much.
You may attract the attention of a pride of hungry lions. Eating raw meat is a dangerous thing to do, certainly
not recommended.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,218
3,837
45
✟925,893.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Hello Shemjaza.

Bipedal motion may be more efficient, on a plain in Africa it would be not be advisable to wander around too much.
You may attract the attention of a pride of hungry lions. Eating raw meat is a dangerous thing to do, certainly
not recommended.
No primate with two or four legs has any hope against a lion without a lot of friends or tools. The efficiency stands as a benefit, it also lets you see further.

Aside from the advantages of being upright, we have fossils of upright primates that are still what people would colloquially call "just apes", Australopithecus had hips much more like a human's then a chimps, yet:
IMG_0902.jpg


Also, raw meat is more likely to be dangerous not inherently dangerous. Similar to how raw milk has a chance of danger, not inherent danger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,575
11,394
✟437,177.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hello Ana.

How did you get out so far on the limb?

I know enough to make mistakes, which point is unsound?


Well...most of them...

Since we've evolved from what we were back in the days when we were in trees, we had different anatomical structures/features back then. I don't know all the specifics, but for one example I don't think we were bipedal.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to study up on the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth.
Can you find your way home, or are you forever wandering in random directions?

So why is raw fish okay to consume, while raw beef, pork and other land animals are typically not on the menu?
If a restaurant doesn't have raw beef on the menu, I'm reluctant to eat there!

If you've never eaten steak tartare, or yuk hwei, or carne cruda, then I suggest you have some evolving left to do! :p
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to it's anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and
gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way
home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.

You are completely ignoring the advantages of bipedalism, being a social creature, cooperation, tool-use, larger brains, curiosity, etc.

This ignorance runs like a red thread through every objection you posted.

Every change in evolutionary biology is always a trade off.

If for example a mutation happens that makes bones denser, then the materials to make those bones denser can no longer be used for something else.
There is always a cost to any potential benefit. The question to ask is: does the benefit outweigh the cost?

Throughout your points, you have consistently ignored every benefit and only focused on the cost.

It's quite clear that by "survival of the fittest" you understand the word "fit" to mean things like brute force, high speed, etc. But that isn't what it means at all.

A weak and slow but intelligent person is more then capable of winning a fight against a crockodile - by using an intelligent tactic and avoiding close-combat. A weak, slow but intelligent creature can build tools, weapons, traps,....

The word "fit" in that famous sentence doesn't (necessarily) mean "strong" or "fast" or "tall".


EDIT: ow, and before I forget....... being a big fan of beef carpacio and other raw meat dishes, here's a small link for you to look at:

http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/15-raw-meat-dishes-from-around-the-world
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hello Gene2memE.

So why is raw fish okay to consume, while raw beef, pork and other land animals are typically not on the menu?

For one thing, the parasites and bacteria that set up shop in raw animal meat are different and more dangerous
than the ones you’d find in raw fish, says Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne
and Environmental Diseases within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#History

No known clear archeological evidence for the first cooking of food has survived. Most anthropologists believe that cooking fires began only about 250,000 years ago, when hearths started appearing.[3] Phylogenetic analysis by Chris Organ, Charles Nunn, Zarin Machanda, and Richard Wrangham suggests that human ancestors may have invented cooking as far back as 1.8 million to 2.3 million years ago

It seems like cooking is probably just as old as modern humans - perhaps even older.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to it's anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and
gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way
home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.
At the end of the day it's not about raw meat or bipedalism or anything else. It's a problem of abiogenesis, also called "spontaneous generation" before that got disproven and had to be renamed. No matter what scenario anyone uses, at some point, stuff that isn't alive has to become alive. It doesn't happen. Any conditions that could have produced it would still be producing it to this day. Life is essentially information and information is stuff. "Stuff" not present in the progenitors doesn't just magically appear in the offspring. I LOVE science, including microevolution, but not tribal magic like macroevolution.

If people don't want to buy into creationism, fine. But, please, don't buy into non-scientific concepts simply because they've been presented as a "general consensus". Just come up with a better scientific theory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's a problem of abiogenesis, also called "spontaneous generation"

False.

"spontaneous generation" and "abiogenesis" are two very different models of life's origins.

The first has been refuted and discarded a long time ago.
The second is the hypothesis currently on the table (a collection of hypothesis, to be more correct).

They are not the same thing.
Just like "continental drift" and "plate tectonics" are not the same thing.

before that got disproven and had to be renamed

Nothing was "renamed". The entire model was discarded and replaced by another model.



No matter what scenario anyone uses, at some point, stuff that isn't alive has to become alive.

The scenario kind of matters though.
You know what also matters? A proper definition of "alive".
If I remember correctly, in the world of abiogenesis, the line between "living" and "not living" is very blurry.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in your way...

It doesn't happen.

Or.... we haven't found out yet how it happens or could happen.
You don't know what is possible or impossible in advance. No matter how much you like to pretend that you do.

Any conditions that could have produced it would still be producing it to this day.

And you know this how?

Life is essentially information and information is stuff. "Stuff" not present in the progenitors doesn't just magically appear in the offspring. I LOVE science, including microevolution, but not tribal magic like macroevolution.

Micro + micro + micro +....+ micro = macro.
Just like inches added together results in lightyears.

If people don't want to buy into creationism, fine. But, please, don't buy into non-scientific concepts simply because they've been presented as a "general consensus". Just come up with a better scientific theory.

We already have come up with a better scientific theory since "creationism". It's called evolution theory. Your personal incredulity not withstanding.

Ignorance is not an argument against solid science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr GS Hurd
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.