sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,711
- 7,752
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I am neither clueless about the English language nor deliberately obtuse about your meaning. Have you considered the possibility that your argument was lacking in some way.And you repeated my statement, either clueless about the English language, or deliberately obtuse about my meaning ...
No, according to evolutionary biology, our species went from stronger to being both smarter and better at long distance running -- and therefore better at hunting.Our species, according the evolutionary fiction, is that we went from stronger to weaker, survivable to frail.
Here seems to be the main problem with your reasoning: you're treating strength, intelligence, and technology as if they were binary attributes. In reality, we developed primitive technology -- basic stone tools -- long before we developed the degree of intelligence we have today, and before we became as (relatively) weak as we are today.And the only explanation for the survivability of our frail versions today is our intelligence, which never would have survived without the technology derived from it, meaning that the intelligence never would have survived long enough to invent the artificial means of survival.
Upvote
0