Christ's Death and Man's Evolution.

metherion · Jun 29, 2009

Are mammals "better" than reptiles? Are reptiles better than amphibians? Are we better than apes? Of course. Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives. If not, why do we have extinction?

No, mammals are not better. No, reptiles are not better. No, we are not better. We are adapted to survive in different environments. Humanity has just used its intelligence to make most of the world suitable for our survival.

Latter lives are not ‘better’. They are better adapted to survive today.
Plop a human down 1 billion years ago. They’d starve. There was nothing there to eat since we can’t eat bacteria. We’d be screwed. Does that mean 1 billion year old bacteria are better then us? Hm?

If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)

It’s because if the environment changes fast enough for that to be evolutionary necessary, odds are the species who can’t survive are dead.

Furthermore, nothing today will evolve into another animal alive today. It will be something we haven’t seen before.

And this represents a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no evolving BACK. There is just evolving. Furthermore, we ARE apes. We are a subsection of apes.

As for evolving to be like other apes, which is I’m guessing what you mean, what are the differences? Let’s take a look at a few. Humans have bigger brains. If humans were born with less, they’d be dumb and less likely to attact a mate. Other apes have different proportions of limbs and such, would probably be rejected as mates by society. Etc, etc, etc.

Do we have a bigger brain than other animals? Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.

Yes we do. Yes it very well may. Not necessarily. For us it was. But big brains have a large cost in the form of vastly increases nutritional needs. If we didn’t have access to relatively large amounts of food for our size, and our brain didn’t give us access to it, we wouldn’t have an advantage having it.
Furthermore, size isn’t everything in terms of brains. Just gonna throw that out there.

I don't mind to have myself extremely embarrassed, if you can make me. Most likely, the more we talk about an issue, the more correct I become.

Let’s hope so.

Metherion

Nathan Poe · Jun 29, 2009

juvenissun said:
Are mammals "better" than reptiles?

Squirrel = Mammal
Python = Reptile

Place your bets.

Are reptiles better than amphibians?

Depends on how much water there is.

Are we better than apes? Of course.

If you were locked in a cage with an angry silverback, I'd say it would de-spine you in about 20 seconds.

Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives. If not, why do we have extinction?

Because some species -- reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds; extinction doesn't discriminate -- don't adapt to their environment quick enough.

By your logic, we'd never see a mammal go extinct. We do, so you logic is (surprise!) fatally flawed.

If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)

We are apes. And crocs don't live in environments where being a fish is all that advantageous.

Do we have a bigger brain than other animals? Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.

And yet, the bigger brain has saddled us with a number of evolutionary headaches (no pun intended) which are offset by human society.

I don't mind to have myself extremely embarrassed, if you can make me. Most likely, the more we talk about an issue, the more correct I become.

Wrong again, juvi -- and surprising as it may seem, you've managed to disappoint me. You've never pretended to be so ignorant of evolution in the past (although I never assume a Creationist is pretending; lying's a sin, after all), so how could you have possibly forgotten everythign you've allegedly learned about how the natural world (of which evolution is only one part) works?

corvus_corax · Jun 29, 2009

juvenissun said:
No, like creationist , you simply deny the facts.

Ironically, you are a Creationist. Or at least you are a Creationism proponent completely opposed to the ToE.
You said it yourself.

juvenissun said:
Life does evolve toward a "better" direction. Otherwise, life should start to evolve back to bacteria long time ago.

Oh, so you're saying that lizards, cheetahs, gorillas and humans are "better" than bacteria?
In what way?

juvenissun said:
Open your eyes. Don't let your faith fool you.

You fail to take your own advice, bacteria-dependent mammal that you are.

corvus_corax · Jun 29, 2009

juvenissun said:
Are mammals "better" than reptiles?

No

juvenissun said:
Are reptiles better than amphibians?

No

juvenissun said:
Are we better than apes?

No. Of course you ignore the fact that we ARE apes

juvenissun said:
Of course.

You are wrong

juvenissun said:
Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives.

So your life holds more value than the life of your mother and father?
Think HARD before you answer that one, "scientist".
<staff edit>

Extinction occurs for obvious reasons (predation, lack of reproduction, lack of food sources, climate change, etc etc etc)

juvenissun said:
If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)

Dude, seriously, you have NO idea about cladistics.
Homo sapiens sapiens ARE apes.
We can't "evolve back to ape", because we ARE apes.
It really is that simple

juvenissun said:
Do we have a bigger brain than other animals?

We have a bigger brain that some animals, granted, but not all.

juvenissun said:
Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.

(emphasis mine)
Wait, just wait
It DID happen, whether you are a YEC or one who accepts the ToE.
"IF" it happened?
SRSLY?
<staff edit>

juvenissun · Jun 30, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Squirrel = Mammal
Python = Reptile

Place your bets.

Depends on how much water there is.

If you were locked in a cage with an angry silverback, I'd say it would de-spine you in about 20 seconds.

Because some species -- reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds; extinction doesn't discriminate -- don't adapt to their environment quick enough.

By your logic, we'd never see a mammal go extinct. We do, so you logic is (surprise!) fatally flawed.

We are apes. And crocs don't live in environments where being a fish is all that advantageous.

And yet, the bigger brain has saddled us with a number of evolutionary headaches (no pun intended) which are offset by human society.

Wrong again, juvi -- and surprising as it may seem, you've managed to disappoint me. You've never pretended to be so ignorant of evolution in the past (although I never assume a Creationist is pretending; lying's a sin, after all), so how could you have possibly forgotten everythign you've allegedly learned about how the natural world (of which evolution is only one part) works?

Smart answers would only make you look more foolish.

I did learn about evolution. Because I learned, so I have that conclusion. Evolution has a direction, if it ever happened. When you see the life tree (?), you know that has to be the conclusion. There is no other way to explain it.

Why don't we evolve back to apes? Why don't Eskimos start to grow white furs and skin fat like that of the polar bears?

WilliamduBois · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
Smart answers would only make you look more foolish.

Ah! You're being nice by making yourself look foolish by giving dumb answers, I assume then?

I did learn about evolution.

Where?

Because I learned, so I have that conclusion. Evolution has a direction, if it ever happened. When you see the life tree (?), you know that has to be the conclusion. There is no other way to explain it.

Sure there is: you don't know what you're talking about. Which is shown here again:

Why don't we evolve back to apes?

Saying something while you know it's wrong is lying, "teacher". We are apes.

Why don't Eskimos start to grow white furs and skin fat like that of the polar bears?

Because they can survive like they are now.

juvenissun · Jun 30, 2009

metherion said:
No, mammals are not better. No, reptiles are not better. No, we are not better. We are adapted to survive in different environments. Humanity has just used its intelligence to make most of the world suitable for our survival.

Latter lives are not better. They are better adapted to survive today.
Plop a human down 1 billion years ago. Theyd starve. There was nothing there to eat since we cant eat bacteria. Wed be screwed. Does that mean 1 billion year old bacteria are better then us? Hm?

If multiple-cell life is not better than single-cell life, then why does it appear and developed more and more? When a multiple-cell life encountered bad environment, why does it not to evolve back to single-cell life to deal with the environment?

Of course we are better life form. Do you like to evolve back to early human? What is wrong with that evolution?

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

With regard to evolving "back? i think juv has a point, up to a point.

Asking "why doesnt something happen" with regard to something like "why dont eskimos grow fur" serves only a rhetorical point. We have clothes; no selective pressure to grow fur. Esp not for today's eskimos who are not into living off the land and like microwave food better than seals.

The pale skin northern europeans did evolve a bit for a northern climate, more than eskimos did actually.

There are examples of things "evolving back", if that is how one likes to put it. not back to what they were, but losing structures that took a long time to develop. Loss of limbs for example in whale, snake etc. Loss of eyes, or degeneration of eyes, like in cave fish.

Evolution goes in the direction that selective pressure pushes it. i would guess that if one had selective pressure to produce a race of humans that were short, hairy, kinda dumb and very strong, that could be done. i guess they'd look more like other apes.

Juv also has a point about "better". A mammal is more able to maintain a high level of activity than a reptile, it can live in a cold climate. so it has advantages there. The reptile can go without food wway longer than a mammal, so it has an advantage there. We have mammals and reptiles both, so there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Where the "better' most comes into play would be in the "micro" evolution, I think.

A cow isnt better than a fish, but, a fish that can swim faster, hide better etc even in some small way and is better adapted to a specific environment than the others in its group, will have better reproductive success.

"Better" as a driving force for evolution only makes sense on that level.

Ectezus · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
If multiple-cell life is not better than single-cell life, then why does it appear and developed more and more?

Your body has about 10 times more bacterial cells on it than your own human cells. Funny how you consider everything part of 'yourself' and the useful bacteria that work in symbiosis with you don't get any credit.

Without bacteria life on earth as we know it would end. They have, and always will fill a certain niche that larger organisms simply can not fill.
They haven't stopped evolving though, the single cells that started the evolutionary chain aren't anywhere near the complexity we see in cells today.
It's a case where quality > quantity. Growing bigger isn't necessarily the best strategy.

When a multiple-cell life encountered bad environment, why does it not to evolve back to single-cell life to deal with the environment?

Evolution works with the cards it's 'dealt with'. It can't redesign from scratch. It can however adjust unnecessary parts (environmental pressure) like rudimentary organs. Whale foot bones are a splendid example. In a way this is your multi cellular going back to a single cellular phase example, just in another scale.

Of course we are better life form. Do you like to evolve back to early human? What is wrong with that evolution?

Please don't confuse complexity and certain characteristics with each other.
Early humans had way more hair but due to us humans wearing clothes there was no selective pressure anymore that hairy humans benefited. In fact we now consider it ugly so there's a reverse selection going on.

We do however still have the genes to activate that ridiculous hair growth.
So basically we do have the complexity to create hairs over all of our bodies, but it's not beneficial to us right now so we don't use it. If however we would face another ice age, new selective pressures kick in which might make activate those hair genes again.
I guess you can consider this part of your "going back to early man phase" example.

The examples you are thinking of are there, you just think too unrealistic, too big of a change as an answer.

- Ectezus

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

Ectezus said:
Your body has about 10 times more bacterial cells on it than your own human cells. Funny how you consider everything part of 'yourself' and the useful bacteria that work in symbiosis with you don't get any credit.

Without bacteria life on earth as we know it would end. They have, and always will fill a certain niche that larger organisms simply can not fill.
They haven't stopped evolving though, the single cells that started the evolutionary chain aren't anywhere near the complexity we see in cells today.
It's a case where quality > quantity. Growing bigger isn't necessarily the best strategy.

Evolution works with the cards it's 'dealt with'. It can't redesign from scratch. It can however adjust unnecessary parts (environmental pressure) like rudimentary organs. Whale foot bones are a splendid example. In a way this is your multi cellular going back to a single cellular phase example, just in another scale.

Please don't confuse complexity and certain characteristics with each other.
Early humans had way more hair but due to us humans wearing clothes there was no selective pressure anymore that hairy humans benefited. In fact we now consider it ugly so there's a reverse selection going on.

We do however still have the genes to activate that ridiculous hair growth.
So basically we do have the complexity to create hairs over all of our bodies, but it's not beneficial to us right now so we don't use it. If however we would face another ice age, new selective pressures kick in which might make activate those hair genes again.
I guess you can consider this part of your "going back to early man phase" example.

The examples you are thinking of are there, you just think too unrealistic, too big of a change as an answer.

- Ectezus

I think the argument boils down to "evolution isnt true because it doesnt act the way I think it should"

Nathan Poe · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
Smart answers would only make you look more foolish.

And yet, I'm not the one looking foolish here. Funny thing, that.

I did learn about evolution.

Apparantly not.

Because I learned, so I have that conclusion.

You learned poorly, so you have an erroneous conclusion.

Evolution has a direction, if it ever happened.

You've had this explained to you, but you don't listen.

When you see the life tree (?), you know that has to be the conclusion. There is no other way to explain it.

Except for the ways you've refused to listen to.

Why don't we evolve back to apes?

Because we are apes, juvi.

Why don't Eskimos start to grow white furs and skin fat like that of the polar bears?

Because they kill the furry creatures and the polar bears and wear their fur and fat instead, making such evolution unnecessary.

You see, juvi, if you actually had learned about evolution, you'd know that it's a slow process, in which 99.9% of life doesn't make the final cut. Why sit around waiting for evolutionary/miraculous changes when it's quicker/easier/far less fatal to go out and do it yourself?

juvenissun · Jun 30, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Because they kill the furry creatures and the polar bears and wear their fur and fat instead, making such evolution unnecessary.

Who said it is unnecessary to evolve? If only wearing animal furs can resist the environmental elements, why don't you go there and see if you could live there the same as you are now? I bet you will evolve. The reason that Eskimos do not evolve is because there is simply no evolution.

You tell me what kind of dramatic environmental change which push apes toward human? Was it more dramatic than moving to the polar area? Is that particular environmental pressure gone now? (by the way, YOU are ape, I am not)

Environment on the earth changed back and forth and there has been no new environment on the earth for billions of years . But everything evolved "forward". Do you know why?

gaara4158 · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
If multiple-cell life is not better than single-cell life, then why does it appear and developed more and more? When a multiple-cell life encountered bad environment, why does it not to evolve back to single-cell life to deal with the environment?

Of course we are better life form. Do you like to evolve back to early human? What is wrong with that evolution?

1. I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by "better"?

2. Evolution is not a conscious choice. It just happens due to natural mutations. Guided by nothing but the laws of physics, which right now we cannot predict. That's why we don't develop the ability to... say... generate food out of thin air, even though that would be very beneficial to our survival.

3. There would be no benefit in our evolution back to earlier species of the genus homo. We have more useful technology, faster brains, and a very defined social structure that earlier humans would struggle to keep up with.

4. You say "you will evolve." You are aware that evolution takes place in populations, not individuals, right?

Bombila · Jun 30, 2009

Juvenissun, Northern peoples have indeed evolved various physical adaptations that have helped them thrive in extreme Northern climates.

Previous research on northern populations such as the Eskimo/Inuit has suggested that these groups display increased metabolic rates, perhaps reflecting an adaptation to the extreme cold of their arctic environments. Our work among indigenous Siberians has shown that these groups show elevated resting metabolism as well as high levels of energy expenditure associated with subsistence activities. Moreover, it appears that these elevated resting metabolic rates may have a genetic component, since indigenous Siberians have higher metabolic rates than non-indigenous Russians living in the same communities. Our work further indicates that these distinctive metabolic profiles are a product of alterations in thyroid hormone metabolism.

Home Page

Everything evolves 'forward' because there's no other option. The individual lives to reproduce, or it dies without reproducing. There are many successful offspring or few.

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
Who said it is unnecessary to evolve? If only wearing animal furs can resist the environmental elements, why don't you go there and see if you could live there the same as you are now? I bet you will evolve. The reason that Eskimos do not evolve is because there is simply no evolution.

You tell me what kind of dramatic environmental change which push apes toward human? Was it more dramatic than moving to the polar area? Is that particular environmental pressure gone now? (by the way, YOU are ape, I am not)

Environment on the earth changed back and forth and there has been no new environment on the earth for billions of years . But everything evolved "forward". Do you know why?[/quote

Are you seriously under the impression that anyone thinks iit takes a "dramatic environment change' to cause evolution?

No new environment on earth for billions of years????? You just made that up. And it makes no sense at all... tho, i suppose with enough special definitions, any statement can be made "true".

You do know that eskimos live in houses, eat microwave food, go to college, and so forth? or did you think they live out on the polar ice and seals?

Nathan Poe · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
Who said it is unnecessary to evolve?

The environment.

If only wearing animal furs can resist the environmental elements, why don't you go there and see if you could live there the same as you are now? I bet you will evolve.

Into what? An Eskimo? :scratch:

If I lived in Africa, would you bet I'd turn black?
<staff edit>

The reason that Eskimos do not evolve is because there is simply no evolution.

Are you suggesting that eskimos are unevolved?

You tell me what kind of dramatic environmental change which push apes toward human?

Who said it was dramatic? It was gradual.

Was it more dramatic than moving to the polar area?

Eskimos have been living in polar areas for thousands of years.

Is that particular environmental pressure gone now?

Yes it is -- Civilization and technology have reduced the selective pressure of the environment to almost nil.

Had you actually studied evolution, you'd know this.

(by the way, YOU are ape, I am not)

I'm sure that will be very comforting to the apes. What do you think you are?

Environment on the earth changed back and forth and there has been no new environment on the earth for billions of years. But everything evolved "forward". Do you know why?

I know that as long as you think there is "no new environment" you'll never get it.
<staff edit>

Nathan Poe · Jun 30, 2009

Neal said:
Hey, I don't believe I've posted here before. (Right off the bat, please note that I am very ignorant of the science of evolution.) I thought of this briefly a while ago and didn't get back to it until now. I'd like to ask, if either Christians or non-Christians would like to speculate or answer. It's a short question, I think:

Short, maybe. Simple... another story.

When we read in the Bible that Christ died for men, would we say that it applied also to previous evolutionary states, like the Neanderthal? If not, then what if our present evolutionary state (Homo sapien) evolved once more--would we still say that Christ died for even the previous evolutionary state--the one that said that He did not die for the one before it? And if that is the case, how far back in the evolutionary line could it be?

If you're going to try to reconcile the Christian story of salvation with modern science, consider this -- Christianity states that all of creation suffered as a result of man's fall. Now, wouldn't it then stand to reason that God's plan for reconciliation would necessarily include all of creation in its redemption?

IOW, does Christ's sacrifice at the cross only serve to cover human failings, or is it part of the larger plan to reconnect all of creation back to the Creator?

(Just because the Bible says Christ died for "men," doesn't mean -- well, you get the idea; ask any woman)

Or is it only those that can have faith? If we accept that human babies and the mentally handicapped might be saved, on account of their inability to have faith, though they would if they could, then what about previous evolutionary states?

Did Christ die for a select few, or for everybody?

Just some thoughts... and a hello.

Thoughts are always welcome -- and hello back.

Hespera · Jun 30, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
The environment.

Into what? An Eskimo? If I lived in Africa, would you bet I'd turn black?

Really, Juvi, you claimed to have learned evolution, and then you go off on stuff like this. Sad, really, and completely unhelpful to people like the OP who actually do want to learn.

Are you suggesting that eskimos are unevolved?

Who said it was dramatic? It was gradual.

Eskimos have been living in polar areas for thousands of years.

Yes it is -- Civilization and technology have reduced the selective pressure of the environment to almost nil.

Had you actually studied evolution, you'd know this.

I'm sure that will be very comforting to the apes. What do you think you are?

I know that as long as you think there is "no new environment" you'll never get it.

You see, juvi, this is what happens when you pretend to know evolution for no other reason than to attempt to discredit it. False witness is a sin, in case you care.

It would be so nice if we ever had someone on here who had some sort of realistic informed ideas that constituted an actual challenge to evolution as we understand it.

Fake footprints, fake degrees,s fake arguments. The Truth with god and all reality on its side ought to be able to do better than that at least once.

juvenissun · Jun 30, 2009

gaara4158 said:
1. I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by "better"?

2. Evolution is not a conscious choice. It just happens due to natural mutations. Guided by nothing but the laws of physics, which right now we cannot predict. That's why we don't develop the ability to... say... generate food out of thin air, even though that would be very beneficial to our survival.

3. There would be no benefit in our evolution back to earlier species of the genus homo. We have more useful technology, faster brains, and a very defined social structure that earlier humans would struggle to keep up with.

4. You say "you will evolve." You are aware that evolution takes place in populations, not individuals, right?

I know all the arguments you intend to engage. What I am talking about is one level above those. So, make your argument accordingly. (you may assume I know the answer of your question and press for the next one!)

gaara4158 · Jun 30, 2009

juvenissun said:
I know all the arguments you intend to engage. What I am talking about is one level above those. So, make your argument accordingly. (you may assume I know the answer of your question and press for the next one!)

Actually, there is no such level. If you fail to answer my questions, I must assume you do not know the answer.

Christ's Death and Man's Evolution.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

... and God saw that it was good.

BenderBendingRodriguez

... and God saw that it was good.

Junior Member

Beholder

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Gen Alpha Dad

Veteran

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Gen Alpha Dad

Similar threads