Hi there,
So as you will have noticed with a few of my threads, I have wanted to come to you first
(in the Christian section), rather than cast my pearl before swine - the moreso as Evolution continues to be more and more unregenerate (amongst its proponents). Its not that I don't know how to communicate, for the most part - simply that they don't want to see (about Evolution) what they don't like and it makes it very difficult to get a point across (for example "members of a species don't evolve, only species do - absurd, right?). So anyway, I came up with an angle that might give useful leverage and I wanted to see what you thought...
What if other species make better candidates, for ancestors, than apes?
The point I am making is that if I like eating fruit from trees, but trees are sparsely populating my environment, as a Man, it would be better that I saw myself as descendent of giraffes, not apes. Apes are advantageous when you are in dense jungle - but what if as a Man, I don't want to live in the jungle: aren't I helping my Evolution, by taking claim of the giraffe species - and thereby making myself more likely to survive difficult to find trees?
I could give heaps of examples: fish staying hydrated, mammals having holes to hide from predators, venom to ward off intruders. You basically have no advantage being from an ape, except that you move quickly at height. I don't see that as reason to claim that apes were our ancestors. If I chose an ancestor that helps me fight territory, I am going to trump ancestors that remain aloof from that that could help them survive (while they seek shelter). Take a bear, for example: a bear is always going to win in a fight against a monkey - if there are no trees nearby... game over!
So, yes I think even setting out a second possibility for an ancestor, would be better than trivializing the human race, to one past connection. Do you see how little sense, that makes? There is more to being the fittest, than concentrating on your own fitness. Being there for other members of your species, in the most diversified way possible (in principle), is only the beginning of what we can do for creatures other than ourselves. We must fight to maintain the integrity of the conversation between Man and God, that we learn to flourish as He created us. If that means looking outside ourselves or what is superficially like us, then so be it!
The one exception I think you can find to this, is that tangible gains have been found, relating to apes. If you can cut through the proverbial jungle and learn from apes, great! But given the choices of ancestor, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater: these teachings have to be understood as survivally limited. It would be better to spread out our learning, regardless of which species was specifically more derivative than others.
Derivation does not come by appearance.
Thanks for your thoughts!
So as you will have noticed with a few of my threads, I have wanted to come to you first
(in the Christian section), rather than cast my pearl before swine - the moreso as Evolution continues to be more and more unregenerate (amongst its proponents). Its not that I don't know how to communicate, for the most part - simply that they don't want to see (about Evolution) what they don't like and it makes it very difficult to get a point across (for example "members of a species don't evolve, only species do - absurd, right?). So anyway, I came up with an angle that might give useful leverage and I wanted to see what you thought...
What if other species make better candidates, for ancestors, than apes?
The point I am making is that if I like eating fruit from trees, but trees are sparsely populating my environment, as a Man, it would be better that I saw myself as descendent of giraffes, not apes. Apes are advantageous when you are in dense jungle - but what if as a Man, I don't want to live in the jungle: aren't I helping my Evolution, by taking claim of the giraffe species - and thereby making myself more likely to survive difficult to find trees?
I could give heaps of examples: fish staying hydrated, mammals having holes to hide from predators, venom to ward off intruders. You basically have no advantage being from an ape, except that you move quickly at height. I don't see that as reason to claim that apes were our ancestors. If I chose an ancestor that helps me fight territory, I am going to trump ancestors that remain aloof from that that could help them survive (while they seek shelter). Take a bear, for example: a bear is always going to win in a fight against a monkey - if there are no trees nearby... game over!
So, yes I think even setting out a second possibility for an ancestor, would be better than trivializing the human race, to one past connection. Do you see how little sense, that makes? There is more to being the fittest, than concentrating on your own fitness. Being there for other members of your species, in the most diversified way possible (in principle), is only the beginning of what we can do for creatures other than ourselves. We must fight to maintain the integrity of the conversation between Man and God, that we learn to flourish as He created us. If that means looking outside ourselves or what is superficially like us, then so be it!
The one exception I think you can find to this, is that tangible gains have been found, relating to apes. If you can cut through the proverbial jungle and learn from apes, great! But given the choices of ancestor, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater: these teachings have to be understood as survivally limited. It would be better to spread out our learning, regardless of which species was specifically more derivative than others.
Derivation does not come by appearance.
Thanks for your thoughts!