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

[Proselyte]

The title asks the question. No one disputes Jesus living some 2000 years ago. As Evolutionists, do you believe that man of our time is more evolved than Jesus, a man of his time? Do you believe that future man will be more evolved than Jesus?

Just so there's no question about it, I am a YEC.

Thanks.

 

[shernren]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'll try to answer your question in an absolute sense. Take an average human generation at 20 years (which is surely an underestimate), then there have been 100 generations from Christ to now. The average rate of human mutation is 10^-8 per base pair per generation. Within a hundred generations, that means that on average my genome is different from that of a contemporary of Jesus by about 10^-6, or one part in a million.

So nope, I don't consider myself more evolved than Jesus, not that I know what you mean by "more evolved" in the first place.

 

[random_guy]

More evolved and less evolved doesn't make much sense. In evolution, there's extinct and extant. Extinct creatures aren't less evolved, per say, but rather was not able to survive in their current environment. Take an extinct creature from ago and put them into current times, and they may thrive.

So to answer your question, it makes no sense to talk about more evolved and less evolved. I'm sure if you take a baby in Jesus's time and raise the baby in a modern times, it'll do fine. Take a baby from now, and put him in the future 100 generations, and I'm pretty sure he'll also do fine (barring unforseen events like the Mutant X gene).

 

[Silent Bob]

I think there is a misunderstanding in the way you ask your question. Although in a way evolution will have acted upon future and current man more than it has acted on Jesus' contemporaries there are two problems with your question. Firstly the time is very small and secondly "more evolved" doesn't mean better or superior.
Maybe it means better adapted to the environment that each lives in but modern environmental changes are not old enough to have given current humans the chance to adapt.

 

[Alchemist]

Hi Proselyte,

Even if man does evolve further, nothing will change the fact that we are sinners who have fallen far short of God's glory. Personally, I think that is more important.

Peace,
Nick

 

[Mallon]

I think that would be a better question to ask of those creationists who believe in the sort of hyper-evolution from the original "kinds" that lead to our modern diversity, don't you? Surely their evidence must indicate we are more highly evolved than Jesus. After all, the supposed original dog-ancestor has diversified into all wolves, foxes, jackals, and household pets in less than 4,000 years. I would rather hear the answer from all our creation scientist friends out there.

 

[artybloke]

It occurs to me that the reason for the confusion is the mistaken view that evolution is about "progress." Human beings are not "better" now than they were in Jesus' time; but neither is the adaption of human beings to their current environment better than the adaption of, say, a velociraptor to its environment.

There is no teleology in science, and none whatsoever in evolutionary science. Evolution is not a ladder getting progressively better; it's just change to fit the environment. In 10,000 years time we will not be any less or more fit to our environment than we are now; and we won't be any morally better or worse.

 

[Dannager]

I'm pretty sure no one holds that viewpoint, Proselyte, especially since evolution doesn't pass judgment on what is "more evolved" or "more advanced" as long as the population remains extant. There has been no population split in humanity, so I don't think anyone can rightly claim that we're more advanced.

 

[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?

 

[Dannager]

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?

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.

 

[Proselyte]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.