Do we humans disprove evolution?

[NomNomPizza]

i think humans disprove evolution, think about it, its the only species that cant live in nature and with higher intelligence they dont seem to behave normally being kind and stuff, so why did evolution make them smarter but not kinder?

There is no thing as disproving Evolution because Evolution is just an theory -often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence

Nobody ever proven anything about it or any missing link for over 160 years.
People think that if they stop saying Theory of Evolution and say only Evolution it will somehow get accepted as fact

 

[Occams Barber]

I understand what you are saying. The human infant is vulnerable to predators for up to a decade. How many other species have offspring that are so vulnerable, and for so long.

I already explained this. There are many animals which need to protect their offspring for their early years.

Human infants don't have speed, claws, teeth, or camouflage. They can't climb or swim.

Human adults also don't have speed, claws, teeth or camouflage. Most human adults would be unable to swim. Based on your list this leaves climbing as the only potential advantage to being an adult human.

A human infant has to be carried by hand for an extended period of time. A human infant can't hear approaching predators or even smell any predators. We don't have fur so we cannot endure cold climates. We need to live in villages with walls, if we want to survive.

Who said an infant can't hear or smell predators? In any case this is just one aspect of the protection which many animals, apart from humans, need to provide for their young.

A cold climate is as much a problem for adults as it is for young.

We don't 'need' to live in villages with walls. For the major part of human history walled villages are unusual. Consider hunter gatherers or human groups following annual animal migratory routes or travelling herdsmen. In fact walled enclosures come much later in history where their purpose was to keep animals in or other humans out.
OB

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no thing as disproving Evolution because Evolution is just an theory -often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence

Nobody ever proven anything about it or any missing link for over 160 years.
People think that if they stop saying Theory of Evolution and say only Evolution it will somehow get accepted as fact

Poe

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I would disagree.

I mean... Ok...? You can disagree, but that doesn’t make it less of a fact. It just means you disagree with an established fact.

We are talking about infants wandering the open savannah for a decade.

Ok... But still, in the animal kingdom, very few animals (especially mammals, birds, and non-amphibians) kick infant-stage young out to survive for themselves... Most animals raise their young in a proportionally similar amounts of time. Yes, opossums boot their young out after 4 months, but with a year lifespan, it means they are cared for by their mother for 25% of their life. For a human with an average lifespan of 70 years, that means a 4 month old opossum is 17.5 years of age in human years.

Do possums forage at night? Possums are tree dwelling not open savannah species?

Opossums are ground dwelling, actually. They can climb and do, but they spend most of their lives on the ground.

I think you missed the point.

I am very certain I did not.

Human children are vulnerable for far too long and the mothers are also defenseless.

Are you serious...?

 

[Occams Barber]

There is no thing as disproving Evolution because Evolution is just an theory -often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence

Even the Creationist websites have given up the "it's just a theory' argument.

A correct definition of theory (from the Smithsonian) is:

What do scientists mean when they call evolution a theory?
Like gravity and plate tectonics, evolution is a scientific theory. In science, a theory is the most logical explanation for how a natural phenomenon works. It is well tested and supported by abundant evidence. It means quite the opposite from our informal use of the word theory, which implies an untested opinion or guess. As a scientific theory, evolution enables scientists to make predictions and drives investigations that lead to new kinds of observable evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program (si.edu)

Nobody ever proven anything about it or any missing link for over 160 years.
People think that if they stop saying Theory of Evolution and say only Evolution it will somehow get accepted as fact

A huge amount of ground has been covered since Darwin's day. You're mention of 'missing link' tells me that your knowledge of Evolution is extremely limited and dates back several decades. For instance, the newish science of molecular genetics confirms Evolutionary theory.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Human children are vulnerable for far too long and the mothers are also defenseless.

It sounds like your view of women dates back to the Victorian era.

I think some mothers are going to seriously disagree with you on this.

OB

 

[klutedavid]

I already explained this. There are many animals which need to protect their offspring for their early years.

I don't see that same vulnerability that human mothers have with their children. I see a baby Zebra up and running in under a week. There is a massive difference between young Zebra and human toddlers.

Human adults also don't have speed, claws, teeth or camouflage. Most human adults would be unable to swim. Based on your list this leaves climbing as the only potential advantage to being an adult human.

Not many trees to climb on a savannah. Women carry children can't climb trees anyway. You need another solution.

Who said an infant can't hear or smell predators? In any case this is just one aspect of the protection which many animals, apart from humans, need to provide for their young.

The Savannah species have an extraordinary sense of smell and we don't.

A cold climate is as much a problem for adults as it is for young.

Not so much for animals with thick hides and fur. Humans are especially vulnerable to climate change, thin skin and no fur.

We don't 'need' to live in villages with walls. For the major part of human history walled villages are unusual. Consider hunter gatherers or human groups following annual animal migratory routes or travelling herdsmen. In fact walled enclosures come much later in history where their purpose was to keep animals in or other humans out.
OB

Wandering around on the savannah is perilous especially considering that, many predators hunt at night. So man had fire before he ventured onto the savannah.

 

[klutedavid]

It sounds like your view of women dates back to the Victorian era.

I think some mothers are going to seriously disagree with you on this.

OB

Humans are a physically weak species. Chimpanzees are three times stronger than us. Besides, baby chimpanzees hold onto their mothers. Human babies need to be carried. I just can't visualize human mothers holding their babies in trees. What happens when mum falls asleep?

 

[keith99]

The differences between animal species are basically physical. Humans are superficially similar in that they are flesh and blood. What makes man different is the spiritual dimension. Man has a conscience. There is no way that could just evolve. Man is God conscious. Evolution cannot explain that. Man is creative in ways that no animal is. That is an aspect of God's image. It's not something that just evolves.

I had 2 dogs that each had more of a conscience than most people do. They both in many ways thought of their people as Gods even though they knew very well they were not created in my image. One was more empathic than any human I have ever met.

Something like that does not just evolve. Oh wait, it did.

 

[Occams Barber]

Humans are a physically weak species. Chimpanzees are three times stronger than us. Besides, baby chimpanzees hold onto their mothers. Human babies need to be carried. I just can't visualize human mothers holding their babies in trees. What happens when mum falls asleep?

Humans don't live in trees but they do have useful attributes which chimpanzees lack.
(You should already know this.)

OB

 

[Aussie Pete]

Conscience could evolve naturally through group behaviour. Group behaviour is a major evolutionary tool employed by many animals. Conscience could also be a learned behaviour. I don't find conscience any more inexplicable than learning to keep your hand out of the fire. I suspect it's a combination of instinct and learning.

The jury is still out on whether animals have something we could reasonably define as conscience. There's a similar problem with human babies.

5 Animals With a Moral Compass | Animal Emotions | Live Science
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong? | Live Science
OB

You can suspect all you like. Evolution is supposed to be science. Animals have instinct and they can learn as well. That does not mean that they have a conscience.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I had 2 dogs that each had more of a conscience than most people do. They both in many ways thought of their people as Gods even though they knew very well they were not created in my image. One was more empathic than any human I have ever met.

Something like that does not just evolve. Oh wait, it did.

Perhaps you should get a dictionary and look up the word conscience. It has nothing to do with empathy or their misguided concept of humanity.

I share a house with a dog owner. I dislike dogs. The dog knows my room is off limits but that does not stop him coming in at times. He is a greedy scavenger, like all dogs. He will steal food without compunction. The owner compounds the problem by not training the dog to eat from its food bowl only.

Sure, dogs are loyal. They are dirty, noisy, clumsy, excessively friendly and will eat anything. Somewhat like tipsy teenage boys. That is not conscience. That's instinct and thousands of years of human socialisation and breeding.

 

[dlamberth]

Poe

I was thinking the same.

 

[dlamberth]

I think that is the case. Humans are driven by their passions and desires. You will find yourself doing exactly what you believe you should be doing.

"Feeling" what I should be doing more often than not for me.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is no thing as disproving Evolution because Evolution is just an theory -often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence

Nobody ever proven anything about it or any missing link for over 160 years.
People think that if they stop saying Theory of Evolution and say only Evolution it will somehow get accepted as fact

Perhaps you've never heard of Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus?

The links aren't missing.

You can suspect all you like. Evolution is supposed to be science. Animals have instinct and they can learn as well. That does not mean that they have a conscience.

Given that emotion, selflessness, loyalty and memory aren't enough evidence to show that animals can have a conscience... can you explain how you can demonstrate that humans have one?

 

[Larniavc]

We are not driven by instinct like every other species. We constantly choose and think about every action we take, every day.

It’s not black and white. When someone get’s emotional they’re being driven by instinct.

 

[klutedavid]

It’s not black and white. When someone get’s emotional they’re being driven by instinct.

I see instinct as a repeating pattern of behavior, that is triggered by an event. I do not associate emotions with instinct.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Perhaps you've never heard of Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus?

The links aren't missing.

View attachment 296179



Given that emotion, selflessness, loyalty and memory aren't enough evidence to show that animals can have a conscience... can you explain how you can demonstrate that humans have one?

Do you know what a conscience is? From your question, obviously not. People know that some things are right and some things are wrong. Animals do not. Conscience is what alerts people to wrong actions. It's what stops people from killing even if they would like to. It is so strong that most soldiers have to be trained to ignore conscience in order to kill the enemy. I'm ex military, I have some idea of what I'm talking about. Lions don't need that sort of training. Neither do dogs or cats. If your dog gets loose in a flock of sheep, it will kill without compunction. Cats kill for fun. I love cats, but I'm a realist. Mine stays inside. We have magnificent rainbow lorikeets, that are a delight to see. I see beauty, the cat sees lunch.

 

[Larniavc]

I see instinct as a repeating pattern of behavior, that is triggered by an event. I do not associate emotions with instinct.

You’d be wrong, then.

 

[Astrid]

On the first count, I agree. And how the eye could evolve is something only blind devotion to evolution could find reasonable. As I said to OB,

The differences between animal species are basically physical. Humans are superficially similar in that they are flesh and blood. What makes man different is the spiritual dimension. Man has a conscience. There is no way that could just evolve. Man is God conscious. Evolution cannot explain that. Man is creative in ways that no animal is. That is an aspect of God's image. It's not something that just evolves.

No way such things could be explained to someone
whose mind is made up and won't listen.

Of course, this forum is sought out by those
who wish to learn things, gain different
perspectives so those with hermetically
sealed minds are hopefully few.

But even for those few I do wonder, is it
not rather arrogant to claim knowledge of
God such that anyone actually knows what He
could or could not do?

The step by step pathway to the development of eyes
(a mantis shrimp has a much more sophisticated
eye than does a human btw) is clear enough to students of biology.
Even an amoeba can detect light. An Eugena- also single
celled- has receptors concentrated in an "eye spot".
There are no "jumps" no irreducible
complexities, those are only gaps in the
knowledge of those claiming such.

It appears- from the evidence - that life
has developed step by step since it so
mysteriously began in the deep past.
Why not?
How does one determine that God did not, could not
have set up the universe so it can run without His
having to tinker with it?

All the research in biology indicates that evolution
is in fact how life develops,. ALL. Zero contrary evidence.
Isn't it a bitt disrespectful to God to say one "knows" what
He cannot have done, however plainly the trail He left shows
the path He took?