Evolution of the human eye

[Estrid]

It is interesting. People had fire and simple tools a
million plus years ago.
The old stone age, Paleolithic, lasted till about 20k
years ago, depending on locality. A million years!
The new stone age, neolithic, with fine chipped
flint tools was still going when that "ice man" who
was found in Italy was still alive. He had copper and
flint tools.
The native Americans were neolithic when Euros
showed up. Some few still are.
The Tasmanian natives were Paleolithic when
Euros got there.
What it all means is an interesting question.

 

[keith99]

Doesn’t it seem odd that if man as we are today has existed for around 300,000 years that he has only advanced in technology in the last 4000 years? Almost no technological advancements for 296,000 years then all the sudden BAM he achieves everything we have today in the last 4000 years? Seems strange to me.

So the bow and arrow was not a technological advancement. Or the throwing stick before that. And of course the spear before either of those.

Yes long ago technological advances were slow. Technology advances when there is time to work on things and a hunter-gatherer society has little spare time. And advances get lost if they are not passed on, which could easily happen when only some members of the family of the inventor are ever told enough to continue to make the new better device.

Boats seem to go back at least 8000 years and they constantly showed technological advancement. Perhaps in large part because they opened up new hunting grounds which when things went well gave some free time for making the boats better.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Doesn’t it seem odd that if man as we are today has existed for around 300,000 years that he has only advanced in technology in the last 4000 years? Almost no technological advancements for 296,000 years then all the sudden BAM he achieves everything we have today in the last 4000 years? Seems strange to me.

Not particularly when you look at the acceleration of the advancements that are based on having previous advancements to build on. Hunter gatherers are not going to create fusion reactors without a whole lot of discoveries in between and many of them require wholesale changes in human society. the real question is where do we go from here.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would an all-powerful being need help with designing a world that holds a variety of life forms?

He wouldn't. If He was truly omniscient, He might even conceive of a system of natural forces to do it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Common Creator equals common similarities.

Common similarities do not fit into nested hierarchies.

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

Cladogram illustration showing nested hierarchies

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that the creation model has a reason for the flaws, right?

A poor one. Do you know what a "just so story" is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn’t it seem odd that if man as we are today has existed for around 300,000 years that he has only advanced in technology in the last 4000 years? Almost no technological advancements for 296,000 years then all the sudden BAM he achieves everything we have today in the last 4000 years? Seems strange to me.

You should study emergent properties. It really is not that odd.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Silly niggle, Common Similarities is redundant. Similarities are things that are common to two or more sets. Hence we need something else to differentiate them.

 

[renniks]

He wouldn't. If He was truly omniscient, He might even conceive of a system of natural forces to do it.

Why? God is the ultimate force, he doesn't need to create an elaborate system to create life. He literally spoke the world into existence.

 

[renniks]

[
and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

Common similarities do not fit into nested hierarchies.

Nested hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

Cladogram illustration showing nested hierarchies

It's easy to predict what you already found.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Why? God is the ultimate force, he doesn't need to create an elaborate system to create life. He literally spoke the world into existence.

It is not a question of why, but if he could have done something. If you grant him his omnipotence, why do you argue that he might have done elaborately, at least according to your definition of elaborately?

 

[Frank Robert]

[
and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.
It's easy to predict what you already found.

It doesn't work that way. You have it reversed it. Try reading the links.

 

[Frank Robert]

Why? God is the ultimate force, he doesn't need to create an elaborate system to create life. He literally spoke the world into existence.

You missed the point again. A system that self-perpetuates is much simpler that having to fiddle with evolutionary changes billions of times a second.

 

[renniks]

You missed the point again. A system that self-perpetuates is much simpler that having to fiddle with evolutionary changes billions of times a second.

God doesn't have to fiddle. He is literally holding reality together.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

God doesn't have to fiddle. He is literally holding reality together.

but he is not "fiddling" ? evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

Why? God is the ultimate force, he doesn't need to create an elaborate system to create life. He literally spoke the world into existence.

God doesn't need to do anything. But I am inclined to accept science as a tool to find out how He did it. Sure, God spoke the world into existence--but what did that look like from our angle?

 

[Speedwell]

[
and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.



It's easy to predict what you already found.

And because the observations form a nested hierarchy, they confirm (not "prove") the theory.

 

[renniks]

but he is not "fiddling" ? evidence?

Evolutionists " Science can't tell us anything about God." Also evolutionists: " If God does it this way, he has to fiddle with it constantly."

 

[renniks]

God doesn't need to do anything. But I am inclined to accept science as a tool to find out how He did it. Sure, God spoke the world into existence--but what did that look like from our angle?

What happened to "science can't tell us anything about God?"

 

[Speedwell]

What happened to "science can't tell us anything about God?"

It can't. It can only bear witness to His creation.