• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

If evolution is true

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,493
7,692
77
Northern NSW
✟1,099,328.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
A good example of cutural change through learning from forebears would be the Australian indigenous culture, which didn't become herders, nor farmers, over an approx 50-60 thousand year period (and even then, perhaps only grudgingly, once they had to interact with the English culture).
That it may have only been a tacit/grudging acceptance, also supports the idea that its not necessarily the natural physical environment driving such a change, too.

Have you ever disturbed a mob of kangaroos and watched them run off in 25 different directions?

Kangaroos don't a have herding instinct. Since there are no other largish grazing animals in the Australian environment there was nothing for indigenous people to herd. Aboriginals did not 'grudgingly' or otherwise begin herding when they 'interacted with English culture'.

Herding came to Australia when early colonial settlers imported herding animals like sheep and cattle. Aboriginal involvement was with herding these imported animals as employees since the grazing properties were located in remote areas where indigenous people were the main source of labour.

OB
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Have you ever disturbed a mob of kangaroos and watched them run off in 25 different directions?
Sure .. and I noticed they had self-gathered into a mob beforehand. ;)
Occams Barber said:
Kangaroos don't a have herding instinct. Since there are no other largish grazing animals in the Australian environment there was nothing for indigenous people to herd.
Hmm .. interesting. Is a herding instinct necessarily a prerequisite for domesticated farming, I wonder(?) .. or is the herding 'instinct' actually an acquired behaviour(?)
Occams Barber said:
Aboriginals did not 'grudgingly' or otherwise begin herding when they 'interacted with English culture'.
Maybe .. but the boss-man was mostly of English culture-origin, nonetheless.
Occams Barber said:
Herding came to Australia when early colonial settlers imported herding animals like sheep and cattle. Aboriginal involvement was with herding these imported animals as employees since the grazing properties were located in remote areas where indigenous people were the main source of labour.
Yes .. some might even say there was kind of a 'herding-pyramid' model there which included the employees, (ie: a bit like a food pyramid model)?
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,493
7,692
77
Northern NSW
✟1,099,328.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Sure .. and I noticed they had self-gathered into a mob beforehand. ;)

Hmm .. interesting. Is a herding instinct necessarily a prerequisite for domesticated farming, I wonder(?) .. or is the herding 'instinct' actually an acquired behaviour(?)

There is far more to herding instinct than a loose gathering like a mob of kangaroos. To be successful from a human viewpoint, herding animals need a number of characteristics like a social structure with a dominance hierarchy, a tendency to stay physically close when moving, a tendency to move as a group, a relatively placid temperament allowing for close confinement etc. That's why zebras, gazelles, kangaroos, caribou and big horn sheep (to name a few) are not typically herded by humans while horses, cattle, sheep, goats and reindeer are herded.

While aspects of herding instinct may be amplified by selective breeding it is based on naturally acquired behaviour.

Maybe .. but the boss-man was mostly of English culture-origin, nonetheless.
Yes .. some might even say there was kind of a 'herding-pyramid' model there which included the employees, (ie: a bit like a food pyramid model)?

I have no idea what your point is here.

My point was that kangaroo herding has never been a part of indigenous culture because kangaroos don't have the necessary herding instinct.

If you haven't already read it I recommend something like Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond to get a broad idea of how environment influences culture, history and technological development and some interesting comparisons between Europe, the Americas, Africa etc.

OB
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
.. To be successful from a human viewpoint, herding animals need a number of characteristics like a social structure with a dominance hierarchy, a tendency to stay physically close when moving, a tendency to move as a group, a relatively placid temperament allowing for close confinement etc. That's why zebras, gazelles, kangaroos, caribou and big horn sheep (to name a few) are not typically herded by humans while horses, cattle, sheep, goats and reindeer are herded.

While aspects of herding instinct may be amplified by selective breeding it is based on naturally acquired behaviour.
Hmm .. Surely there would be other reasons for humans to 'herd' particular species (in the context of discussing hunter/gatherers transitioning to herding/farming)? I'd agree that the animals which have already acquired the penchant for clustering together under certain situations, would obviously make the aim of creating ample human foodstocks much simpler by exploiting those behaviours, but I can't see why that would necessarily be the only reason .. and the reason for excluding other types of animals?

Where the primary goal is to create an ample food supply, a clever-minded human herder has surely demonstrated the ability to devise strategies in order to achieve that goal, and overcome potential obstacles?

I think sustained, successful herding is a mix of both evolutionarily acquired animal instincts, an evidenced ecological pyramid and the initial human mindset for achieving an envisaged outcome. It just doesn't seem adequate to say that certain animals naturally facilitate herding, (in the sense of human civilisation development), or don't, and that's the sole reason why certain cultures, (like the Aus indigenous culture), never adopted that particular strategy(?) - I mean Australian history is rife with failures of farmers trying farm herding species and all they eventually ended up demonstrating was the inappropriateness of adopting that particular strategy in certain unfamiliar Aus environments, even though those animals already had that so-called 'herding instinct'.

Occams Barber said:
I have no idea what your point is here.

My point was that kangaroo herding has never been a part of indigenous culture because kangaroos don't have the necessary herding instinct.
I get that's your point - acknowledged.
My point however, is that the notion of herding can be also be imposed by any intelligent predator in an evidenced, hierarchically structured ecological pyramid, provided the correct strategy is also adopted. Wherever this evidence-based hierarchical model of nature has been envisaged by humans, (for eg), from the outset, some miminal measure of herding success has also been achieved .. (even including when the resource happens to have been its own species).
Its not just as simple as choosing a herding-instinctive species .. there's a lot more human recognition of the objective reality of the environment and subsequent strategising required.

Occams Barber said:
If you haven't already read it I recommend something like Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond to get a broad idea of how environment influences culture, history and technological development and some interesting comparisons between Europe, the Americas, Africa etc.
Acknowledged .. and thanks for the reference.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The supposed natural norm at the time (swinging from trees), and 'if' being 'unneccessary' is just your opinion.


So you say... no, we've discussed the impossibility of proving creation wrong many times.


Nothing need be rhetorical about it. If you could ever nail 'objective reality' you'd have real question there... but, as it stands it's no threat to my beliefs.

I wonder what you mean by " prove creation wrong ".

And what you mean by "creation".

Do you mind a very brief explanation?

On the transition from "the wild" many creatures
will make homes for themselves.
I'm not sure what the problem is...?
Ttibal people even today live only in shelters built that day,
go without clothes and use a minimum of simple hand
made tools.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
First, let me make a statement, before I present my question. I understand very well that once the seed of ‘with enough time there is no limit to the amount of change possible’ is accepted… then it’s macroevolution hook, line and sinker. Ok, I get it.

Let’s forgo the goo to lower animal argument, no need to even go there. For argument sake, we’ll just say ‘if’ it did happen. What I’m wondering is what ever influenced us to even consider living outside the ‘wilds’, when every natural instinct is contrary to it. I mean increased brain capacity would be like ‘I need to make the jungle or savannah more comfortable.’ And, yes, I understand the hunter/gatherer and farmer transition (but only as humans).

I just can’t see a lot of ‘I don’t like this wild atmosphere at all, so I’m going to try another lifestyle altogether.’ I understand the concept of gradual change over time (micro level of course), and following and adapting to a food supply and even conditions to a point, but progressively changing from a lower animal natural lifestyle in the ‘wilds,’ to a human one outside the wilds… well, help me understand (please, no this is how evolution works) how you think this could possibly happen, regardless of the time involved?

I'd say that this is less of a question of biological science than anything else.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Again, that makes sense. But, if what you believe is true the progression is almost unimaginable, and is for some of us. And, there is always the 'why' just one branch would do it?

How exactly is in 'unimaginable' though? All that does is sound like an argument from incredulity: you can't believe it happening, so it didn't happen.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I wonder what you mean by " prove creation wrong ".
The context was my answer to a statement that I was only looking for refutations of my beliefs. My answer was no… because as we’ve discussed many times, it can’t be proven wrong. But, yes, you can certainly hypothesis something else happened, and I’m pretty aware of that suggestion.

And what you mean by "creation".
Do you mind a very brief explanation?
Far be it from me to give a better explantion than Genesis 1 does.

On the transition from "the wild" many creatures
will make homes for themselves.
I'm not sure what the problem is...?
Ttibal people even today live only in shelters built that day,
go without clothes and use a minimum of simple hand
made tools.
Well, I suppose it's more of a general thought problem than wanting to discuss the intricacies of biological or cultural evolution, although that is likely unavoidable in answers. My question is really "Why would ape-like creatures even attempt life outside their norm?" What would make them do that? I mean if a squirrel can find food easier at your trash can it will do it, it will even hang around the neighborhood more, but it's not going to build a more elaborate nest, look for a better job than scavenging, or start grilling out on the weekend… its still going to act and basically live like a squirrel. If general intelligence of apes is the answer (and there are other highly intelligent animals), why only them and why only some of them? Just because we have less intelligent humans, doesn’t stop them from following along for the benefits from the more intelligent.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Just one thought obstacle I have to your line of thinking, that's all.

But it's really not. Like... I'm sorry, but I don't see how humans deciding "Hmm... I need to find a way to protect myself and my family from the wild animals I live around better" is an obstacle.
Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
How exactly is in 'unimaginable' though? All that does is sound like an argument from incredulity: you can't believe it happening, so it didn't happen.
Yes, sort of, but mostly 'why would it?' I mean nothing else thought things through to the point they became human or anything equivalent.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, sort of, but mostly 'why would it?' I mean nothing else thought things through to the point they became human or anything equivalent.

Didn't answer my question: How exactly is in 'unimaginable' though?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Didn't answer my question: How exactly is in 'unimaginable' though?
Ok, wrong term... anything is imaginable. But, doesn't that mean creation is as well... what are your thoughts on that?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Ok, wrong term... anything is imaginable. But, doesn't that mean creation is as well... what are your thoughts on that?

Yes, it's imaginable. But there's no evidence for the Biblical creation, so than it's not something that should be considered scientific.
Now... why exactly is the fact that early humans did build settlements (for a very basic definition of settlements being 'place where one or more group of people lived together') somehow a problem for evolution?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, it's imaginable. But there's no evidence for the Biblical creation, so than it's not something that should be considered scientific.
There's no evidence that you interpret as such, according to your guidelines. Yet, others see it all around them, interpret it as evidence according to their guidelines, and could care less about scientific guidelines.

That's microevolution of humans. Apes are pretty intelligent, I wonder if they look at humans and think 'see, look what we could have been if we had just went out on the savannah with them?'
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The context was my answer to a statement that I was only looking for refutations of my beliefs. My answer was no… because as we’ve discussed many times, it can’t be proven wrong. But, yes, you can certainly hypothesis something else happened, and I’m pretty aware of that suggestion.



Far be it from me to give a better explantion than Genesis 1 does.


Well, I suppose it's more of a general thought problem than wanting to discuss the intricacies of biological or cultural evolution, although that is likely unavoidable in answers. My question is really "Why would ape-like creatures even attempt life outside their norm?" What would make them do that? I mean if a squirrel can find food easier at your trash can it will do it, it will even hang around the neighborhood more, but it's not going to build a more elaborate nest, look for a better job than scavenging, or start grilling out on the weekend… its still going to act and basically live like a squirrel. If general intelligence of apes is the answer (and there are other highly intelligent animals), why only them and why only some of them? Just because we have less intelligent humans, doesn’t stop them from following along for the benefits from the more intelligent.

OK, the whole 6 days, a few thousand years ago, flood etc.

As for disproof, the genesis account is wholly inconsistent with
any and all actual data.

Genesis a faith thing, and faith is not open to "disproof".

If squirrels and termites improve their lot it is puzzling
to me why it's even a question why far more untell7gent beings
would too.

A detail is that improved living conditions make
for better health and vitality, and more successfully
competitive with those lagging behind.

The Europeans had no trouble subduing peoples who'd
lagged behind.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,013
7,395
31
Wales
✟423,623.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
There's no evidence that you interpret as such, according to your guidelines. Yet, others see it all around them, interpret it as evidence according to their guidelines, and could care less about scientific guidelines.

And yet...

That's microevolution of humans. Apes are pretty intelligent, I wonder if they look at humans and think 'see, look what we could have been if we had just went out on the savannah with them?'

And wow... talk about a non-answer. So I'll repeat: Now... why exactly is the fact that early humans did build settlements (for a very basic definition of settlements being 'place where one or more group of people lived together') somehow a problem for evolution?
You claim that it's a problem for evolution, but you're not explaining how or why.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
13,567
5,743
60
Mississippi
✟318,169.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
-​
If evolution is true, then it is really simple. There is no God and the earth is a spinning sphere covered in water. Water that is able to adhere to this moving and rotating sphere by a force called gravity.

But fortunately evolution is not true and the Bible is (true) so there is a God's of creation and The Bible gives the account of His creation and not science.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
OK, the whole 6 days, a few thousand years ago, flood etc.
Wait a minute, you're assuming I interpret it that way... I have consistently said that I think 'time' is the wild card that none of us understand, especially deep time.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,758
44,860
Los Angeles Area
✟999,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I don't quite understand the puzzlement that's inspiring the question, but...

I think once language evolved, it was game over.

Maybe it takes a bird species 100,000 years to learn to use a twig to poke grubs out of a hole.
It takes an afternoon to teach someone how to fish.

Once there is cultural transmission in addition to genetic transmission, things move along quickly. And to the extent that 'culture' is not natural, our lives become less about being in 'the wilds', but being in our culture.
 
Upvote 0