If evolution is true

[inquiring mind]

And yet...



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.

Please... don't start with the non-answer accusations again. You said early 'humans' and I said thats human microevolution.

Maybe this is a less confusing framework for my question... 'What made some apes move in the human direction when it went against natural instinct you'd think, evidenced by the many that didn't do it.' Accidental, chance, some were that intelligent, or maybe it didn't happen, what???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Please... don't start with the non-answer accusations again. You said early 'humans' and I said thats human microevolution.

Maybe this is a less confusing framework for my question... 'What made some apes move in the human direction when it went against natural instinct you'd think, evidenced by the many that didn't do it.' Accidental, chance, some were that intelligent, or maybe it didn't happen, what???

I'll call it a non-answer because it was a non-answer. And don't you try and start with your micro-macro bull-roar again.

Evolution made early apes become humans because the apes that became humans lived in an environment that forced them to adopt a more upright body life-style, which made them change their hunting habits, which then resulted in them having a greater source of meat and proteins which allowed for greater brain development which resulted in increased intelligence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'll call it a non-answer because it was a non-answer. And don't you try and start with your micro-macro bull-roar again.

Evolution made early apes become humans because the apes that became humans lived in an environment that forced them to adopt a more upright body life-style, which made them change their hunting habits, which then resulted in them having a greater source of meat and proteins which allowed for greater brain development which resulted in increased intelligence.

You seam to be leaning more toward chance, standard text book explanation I think. So, do you think we're still progressing by chance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You seam to be leaning more toward chance, standard text book explanation I think. So, do you think we're still progressing by chance?

I'm leaning towards what the science shows. Why do you have a problem?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm leaning towards what the science shows. Why do you have a problem?

Now, who's not answering the question... are we still progressing by chance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now, who's not answering the question... are we still progressing by chance?

Everything is by chance, so yes.
So, now answer my question: why do you have a problem?

 

[inquiring mind]

Everything is by chance, so yes.
So, now answer my question: why do you have a problem?

I don't have a problem, just trying to figure where you're at with this. So, all the scientific advancements are just chance... no hypothesis, no calculating, no verification, etc... none of the human qualities involved???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't have a problem, just trying to figure where you're at with this. So, all the scientific advancements are just chance... no hypothesis, no calculating, no verification, etc... none of the human qualities involved???

It was chance that led those hypothesis to be created. It was chance that Edward Jenner noted that milkmaids who had cowpox did not catch smallpox, leading to create a vaccine. It was chance that a soldier in WW1 didn't shoot Adolf Hitler when he was running, thus leading to WW2. Everything is down to chance, whether we like to accept it or not.

Is your problem really just that the idea that predeterminism couldn't be a thing?

 

[inquiring mind]

It was chance that led those hypothesis to be created. It was chance that Edward Jenner noted that milkmaids who had cowpox did not catch smallpox, leading to create a vaccine. It was chance that a soldier in WW1 didn't shoot Adolf Hitler when he was running, thus leading to WW2. Everything is down to chance, whether we like to accept it or not.

Is your problem really just that the idea that predeterminism couldn't be a thing?

Look, I’m just trying to figure out why (or how) a creature of almost ‘total chance’ (pre-human) could become one with exceptional human qualities (with chance still present of course). I can see building on primitive human qualities (microevolution), I just can't make a connection between non-human and human, regardless of their diet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Look, I’m just trying to figure out why (or how) a creature of almost ‘total chance’ (pre-human) could become one with exceptional human qualities (with chance still present of course). I can see building on primitive human qualities (microevolution), I just can't make a connection between non-human and human, regardless of their diet.

I think you seem to be under the idea that it was "primitive human to *boom* modern man". It wasn't a fast snap change that happened in a single generation. It was a continuous and long process. There the intermediaries, the dead-ends, the interbreeding of species (very different to inbreeding).
And 'non-human'... what do you consider 'non-human'? Is Australopithecus 'non-human'?

 

[Astrid]

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.

So as I've noted elsewhere, the Bible says whatever
a person wants it to say.

No data exists that is compatible with anything
actually written in genesis.

Deep time measured by any number of means indicates
life has been around for hundreds of millions of
years, and evolving the while.

So what's the prob?

 

[inquiring mind]

I think you seem to be under the idea that it was "primitive human to *boom* modern man". It wasn't a fast snap change that happened in a single generation. It was a continuous and long process. There the intermediaries, the dead-ends, the interbreeding of species (very different to inbreeding).

I know for science and evolution that bridge has to be crossed. That means the there had to be a speculative slow transition, and that means there had to be lots of time for it to happen… lots and lots of it. The time appears to be there (as we think we understand time), provided everything is as it always was (?). But, pre-human to human transition… that’s a far stretch. Have you ever just stepped back from your text book and really thought about that?

And 'non-human'... what do you consider 'non-human'? Is Australopithecus 'non-human'?

I never bought that it was human... just seemed like grasping for a 'dot' to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know for science and evolution that bridge has to be crossed. That means the there had to be a speculative slow transition, and that means there had to be lots of time for it to happen… lots and lots of it. The time appears to be there (as we think we understand time), provided everything is as it always was (?). But, pre-human to human transition… that’s a far stretch. Have you ever just stepped back from your text book and really thought about that?

I have, and I've seen no problem with it. I'd have a serious problem if we see all the evidence telling us the world and the universe is billions of years old, and then we have to accept that God made it in only 6, 24 hour days? Now that is a far stretch.

I never bought that it was human... just seemed like grasping for a 'dot' to me.

That sounds like a you problem then.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have, and I've seen no problem with it. I'd have a serious problem if we see all the evidence telling us the world and the universe is billions of years old, and then we have to accept that God made it in only 6, 24 hour days? Now that is a far stretch.

Yes, well, I've stated that 'time' always being as it is... is an assumed fact that I can't stand on.

That sounds like a you problem then.

I so much as stated it so in the OP.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, well, I've stated that 'time' always being as it is... is an assumed fact that I can't stand on.

Just because you call it an 'assumed fact' doesn't make it so.

I so much as stated it so in the OP.

Still.

 

[Frank Robert]

Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form. Another good point though.

Humans learned how to transform energy into work. First with fire then eventually fossil fuels.

With fossil fuels diminishing, due to expense of procuring them, we could be on a devolution path. Not as humans but as to what we will be able to accomplish such as exploring other worlds.

 

[Gene2memE]

I know for science and evolution that bridge has to be crossed. That means the there had to be a speculative slow transition, and that means there had to be lots of time for it to happen… lots and lots of it. The time appears to be there (as we think we understand time), provided everything is as it always was (?). But, pre-human to human transition… that’s a far stretch.

What, precisely, about the transition is a "far stretch"? Morphology? Cognitive capability? Behaviour?

Where do you draw the line between a 'pre-human' and a 'human'? If you draw the line at Homo erectus, do you consider Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis human or pre-human?

 

[Shemjaza]

Humans learned how to transform energy into work. First with fire then eventually fossil fuels.

With fossil fuels diminishing, due to expense of procuring them, we could be on a devolution path. Not as humans but as to what we will be able to accomplish such as exploring other worlds.

It's a cheap and easy source of energy and shapable organic chemicals... but it isn't the only source of either.

 

[Astrid]

What, precisely, about the transition is a "far stretch"? Morphology? Cognitive capability? Behaviour?

Where do you draw the line between a 'pre-human' and a 'human'? If you draw the line at Homo erectus, do you consider Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis human or pre-human?

It's the line between micro and macro, the line that makes
evolution impossible.
I've heard about that.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's a cheap and easy source of energy and shapable organic chemicals... but it isn't the only source of either.

With a new source of energy we would need to build out and sustain the infrastructure that could utilize it.
Michael Greer had an article this week on EcoSophia.net A Prayer for Nonbelievers that explains the Limits to Growth and resources decline that we are already experiencing.

The following graph, that was predicted in1972 shows were we are today and going to 2100