If evolution is true

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't bs me now... you can say 'I hope you understand,' or something on that order.

No, because my phrasing isn't loaded with an insult. Yours is.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, because my phrasing isn't loaded with an insult. Yours is.

To turn your previous statement on you, ‘If you feel that my statements are a challenge to evolution (the only possible way you could take 'bought into' as an insult), then the problem lies not with my words, but with your belief in evolution.’

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To turn your previous statement on you, ‘If you feel that my statements are a challenge to evolution (the only possible way you could take 'bought into' as an insult), then the problem lies not with my words, but with your belief in evolution.’

No, it is wholly with your words and your words alone. I am perfectly willing to accept I might be wrong and am willing to entertain any evidence that shows me I could be wrong about evolution. The inverse however with your belief in God or the Bible is not so forthwith.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

I also have a statement. The theory of evolution was developed and accepted before we had any solid idea how old the earth was. Common estimates of the time were short enough that they gave Darwin concern. Historically, the theory was accepted for other reasons than 'enough time'.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it is wholly with your words and your words alone. I am perfectly willing to accept I might be wrong and am willing to entertain any evidence that shows me I could be wrong about evolution. The inverse however with your belief in God or the Bible is not so forthwith.

Well, that brings us back to the OP anyway... 'why would any animal, lower or higher, venture to leave its comfort zone and abandon natural instinct (evidenced by the fact that many more didn't), eventually becoming human?'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, that brings us back to the OP anyway... 'why would any animal, lower or higher, venture to leave its comfort zone and abandon natural instinct (evidenced by the fact that many more didn't)?'

Change in environment forcing a relocation (rising water levels, lack of water availability, increase in predation, decrease in prey species, to name a few). Also, all instincts are natural. There aren't any false or unnatural instincts.
Are you offended by the idea that humans aren't really all that special in the biological world?

 

[inquiring mind]

I also have a statement. The theory of evolution was developed and accepted before we had any solid idea how old the earth was. Common estimates of the time were short enough that they gave Darwin concern. Historically, the theory was accepted for other reasons than 'enough time'.

I wonder if he first thought in terms of microevolution only?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder if he first thought in terms of microevolution only?

Not really, since micro- and macro- evolution are terms used by creationists.

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you offended by the idea that humans aren't really all that special in the biological world?

Not really... I just believe God made the distinction as the Bible says, and can't see the blend. I love my dogs and cats.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not really, since micro- and macro- evolution are terms used by creationists.

If not knowing how old the earth was meant anything, how could he have thought in any other terms than microevolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not really... I just believe God made the distinction as the Bible says, and can't see the blend. I love my dogs and cats.

Well, you seem to be since you insist on trying to make humans out to be extra special.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If not knowing how old the earth was meant anything, how could he have thought in any other terms than microevolution?

The terms weren't used or known back then.

 

[inquiring mind]

Well, you seem to be since you insist on trying to make humans out to be extra special.

Not extra special in the way you mean... just different, as all things are.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not extra special in the way you mean... just different, as all things are.

Yet your comments suggest otherwise. Especially the phrase 'abandon natural instinct' which is just such a weird phrase to see.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yet your comments suggest otherwise. Especially the phrase 'abandon natural instinct' which is just such a weird phrase to see.

Not really connecting with you here???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not really connecting with you here???

All instinct is natural. Animals do not abandon instinct, no animal can, not even humans. We can act against an instinct but we can't abandon it, and there is, as I've said before, no such thing as an unnatural instinct.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yet your comments suggest otherwise. Especially the phrase 'abandon natural instinct' which is just such a weird phrase to see.

Are you saying that our supposed branch of ape ancestors would not have abandoned their natural instincts at the time they departed from all the other apes? My question of 'why?'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you saying that our supposed branch of ape ancestors would not have abandoned their natural instincts at the time they departed from all the other apes? My question of 'why?'

All instinct is natural, as I've said before. Instinct cannot be abandoned. It's impossible to abandon instinct.

 

[inquiring mind]

All instinct is natural, as I've said before. Instinct cannot be abandoned. It's impossible to abandon instinct.

Yet, you believe an ape took the path to human???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet, you believe an ape took the path to human???

Humans are apes. And the archaeological and biological do say that, yes.