The elephant in the room is why man "evolved" to where we are today.

[Richard.20.12]

Reproduction: Nothing beats bacteria. We wouldn't have progressed beyond that because we didn't need to if we can reproduce in abundance. Same with insects. They lay thousands of eggs and people have one child at a time (most of the time). Makes no sense to survive we would drastically reduce our reproductive abilities.

Resilience to the elements: Man is pathetic when it comes to the elements. Unclothed people die exposed very long much lower than room temperature. Or much above it. Look at your dog. Its fine in hot weather and walks with you in frigid temperatures. Doesn't need additional clothing. We are the most sensitive and fragile life on this planet. That makes no sense to lose our resilience to the elements. It would mean people would needlessly die. This contradicts every aspect of evolution which is to change to survive. Not change and get more suscpeptible to everything around you.

Speed: Man is very slow compared to most animals. You can't even keep up with your dog unless its some tiny thing. Even your cat can blast the most trained sprinter in the world. This again contradicts the whole premise of evolution.

Strength: This is huge. Look at a chimp. Half the size of a human and can lift 700 lbs. They can hang by one arm for half an hour. We'd be lucky to do that for a few seconds. Now look at an ape the same size as a human. They could crush us in an instant. We are (again) pathetic compared to the rest of life around us. Strength would hugely help us survive in any situation and there's no way we would lose it in our evolutionary journey.

I could go on and on but its always the same. In every aspect of our supposed evolution we got worse, except for our minds. This is utterly inexplicable from the evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution can't explain the most basic of human characteristics. In fact everything about humans refute the whole concept of evolution, except for our minds. We would never want less speed, strength, reproductive abilities or resilience to the elements if we want to survive. Ever. It - makes - no - sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

Reproduction: Nothing beats bacteria. We wouldn't have progressed beyond that because we didn't need to if we can reproduce in abundance. Same with insects. They lay thousands of eggs and people have one child at a time (most of the time). Makes no sense to survive we would drastically reduce our reproductive abilities.

Resilience to the elements: Man is pathetic when it comes to the elements. Unclothed people die exposed very long much lower than room temperature. Or much above it. Look at your dog. Its fine in hot weather and walks with you in frigid temperatures. Doesn't need additional clothing. We are the most sensitive and fragile life on this planet. That makes no sense to lose our resilience to the elements. It would mean people would needlessly die. This contradicts every aspect of evolution which is to change to survive. Not change and get more suscpeptible to everything around you.

Speed: Man is very slow compared to most animals. You can't even keep up with your dog unless its some tiny thing. Even your cat can blast the most trained sprinter in the world. This again contradicts the whole premise of evolution.

Strength: This is huge. Look at a chimp. Half the size of a human and can lift 700 lbs. They can hang by one arm for half an hour. We'd be lucky to do that for a few seconds. Now look at an ape the same size as a human. They could crush us in an instant. We are (again) pathetic compared to the rest of life around us. Strength would hugely help us survive in any situation and there's no way we would lose it in our evolutionary journey.

I could go on and on but its always the same. In every aspect of our supposed evolution we got worse, except for our minds. This is utterly inexplicable from the evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution can't explain the most basic of human characteristics. In fact everything about humans refute the whole concept of evolution, except for our minds. We would never want less speed, strength, reproductive abilities or resilience to the elements if we want to survive. Ever. It - makes - no - sense.

I love how you refute yourself in every part.

Resilience to elements, when man is unclothed we are weak. Ok and when we build a house we are then strong.

Speed, man is slow compared to many animals....but when we invented cars, that weakness went out the window.

Strength, mankind is weak compared to chimps. But when we invented guns that went out the window too.

You say that every aspect got worse except our minds. Well, in the end, our minds have trumped all other variables. Guns make us the strongest species. Fighter jets make us the fastest. Natural gas furnaces make us the warmest, houses make us the best sheltered from weather. We have daycares and in vitro fertilization, baby clinics and more to help with birthing.

All the weaknesses you've described are certainly weaknesses. But in every single case, our brain has prevailed. And the evolution of the brain is just as much a valuable organ to us than any other part of the body.

Evolution comes down to survival of the fittest and there is absolutely no question that we are the fittest of all species of the animal kingdom.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Sorry but you're missing the whole premise of evolution. Maybe you're quite young. Evolution works (so they say) so we may survive better. Yes we constructed houses and made guns and fighter jets but those took a long time and there's no way we would lose our previous strengths in the hopes that one day we would build something like a fighter jet thousands or tens of thousands of years later. Evolution doesn't need the brain part. It apparently works on all fronts. Once you have something that aids your survival the last thing that would happen would be to lose that attribute. That's the main point I was trying to make. And that's the point that evolution proponents totally evade. Though, I'm sure they wonder about it. Once you're surviving well there's no need to evolve! So we had no need to evolve past bacteria stage. Hopefully that's more clear now. As an aside, think about how long it took to build houses that really resisted the elements well. It took an awful long time. And during that time man was out hunting and dealing with those elements. To lose body hair that would hugely help us deal with those elements makes no sense at all. Our reproductive limitations I notice you don't mention. They are, by far, the most nonsensical in the evolutionary world. To go from giving birth to thousands of young to just one like humans so is the most insane step to improving your survival odds imaginable. It is interesting how as life progresses in intelligence we generally have less offspring. From an evolutionary standpoint of course that makes no sense at all. Nothing is more important to survival than reproductive abilities. Its the single most important reason insects are so hardy and resilient and hard to eradicate when we want to. When you see one on your counter there are probably a 100 times as many hidden away, just waiting to give birth to hundreds more. That is a strong survivalist!

 

[VladTheEmailer]

Sorry but you're missing the whole premise of evolution. Maybe you're quite young.

The term for that is called "Naive Realism" . Richard, you're not ready for this kind of argument and I mean that in a polite way.

If you wish to proceed in a religious way, I'm all ears.

 

[Richard.20.12]

The term for that is called "Naive Realism" . Richard, you're not ready for this kind of argument and I mean that in a polite way.

If you wish to proceed in a religious way, I'm all ears.

If you disagree with something I said I'm all ears.

I'm just amazed why Creationists don't take evolutionists to task over this topic. To me its the most obvious failing of evolution. When we are supposedly evolved to survive the last thing we would do is lose things that have helped us survive before our brain has allowed us to master the things needed. And nothing explains why we would reproduce so much less. That, to me, is the true elephant in the room when it comes to evolution. They sure dance around the obvious a lot. They call themselves scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth when they themselves ignore the very basic precepts of science.

 

[Richard.20.12]

> The term for that is called "Naive Realism".

I've not heard that term before. I read Wikipedia's description of it and don't see the connection to this topic. Maybe you could explain that. To me its about how we sense things and how our brain is interpreting what we sense. Or am I way off?
Naïve realism - Wikipedia

 

[VladTheEmailer]

If you disagree with something I said I'm all ears.

I'm just amazed why Creationists don't take evolutionists to task over this topic. To me its the most obvious failing of evolution. When we are supposedly evolved to survive the last thing we would do is lose things that have helped us survive before our brain has allowed us to master the things needed. And nothing explains why we would reproduce so much less. That, to me, is the true elephant in the room when it comes to evolution. They sure dance around the obvious a lot. They call themselves scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth when they themselves ignore the very basic precepts of science.

You can't possibly have the most Strength, Speed and Stamina. There has to be trade offs. There 10k plus species that slower and weaker than us yet, they are not extinct.

Humans evolved on the Savannah, can you think of a more dangerous animal(given fire and spears)in that situation?

Those that downplay our abilities, ignore just how dangerous we really are. Evil is something found only in humans and can have a profound impact on our evolution.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

> The term for that is called "Naive Realism".

I've not heard that term before. I read Wikipedia's description of it and don't see the connection to this topic. Maybe you could explain that. To me its about how we sense things and how our brain is interpreting what we sense. Or am I way off?
Naïve realism - Wikipedia

Isaiah 41:10, has a different view and it isn't because of some shortcoming. Maybe he/she is right and you are wrong.

Do you think they would see it you way if only, they learned to think like you do?

 

[Richard.20.12]

You can't possibly have the most Strength, Speed and Stamina. There has to be trade offs. There 10k plus species that slower and weaker than us yet, they are not extinct.

Humans evolved on the Savannah, can you think of a more dangerous animal(given fire and spears)in that situation?

Those that downplay our abilities, ignore just how dangerous we really are. Evil is something found only in humans and can have a profound impact on our evolution.

It would be nice if you addressed at least one of my points. An ant can lift 50 times its own weight. What can most people lift? Insects are incredibly strong. Strength aids survival hugely. Almost any animal is much faster than we are. Animals can be comfortable in a wide range of temperatures. We are pathetically sensitive. If evolution was true our brain might have evolved but we certainly wouldn't lose all these other traits that almost all animals possess that hugely benifit our survival. Then there's the issue of reproduction....good luck with THAT!

 

[Richard.20.12]

Isaiah 41:10, has a different view and it isn't because of some shortcoming. Maybe he/she is right and you are wrong.

Do you think they would see it you way if only, they learned to think like you do?

I'm not seeing the connection with that verse and out topic other than its a very general encouragement to the person it was addressed to (and the reader of course). I also don't understand your use of the word shortcoming.

BTW, do people think that the "right hand of my righteousness" could be a reference to Jesus?

 

[VladTheEmailer]

It would be nice if you addressed at least one of my points. An ant can lift 50 times its own weight. What can most people lift? Insects are incredibly strong. Strength aids survival hugely. Almost any animal is much faster than we are. Animals can be comfortable in a wide range of temperatures. We are pathetically sensitive. If evolution was true our brain might have evolved but we certainly wouldn't lose all these other traits that almost all animals possess that hugely benifit our survival. Then there's the issue of reproduction....good luck with THAT!

Humans don't need to be the biggest, fastest, or strongest. That is my point.

Can you name one animal that is faster than humans at a distance over 70 miles? Humans literally hunted animals by chasing them until that collapsed from exhaustion.

I'm trying to get you to understand that we came out on top and it was multiple factors that got us there.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

I'm not seeing the connection with that verse and out topic other than its a very general encouragement to the person it was addressed to (and the reader of course). I also don't understand your use of the word shortcoming.

BTW, do people think that the "right hand of my righteousness" could be a reference to Jesus?

You don't have a monopoly on the correct understanding of human origins.

Second part, yes.

 

[public hermit]

Evolution can't explain the most basic of human characteristics. In fact everything about humans refute the whole concept of evolution, except for our minds

Except for our minds...that's a significant evolutionary step, the mind. It's intelligence that allows us to transcend all those weaknesses you mentioned. It looks like humans have evolved extraordinarily well.

How is this argument supposed to work again? I don't see it as being a refutation, but maybe I missed a key part?

 

[Richard.20.12]

Humans don't need to be the biggest, fastest, or strongest. That is my point.

Can you name one animal that is faster than humans at a distance over 70 miles? Humans literally hunted animals by chasing them until that collapsed from exhaustion.

I'm trying to get you to understand that we came out on top and it was multiple factors that got us there.

What I'm addressing is the so called cause for evolution which is to better our chances of survival. That would happen (in the evolutionists fantasyland) to us so we are BETTER at survival. You don't get better by being weaker, slower, much more sensitive to weather and reproduce at a fraction of the previous rate. I'm talking about why we would change. You're looking at the end results. Evolution is about change. And how this doesn't make any sense at all - to get weaker, slower, more sensitive to the elements and reproduce at a much slower rate.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Just try to explain why we would change to something that would worsen our survival chances.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry but you're missing the whole premise of evolution. Maybe you're quite young. Evolution works (so they say) so we may survive better. Yes we constructed houses and made guns and fighter jets but those took a long time and there's no way we would lose our previous strengths in the hopes that one day we would build something like a fighter jet thousands or tens of thousands of years later. Evolution doesn't need the brain part. It apparently works on all fronts. Once you have something that aids your survival the last thing that would happen would be to lose that attribute. That's the main point I was trying to make. And that's the point that evolution proponents totally evade. Though, I'm sure they wonder about it. Once you're surviving well there's no need to evolve! So we had no need to evolve past bacteria stage. Hopefully that's more clear now. As an aside, think about how long it took to build houses that really resisted the elements well. It took an awful long time. And during that time man was out hunting and dealing with those elements. To lose body hair that would hugely help us deal with those elements makes no sense at all. Our reproductive limitations I notice you don't mention. They are, by far, the most nonsensical in the evolutionary world. To go from giving birth to thousands of young to just one like humans so is the most insane step to improving your survival odds imaginable. It is interesting how as life progresses in intelligence we generally have less offspring. From an evolutionary standpoint of course that makes no sense at all. Nothing is more important to survival than reproductive abilities. Its the single most important reason insects are so hardy and resilient and hard to eradicate when we want to. When you see one on your counter there are probably a 100 times as many hidden away, just waiting to give birth to hundreds more. That is a strong survivalist!

As mentioned above, you've refuted yourself. You're arguing against evolution saying that we lost things like strength and thus aren't fit. But it's quite obvious that with the invention of tools, guns, spears etc. That we no longer need physical strength to survive. Now any 5 year old with a gun could defeat a rhinoceros in physical combat.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just try to explain why we would change to something that would worsen our survival chances.

Guns have not worsened our survival chances. They allow us to hunt for food without the risk of being gored by a deers antlers.

Do you really think that your chances of survival are worse today than they were 10,000 years ago? Or do you think our chances of survival are less than something like a chimpanzee which has multiple times the muscle that we do?

 

[Job 33:6]

What I'm addressing is the so called cause for evolution which is to better our chances of survival. That would happen (in the evolutionists fantasyland) to us so we are BETTER at survival. You don't get better by being weaker, slower, much more sensitive to weather and reproduce at a fraction of the previous rate. I'm talking about why we would change. You're looking at the end results. Evolution is about change. And how this doesn't make any sense at all - to get weaker, slower, more sensitive to the elements and reproduce at a much slower rate.

But we haven't gotten weaker (we have Spears and guns), slower (we have cars and planes), sensitive to elements (we have shelters and houses) and reproduce (we have childcare and doctors).

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that morphology won't change. If a fish evolves to walk on land, it's true that the fish loses its ability to swim well. But the overall fitness has increased none the less. Fitness is a value based on success in an environment. So it doesn't matter if a chimpanzee could beat us in an arm wrestling match. Because at the end of the day, an arm wrestling match isn't a life or death matter.

So simply saying that our muscles are smaller contradicts survival of the fittest is simply a misunderstanding of what survival of the fitness is. Because it's quite obvious that our survival probability, health, and wellbeing are vastly greater than any chimpanzee.

To put it quite simply, having big muscles just doesn't matter when you have a big brain. Because a big brain makes us more fit for survival. We could lose our arms all together, use our brain to make robotic arms and use robot arms to outlive chimpanzees and we would still be a more successful species.

Or ask yourself this. If you were born with only 1 arm, do you think your odds of survival would sti be better than a chimpanzee? The simple answer is yes, because we can use our brain to construct a prosthetic and you could go on to win the Olympics and could still live and have children and grow old etc. So even if you literally only had 1 arm, you would still be more fit than a chimpanzee. And that's what survival of the fittest boils down to. Survival.

 

[Job 33:6]

And there is another question that someone could ask. And that's, why would people lose big muscles at all? Couldn't we grow a big brain and still keep giant muscles like a chimpanzee?

And the answer is that it's an energy based trade-off. Having a big brain consumes a lot of energy. And so our survival has come down to an economic choice of directing energy to our intellect, or directing energy to our biceps. And our intellect is vastly more beneficial to our survival, so that's where our energy has gone.

This, our muscles shrink as energy is directed to our mind, and our survival rate increases in accordance with survival of the fittest.

 

[Richard.20.12]

As mentioned above, you've refuted yourself. You're arguing against evolution saying that we lost things like strength and thus aren't fit. But it's quite obvious that with the invention of tools, guns, spears etc. That we no longer need physical strength to survive. Now any 5 year old with a gun could defeat a rhinoceros in physical combat.

I'm sorry if you're not understanding either the foundational premise of evolution or my attempts at explaining its irrationality and lack of logic.
But it all boils down to change for survival with no anticipation of future technological triumphs. And you don't improve your survival in one area and let go of needed things in another. But you seem not to understand that part. So we're at an impasse. No worries if you're a believer. Jesus is the priority. Everything else is secondary.