• 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.

The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
The second numbered gross error was related to running around, and predators. These fail on several grounds.

I'll mention 3;

1) The best early Hominid fossils of sub-adults do seem to have been killed by predators. It happened, and the various species survived anyway. I have done studies on the predation of deer by cougars, coyotes, and bobcat. We still have deer even with the ultimate hunter (humans) killing them in the tens of thousands every year.

2) This brings us to the next error, that being hunted means extinction. If the reproduction rate is higher than the death rate, the species survives.

That should not require a doctorate to understand.

3) There are many species with multiple year vulnerable infants. They are always social, communal species. The social bond between adults, and their infants lasts a lifetime. It is pathetic that creationists are ignorant of this basic shared care for others.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello Barbarian.

Such an interesting topic to discuss.
What evolutionary events that may have occurred to the human genome in the past, is not
available to us.
You said,
No, that's a mistake. There are numerous ways to figure out what changes have occurred in
the human genome. Would you like to talk about that?
If you can identify the specific changes through the history of mankind's evolution and speciation.
Then you have solved the entire problem itself, the origin of mankind from start to finish.
You would not be employing any assumptions or inferring, I hope.

I said,
The general point I was trying to make in the intial post, was simply that man did not seem
to have the necessary inherited traits to survive in the wild.

You said,
Even civilization-soft people, dropped into a wilderness, more often than not, survive.
What relationship does this statement of your have with a very hostile Africa in the deep past?
What wilderness? What predators? We are not talking a few days in a barren place. We are talking
about living in a hostile environment and raising your offspring in that environment.

I said,

You replied,
I have witnessed lions killing chimps, depends on how hungry a lion is.

I said,

You said,
Chimps are relatively low on your index.
Did I mention chimps?

You said.
Yet savanna chimps ioccasionally take young leopards. Humans, having more coordination
and better tools, actively hunt big predators with primitive weapons.
Yes and that is my argument. Man and tools are inseparable. Man cannot exist in ancient Africa
without weapons. So when did man acquire these weapons?

You said,
Of course, you're assuming that today's humans are like ancient ones. They seem to have
been more chimplike in strength and body mass. (chimps are so muscular that they can't swim;
they sink)
You will need to provide the information that states that ancient humans were chimp like?
As far as I am aware, a chimpanzee has a seven percent difference in DNA. This can be
a chalk and cheese comparison between the two species, depending on the specific genes
of course. Chimps are an entirely different species to man. Chimps are also predators
in the wild, they kill and eat other monkeys.

More importantly if chimps use weapons, then it is certain that man had to.

I said,
So ground zero is really the difficult question, if man had to have tools, he had tools on the
very first journey.

You replied.
Chimps, confronted with a leopard, mob up and make clubs. And they can strike hard
enough to break spines. If they can do it, early humans could do it.
A leopard is not a pride of lions, a leopard is lower on the predator scale than a lion.

I wonder if the chimps would take on a male lion?

You said,
This seems to be a poor argument against evolution.
Not a poor argument, the ancestor of man needs tools, full stop.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

There is only two words to describe your observations and comment. JUST BRILLIANT!! And what you said is so logical even an atheist cannot contradict it.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm gonna go out on a limb (no pun intended) and guess that you don't know much about evolution, do you?

If that is the case, you will have no problem contradicting what has been said.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've done it. So you're wrong. Case closed.
You have done it so everyone has done it! Can I be so bold as to inform you that you do not base a case on one person's experience. Case closed.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

No fish does not count as meat. Fish is fish and has different properties in the food chain as in Omega 3 content that you won't find in meat.

Why don't you tell us about the lifestyle of the Papua New Guineans and those who live in the Amazon Basin. or is that just a thought bubble that is being used to try and throw a spanner in the works.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Please note that in research, you never make a case by one example. if you are going to do that I will give you an example to counteract yours. In 73 years I have never eaten a single piece of raw food except things like lettuce, apples, bananas and such like.
 
Upvote 0

jathtech

Newbie
Apr 11, 2012
17
4
✟22,657.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

One thing you're assuming is that early humans had to compete with modern African predators. Every other species was evolving at the same time as we were. Whatever our ancestors looked like our acted like in the ancient past worked for them in those conditions. We have different conditions now and therfore have different requirements to survive in those conditions. It is much more forgiving nowadays than it was back then. Today's humans are less likely to need brute strength to survive and more likely to reproduce if you're intelligent enough to provide for you family.

Evolution has been proven time and again beyond all reasonable doubt.

If i were god, that's how I'd create the world too. Forget designing them all separately by hand. I'll just make evolution.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
83
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Yes that is right. I hunt in the local supermarket every week. I wear them down by not buying the expensive stuff.
 
Upvote 0

jathtech

Newbie
Apr 11, 2012
17
4
✟22,657.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

Fish is meat, and furthermore, we have a common ancestor with fish. .. 2 billion years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
The next gross error (#3) by klutedavid is that modern humans need to carry their infant for "a minimum of two to three years."

I'll merely note that klutedavid is a single male. Apparently he lacks any real life experience with any real 2 and 3 year olds. He is obviously ignorant of the first "trick" a human infant does that entertains a father. This is the "thumb grab" trick that is evidenced at under 1 month, and replaced with purposeful object grasp at about 10 months. Nutriment studies of modern hunter and gatherers have shown that children as young a 8 years old generate over 50% of their own food.

The exceptionally foolish error here, and repeated over and over by klutedavid is that the modern human is the same as our ancestor 8,000,000 years ago. We know that moderns could easily survive conditions that klutedavid imagines should have killed all humanity.
 
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello GS Hurd.

I hope you do not mind discussing this subject with me.

You said.
The factual errors are regarding the weakness of bipedal movement.
The first is that a biped can change direction much faster than a quadruped.
Bipedal movement is slow and any change of direction is also slow overall, useless
against a fast moving predator.

You said.
Secondly, a biped sheds heat more efficiently than a quadruped. In the warm African sun
that is a critical advantage.
What about at night GS Hurd, when the lions are actually awake and when they do their hunting?

You said,
Even an antelope dodges the lions often enough for their many species to survive.
Antelope are extremely quick quadrapeds, what has that got to do with this subject?

You then said,
Thirdly, an upright posture (at least during much of the day) frees the hands for creative
things like pointed sticks, or tree branch clubs.
In the balance, an upright posture stands out in the long grass of an African savannah.
Pointed sticks or clubs will not protect you against a pride of hungry lions.

You said.
Another advantage of a vertical head is the ability to see a bit farther than a similarly
sized quadruped.
Not sure if this is entirely correct, you omitted that quadrupeds have great hearing and a very
keen sense of smell.

You also said.
One is that the oldest of our ancestors that we clearly favor (Ardipithecus) were at least
partially arboreal (lived in trees). The second is obvious, our common ancestors were not hunters
for millions of years.
Is 'Ardipithecus' a direct descendant of ours, or is it believed that 'Ardipithicus' is a descendant.
There is a vast difference between fact and belief. You will need the hard factual evidence to
support your claim GS Hurd.

How do you know that our common ancestors (if they were our ancestors) were not hunters?

Is there paleontology to support the claims that you are making, and not pure inference?

If you do not find stone tools in a dig this does not mean that stone tools were not in use!
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
#4) OOH SCARY NIGHT FOR KIDDIES...

From fossil data we know that at least partially arboreal (tree living) human ancestors dominated human evolution until the later Australopithecus species. They still had long arms (like we do), and retained a splayed big toe (which was lost). One obvious reason was to get up off the ground at night. Our surviving distant cousins the Chimps spend a lot of every day on the ground, and every night move up to make a sleeping bed in a nice tree.

There are fossils of early non-climbing Hominids. They had short arms, and long legs compared to us, and even chimps. They did become extinct.

Our current creationist "expert" demands, "Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed."

As I already pointed out, modern chimps use spears and clubs to hunt. Even more "primitive" new world monkeys use hammers, and anvils as well as their African cousins. Our ancestors millions of years ago were obviously capable of the same technology as a modern chimp.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello GS Hurd.

The next gross error (#3) by klutedavid is that modern humans need to carry their infant
for "a minimum of two to three years."

If you have documented evidence that the human child in any time in the past. Never needed to
be carried around by their parents then please supply this information. I rely on observation
not on speculation.

 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
Ignorant bloviation #5 (that wine is starting to have effect- I am becoming too honest)

"The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures."

As an Africanist professor of mine once observed, "If a Pygmy (K'ung) woman can kill an elephant, a Bantu woman can kill anything on Earth." This was a little unfair as the K'ung women ran under the belly of an elephant and as they passed, shoved a spear up over their heads into their prey. A Bantu woman although much larger and stronger, would be too tall to run under the belly of an elephant.

The single physical variation between modern human males and females that can be attributed to most of human sexual allocation of labor (including social tasks) is the need to nurse infants for a year or so. In some modern cultures this is extended to 8 years.
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
Dummie #5, V. 2
"Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment."

Where to begin?

In a hunter and gatherer culture, nearly 80% of all food calories are collected/gathered by women. Children as young as 8 years old collect about 50% of their own food. Men attack high fat content animal prey. The fatalities are typically male, but typically males without families. This is how we recruit military cannon fodder even today- young single males.
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
I was going to quit, but this is like popcorn;

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

The critters with an "inbuilt navigation system" have either of two sensory systems; a magnetic, or olfactory sensitivity. In fish, the ling cod have a magnetic, and the salmon have an olfactory system. In all the organisms with a magnetic system there are neural cells with a crystal of magnetite. As it orients on the Earth's magnetic field, the neuron is stimulated. In homing pigeons, this can be turned off with a tiny magnetic skull cap. In fish like the lingcod, the magnetic sensitive neurons are on the lower jaw, and transmit signals to the visual cortex. The fish can "see" the Earths magnetic field.

Primates do have some neural cells with magnetite. These are few, and not significant.

We primates use memory to recall where we have been, and the more intelligent can reverse the path to return to a former location. We were selected to be able to use memory, and thinking. Sadly creationists are trying so hard to lose that advantage.
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
Creationist item #8 is almost too lame to reply to because even birds make nests. Monkeys make nests, and certainly ancient proto-humans made nests.

Creationist item #9 imagines that "Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild."

There are typically gross errors.

1) "Man's intellect" is a consequence of a hyperplasiaed brain. This in turn was a consequence of elevated brain temperatures caused by upright posture.

2) Next, we humans have not left nature, and given the terrible stupid behaviors resulting in ongoing mass extinctions, and global climate change, the continued survival of humans is nearing a 50/50 probability.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

paulm50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,253
110
✟2,061.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
The cause/reason for the initial spark of life is what's missing, the rest even with gaps and mistakes holds fast.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.