The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[bhsmte]

I'm gonna go out on a limb (no pun intended) and guess that you don't know much about evolution, do you?

That is a short limb.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to it's mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to it's anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and
gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. 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. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

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.

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.

I'm on your side, but everything you've posited can be hand-waved away by invoking 'natural selection', which by their admisssion doesn't always make the best 'selection'. It's the survivability of the selection upon which the theory hinges.

A better way to approach it is to determine what must actually occur organically/chemically for these changes to actually take place. That is the weak spot in their arguments, and is never addressed by science. They are able to explain the theory, but not the process.

 

[Poor Beggar]

I'm on your side, but everything you've posited can be hand-waved away by invoking 'natural selection', which by their admisssion doesn't always make the best 'selection'. It's the survivability of the selection upon which the theory hinges.

A better way to approach it is to determine what must actually occur organically/chemically for these changes to actually take place. That is the weak spot in their arguments, and is never addressed by science. They are able to explain the theory, but not the process.

Right. They use time as the mechanism for change. But time isn't an actual force for change.

 

[bhsmte]

Right. They use time as the mechanism for change. But time isn't an actual force for change.

Wrong.

 

[jwu]

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

As others already pointed out, man hunts by endurance, not burst speed. Not only is the upright posture more energy efficient, it also provides a huge advantage at the body temperature regulation. In the heat of the noon the sun only shines on the top of the head and the shoulders, which have a rather small surface area compared to the total body size.
A quadrupedal animal however will suffer the sun along the whole length of the back. Thus a human will have less problems with overheating in a prolonged midday chase in the searing sun than his prey.
Also, unlike many animals, humans sweat. This is another advantage at temperature regulation that suits a species which evolved to be endurance hunters.

There even is an annual man vs horse marathon run, which humans occasionally win - when it's hot. If it were a 60km instead of 42km run, then humans would almost always win.

Note however that there still are many signs of our quadrupedal past. Our spine isn't really made for living 70+ years in an upright posture. Hence so many people suffer from back pains at an advanced age.

 

[Michael]

The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate.

Hmmm. Not exactly. EV theory proposes that *ancestors* of what you are calling 'mankind' existed as tree dwelling primates. Various primates adapted and became 'specialized' for various environments. Human primates evolved as they took to the plains in all likelihood. "Mankind" as he exists today didn't necessarily dwell in trees (although it's possible), and that's the basic problem with a lot of your questions by the way.

As human's become more intelligent, they became better at adapting to almost all environments in terms of use of resources. Apparently however, tree climbing isn't best suited to our current form, so it's probable that the Plains and ultimately the cities are the variable that humans adapted for over time.

Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

More correctly, an *ancestor* of modern "mankind" proceeded to leave the life of branches behind, and therefore that particular offshoot of primate adapted for the land. Rising up on hind legs was one such adaptation in all likelihood as it increased endurance, and made them more efficient 'hunter gatherers' and well as better scavengers. There were double mileage bonus points in terms of survival via specialization with our use of hind legs apparently. That primate variation become 'popular' on the plains over time.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs.

Lot's of folks blew that claim out of the water by noting the endurance advantage aspects. Not only did become better hunters, they also became better scavengers, and they benefited from more efficiently using energy.

We created weapons and cities to protect us from predators, as well as other humans. That was another adaptation that was made possible by the larger cranial features that 'evolved' over time on the plains.

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

You're basically talking about features and issues that developed as a result of our ancestors gathering themselves into cities, changing the diets, and a host of other adaptations that allowed for a longer development cycle, and required a longer development cycle, including learning to read, write, add, subtract, engage in city commerce, etc. A lot of that "extra development time" was made possible by our use of family structures, and larger social structures which ultimately required a longer learning curve.

A lot of your other questions are redundant in the sense that they assume that humans in the same form suddenly went "poof" while still hanging in the trees with their ancestors. That's not how it worked.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

That's just a silly statement. The formation of cities and large civilizations have allowed for, and even socially rewarded intellect in virtually every facet of social living, including procreation. With greater intellect came greater wealth, and greater status and more opportunities for procreation.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Probably no modern variation of a human ever needed to, but if they did, I'm sure it involved 'technology' of some kind.

I think that your basic misconceptions are that humans as they exist today one day popped out of a different primate, and they lived in very same trees at the time. It's more likely that some tree dwelling apes decided that they were physically better off trying their luck on the great plains, maybe because the bigger apes in the trees wanted to kill them?

Somehow they managed to survive on the plains, probably by scavenging at first, and later by hunting as they learned to walk upright and developed some weapons and some social structures. The evolutionary process was most likely a series of very small adaptations over time, and it wasn't like modern humans instantly came to exist one day.

 

[Michael]

8) Where in the world have primtive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters?

Why would you expect to observe ones that don't? They'd probably all be wiped out by various types of predators and diseases, including human predators. It's probably a lot safer, and advantageous in terms of procreation to live in a shelter.

How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man?

How may "early men" do figure that there were at first? Don't you figure that having a safe place to sleep became a primary focus of their attention as they began to become more nomadic?

How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind.

It's not altogether clear that any procreating 'human' (mankind) actually ever was required to do that over long periods of time.

How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

I'm sure that our ancestors learned the value of rocks and long sticks pretty quickly, and I'll bet they learned to sharpen the ends of the sticks pretty quickly too. A lot of what we think of as 'weaponry' today is designed to kill humans and to protect ourselves from other human predators. The technology to hunt wild game and fish efficiently has been in the hands of humans for many thousands of years. You don't need a Gatling gun to take down a deer.

 

[bhsmte]

As others already pointed out, man hunts by endurance, not burst speed. Not only is the upright posture more energy efficient, it also provides a huge advantage at the body temperature regulation. In the heat of the noon the sun only shines on the top of the head and the shoulders, which have a rather small surface area compared to the total body size.
A quadrupedal animal however will suffer the sun along the whole length of the back. Thus a human will have less problems with overheating in a prolonged midday chase in the searing sun than his prey.
Also, unlike many animals, humans sweat. This is another advantage at temperature regulation that suits a species which evolved to be endurance hunters.

There even is an annual man vs horse marathon run, which humans occasionally win - when it's hot. If it were a 60km instead of 42km run, then humans would almost always win.

Note however that there still are many signs of our quadrupedal past. Our spine isn't really made for living 70+ years in an upright posture. Hence so many people suffer from back pains at an advanced age.

Well stated.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

Evolution needs to be viewed as a jigsaw puzzle with plenty of missing pieces.Some of these pieces may be positioned in the wrong spot and there may even be some pieces from a different puzzle which add some confusion.There are enough pieces in the right spots to be able to tell what the picture is however.Over time more of the pieces are found and placed in their correct position and the picture is becoming better resolved.
The point is though that it is already resolved well enough.

The Creationist perspective works in three ways.First of all it concentrates on the missing pieces and pieces that may be in the wrong spot and then claims that means the whole picture makes no sense.The analogy of not being able to see the wood for the trees is perhaps apt.
The second approach is they can see what the picture is but hate the sight of it so they grab some paint and paint their own picture over the top.
In the third one they say that the jigsaw puzzle was made by God anyway and as to why it is so contradictory -well that is his business.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Adults who intentionally write evolution as evilution make me cringe in the same way that those who call the genitals the wee wee and the vajayjay do.

 

[Shemjaza]

At the end of the day it's not about raw meat or bipedalism or anything else. It's a problem of abiogenesis, also called "spontaneous generation" before that got disproven and had to be renamed. No matter what scenario anyone uses, at some point, stuff that isn't alive has to become alive. It doesn't happen. Any conditions that could have produced it would still be producing it to this day. Life is essentially information and information is stuff. "Stuff" not present in the progenitors doesn't just magically appear in the offspring. I LOVE science, including microevolution, but not tribal magic like macroevolution.

If people don't want to buy into creationism, fine. But, please, don't buy into non-scientific concepts simply because they've been presented as a "general consensus". Just come up with a better scientific theory.

There is no reason to think the conditions of abiogenesis aren't still present in the world, it's just that any hypothetical newly formed ultra simple life form would find itself competing with microorganisms and pathogens with 3 billion years of adaption under their belt.

As to the silly macro vs micro comment, what do you consider macro? Because when people say that they normally start with "Ape" to "Man" and that's one area where we have plenty of evidence and transitionals:

 

[Poor Beggar]

There is no reason to think the conditions of abiogenesis aren't still present in the world, it's just that any hypothetical newly formed ultra simple life form would find itself competing with microorganisms and pathogens with 3 billion years of adaption under their belt.

As to the silly macro vs micro comment, what do you consider macro? Because when people say that they normally start with "Ape" to "Man" and that's one area where we have plenty of evidence and transitionals:

Things that aren't alive don't become alive, no matter how much time and incrementalization you throw in. As for macro and micro I mean thrm in the same sense as my undergrad in biology defines them. They're basic terms anyone can look up.

 

[bhsmte]

Things that aren't alive don't become alive, no matter how much time and incrementalization you throw in. As for macro and micro I mean thrm in the same sense as my undergrad in biology defines them. They're basic terms anyone can look up.

What does abiogenesis, have to do with evolution?

 

[crjmurray]

Adults who intentionally write evolution as evilution make me cringe in the same way that those who call the genitals the wee wee and the vajayjay do.

Ha

 

[gpldisciple]

The reason it is called theory is because it has never been proven.

http://www.sciohio.org/evolfact.htm

 

[freezerman2000]

There are plenty of ways to get your ideas heard without insulting other members.

 

[crjmurray]

The reason it is called theory is because it has never been proven.

http://www.sciohio.org/evolfact.htm

Do you not know what a scientific theory is?

 

[The Barbarian]

At the end of the day it's not about raw meat or bipedalism or anything else. It's a problem of abiogenesis, also called "spontaneous generation" before that got disproven and had to be renamed.

That's not a problem for evolutionary theory. It assumes life began at some point, and merely describes how it changes. Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first organisms.

Since the Bible says that life came about from non-living matter, abiogenesis is consistent with scripture.

 

[bhsmte]

The reason it is called theory is because it has never been proven.

http://www.sciohio.org/evolfact.htm

Do you have any idea how many scientific theories you rely on, every hour and day of your life?

 

[gpldisciple]

Do you not know what a scientific theory is?

Yes a THEORY not PROVEN.