The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

 

[klutedavid]

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,

Certainly not as a ground dwelling creature, whether man was social or not, really does not address
the real issue. There are certain required attributes, compulsory attributes, that man must have in
his genetic makeup to be able to survive, on the ground in Africa.

You replied,

All the other animals in Africa are leery of humans. For good reason. We kill them.
The Kung tribesmen still sometimes live the way our distant ancestors did. And they are feared
by all the other animals. Even chimps are usually given a wide berth by other predators.
It's just not worth the risk of going into a mob of chimps.

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

I said,

These genetic attributes are displayed in all their abundance, by all ground dwelling creatures
in Africa, and this by observation! Speed, numbers, stamina, camoflage, heightened sight, hearing
and smell. Alertness and the ability to detect a threat a great distance is crucial to survival in Africa.

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.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

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.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

 

[As I was saying]

Yeah... and doesn't fish count as meat? There's raw fish on sashimi, and lots of people eat that.

Also, he's forgetting the Inuit.

EDIT: Also, I think the OP should go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon Basin and observe the lifestyles of people who are basically still living in the Stone Age.

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.

 

[As I was saying]

I've eaten beef, fish, squid, prawns, goat, chicken, deer and horse raw. Living in southern Japan for 14 months was fun.

There's a guy in the US that was having a series of health issues and eventually settled them with an all raw meat diet. As of 2013, he'd been living on an all raw meat diet for five years, with no reported health problems.

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.

 

[jathtech]

Hello Barbarian.

Such an interesting topic to discuss.

You said,

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,


You said,

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,

Did I mention chimps?

You said.

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,

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,


You replied.

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,

Not a poor argument, the ancestor of man needs tools, full stop.

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.

 

[As I was saying]

On the bipedal thing, it's more energy efficient over the long haul. Humans are endurance hunters not ambush predators, we wear down our prey.

Also, as people have said, there's a greater chance of bacterial infection, and it's harder to chew and digest, but eating raw meat is certainly possible.

(But, I'm assuming copy paste, post and go for this thread anyway. Using evilution makes me think it's probably a poe anyway.)

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

 

[jathtech]

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.

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

 

[Dr 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."

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.

 

[klutedavid]

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!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

#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.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

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.

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.

Where actually talking about a strong grip by the infant to support it's own weight on the mother's
back. We are not talking a weak and purposeful grasp HS Gurd, infants are weak creatures compared
with their wild relatives.

Nutriment studies of modern hunter and gatherers have shown that children as young a
8 years old generate over 50% of their own food.

Some men in their twenties cannot prepare food sir. Eight years of care and attention toward
an infant. Is a very long time in the rough and tumble of ancient Africa. You need an infant
up and running promptly, gathering their own food, all in the space of weeks or at most months.
Not eight years, that is a ridiculous amount of time, seriously GS Hurd. Do you honestly
believe mankind could ever survive in the wild with this handicap?

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.

I know for a fact that we are bigger and stronger than any of our ancestors, why? Our diets
are much better.

Our ancestors were puny and weaker than us, fact. My point is that given what we know about
human traits, it is necessary for humans to have shelter and tools.

Without these two requirements humans or their ancestors will not succeed. We need to know
when our ancestors used tools and why? Ground dwelling creatures need tools to survive,
especially slow bipeds.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Hmmm. Not exactly.

I think you hit every point as well as I could.

 

[paulm50]

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.

The cause/reason for the initial spark of life is what's missing, the rest even with gaps and mistakes holds fast.