The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[TheBear]

God did learn.

So, God hasn't always known everything, and is/was on a learning curve?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, God hasn't always known everything, and is/was on a learning curve?

That God was always omniscient is a human idea. If he grants us free will he purposely leaves our choices up to us. That said he controls what will happen if we make certain choices.

 

[klutedavid]

Reconstructing the behavioral shifts that drove hominin evolution requires knowledge of the timing, magnitude, and
direction of anatomical changes over the past ∼6–7 million years. These reconstructions depend on assumptions regarding the morphotype of the Homo–Pan last common ancestor (LCA). However, there is little consensus for the LCA, with proposed models ranging from African ape to orangutan or generalized Miocene ape-like. The ancestral state of the shoulder is of particular interest because it is functionally associated with important behavioral shifts in hominins, such as reduced arboreality, high-speed throwing, and tool use. However, previous morphometric analyses of both living and fossil taxa have yielded contradictory results. Here, we generated a 3D morphospace of ape and human scapular shape to plot evolutionary trajectories, predict ancestral morphologies, and directly test alternative evolutionary hypotheses using the hominin fossil evidence. We show that the most parsimonious model for the evolution of hominin shoulder shape starts with an African ape-like ancestral state. We propose that the shoulder evolved gradually along a single morphocline, achieving modern human-like configuration and function within the genus Homo. These data are consistent with a slow, progressive loss of arboreality and increased tool use throughout human evolution. (PNAS)

 

[Gene2memE]

Reconstructing the behavioral shifts that drove hominin evolution requires knowledge of the timing, magnitude, and
direction of anatomical changes over the past ∼6–7 million years. These reconstructions depend on assumptions regarding the morphotype of the Homo–Pan last common ancestor (LCA). However, there is little consensus for the LCA, with proposed models ranging from African ape to orangutan or generalized Miocene ape-like.

You said in an earlier post that "mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate." Hominins =/= homo sapiens sapiens. Anatomically modern homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. The homo-pan evolutionary divergence occurred about 5.5 million years ago.

You could argue passably that the distant ancestors of mankind were tree dwelling primates, but not mankind itself. The difference in the wording is subtle, but its a very important distinction.

Mankind was never a tree dwelling primate, nor were our immediate genetic ancestor sub-species, nor were their ancestors. There are, however, tree-dwelling primates in our lineage.

 

[klutedavid]

You said in an earlier post that "mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate." Hominins =/= homo sapiens sapiens. Anatomically modern homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. The homo-pan evolutionary divergence occurred about 5.5 million years ago.

You could argue passably that the distant ancestors of mankind were tree dwelling primates, but not mankind itself. The difference in the wording is subtle, but its a very important distinction.

Mankind was never a tree dwelling primate, nor were our immediate genetic ancestor sub-species, nor were their ancestors. There are, however, tree-dwelling primates in our lineage.

Hello Gene2.

I do understand the difference Gene2, just trying to make the post user friendly.

If I used the formal names of the ancestors of man, for example Homo heidelbergenesis,
or Homo rhodesiensis. I would probably not even receive one reply to the post.

You said 'mankind was never a tree dwelling primate', given the scarcity of fossils.
How do you support your idea with evidence?

 

[Gene2memE]

You said 'mankind was never a tree dwelling primate', given the scarcity of fossils.
How do you support your idea with evidence?

The evidence is hardly "scarce". As of the year 2000, there were more than 8000 fossilised Homonid individuals on record, either with partial and or complete skeletons. More have been discovered since then - at a rate of several hundred per year.

None of these fossils show the characteristics of creatures with arboreal habitation.

Can I absolutely rule it out tree dwelling by hominids? No. I was probably too strident in my language in earlier posts, by using the word never.

What I can say is that the available evidence gives no indication that that Homo sapiens sapiens was tree dwelling since is appearance in the last 300,000 years. Nor does it provide any evidence for tree dwelling by our most direct hominid ancestors in the past 1-1.5 million years or so.

Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis might have been partially arboreal, but that's a debatable interpretation and these species disappear from the fossil record around 1.6-1.8 million years ago. Of our direct Homo ancestors - erectus, heidelbergensis and the archaic homo sapiens - there is no evidence of tree habitation in the fossil record.

 

[ecco]

That God was always omniscient is a human idea.

Leaving ...

1. God was not omniscient in the beginning of his existence but gained omniscience at some point and is still omniscient
2. God was not omniscient in the beginning of his existence, gained omniscience at some point but is not currently omniscient
3. God never was and is not omniscient

Which, if any, of the above is your belief/understanding?

If 1 or 2...
When did god become omniscient? Before or after he created the heavens and the earth?
How did god become omniscient?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Leaving ...

1. God was not omniscient in the beginning of his existence but gained omniscience at some point and is still omniscient
2. God was not omniscient in the beginning of his existence, gained omniscience at some point but is not currently omniscient
3. God never was and is not omniscient

Which, if any, of the above is your belief/understanding?

I think God was omniscient until he granted free will to the angels. When he realized that the free will had been abused he made sure he was fully aware of what was going with his created beings. The 'herald ' angel Gabriel is charged with keeping God informed at all times.

If 1 or 2...
When did god become omniscient? Before or after he created the heavens and the earth?
How did god become omniscient?

When God granted free will to his angels he (necessarily) gave up his omniscience. When it was abused he restored it through his 'information gathering' Spirit; the "eyes that run to and fro through the whole earth".

 

[ecco]

When God granted free will to his angels he (necessarily) gave up his omniscience. When it was abused he restored it through his 'information gathering' Spirit; the "eyes that run to and fro through the whole earth".

If I understand correctly, and I may not, you are saying god was omniscient when he created the heavens and the earth and Adam & Eve and is still today. Please correct me if that is wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If I understand correctly, and I may not, you are saying god was omniscient when he created the heavens and the earth and Adam & Eve and is still today. Please correct me if that is wrong.

I think we need to define omniscient as pertains to God. I don't know if God knows every little thing that goes on in the world, but I do think he is aware of and fully involved in the important stuff.

 

[ecco]

I think we need to define omniscient as pertains to God. I don't know if God knows every little thing that goes on in the world, but I do think he is aware of and fully involved in the important stuff.

OK. Specifically. Did god know, before he created Adam & Eve in the way he did, that they would eat of the tree of forbidden fruit?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK. Specifically. Did god know, before he created Adam & Eve in the way he did, that they would eat of the tree of forbidden fruit?

Yes. The 'fall' of Adam and Eve was a reenactment of the fall of Lucifer, orchestrated by God.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

OK. Specifically. Did god know, before he created Adam & Eve in the way he did, that they would eat of the tree of forbidden fruit?

Yes. The 'fall' of Adam and Eve was a reenactment of the fall of Lucifer, orchestrated by God.

As parents we try to instill morality into our children over time by teaching them right from wrong. We also try to educate them and give them proper nutrition.

Adam & Eve were created with certain characteristics - body shapes, ability to communicate, an understanding of their surroundings, free will and a level of morality. God knew, at the time he created them, that, given the level of morality he instilled into them, that they would disobey him.

The inescapable conclusion is that god intentionally caused "The Fall of Man".

 

[Jimmy D]

The inescapable conclusion is that god intentionally caused "The Fall of Man"

Ah, but he sent Jesus to save us again.

It's like sneakily pushing a child into the sea when no one's looking and them diving in to rescue them to look like the hero.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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.

First, mankind never lived in trees. Our ancestors may have lived in trees, but they were quite different species with a different ecological niche and different characteristics.

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.

Except that mankind can live very well in the natural world. Evidence of this is that the

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?

There are many different ways in which creatures can obtain their food, and it's not necessary to be the fastest creature in order to get food, or only Cheetahs would live and every other creature would starve. The particular advantage of the human race is our brains, which allows us to find many different ways of finding food. E.g. read your history books on the extremely clever and very effective ways that pre-contact more primitive societies such as Bushmen, in the past, obtained their food from seemingly barren landscapes with a minimum of technological tools.

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.

Mankind has, since its inception, lived in societies where adults can protect and look after their children. Hence, there is no need for humans to be up and running immediately after birth as society protects their young, they aren't just left to find for themselves. Other creatures show similar strategies, though not as long as human infancy. E.g. mouthbrooding fish will hold and protect young fish in their mouths until they are old enough to survive by themselves. Kangaroos and similar animals protect their young in a pouch. While the time period is differe, it's the same concept - adults protect the young during a period of infancy.

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.

There is a disadvantage in such a long infancy, but it is balanced by other advantages. Because of the social element of human society and the amount that can be taught (even in historical primitive societies) the long infancy. Not all creatures have the same strategy for their young. E.g. some fish will spawn huge numbers of eggs, then leave the young to fend for themselves, even eating their own eggs. The low survival rate still works because of the number of eggs laid. Other fish have few young, but invest parental care (such as mouthbrooding and many other strategies) so that the low number of young is balanced by a high survival rate. Humans are fairly extreme in the amount of parental care (which enables social learning etc.) but elephants are similar. Gestation is 22 months, and young elephants are looked after in family groups until they are 12 or 14 or so.

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.

Man has had access to tools since mankind existed. Previous ancestral species such as Homo habilis (for 'handy man') already had tools, and we inherited the use of tools and fire from them. BTW: There is plenty of evidence how humans can not just survive but flourish without modern technology, e.g. see the historical accounts of primitive societies lived off the land hundreds of years ago before modern technology was adopted by them. The Australian Aborigines are another example.

You seem to be talking about all the characteristics of humans, but ignoring what really gives us a competitive advantage. Our intelligence, and that we work in social groups. Both of these characteristics give us huge advantages over other creatures.

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.

You've never engaged in mixed martial arts against trained females I see.

Women are entirely capable of engaging in hunting. On average women are weaker than men, but that is only on average. Do you think that most typical males could get anywhere near the feats performed by the competitors for World's Strongest Women?

And there's no need for all members of a tribe (no matter what their gender) to be hunters of large prey. There is also small prey, collection of

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.

Man can eat raw meat, including mamallian meat. I have been a strict vegetarian for decades now, but have eaten raw meat, beef and horse, before I became vegetarian.

I would agree with you that our long intestines are not as effective as digesting meat as that of obligate carnivores such as cats. However, this may simply indicate that we are evolved to be on the slightly herbivourous side of ominvorism. There is no need for us to be a herbivore (though I choose to be), as clearly we can eat raw meats without problems. And, since our ancestors already used fire, we could easily have been eating cooked food since we began.

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.

Not every creature needs advanced navigation built in as some birds and whales do they don't migrate. We are quite good at finding our way home as we can remember landmarks and find our way back using them. This helps us find water, remember where the fruit tree was, etc. We have a good brain, most likely the best brain of any animal. This gives us all the capabilities we need to navigate as well as our lifestyle (in context, e.g. that of historical primitive societies) requires.

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.

There is much less need to protect yourself from cold if you live in the tropics. Research into clothing lice, which are hypothesised to have evolved alongside the human use of clothing suggests that humans did not significantly leave the tropics until they started wearing clothes.

Even Home erectus who appeared long before mankind did used fire and lived in caves. Homo erectus long predated mankind, and therefore it's likely that mankind lived in caves right from the beginning. As you may be aware, as well as protection from animals, fire keeps you warm. Particularly in an enclosed area such as a cave.

There is no real need to protect ourselves from rain. Unless it's cold enough so that becoming wet risks hypothermia, then getting wet is a minor discomfort but doesn't really stop us doing anything.

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.

Man's intellect is necessary, because we need it to compete with other species who have other advantages over us. Faster, stronger, bigger, better able to climb, jump, etc. You say that science has no answer for this anomaly, but it's easy to point out why we need this particular advantage over other creatures. Because if we didn't have it, we would be out-competed by other creatures that had other advantages over us.

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?

Mankind never lived in trees, it was much earlier ancestors that may have lived in trees. And these ancestors most likely had fur, which infants can hold onto. And it's quite possible that the length of infancy was much shorter as it is for modern aboreal monkeys.

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.

Given that your arguments that man could not survive in a natural environment don't seem to hold water, I don't think you've come anywhere near supporting your claims that man should have gone extinct, or that mankind needs an 'external force' to survive. E.g. you claim that man ws never designed to survive in the natural world, but modern humans in primitive societies lived extremely well in the natural world.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello AnotherAtheist.

Thanks for your reply. I think it may be advisable to consider only one or two points at a time, keep it simple.

First, mankind never lived in trees. Our ancestors may have lived in trees, but they were quite different species with a different ecological niche and different characteristics.

You made a claim AnotherAtheist, 'mankind never lived in trees'. Not sure how you justify that claim? Are you aware of the Korowai tribes in New Guinea, they live in the trees. (wikipedia) Does anyone know with any certainty, whether man was a tree dweller in the distant past?

So how did mankind obtain food on the ground in Africa in the distant past, without becoming prey.

primitive societies such as Bushmen, in the past, obtained their food from seemingly barren landscapes with a minimum of technological tools.

A recent development in human history, the craft of the bushmen. Predators existed in far higher numbers in the past, and the bushmen
would not have prevailed using their modern methods. What you observe today by observing the bushmen, is definitely not what occurred in the
past. Seriously AnotherAtheist, if the bushmen wandered off to search for food, how did the females and the infants survive in the past?
How did the bushmen in the deeper past, prevail with the amplified, lion and hyena populations?

Here is a scenario for you to consider AnotherAtheist.

You find yourself in a modern African wildlife park. You have a tent, a spear, and fire, you also have a slab of meat to eat. In Africa, the predators hunt at night, and sleep during the day. The predators can smell your slab of meat and are attracted to your camp. Go ahead AnotherAtheist, retire for the night.

You probably will not see the sun rise in the morning. Even in a modern wildlife park, with very low predator numbers, your survival is highly questionable and that is in the short term. Given a few female lions find your camp, which will happen of course. And contrary to what some might think, a fire will not protect you. Also, contrary to current popular speculation, a spear will not ward off the lions.

If you persist in placing mankind on the ground in Africa in the deeper past. You need to explain how mankind survived the onslaught of the predators, given a sharp stick and a fire.

 

[Strathos]

BTW, for all the people who keep saying that mankind never lived in trees... look at this.

 

[crjmurray]

The majority of the Korowai clans live in tree houses on their isolated territory.

SOURCE
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korowai_people

Let's not be any more stupid about this than we have to be.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Hello AnotherAtheist.

Thanks for your reply. I think it may be advisable to consider only one or two points at a time, keep it simple.

You made a claim AnotherAtheist, 'mankind never lived in trees'. Not sure how you justify that claim? Are you aware of the Korowai tribes in New Guinea, they live in the trees. (wikipedia) Does anyone know with any certainty, whether man was a tree dweller in the distant past?

Well, in the modern world (including the last few thousand years) humans developed all sorts of ways of living. But, your post was specifically about mankind (Homo sapiens) in the natural environment. Once technology advanced enough to build even a crude tree hut, then yes many could have lived in trees. But, our point of discussion is humans living in a wild environment, and your claims that we couldn't. If you point out humans living in trees, doesn't that mean that you have destroyed your own argument with an example of what you say coulnd't happen.?

So how did mankind obtain food on the ground in Africa in the distant past, without becoming prey.
A recent development in human history, the craft of the bushmen. Predators existed in far higher numbers in the past, and the bushmen
would not have prevailed using their modern methods. What you observe today by observing the bushmen, is definitely not what occurred in the
past. Seriously AnotherAtheist, if the bushmen wandered off to search for food, how did the females and the infants survive in the past?
How did the bushmen in the deeper past, prevail with the amplified, lion and hyena populations?

Well this is interesting. I've just accidentally read page 1 of this thread again by mistake. This question is answered clearly on tha page. So, why are you asking the same question when it's already been answered. It's been pointed out that Bushmen in their historical traditional lifetstyle are feared by most animals, as Bushmen kill them. So, how would Busmen in the past survive? Easily. We know they survived as Bushmen lived a traditional lifestyle up to historical times, and we observed how they lived. How did females and infants survive? The children would ahve been protected by adults, including females. We knw this is possible because we have direct evidence that it happened.

Here is a scenario for you to consider AnotherAtheist.

You find yourself in a modern African wildlife park. You have a tent, a spear, and fire, you also have a slab of meat to eat. In Africa, the predators hunt at night, and sleep during the day. The predators can smell your slab of meat and are attracted to your camp. Go ahead AnotherAtheist, retire for the night.

What has this got to do with the question? I have specifically mentioned that an important part of human suruval 'in the wild' is based on advantages we have such as social organisation. So, I would arrange with others from my tribe to keep watch and to wake the others if any large predators approach. We'd then deal with them as a group. Sorted. It was pointed out to you on page one of this thread that large predators are typically scared of Bushmen.

You probably will not see the sun rise in the morning. Even in a modern wildlife park, with very low predator numbers, your survival is highly questionable and that is in the short term. Given a few female lions find your camp, which will happen of course. And contrary to what some might think, a fire will not protect you. Also, contrary to current popular speculation, a spear will not ward off the lions.

If you persist in placing mankind on the ground in Africa in the deeper past. You need to explain how mankind survived the onslaught of the predators, given a sharp stick and a fire.

Mankind could easily survive in the past by not being people who had grown up in western civlisation and therefore were not clueless about how to survive on the savannah, and [ii] working cooperatively in a social group rather than being on my own. I have never learnt how to survive on the savannah, and I'd be by myself. So, whatever would happen to me in that environment is pretty irrelevant.

Particularly the social group being an important part of survival is crucial to my previous post. I'm a bit disappointed that you don't seem to have read it properly.

BTW: Lions will typically back down from even an unarmed human. http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Lion-Attack

 

[AnotherAtheist]

BTW, for all the people who keep saying that mankind never lived in trees... look at this.

I think the more important consequence of this is that it pretty much debunks any claims that humans can't have lived in trees. BTW: Is anyone claiming that before civilisation, in the wild state, that humans primarily lived in trees?