Why are there still apes?

[AV1611VET]

(hint: a global, catastrophic flood that basically almost instantly terraforms the entire planet would leave evidence of it's occurence).

Are we going to go through this again?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Another "lazy" handwave?

God works in mysterious ways, doesn't He?

Meh - lack of coherent answer or explanation noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meh - lack of coherent answer or explanation noted.

Back atcha with the IT DIDN'T HAPPEN explanations.

 

[MIDutch]

Are we going to go through this again?

Why not? It's been going on since the middle of the 18th century when geologists found that the evidence under their feet directly contradicted the Genesis creation narrative.

While most of the world (and pretty much all of science) have accepted the geological timescale conclusions, creationists are still living in the 18th century where science is concerned.

 

[AV1611VET]

While most of the world (and pretty much all of science) have accepted the geological timescale conclusions, creationists are still living in the 18th century where science is concerned.

More like science hasn't caught up to the Bible yet.

Science will always be one step behind -- or more.

 

[Jok]

Question, let’s say for the sake of argument that in Australia about 100 years ago there began this very very very SLOW process of Homo Sapiens evolving into something intellectually superior (from what I understand evolutionary splits occur based on geological separation, so a secluded continent like Australia might be a great situation for it to happen). So I’m assuming from everything that has been said in here that 100 years is not enough time for changes to be noticeable (however the process DID begin about 100 years ago for the thought experiment).

So how would this play out over time exactly? Would that subset of people more & more start to dominate the rest of us in all things intellectual like chess tournaments and academic achievements? Would they very slowly begin to “Look weird” to us? And what kind of time frames are we talking about? At what point would doctors actually begin to realize that physiological differences are reaching the point where this Australian based group requires different treatments due to different physiology? I’m trying to understand how this process of “They have broken away from Homo Sapiens to become something different” vs “The changes are SO SO SO slow that you won’t notice anything for a million years” would play out. Homo Sapiens co-existed with Homo Erectus but we came from the same descendant, so was there a very very long stretch of time where you couldn’t tell one from the other? And if the transition was so very very slow AND we lived with each other AND we could interbreed, then how would the interbreeding not completely wash out and undermine the entire process of “Breaking away from each other?”

That’s the conflicting part that I’m having trouble understanding...how BOTH could be true! If we could interbreed, and if we co-existed, and if the process is so incredibly SLOW...wouldn’t the interbreeding wash out any possibility for the successful breaking off into two separate species (because it takes way too long to overpower the interbreeding effect)?

 

[Shemjaza]

Question, let’s say for the sake of argument that in Australia about 100 years ago there began this very very very SLOW process of Homo Sapiens evolving into something intellectually superior (from what I understand evolutionary splits occur based on geological separation, so a secluded continent like Australia might be a great situation for it to happen). So I’m assuming from everything that has been said in here that 100 years is not enough time for changes to be noticeable (however the process DID begin about 100 years ago for the thought experiment).

So how would this play out over time exactly? Would that subset of people more & more start to dominate the rest of us in all things intellectual like chess tournaments and academic achievements? Would they very slowly begin to “Look weird” to us? And what kind of time frames are we talking about? At what point would doctors actually begin to realize that physiological differences are reaching the point where this Australian based group requires different treatments due to different physiology? I’m trying to understand how this process of “They have broken away from Homo Sapiens to become something different” vs “The changes are SO SO SO slow that you won’t notice anything for a million years” would play out. Homo Sapiens co-existed with Homo Erectus but we came from the same descendant, so was there a very very long stretch of time where you couldn’t tell one from the other? And if the transition was so very very slow AND we lived with each other AND we could interbreed, then how would the interbreeding not completely wash out and undermine the entire process of “Breaking away from each other?”

That’s the conflicting part that I’m having trouble understanding...how BOTH could be true! If we could interbreed, and if we co-existed, and if the process is so incredibly SLOW...wouldn’t the interbreeding wash out any possibility for the successful breaking off into two separate species (because it takes way too long to overpower the interbreeding effect)?

The point is that Homo sapiens and Homo erectus didn't co-exist for most of their history. You don't get that kind of divergence without the two populations breeding separately.

Once Homo sapiens expanded into the territories of the other species... it didn't take geologic time before they were gone.

Your hypothesis can be easily demonstrated with historical evidence. Homo sapiens spread across the planet, and despite being only one species the somewhat isolated groups developed some slightly different traits. The most obvious is that those who left the sunny plains of Africa grew paler to deal with the dark of Europe and northern Asia.

The varied populations of Homo sapiens are still all the same species, but there are family traits that distinguished them. Of course once we developed a little technology and populations grew and travel become common the populations started mixing again to create new families.

 

[Jok]

Homo sapiens spread across the planet, and despite being only one species the somewhat isolated groups developed some slightly different traits. The most obvious is that those who left the sunny plains of Africa grew paler to deal with the dark of Europe and northern Asia.

The varied populations of Homo sapiens are still all the same species, but there are family traits that distinguished them. Of course once we developed a little technology and populations grew and travel become common the populations started mixing again to create new families.

So are you saying that different ethnicities ARE the beginning stages of Homo Sapiens diverging from each other? And that it just needs a lot more time to reach a point where we would actually see two groups of people on the Earth reach the point of having different anatomies?

 

[Shemjaza]

So are you saying that different ethnicities ARE the beginning stages of Homo Sapiens diverging from each other? And that it just needs a lot more time to reach a point where we would actually see two groups of people on the Earth reach the point of having different anatomies?

No, they could have been if they had been separated longer.

But, isolation doesn't guarantee speciation. Species diverge more when they are under pressure... humans haven't really been under much pressure since they mastered tools and fire.

 

[Gottservant]

The point should be pretty clear - it's a case of theists having it both ways; they invoke an omnipotent, omniscient entity as the ultimate explanation for everything, whose nature and commands they claim to know, who supposedly talks to them, and with whom they have a 'personal relationship', yet whenever reality or logic throw up the inevitable contradictions, absurdities, irrationalities, etc. in their claims about it, this entity is said to be 'unknowable' and 'beyond our understanding', 'moves in mysterious ways'.

I think it's worth pointing out such inconsistencies when they occur. I can understand that you might not think so.

What is more irrational: listening to something you can't see, or being the thing you can't understand?

 

[Gottservant]

What I don't get is: mutations lead to adaptation, but adapting doesn't lead to preparation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I don't get is: mutations lead to adaptation, but adapting doesn't lead to preparation?

Mutations are a biological process in responses to environmental pressure, which happens without thought.
Preparation requires thought processes and a brain.
Evolution doesn't have a brain, or a mind. Evolution isn't a being, it's a biological process.

 

[Shemjaza]

What I don't get is: mutations lead to adaptation, but adapting doesn't lead to preparation?

No.

Because there is no choice, no thought and no plan it isn't preparation.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes but you patently recognise that adapting is good,

why would you not prepare for something that is good

(assuming you can predict it, as you say?)?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is more irrational: listening to something you can't see, or being the thing you can't understand?

I give up - what is more irrational and why?

 

[Gottservant]

I give up - what is more irrational and why?

The answer is you can do both: if you believe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes but you patently recognise that adapting is good,

why would you not prepare for something that is good

(assuming you can predict it, as you say?)?

Evolution is a process that happens to populations over many generations, it isn't voluntary. Individuals don't evolve. It isn't predictable except to the extent that populations will either adapt to existential selective pressures or go extinct; how they will adapt is not, in general, predictable.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but you patently recognise that adapting is good,

why would you not prepare for something that is good

(assuming you can predict it, as you say?)?

Because evolution is not a result of choices.

It's a completely mindless process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The answer is you can do both: if you believe.

That is not a coherent answer to the question you asked (not that I'm surprised by that).

 

[Gottservant]

That is not a coherent answer to the question you asked (not that I'm surprised by that).

The question was "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?"

If there were no God, doubt would only ever multiply.

A coherent objection to a questionable statement would not simply state that there is room for error, and forget to mention in what way.