Why evolution is not true

[Delphiki]

First off, the humans we are today (Homo sapiens) have actually been around for at least 200,000 years. Our behaviors as they are today didn't arise until 50,000 years ago. Before then, our species was mostly consisted of nomadic s and gatherers, but this has little to nothing to do with our genetic makeup as Homo sapiens. Once we spread about the planet, and began building permanent cities, civilization dawned. Civilization didn't arise until at least 6500 years ago. If you're considering anthropological assessments of societal development as biological evolution, then I'd still say the OPs "evidence" against is actually evidence for evolution. The fact that we went from banging rocks together and wearing pachyderm skins to sending people to the moon and the internet is a pretty blatant sign that even the behavior of our species evolves. There's nothing in the theory or evolution that says evolution happens at a steady constant rate -- and even so, how would you measure what "fast" or "slow" evolution is anyway?

If you're wondering about the most recent boom in advancement in just the past century, it's no mystery when you consider discovery and understanding of something simple like electricity. This pretty much opened the flood gates of possibilities for our technology. We're at the point that we can take hydrogen (the most abundant element in the universe) out of water, and use it to power our vehicles. We went from taking centuries to get from Africa, to cross the land bridge, and down to South America to being able to fly from N.Y. to Tokyo in a matter of hours.

So the OP pretty much explains that we're still evolving, and somehow tries to use this as evidence against evolution? I doubt scientists would have trouble answering your questions because just about any person with a bit of sense can explain this.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt scientists would have trouble answering your questions because just about any person with a bit of sense can explain this.

They can, huh?

So if I went out on the street and stopped people at random and asked, "How long have Homo sapiens actually been around?"; most would automatically answer, "At least 200,000 years."

Is this what you want me to believe?

 

[Son of the King]

If you're wondering about the most recent boom in advancement in just the past century, it's no mystery when you consider discovery and understanding of something simple like electricity. This pretty much opened the flood gates of possibilities for our technology. We're at the point that we can take hydrogen (the most abundant element in the universe) out of water, and use it to power our vehicles. We went from taking centuries to get from Africa, to cross the land bridge, and down to South America to being able to fly from N.Y. to Tokyo in a matter of hours.

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Son of the King]

They can, huh?

So if I went out on the street and stopped people at random and asked, "How long have Homo sapiens actually been around?"; most would automatically answer, "At least 200,000 years."

Is this what you want me to believe?

It really makes you wonder if Homo sapiens have truly been around for over 200 thousand years, "What were they doing all that time?" All they find is bones.

 

[Delphiki]

They can, huh?

So if I went out on the street and stopped people at random and asked, "How long have Homo sapiens actually been around?"; most would automatically answer, "At least 200,000 years."

Is this what you want me to believe?

They can in my circles. There aren't too many idiots I enjoy hanging out with.

 

[AV1611VET]

It really makes you wonder if Homo sapiens have truly been around for over 200 thousand years, "What were they doing all that time?" All they find is bones.

From what I understand, they were clubbing women over the head, dragging them back to their caves by their hair and keeping the human race going.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt scientists would have trouble answering your questions because just about any person with a bit of sense can explain this.

They can, huh?

So if I went out on the street and stopped people at random and asked, "How long have Homo sapiens actually been around?"; most would automatically answer, "At least 200,000 years."

Is this what you want me to believe?

They can in my circles. There aren't too many idiots I enjoy hanging out with.

You must have an awful tight circle then.

And what do you do, pass out a general science quiz to people you meet to test their qualifications to be your friend?

 

[Nathan Poe]

From what I understand, they were clubbing women over the head, dragging them back to their caves by their hair and keeping the human race going.

Well that's what happens when you get your "education" from cartoons.

Don't worry, AV -- you proudly wear your ignorance like a badge; nobody expects you to take it off and stop feeling special.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that's what happens when you get your "education" from cartoons.

Really?

How about you educate me then as to how these guys, who just recently learned to light a fire, selected their wives?

We'll see who's wearing a badge, eh?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Really?

How about you educate me then as to how these guys, who just recently learned to light a fire, selected their wives?

We'll see who's wearing a badge, eh?

You really can't give up the illusion of superiority, can you, AV? Anything that threatens to humble you must "take a hike," right?

I'd pity you, AV -- but it would probably make you feel special.

 

[Naraoia]

Really?

How about you educate me then as to how these guys, who just recently learned to light a fire, selected their wives?

Phrasing the question that way assumes that the wives had no say in the selecting.

Whoever did the choosing, they probably did it in similarly complicated ways people all around the world still do. Based on any number of factors from politics to good old physical attraction.

 

[Naraoia]

Whoops, double post.

 

[Research1]

First off, the humans we are today (Homo sapiens) have actually been around for at least 200,000 years.

It depends how you are defining Human.

Homo Homo Sapien = Intelligent Man, but this intelligence is only tracable back to around 15, 000 years ago. Prior to that all there was were primitive hunter gatherers, and there is a lack of evidence for a transition of modern man from the primitives.

If you're considering anthropological assessments of societal development as biological evolution, then I'd still say the OPs "evidence" against is actually evidence for evolution. The fact that we went from banging rocks together and wearing pachyderm skins to sending people to the moon and the internet is a pretty blatant sign that even the behavior of our species evolves. There's nothing in the theory or evolution that says evolution happens at a steady constant rate -- and even so, how would you measure what "fast" or "slow" evolution is anyway?

There was virtually no technological or cultural development in the Paleolithic for over 2. 5 million years. Then suddenly only a few thousand years back man appeared to create agriculture, domesticate animals, build etc. The evidence favors a recent creation of man. Obviously we were not from the same linage as the primitive Hominids or hunter gatherers, there is no evidence or reason for this sudden transition of primitive man to civilized. It all makes sense if we look at it at a different angle - that man is young and that we didn't spring from the previous primitive beings.

I doubt scientists would have trouble answering your questions because just about any person with a bit of sense can explain this.

?? More than 10 theories exist for the reason for the Neolithic Revolution. Scientists have no explanation, they are baffled.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It depends how you are defining Human.

Homo Homo Sapien = Intelligent Man, but this intelligence is only tracable back to around 15, 000 years ago. Prior to that all there was were primitive hunter gatherers, and there is a lack of evidence for a transition of modern man from the primitives.

How are you defining intelligence?

?? More than 10 theories exist for the reason for the Neolithic Revolution. Scientists have no explanation, they are baffled.

If they have no explanation, where do the theories come from?

And how are the anti-scientists dealing with this information -- assuming they are dealing with it at all?

 

[Research1]

Your evidence against evolution is the sudden increase in advancement of humans.

My evidence is that there is no signs of a steady transition of primitive man into a higher state. It happened just suddenly - that's what i call evidence for creation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

My evidence is that there is no signs of a steady transition of primitive man into a higher state. It happened just suddenly - that's what i call evidence for creation.

Who said evolution is "steady"? Sudden events can cause sudden shifts.

 

[Freodin]

My evidence is that there is no signs of a steady transition of primitive man into a higher state. It happened just suddenly - that's what i call evidence for creation.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus did not have a mobile phone?

 

[Freodin]

Who said evolution is "steady"? Sudden events can cause sudden shifts.

I don´t think this topic has a lot - if anything - to do with evolution. It has to do with technology and invention... a completely different field, underlying completely different mechanisms.

It is one thing to have the intelligence to make the necessary observations and conclusions to make an invention... it is another to have the basis to do it. You can´t just have an idea and change the world: the world must be ready to accept the idea.

 

[Naraoia]

It depends how you are defining Human.

Homo Homo Sapien = Intelligent Man, but this intelligence is only tracable back to around 15, 000 years ago.

Homo sapiens sapiens. And you mistake "civilisation" for intelligence.

There was virtually no technological or cultural development in the Paleolithic for over 2. 5 million years.

I think this is a distortion. Throughout those 2.5 million years, stone tool technology did evolve - and the only thing you really know about culture, besides the tools, is the lack of lasting artwork (which appeared well before the Neolithic Revolution anyway). Besides, these 2.5 million years also saw quite a bit of biological evolution in our ancestors. H. sapiens is restricted to the last tenth of the period. Surely you are not arguing that the ability to make stone tools should necessarily lead to the invention of agriculture?

Then suddenly only a few thousand years back man appeared to create agriculture, domesticate animals, build etc.

You know what's interesting? That this explosion of new technology more or less coincides with the end of the latest glacial period, i.e. a major environmental change.

Also, these inventions are not independent - they all form part of a new lifestyle, and almost certainly affected or even enabled one another. For example, building permanent dwellings only makes sense if you live in the same place long enough for the effort to pay off - something that characterises agriculturalists.

In transferring from a nomadic HG to a settled agriculturalist lifestyle, humans are essentially opening up a brand new niche, something that can cause a wave of rapid innovation in biological evolution. Why would it be different for cultural evolution?

The evidence favors a recent creation of man. Obviously we were not from the same linage as the primitive Hominids or hunter gatherers, there is no evidence or reason for this sudden transition of primitive man to civilized. It all makes sense if we look at it at a different angle - that man is young and that we didn't spring from the previous primitive beings.

It may make sense if you discount all the anatomical evidence that connects you to those earlier hominins. (And, erm, hunter-gatherers still exist. If you told them that they are primitives and you can't be the same lineage as them, I don't know if they'd be offended or relieved...)

 

[Research1]

The whole OP's argument still lends no proof to Genesis being a correct explaination for lack of development.

Actually the chronology in Genesis dates the creation of man only a few thousand years back. This is because the years of the antideluvians are listed, and you then add those dates together, counting back from the flood. Some scholars believe the genealogy is incomplete, however you can stil calculate a maximum and minimum date. Although the Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint manuscripts all list different dates, they are all within a framework of only several thousands of years.

Archeology has confirmed precisely a young emergence of man.

Agriculture, building, sedentism etc only began 15, 000 B. P, this date is also within the maximum of several Septugint chronicles of the age of the creation of man (for example Alfonso X's calculation in the 13th century).