|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: Nems]
#121568
04/06/07 09:07
04/06/07 09:07
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
The presumption here is that an evolutionary line maintains a constant existential geneology over the duration of that timeline and as far as the interpretation of our history goes from every conceivable science looking into the matter, this is simply not possible at all.
It is possible, this is exactly what has happened with many species. Don't forget that not well-adapted forms of species did go extinct throughout history and remember that some species 'come and go' in a relative short timespan for which there can be many reasons. Just because 'our' species has never gone extinct doesn't mean it's 'invincible' either.
Quote:
at a more immediate timeline spanning perhaps 120 to 250k years as would seem to be the most likely period to look at given the limited genetic diversity we currently have, can we honestly 'assume' that we are the result of an unbroken genetic mutable line spanning this impossible 3 Billion year duration?
No, definitely not. We're looking at a timespan exceeding way 3 million years, the Hominoidea 'family' started about 7 million years ago with Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Infact, the 'primate' evolution has an approx. timespan of around 60 million years and (we) are part of one of the longest surviving mammal-groups.
About 5 million years ago there was a clear separation between 'human-like species' and 'apes' (when using the 'molecular clock'). But when looking at the current-day similarities between us and apes, it's pretty clear the biggest part of the evolutionary process has probably taken place before 5 million years ago, all that came after is still very very important off course though, but basic things like eyes, ears, brain etc. already became close to what they are now.
There's actually a big genetic diversity amongst the modern human race by the way, there are all kinds of different humans. You've also got to realize how 'diversity' works. For some kinds of species diversity is a extra weapon to survive as a species. More individuals and a higher diversity usually means a species is more likely to survive, because it's more flexible to drastic changes (chances are higher that because of the high diversity there are already species who can survive those drastic changes.)
Not all species 'need' this per say to survive. When I say need, I mean there were no selective factors which demanded such things in order to be able to survive as a species. On the other hand there have been important events in our evolutionary history in which a certain degree of 'diversity' has played a major role for us to be able to survive. When it comes to mammals, remember that dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor impact eventhough many mammal species survived...
Quote:
In short, its a wild guessing game on many fronts.
What exactly are the 'wild guesses' involved then 'on many fronts'? Most if not everything is based on pure evidence, the fossilrecord, DNA studies, morphological studies and what more all quite clearly support evolution and vice-versa.
Quote:
As pointed out previously, the structure and composition of our genes intergrate amazingly well to produce life as we know it but how could this have possibly been the result of random selection? Its as though a programmer wrote the genetic code! It is so complex and co-dependant as to seem 'Designed'.
Natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the mechanisms of evolution, are not random at all. Apart from that there are a lot of things on this planet that 'look to be designed to us', but we are biased. There have been people in the past that said to have found 'old stone man-made figurines'. Fact was those particular stones simply got carried by a river downstream, polishing them and shaping them into something we, with our bias, consider to be humanoid figure shapes, eventhough these stones were simply shaped into their form by collisions with other rocks inside the river.
Complexity says absolutely nothing by the way. Something primitive can evolve into something complex. It's a long way from 'one cell' to 'human' perhaps (and it definitely took a long long time), but there's no logical reason nor evidence against it to assume it has not happened. Infact, it's legit to consider our direct ancestors, the apes, to be 'more primitive' than we are.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#121570
04/06/07 19:57
04/06/07 19:57
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
NITRO777: If you want to learn more about how evolution works you are going to need to find somebody else. I only have enough knowledge about it to be dangerous.  I would avoid using web-sites for facts. The internet is full of lies and half-truths. Even well meaning articles (like this one that talks about how the brain is still evolving today) leave out a lot of details. I can suggests some good books on the subject if you are really interested.
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: Doug]
#121571
04/06/07 21:00
04/06/07 21:00
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
@Doug Quote:
I can suggests some good books on the subject if you are really interested.
Sure. If youve got the time please do suggest, I'll read 'em. Im definitely interested in anything about the brain and brain evolution, or just evolution on the cellular level. Particularly the "how" on genetic mutation is of interest to me, though I dont know how much information you'll find on that because quite frankly evolution on a cellular level is pretty much either a)beyond our current understanding or b)non-existent. 
There was a lot missing in the article you posted, but I did find it very interesting nevertheless. One of the things that interested me was the time of divergence. There seemed to be a period from 5800-7000 years ago which a certain change occured. As I said the change itself is still unclear to me, or how the conclusions were drawn were kind of omitted, but nevertheless the findings of ANY change in the human brain during that particular time frame would be interesting to me because as you probably know, the Bible places the emergence of Adam and Eve right about then. I believe that the Bible shows a great amount of evidence for previous human-like races(before Adam) and an old earth which would account for dinosaurs and all that but that is another thread. Suffice it to say that I find it an interesting coincidence that brain changes were found in humans starting at that time frame. The article doesnt give me much more to go on though.
@Phemox and others
Im reading a little before I reply, its been a while since the last evolution talk we had and I need to get things lined up in my head a little. I know what I want to say already, but I need to refresh some of the facts first.
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#121573
04/06/07 21:46
04/06/07 21:46
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Hi, Basically my belief follows this description to a certain degree, although I dont agree 100% with the wikipedia's article. The main points of the gap theory that I believe is that 1)the gap occurs between verse 1 and 2 or genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth .....GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME...and the earth was without form and void" The theory is that God did not create the world without form and void it became that way, and there are many different Hebrew words which, when translated will point to this. One such word is "was"(above) which can be translated "became" One of the main Biblical proofs(though there are entire books written about this) is found in the Hebrew translation of "without form and void". Those words are the Hebrew "tohu" and "bohu". Basically I arrived at the theory from a variety of sources, but you can read it from an expert online here. Book By Arthur Custance Dr. Custance is one of the worlds outstanding scholars in Middle eastern languages,he was one of the first to have been involved in serious cuneiform study under Dr. Meek he is a Christian but he has a lot of scholarly education. I dont even know if he is alive today..
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#121574
04/07/07 00:27
04/07/07 00:27
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
In the first stages of the embrion development some bones of the human head can not be distinguished from the ones of a reptile
Also the inner part of the human brain is almost the same as the one of a snake
This is a further prove in favour of evolutionism even though you can not exclude in principle that God got started from a common model
At a very early stage we also look like a 'fish' hehehe.  It's quite funny, but it's all evidence indeed.
You are right, we can't exclude God from the period before evolution, however we cán exclude God from 'interfering' somewhere around the middle of evolution, if that's what you suggest with 'a common model'. If you've simply meant a common model as in 'the first pre-cell almost 'life' which evolved like it did', then yes perhaps God could be responsible for that...
Quote:
The theory is that God did not create the world without form and void it became that way, and there are many different Hebrew words which, when translated will point to this. One such word is "was"(above) which can be translated "became"
It's pretty cool you agree with that translation, it's true those are the proper meanings indeed ('became') or at least I've read the same from an entire different source, so I suppose it's right. However doesn't this pose another question? Namely the question 'what díd God create then?' If the earth 'became' through all sorts of effects, physical laws that just 'are' and what more, then what's the thing God has been responsible for? These laws?
In a way, I wonder if it's anything at all, perhaps "God" is simply the somewhat philosophical 'breakpoint' to make clear that there has been time and 'development' before earth ever 'came into existence', before nature existed, before anything? If time and space have been there forever (something I do believe, since going from 'no time' (everything freezed) to 'time' sounds a bit strange to me, although not impossible), if time and space have been there forever, whether collapsed, spread out or twisted doesn't matter, you could go on and on about it, but and one point you'd have to stop and say, before this 'we don't know' ór 'make things up' in a more poetic way and say 'God did it'. Perhaps the concept of this evolved because it gave meaning to the unknown and more and more it started getting different additional meanings. Like, pray and you will get help or support in return, or perhaps pure the basic 'hope' it can give and so on and so forth. The 'concept of religion' is very very old and humans have been able to imagine a LOT and stories always evolve. No-one tells each story twice exactly the same, so 'changes' have always been inevitable,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: PHeMoX]
#121575
04/07/07 12:23
04/07/07 12:23
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Yes we "look like" fishes and reptiles but we dont look like birds This is because we are in the same evolution line : fish - reptile - mammals It seems strange but it is like that People normally prefer birds over snakes but snakes are our closer relatives 
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#121576
04/07/07 12:37
04/07/07 12:37
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
I like birds better than snakes too, I guess we'll have to live with it. Indeed, it's all pretty clear evidence for the 'branching of species' like evolution also more or less 'predicts'. There's really no way you could fit God into it either. A different branch of species or different line of evolution, is not an indication of 'divine selection' or something. (I had the 'and he took away the snakes legs and made him crawl n his belly' thing in mind there.) Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Made or Born?
[Re: PHeMoX]
#121577
04/07/07 12:38
04/07/07 12:38
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
It' However doesn't this pose another question? Namely the question 'what díd God create then?' If the earth 'became' through all sorts of effects, physical laws that just 'are' and what more, then what's the thing God has been responsible for? These laws?
Genesis 1:1-2 To help understand the theory I will break up Genesis 1:1-2 into component parts. It will also help to visualize Genesis 1:1-2 as completely seperate from the remainder of Genesis 1, I will show this in the list below:
----------------
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth"
---THE GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME---
Genesis 1:2(a)"And the earth was(became) without form and void(tohu and bohu)"
Genesis 1:2(b)"And darkness was upon the face of the deep."***
Genesis 1:3-31 A new creation was placed upon the earth, and the light from starts and sun was accelerated to the "firmament"
***Darkness was upon the face of the "deep" meaning the "water", therefore it is logical to conclude that the first, pre-adamite creation was destroyed by a pre-Noahic flood!
|
|
|
|
