Jump to content


Photo

That’s The Evolution Way.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 10 January 2011 - 06:03 AM

Some time ago there was the common ancestor who gave birth to a daughter. This doter will be the great ancestor of the humans. Although she still looked like her cousins, she had a small mutating that will result in her being one of the missing links of mankind. Her cousin was the great ancestor of the chimpanzee. There was no discrimination between their children and their children. In time there fur colour change their facial features change and their culture change. And somewhere in-between all these changes one became the superior animal.

Fast forward to today. Man sees the chimpanzee as a lesser animal. The chimpanzee is not allowed to vote or own land. Although the man know today that the chimpanzee is a distend cousin. Hi still treat him as a lesser animal.
Then he ponders, looking at the chimpanzee. When in the past have our forefather decide to discriminate against their cousins and way? Was it when they lost their fur? Was it when they changed their diet? Was it when there facial features changed?

If humans will over time evolve in to the next “superhuman” when will the superhuman discriminate against his lesser human cousin? And treat him as the next chimpanzee. How makes that decision? According to evolution the fittest will survive. The strongest lion make the decision. The one with authority makes the rules. If we look at the human history, haven’t some already attempted to make this decision? It may not have been the right time to discriminate against our human cousins. But it will happen in the future. Maybe next year or the year after that or the years after that, but it will happen. That’s the evolution way.

Some time ago nature decided if someone will or will not be borne. Today we as human decide our self when to end an unborn lesser human. We decided a fetus is a lesser human. I mean it cannot feel, it’s not aware, it cannot suffer. I mean it cannot even vote. That’s the evolution way.

#2 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:25 AM

Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the
alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice, and the exercise
of choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.
—Thomas Jefferson



#3 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:44 AM

We decided a fetus is a lesser human.  I mean it cannot feel, it’s not aware, it cannot suffer. I mean it cannot even vote. That’s the evolution way.

View Post

They used to believe that newborns could not suffer. I know for a fact after their treatment of me (born at 28 weeks) that they can indeed suffer, and in fact remember it.

I will not for an instant believe that the unborn cannot feel pain, are not aware, cannot suffer. How much earlier in the development would a child need to be? One month earlier than when I was born? 2 months? 3? Don't you dare tell me that you know a human being who has no way of communicating meaningfully is not feeling pain or suffering.

#4 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 January 2011 - 04:40 PM

Fast forward to today. Man sees the chimpanzee as a lesser animal. The chimpanzee is not allowed to vote or own land. Although the man know today that the chimpanzee is a distend cousin. Hi still treat him as a lesser animal.

View Post

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animals”. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.

If humans will over time evolve in to the next “superhuman” when will the superhuman discriminate against his lesser human cousin? And treat him as the next chimpanzee. How makes that decision?

View Post

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumans”. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.

According to evolution the fittest will survive. The strongest lion make the decision. The one with authority makes the rules.

View Post

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.

If we look at the human history, haven’t some already attempted to make this decision? It may not have been the right time to discriminate against our human cousins. But it will happen in the future. Maybe next year or the year after that or the years after that, but it will happen. That’s the evolution way.

View Post

No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 January 2011 - 05:19 PM

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animals”. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumans”. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.

No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

View Post

All your rhetoric would make us the Supreme Beings on planet earth. Our intelligence trumps "it" all. You allude to right and wrong through use of words like corrupt, warped, murder, and discrimination. Evolution does not lay claim to causing any sort of ideas like right or wrong--survival of the species is it's only rule. Evolution justifies anything to survive to be able to reproduce.

My question is where did you get the idea to infer that evolution could be misused? What mutation caused that? Have you been eating of that tree which your were commanded not to have. Are you taking to yourself the knowledge of good and evil?

#6 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 January 2011 - 08:11 PM

All your rhetoric would make us the Supreme Beings on planet earth. Our intelligence trumps "it" all.

View Post

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

My question is where did you get the idea to infer that evolution could be misused? What mutation caused that? Have you been eating of that tree which your were commanded not to have. Are you taking to yourself the knowledge of good and evil?

View Post

Are you referring to the evolution of morality? I think there’s good evidence to suggest that social relationships are often an important aspect of survival, in humans and other animals as well. I would argue that morality is an evolved behaviour.

That’s slightly off topic though. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate my ability to tell right from wrong. My point is that the ideas behind evolution can be misinterpreted, in the same way that people misinterpret religious teachings and use them to justify their actions. Crous insinuates that discrimination and genocide are “the evolution way”, which is not the case.

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:32 PM

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

So what we will do is take away any form of intelligence from you and see what happens--I would surmise you would die.

Are you referring to the evolution of morality? I think there’s good evidence to suggest that social relationships are often an important aspect of survival, in humans and other animals as well. I would argue that morality is an evolved behaviour.

Go there and you open pandora's box and must also hold evolution responsible for evolving the idea of God and creationism

That’s slightly off topic though. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate my ability to tell right from wrong. My point is that the ideas behind evolution can be misinterpreted, in the same way that people misinterpret religious teachings and use them to justify their actions. Crous insinuates that discrimination and genocide are “the evolution way”, which is not the case.

View Post

What do you mean by misinterpreted? Evolution, according to evo scientists and atheists, has no moral implications. Survival to reproduce and live is all "it' claims.

I would conclude, similarly to you, that if evolution is the cause then it has to take the responsibility for everything, religion, God, atheism, evolution, creationism, morality and/ or the lack there of. Then, I suppose it gave us a choice to believe whatever we want. Right?

I can't detect that evolution has any power over your or my thinking process. It is a straw man argument. We couldn't disagree if we didn't have the ability to do so.

#8 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 10 January 2011 - 11:39 PM

Chimpanzees can’t vote because they can’t read. Or write. Or speak a human language. Humans are more intelligent than chimps and partake in cultural activities such as politics, but that doesn’t mean chimps are “lesser animals”. They’re a different species, and we treat them as such. As for land, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that chimps (and many other animals) have suitable habitats.


Is it murder to kill a chimpanzee? It is murder to kill a human. Does a chimpanzee has a choice live humans do? I know people here in Africa that cannot read or write a baby cannot speak. At this point this people compare to your definition have no writes. I do realize that not what you mean. But how decide the definitions in the world where “evolution” is the moral compass.

Evolution does not suggest that humans will evolve into “superhumans”. Evolutionary change is caused by mutation and adaptation to an ever-changing environment, not a race to become more powerful.


I think you are missing the point. Let me explain. I do understand evolution. The “superhuman” is the next step of humans, the point where this “superhuman” think\know they are betters that the normal human in whatever sense. The point where they make definitions like you just did to justify their superior attitude.

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, does not refer to physical strength. If refers to an organism’s reproductive success. If an animal is fit, it means that it can produce many offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. In other words, it can successfully pass on its genes.


Still you are missing the point. Stop quoting small part of the piece rather try to understand the meaning behind it whole piece.


No, that’s the power-hungry nature of certain corrupt governments and dictators. Although they may use a warped version of the evolutionary theory to justify their actions, that is not what evolution is about. There are just as many examples of how religion has been used for murder and discrimination, and we both know that’s not a fair representation of what religion is really about.

View Post


This governments and dictators are the ones that make the decisions. The thing is that these people don’t use evolution as there guideline for their oppression. Evolution is just there excuse for their superior attitude. At this point they are not superior to other humans, but that happens (in the future) if these types of people evolve into something different than the normal human. Will there decisions be immoral if they start treating normal humans as we do other animals. Some people in the past and present think they are more superior to others. Some point in our past (humans or even the human’s forefathers) someone made the decision that they are superior to the chimpanzee. That is the way of nature (evolution). When is that point and how decide that point and definitions?

Are we not already at that point? We have we not decided when a human is a human and when it’s just a bunch of cells. Do we not already discriminate against race? Is it not just natural to de racist?
For Christians these answers are easy.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 January 2011 - 05:04 AM

In terms of becoming powerful, intelligence does seem like the most influential factor. We’re certainly the most powerful animals on the planet. But in my opinion, superiority is more than just power and I would disagree that we are superior to all other life. Our survival is dependent on many other organisms, from nitrogen fixing bacteria to photosynthesizing plants.

View Post


Hmmmm, sounds like a pretty good argument for design.

Anyway, you are correct; superiority is more than just power. But vast superiority is the fact that absolutely NO other creature on this planet has the knowledge, skills and abilities of mankind. And mankind can duplicate, and far exceed the knowledge, skills and abilities of most any other creature on this planet. Plus, NO other creature can take an idea and design build and manufacture on a mass scale, machines to vastly outperform these other creatures. And mankind can make the facilities to mass manufacture these machines.

Man can also write a sonnet, a poem, a novel, a technical manual, or a technical chart, and publish it for all mankind to learn from. Man can also design and build musical instruments to play music he designed, to please the rest of mankind.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say; absolutely no other creature that we know of, can even put a dent into these facts.

Further, it seems ludacris, illogical, and a bit shallow, to think that after supposed “millions” or “billions’ of years of supposed evolution, that mankind is the ONLY creature to evolve to such a “superior” state!

#10 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 11:52 AM

So what we will do is take away any form of intelligence from you and see what happens--I would surmise you would die.

View Post

I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, I would die if all my intelligence was taken away and I was left to survive on my own. But there are animals that can survive without a brain, so it’s not impossible in all cases. I already agreed with you that humans are highly intelligent, and very powerful as a result. But I disagree that we are “superior” to everything else for that reason.

Go there and you open pandora's box and must also hold evolution responsible for evolving the idea of God and creationism

View Post

I’ve always accepted that. I could talk for hours about the reason why humans gravitate towards religious beliefs, from an evolutionary perspective. I find it very interesting.

What do you mean by misinterpreted? Evolution, according to evo scientists and atheists, has no moral implications. Survival to reproduce and live is all "it' claims.

View Post

That’s exactly my point. Evolution as a theory does not make any claims about the value of life, or the superiority of races/species relative to one another. Evolution simply states that if an organism is “fit” (ie. effective at reproducing) its genes have a better chance of remaining in the population.
If people choose to form their own opinions on topics like abortion and genocide, that has nothing to do with “the evolution way” that Crous refers to.

I would conclude, similarly to you, that if evolution is the cause then it has to take the responsibility for everything, religion, God, atheism, evolution, creationism, morality and/ or the lack there of. Then, I suppose it gave us a choice to believe whatever we want. Right?

I can't detect that evolution has any power over your or my thinking process. It is a straw man argument. We couldn't disagree if we didn't have the ability to do so.

View Post

You seem to imply that evolution is some sort of invisible force which is “responsible” for things, and has “power” over things. You’re personifying it to say that it “gave us a choice”. Evolution describes a process which is based entirely on genetic and environmental factors, not a guided or conscious process.

#11 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 12:20 PM

Is it murder to kill a chimpanzee? It is murder to kill a human. Does a chimpanzee has a choice live humans do? I know people here in Africa that cannot read or write a baby cannot speak. At this point this people compare to your definition have no writes. I do realize that not what you mean. But how decide the definitions in the world where “evolution” is the moral compass.

View Post

Evolution is not a moral compass; it makes no claims about morality whatsoever. It’s a scientific theory, not a philosophical one. It says nothing about the relative “worth” of races or species. If someone chooses to rank living things according to how much value their life has, that’s fine but that has nothing to do with evolution.

I think you are missing the point. Let me explain. I do understand evolution. The “superhuman” is the next step of humans, the point where this “superhuman” think\know they are betters that the normal human in whatever sense. The point where they make definitions like you just did to justify their superior attitude.

View Post


If speciation were to happen within the human population, the initial change would be so subtle that I doubt anyone would try to claim they are superior. But even if they did, what does that have to do with the validity of evolution?

Still you are missing the point. Stop quoting small part of the piece rather try to understand the meaning behind it whole piece.

View Post

Sorry, I didn’t mean to take anything out of context. It just seemed like you were using “fitness” as a synonym for “power”, and I wanted to clarify that there is a big difference.

This governments and dictators are the ones that make the decisions. The thing is that these people don’t use evolution as there guideline for their oppression. Evolution is just there excuse for their superior attitude. At this point they are not superior to other humans, but that happens (in the future) if these types of people evolve into something different than the normal human. Will there decisions be immoral if they start treating normal humans as we do other animals. Some people in the past and present think they are more superior to others. Some point in our past (humans or even the human’s forefathers) someone made the decision that they are superior to the chimpanzee. That is the way of nature (evolution). When is that point and how decide that point and definitions?

View Post

Like I said, evolution makes no claims about superiority. Deciding that humans are superior to chimpanzees is not the way of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution.
I’m not sure how we should define what animals are superior to others. I personally don’t think there’s much of a point in doing so, unless you’re faced with a situation in which you actually have to choose to save one life over another (which is a situation most of us never have, and never will, be faced with). The point is that such definitions wouldn’t come from evolution, because no where in the theory does it say anything about the value of one life over another.

Are we not already at that point? We have we not decided when a human is a human and when it’s just a bunch of cells. Do we not already discriminate against race? Is it not just natural to de racist?
For Christians these answers are easy.

View Post

Are you suggesting that for evolutionists, it’s natural to be racist? Obviously that’s not the case...

#12 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 12:27 PM

Hmmmm, sounds like a pretty good argument for design.

Anyway, you are correct; superiority is more than just power. But vast superiority is the fact that absolutely NO other creature on this planet has the knowledge, skills and abilities of mankind. And mankind can duplicate, and far exceed the knowledge, skills and abilities of most any other creature on this planet. Plus, NO other creature can take an idea and design build and manufacture on a mass scale, machines to vastly outperform these other creatures. And mankind can make the facilities to mass manufacture these machines.

Man can also write a sonnet, a poem, a novel, a technical manual, or a technical chart, and publish it for all mankind to learn from. Man can also design and build musical instruments to play music he designed, to please the rest of mankind.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say; absolutely no other creature that we know of, can even put a dent into these facts.

Further, it seems ludacris, illogical, and a bit shallow, to think that after supposed “millions” or “billions’ of years of supposed evolution, that mankind is the ONLY creature to evolve to such a “superior” state!

View Post


Actually, that seems perfectly logical to me. Becoming as intelligent as we are would not have occurred in one single event, but rather would require many subsequent changes over a long time span. Furthermore, these changes would need to happen in a specific order. To me, that suggests our intelligence and the culture we’ve developed along with it has a very low probability of happening twice on the same planet. That would be like two next door neighbors winning the lottery.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 January 2011 - 12:47 PM

Actually, that seems perfectly logical to me. Becoming as intelligent as we are would not have occurred in one single event, but rather would require many subsequent changes over a long time span. Furthermore, these changes would need to happen in a specific order. To me, that suggests our intelligence and the culture we’ve developed along with it has a very low probability of happening twice on the same planet. That would be like two next door neighbors winning the lottery.

View Post


Your analogy is flawed at its premise. According to the supposed evolutionary model, the strong outperform the weak. With a supposed billion (plus) years, and millions of life forms, there should have been many-many variances of intellectual developments from what we see as simple life form intelligence, to that which would be at least close to ours. But that is simply NOT the case, there is only us, and the “have not’s”!

It has nothing to do with the randomness of a lottery system, as lottery systems are designed to have only one or two winners! Are you suggesting life on this planet is designed to have only one winner?

#14 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 03:39 PM

Your analogy is flawed at its premise. According to the supposed evolutionary model, the strong outperform the weak.

View Post

No, according to the evolution model the fit outperform the unfit. Strength is only one of many solutions.

With a supposed billion (plus) years, and millions of life forms, there should have been many-many variances of intellectual developments from what we see as simple life form intelligence, to that which would be at least close to ours. But that is simply NOT the case, there is only us, and the “have not’s”!

View Post

Keep in mind that a specialist in any particular trait or behaviour faces an energy trade-off. Intelligence requires that a massive amount of energy is used for the development and maintenance of the brain. For the vast majority of animals, this trade-off would be lethal. Furthermore, intelligence is only useful if certain requirements are already in place. What use would it be if an animal had the mental capacity to make tools, but had hooves, paws, or fins and was unable to do so? The extra “brain power” would be nothing more than a waste of energy, and the animal would probably experience reduced fitness as a result.

For intelligence to be beneficial, it has to occur in the right place at the right time. In the case of humans, small and unlikely changes such as the formation of a language and the transition from small groups to larger societies created a snowball effect of technological advancement.

It has nothing to do with the randomness of a lottery system, as lottery systems are designed to have only one or two winners! Are you suggesting life on this planet is designed to have only one winner?

View Post

No, I’m saying that as the probability of an event decreases, the amount of times you expect to see it occur also decreases. If you told 1000 people to flip a coin 10 times, it is expected that maybe one person will get 10 heads in a row. Although it’s entirely possible that two people could get 10 heads in a row, this would not be the predicted outcome. I can’t give you a numerical value for the evolution of intelligence, but I can estimate that it would be very low, and our planet simply does not have enough species to expect it to happen a second time.

#15 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:00 PM

Keep in mind that a specialist in any particular trait or behaviour faces an energy trade-off. Intelligence requires that a massive amount of energy is used for the development and maintenance of the brain. For the vast majority of animals, this trade-off would be lethal. Furthermore, intelligence is only useful if certain requirements are already in place. What use would it be if an animal had the mental capacity to make tools, but had hooves, paws, or fins and was unable to do so? The extra “brain power” would be nothing more than a waste of energy, and the animal would probably experience reduced fitness as a result.

View Post

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

#16 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:21 PM

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

View Post


No one is suggesting that hands could evolve in response to tool use. Hands are an adaptation for climbing trees, and facilitate the diet of fruit and nuts that generally comes with an arboreal lifestyle.

#17 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:27 PM

That's funny. My husband and I were just discussing this. Dolphins are extremely intelligent and have used tools... so why don't they have hands yet?

View Post


People are always trying to find better and more improved ways of swimming and staying under water. Drownings continue as they always have - one must wonder why the human being hasn't evolved flippers and the ability to breath under water B)

#18 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:35 PM

No one is suggesting that hands could evolve in response to tool use. Hands are an adaptation for climbing trees, and facilitate the diet of fruit and nuts that generally comes with an arboreal lifestyle.

View Post


Cats have always climbed trees. Yet, they have not adapted to this by evolving hands. Birds have not evolved hands by consuming fruit or nuts or other hard foods. Each creature is equipped already with their own particular design that allows them to perform these tasks. There is no evidence any creature has ever "evolved" over time to be able to do these things.

Just as no human being has evolved a different body plan to swim as well as the fish, despite our efforts and persistance.

#19 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:58 PM

Cats have always climbed trees.  Yet, they have not adapted to this by evolving hands.  Birds have not evolved hands by consuming fruit or nuts or other hard foods.  Each creature is equipped already with their own particular design that allows them to perform these tasks.  There is no evidence any creature has ever "evolved" over time to be able to do these things.

Just as no human being has evolved a different body plan to swim as well as the fish, despite our efforts and persistance.

View Post


I never said that hands were the only solution for living in trees. But even from the perspective of intelligent design, it’s clear that human-like hands are most common in tree dwelling animals. Monkeys are the obvious example, but there are also koalas, possums, lemurs, and even reptiles and amphibians with digits similar to our own.

Humans haven’t evolved to swim effectively because it’s not a matter of survival for us. Drowning does occur, but not with a frequency great enough to threaten the survival of our species. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. There is no human population whose reproductive success over the long term depends on their ability to swim.

#20 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 12 January 2011 - 05:11 PM

I never said that hands were the only solution for living in trees. But even from the perspective of intelligent design, it’s clear that human-like hands are most common in tree dwelling animals. Monkeys are the obvious example, but there are also koalas, possums, lemurs, and even reptiles and amphibians with digits similar to our own.

Humans haven’t evolved to swim effectively because it’s not a matter of survival for us. Drowning does occur, but not with a frequency great enough to threaten the survival of our species. Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. There is no human population whose reproductive success over the long term depends on their ability to swim.

View Post


Though I typically wouldn't want to defent the evolutionary point of view, I must remain honest with myself and what I know.
As a proper representation of the TOE Isabella is correct on that matter. Most likely if the TOE were true than if a certain secluded population of humans were in an enviornment that was slowly being invaded by water those that were less fit for aquatic survival would die and those more fit would pass on their genes.
Than where creationists draw the line at adaptation evolutionists go on in the hopes that mutations will occur that are not only not fatal but beneficial to the situation endangering the population.
Nevertheless, as humans, in well funded populations of humans (as in not third world countries), we have the technology to surpass most effects of 'natural selection'.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users