Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
>If the third human on this planet didn’t come from two other ones..
THEN; you Must make up a bodacious Yarn to explain it..
Well, your use of the phrase “bodacious yarn” aside, you have a point. However, we have a very good explanation - humans arose from a common ancestor shared with the great apes, and through mutations and natural selections eventually speciated into the form we have now. Indeed, the evidence that this occurred is in your very genes at this moment.
As a minor note, “a diety made them out of dirt” is a bit more of a yarn.
Pardon me here, but you’re operating on a misunderstanding. The developments you mention - lactation and internal gestation - are fairly recent evolutionary developments. In addition, their timing need not coincide with the ability to reproduce, which occurred quite a bit earlier.
Basic reproduction is an essential trait of life, and indeed would likely have been around since before it could be called life, back when it’s merely a mass of self-replicating pre-RNA or the like, according to one hypothesis.
Lactation and internal gestation on the other hand came about a long, long time later. The mammilian line, if memory serves, descended from a therapod egg-laying ancestor. Internal gestation could come about from slight, gradual mutations to the established gestational process, and lactation is essentially a repurposing of other functional portions - though it’s not my specialty, so I’ll have to look up a few papers on it if you want more detail.
Overall, the major misconception you’re making is that evolution does not produce from nothing a full-blown human; that’s what creation claims. Evolution is a description of how life changes over time, and that is the important part: change. Evolution does not require that all these things you mention poof out of nothing all together, but instead explains how small genetic changes can accumulate to give the wealth of diversity present on the planet.
If you have any questions, I’d be happy to field them.
I was reading something just recently where a man was relating a conversation he had on a plane with a woman who was antagonistic to Christianity because “she didn’t like” the tenets laid out in the Bible.
The man said “I hear you don’t like it, but does that make it not true?”
Now, a post-modernist would say, yeah, it’s not true for me because I don’t accept it. (rejecting the concept of objective truth, reality, and morality)
Actually, you’re close but not quite there; the idea of gradual change is more accurate.
You see, in our present form - as I believe you noted - humans are born early compared to many other mammals. While a calf or a kitten is on their feet moments after they are born, humans take quite a bit more time. However, do note that cows and cats have decidedly sophisticated brains already.
On the far opposite end of the spectrum, you can examine insect brains to look at an amazingly functional yet extraordinary simple (compared to humans) structure.
The important thing is this: moving back quite a long time, the ancestor of humans would have been much less intelligent as we measure it and much quicker of gestation; the same changes that allowed for the survivability of the great apes set the stage, if you will, for the changes that provided for increased cranial space, accompanied by increased time spend in infancy (to allow for the head/pelvis difficulty); we arrived at tool use as a major survival trait at a point when we already were surviving via other traits too.
By way of example, did you know that humans are quite impressive distance runners? It’s a consideration that when humans began to hunt large prey, they could afford to run them down and wait for them to overheat.
You pose a good question, but one that has been answered for quite some time by our understanding of human evolution.
2.) If me not believing in it has no effect, you shouldn't waste so much time arguing with me.
3.) I reject all religions. It doesn't matter the outcome. Let me tell you something, and this is kind of a bone of contention for me. I'll confess to being irritated about this: If I were to embrace Christianity this very minute, the only thing that would have to change about my life is ... I guess Sunday mornings. I don't have any desires prohibited by Christianity. My life is unbelievably pure in terms of the typical sins of mankind. I'm one of these weird, reclusive, monklike characters whose only vice is a little alcohol and ... dang, that's it. Seriously. I don't have television, I don't gamble, do drugs, screw around, take bribes, diserespect my parents.... I don't need any guidance in how to live a frugal, careful, balanced life. Life itself taught me that. I'm pushing 50, you know? I already learned what excess leads to, and happily I was never much into earthly pleasures.
The only thing Christianity would require me to give up is the freedom to use my brain exactly as I see fit. That's the "outcome" I don't like and won't put up with.
And let's face it. We're talking about Christianity here, not "theism." No Freeper here would be content if I proclaimed that I found God! Through his prophet, Mohammed!! No indeedy. This isn't about obedience to Holy Writ, because my life falls within those boundaries naturally. Frankly, if you're neither greedy, horny, a pathological liar, klepto, or a drug addict, this is likely to be the case. This isn't about following rules. It's about BELIEVING something. Joining a club of people who believe because... well, they all have their own reasons, I suppose. But why do you want people in your club? I mean, really? What's moral about suspending disbelief in any respect? This is a serious question... why is that "moral"? Because I really don't get it.
4)I tell you what I'm thinking because you are one of the few people on this thread who remains polite.
Oh geez, I forgot. You’re the quotey-linky guy. Speak simply and directly, or don’t bother. I am not following your links.
Um...not to burst your bubble, but there is no good evidence that points to design.
Indeed, the point you’re trying to make relies upon a rather massive misrepresentation of evolution that we know today as the crocoduck argument. Evolution is not expected to give us a massive mix-and-match of every possible trait. Instead, small changes to the forms that exist (or the proteins that signal their formation, etc.) give rise to larger changes on an organism.
The existence of eyes at one end, if you will, or symmetry or other such things is a demonstration of evolutionary theory, not of design. Indeed, to date you have no working “theory of design”, because the design argument is at its core a fallacy: an argument by incredulity. It takes the form “Because I can’t conceive of a way this could arise but design, it must be designed” - which, once more, is fallacious. Reality is not limited by your imagination.
To give a further, if minor, example, evolution also provides not only an explanation for why the eyes of the flounder are both on one side of it’s body, those of amphibians are located near the top of their form, and those of predators are situated in a forward-facing manner while those of prey are outward-facing - it also *predicts* these occurrences. Design can barely explain.
As a minor note, I question the morality of anyone who can consider with delight the eternal torture of another.
Tell that to Isaac Newton.
That line of reasoning is the biggest fallacy going among atheists to try to discredit those who believe.
It is a total and complete lie. Do you even have a clue of how many of the greatest scientists this world has ever seen were *gasp* Christians? And by that I don't mean deists or marginal believers, but actual, professing saving faith in the Creator of the universe believers?
I've yet to meet a true believer who thinks, *Goddidit. I'm done* and lets it go at that.
Tell that to Isaac Newton.
That line of reasoning is the biggest fallacy going among atheists to try to discredit those who believe.
It is a total and complete lie. Do you even have a clue of how many of the greatest scientists this world has ever seen were *gasp* Christians? And by that I don't mean deists or marginal believers, but actual, professing saving faith in the Creator of the universe believers?
I've yet to meet a true believer who thinks, *Goddidit. I'm done* and lets it go at that.
Actually, this is not true. More truthfully it could be stated that "the evidence in your genes can be interpreted to support the theory I espoused".
You've made an assumption, looked at evidence through the lens of that assumption, and determined that the evidence supports the assumption through which you interpreted the evidence as supportive of the assumption through which you interpreted the evidence as supportive of the assumption through which you interpreted the evidence as supportive of the assumption through which you interpreted the evidence as supportive of the assumption.
I've been waiting for someone to say that.
Given the analogies between the tortoise, and Atlas of classical cosmology / theology...
and that our disputant here is a Randian...
Is it too much to quip that Aeschylus' death was the earliest known example of "going Galt"?
...think it through, it's a tripartite pun.
Cheers!
Would you settle for "she typed carefully to avoid disturbing the cat curled at her side, and then took another sip of her vodka & tonic"?
Hmmm. I guess you missed what happened in between the Resurrection and the ratification of the Constitution, then.
Don't worry, I won't give any spoilers.
Try attending Hillsdale College, they're good on this stuff.
Cheers!
Kind of weird isn't it? They're more offended by primates than dirt.
Looks like someone could profit from reading “5000 year leap”.
Yes. I understand that, a_perfect_lady.
I believe, not because I want to, but because I have to. I'm "part and participant" of this One, divinely ordained cosmos after all. A divinely-ordained cosmos is one ordered in Truth. For me to lose "Truth" would mean a descent into insanity ... into spiritual death while I yet live.
I am not willing to commit self-lobotomy in order to fit into the "world" that you and other secularist/atheists want to cram me into — a world exactly the size of your own God-starved, and therefore much-depleted imagination.
A world FILLED with ingratitude, incivility, and finally, nihilism.
Can't go there with you, dear a_perfect_lady....
But why do you say you "won't believe?" OBVIOUSLY, you believe in SOMETHING: A "something" that even God Himself doesn't "measure up" to.
But I wonder: What could that possibly be?
Please clue me in, dear a_perfect_lady, if/when you get the chance and are so inclined.
Meanwhile, I'm sending you all best wishes for the New Year!
If that's the persona that suits you today, by all means have at it.
My personal impression, from reading this and from prior engagements is that you're not a day over 20. You're still wrestling with adulthood.
I would say Isaac was probably good at compartmentalizing. ;^)
I would say Isaac was probably good at compartmentalizing. ;^)
Exactly!
Axiom: All sentient beings have a religious worldview based on belief. The two broad religious worldviews are: God-centered or godless.
Corollary: Both godless and God-centered worldviews are based on belief because the existence or non-existence of God can't be proven.
Corollary: Both godless and God-centered religious worldviews are non-neutral in religious, political, and cultural content.
Corollary: Both godless and God-centered religious worldviews are non-neutral in political and cultural consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.