Login

Join for Free!
117523 members


Who did we evolve from?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Linn » Fri May 12, 2006 3:06 pm

AstusAleator wrote:Oh my gosh, where to start??

@Leben: About Color Vision
It's funny that you would choose one of the elements of our evolution that can still be clearly demonstrated. Like Alex said, homonids retained color vision as it allowed them to more accurately identify edible fruits and dangerous predators or toxic organisms. Furthermore, color was important in developing homonid mating behaviors. The ischial callosities (butt cheeks), labia, and sometimes clitoris of some species of homonids will become swollen with blood and turn bright red when they're in heat. There's a reason you get all hot and bothered when you see a good looking girl dressed in a seductive red/pink dress. Look at any commercial or ad for things like clothes, perfume, cosmetics, pornography, etc and you'll see a pattern of vivid colors. Marketing experts have keyed into our particular susceptibility and responsiveness to things like color. So, it is my argument that color has persisted in our lineage as a major function of sexual selection.

About your DNA soup: You need to get an understanding of thermodynamics and enzymes to understand this issue.
Do a search for "primordial soup" or "RNA world hypothesis" or "proto-cells".
Also, look up previous discussions on this exact topic in this forum. I know I've discussed this in some detail at least twice in this forum.

@Linn: First of all, a disclaimer: I'm not arguing against a creator or creation (I think you know that by now).
The article you posted is interesting, but it makes a sad assumption. As alex said, DNA is not necessarily a "language". We use the metaphor of language, or blueprint to describe it's function in a replicating cell, but ultimately it is a molecule. Now there is an important point in the article, and that is that modern DNA must have been made by something. It exists BECAUSE it is capable of storing information and does so. It is incredibly unlikely - to impossible that something like DNA would assemble on its own (take notes Leben). That's not the theory though. It would have started with a protein or basic nucleic acid capable of self-replication.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html
Modern DNA is (probably) the result of millions of years of evolution, just as the amazing complexity and diversity of modern organisms is. The complexities of the two are irreversibly linked.


True human males can get "hot and bothered" by a seductively dressed woman, because of build in mechanisms for reproduction, but this is in one part of the brain, humans have a whole other area of the brain for higher thinking/reasoning. why did that evolve.

And yes, (we agrre on something :shock: )It is very unlikely that DNA could assemble on its own. The same way that if you took letter blocks and put the in a box and shook them for a million years, when you opened it would there be a sentence formed?
But I agree however, with the article, that it IS a language because it is communicated and transferred as an exact copy, following a particular code. Like when I coomunicate here with you I have to communicate to you in a language that you can understand. OK some say its not a language, others call it an information system. I am finding out that there seems to be a lot of oppinions on this. Whatever you call it, it means to convey information, or reproduce such information.
~Lynne
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 13, 2006 2:10 am

Thinking/reasoning evolved because it helped our survival. Look at all the tools that early hominids created. They had to think to create those tools, and without the tools they wouldn't have survived. Why did reasoning evolve? Why wouldn't it?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biotchr » Tue May 16, 2006 4:19 am

alextemplet wrote:
As for the seven days, the Bible does say that a day and a thousand years are the same to God, Who is timeless. And a day is only a relative unit depending on the rotation of Earth; it's different on Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. Who knows how long a day is to God?


The "day" in Genesis 1 is used contextually to refer to the daylight of a 24 hour period - just as we know it. The hebrew word "yom" is used in other contexts such as "In the day of the Lord" and "in the time of the Judges" to signify a certain time period. The non-24 hour period of "yom" is clearly indicated within the text such as those mentioned above and is NOT used in the Gesesis 1 passage. Furthermore, Genesis 1:4 specifically calls "light" day (yom) - "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day". The passage goes to great length at defining day and night.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am


Postby alextemplet » Tue May 16, 2006 4:28 am

If day and night, evening and morning, are what define days, then how do we know it's a 24hr Earth day? Why isn't it a 9.5hr Jupiter day, a 25hr Mars day, or a 3 month Venus day? All those periods are evening and morning, light and dark, day and night. You see, God was creating the entire universe, not just the Earth. God is bigger than and exists outside the entire universe, so any of those planets (or any other of the trillions of planets in the universe) are perfectly good candidates for defining day and night.

Also, Jesus used parables, in which His words took on meanings very different from the literal definitions. Jesus is God, so why can't God use parables or metaphors in the creation story? Given that the creation story so greatly contradicts itself, how can any literal interpretation be possible? Does God honestly think we are that gullible?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biotchr » Tue May 16, 2006 1:43 pm

alextemplet wrote:If day and night, evening and morning, are what define days, then how do we know it's a 24hr Earth day? Why isn't it a 9.5hr Jupiter day, a 25hr Mars day, or a 3 month Venus day?


We live on earth. God created us on earth. What other reference would be needed?

All those periods are evening and morning, light and dark, day and night. You see, God was creating the entire universe, not just the Earth. God is bigger than and exists outside the entire universe, so any of those planets (or any other of the trillions of planets in the universe) are perfectly good candidates for defining day and night.


What does the word "stop" mean? What does the word "day" mean? Equally important, what does the word "night" mean?

The ONLY good candidate for defining day and night is earth on which God created life and the species pretty much in the form in which they exist now.

What is your agenda that you would be aiming to change the word "day" and "night"?


Also, Jesus used parables, in which His words took on meanings very different from the literal definitions. Jesus is God, so why can't God use parables or metaphors in the creation story? Given that the creation story so greatly contradicts itself, how can any literal interpretation be possible? Does God honestly think we are that gullible?


Metaphors and parables are so obvious in the Bible one must twist the truth to say otherwise. Genesis is a historical, truthful account of our origins.

You may say that my religion overcomes me, but I insist that the same would apply to you in regards to where you BELIEVE you came from in terms of ultimate origins. We both would be investigating someone/something (or lack thereof) that put us here and that is definitive of religion.[/quote]
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby alextemplet » Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 am

You're limiting God by saying that He is only concerned with the Earth. If that were true the stars would not exist. And how do you know that God only created life on Earth? Why can't He create it anywhere else in the universe? Sorry, but I believe in a God much bigger than that.

Parables are very obvious in the Bible. The Genesis creation stories contradict each other, so they're obviously metaphorical. End of story.

And since when do I have an agenda?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biotchr » Wed May 17, 2006 5:50 pm

You're limiting God by saying that He is only concerned with the Earth. If that were true the stars would not exist. And how do you know that God only created life on Earth? Why can't He create it anywhere else in the universe? Sorry, but I believe in a God much bigger than that.


I limit God only by His Word as it is logical that a creator would communicate with His creation and created.

I have always lamented that finding life elsewhere in this universe is an evolutionist's "wet dream". It would suffice in distancing the creator even more. Interestingly enough no such thing exists.

Parables are very obvious in the Bible. The Genesis creation stories contradict each other, so they're obviously metaphorical. End of story.


Please indicate where you see the discrepancy.

And since when do I have an agenda?


Aren't you an evolutionist?
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby alextemplet » Thu May 18, 2006 12:28 am

Please indicate where you see the discrepancy.


First of all there's two creation stories, one in Genesis 1 and another in Genesis 2-3. Genesis 1 is the six-days, where animals are created before humans. In chapter 2, there's another story where humans are created before animals; this story is continued into chapter 3 where we read about the serpent and the forbidden fruit.

This is only the beginning; the story of Noah's flood is riddled with contradictions, but I want to check my Bible before I tell you to make sure I'm telling you the truth.

The bottom line is that, since these stories are self-contradictory, they are either metaphorical or just plain not true. It is absolutely impossible for the creation stories in Genesis to be history; they are metaphors.

Aren't you an evolutionist?


That means I have an agenda?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Thu May 18, 2006 1:57 am

Okay, I've done a bit of homework, and here's what the Bible says:

Gen 1:1-2:4 is the first creation story, and it contains the famous six days story, where animals are created first, and then man and woman are created simulatneously in Gen 1:27.

Gen 2:5-25 is the second creation story, which does not describe six days or any length of time at all. Man is created first, then all the animals, and then woman at the end. Obviously, contradictory to the first story.

In Gen 4:20, Jabal, a descendent of Cain, is described as "the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe." This is impossible since Jabal's line died out in the flood, so he is the ancestor of no one alive today, lyre player or not.

In Gen 7:13-15, all the animals entered Noah's ark in one day. This is mathematically impossible. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, and if Noah took 100,000 animals (an impossibly small number, but never mind), they would've had to enter at a rate of over one animal per second. Noah had to take seven pairs of the clean animals and one pair of the unclean, and there's approximately 40,000,000 species of animals alive today. Assuming he took 1,000,000 animals (which again is impossibly small), they'd have had to enter at a rate of over 11.5 animals per second. Can imagine a snail or sloth or earthworm moving that fast? Can you imagine only eight people feeding and tending to that many animals? It's almost as if God is saying, "You don't really believe this, do you?"

In Gen 8:11, a dove returns to the ark carrying an olive branch, but the olive tree should've died in the flood. Why didn't it?

In Gen 10:5, the existence of multiple langauges is mentioned before the Tower of Babel, where differences in language is supposed to have orginated.

That's just going by what I had underlined in my Bible; if I read those chapters all the way through again I might find even more. That's enough, though, to show that the first chapters of Genesis are obviously self-contradictory and thus obviously metaphorical.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biotchr » Fri May 19, 2006 2:57 pm

Okay, I've done a bit of homework, and here's what the Bible says:


In order to know what the Bible says one must know how to read it. Context, context, context.

Gen 1:1-2:4 is the first creation story, and it contains the famous six days story, where animals are created first, and then man and woman are created simulatneously in Gen 1:27.

Gen 2:5-25 is the second creation story, which does not describe six days or any length of time at all. Man is created first, then all the animals, and then woman at the end. Obviously, contradictory to the first story.


Why is that so "obviously" contradictory? When a story is told from a different perpective the order may differ but that doesnt change the facts. Stories are told by the storyteller in respect to what they view as chronologically important, but, as stated previously, that doesnt change the facts.

It is important to recognize this detail and most theologians actually admit that the facts given by DIFFERENT authors throughout the Bible, although recounted in different order, always correlate nicely. It is an important proof of the historical validity contained inside the Bible itself. The Bible's self-verifying nature is important, and what you have claimed as "contradictory" is actually an important proof in support of the facts.

Notice that the order in the second story carries with it details, for example, about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was not mentioned in the first story. This is because this account is from Adam's perspective and the tree carried with it special meaning for which he would expound later. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

In Gen 4:20, Jabal, a descendent of Cain, is described as "the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe." This is impossible since Jabal's line died out in the flood, so he is the ancestor of no one alive today, lyre player or not.


I have no idea what your talking about. Firstly, I think you may be referring to Gen 4:21. Secondly, the Bible doesnt say anything in regards to Jabal's line AFTER the flood.

In Gen 7:13-15, all the animals entered Noah's ark in one day. This is mathematically impossible. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, and if Noah took 100,000 animals (an impossibly small number, but never mind), they would've had to enter at a rate of over one animal per second. Noah had to take seven pairs of the clean animals and one pair of the unclean, and there's approximately 40,000,000 species of animals alive today. Assuming he took 1,000,000 animals (which again is impossibly small), they'd have had to enter at a rate of over 11.5 animals per second.


I've heard this one before. You simply confuse yourself with how many animals were taken into the ark. "Two of every sort" is the important point here. Our man-made classification system will screw you up in relation to what Noah took on the ark.

It's almost as if God is saying, "You don't really believe this, do you?"


Hmm, that might be the voices in your head stemming in your belief of evolution. God has never said such to me.

In Gen 8:11, a dove returns to the ark carrying an olive branch, but the olive tree should've died in the flood. Why didn't it?


Probably for the same reason why we still have plants and trees - they grew back. I can cut an olive tree down and "kill it" and it will be back within a week - they are very hearty.

In Gen 10:5, the existence of multiple langauges is mentioned before the Tower of Babel, where differences in language is supposed to have orginated.


Genesis 10 involves a genealogy with details regarding certain offspring. Within the genealogy, the fact in question - the Gentiles being divided according to their language - occurred AFTER Babel. Just because Gen 10 comes before Gen 11, the account of Babel, doesnt mean that some events described in chapter 10 didnt happen after Babel. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

That's just going by what I had underlined in my Bible; if I read those chapters all the way through again I might find even more. That's enough, though, to show that the first chapters of Genesis are obviously self-contradictory and thus obviously metaphorical.


You have failed in your quest. I would suspect that whatever anti-Bible web site you are visiting for such facts do not have individuals that read the Bible correctly.
biotchr
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:28 am

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 20, 2006 1:34 am

Ok, let's read it in context. In Gen 1, animals were created before humans, for no apperent reason other than to populate the earth. In Gen 2, animals were created after man, in order to be parnters for man. None were suiltable partners (obviously), so God created woman. The two stories don't report the same facts in different order; they report different facts. Context, context, context.

As for the animals in the ark, the obvious purpose of taking two of each species (one male and one female) was so that they would be able to reproduce and repopulate the earth. Issues with inbreeding aside, this would mean Noah would have to take one pair of each of 40,000,000 species, since animals of different species can't reproduce with each other. Context, context, context. And as for the tree, no, it can't survive an entire year underwater. Overwatering kills a plant in less than a day; I know that from experience. Context, context, context.

Speaking of context, most Biblical scholars agree that the Genesis creation stories are meant to be taken metaphorically. In fact, when read metaphorically, Gen 1 seems to be a near-perfect description of the big bang and evolution.

I don't know what sort of anti-biblical websites you like to visit, but two of my favorite pro-biblical websites are:
http://www.newadvent.org
http://www.scripturecatholic.com
I don't know what sort of religion you belong to, but I belong to the Church founded by Christ Himself, and everytime I read the Bible I am only further reminded of the legitimacy of that Church.

In short, you have failed in your quest to disprove the legitimacy of the Bible. It is a Book remarkably consistent with science and history, but only if one knows how to read it. It is a Book in which I place an enormous amount of faith, and I am prepared to defend its teachings down to the last letter.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Linn » Sat May 20, 2006 3:56 am

biotchr wrote:
alextemplet wrote:
As for the seven days, the Bible does say that a day and a thousand years are the same to God, Who is timeless. And a day is only a relative unit depending on the rotation of Earth; it's different on Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. Who knows how long a day is to God?


The "day" in Genesis 1 is used contextually to refer to the daylight of a 24 hour period - just as we know it. The hebrew word "yom" is used in other contexts such as "In the day of the Lord" and "in the time of the Judges" to signify a certain time period. The non-24 hour period of "yom" is clearly indicated within the text such as those mentioned above and is NOT used in the Gesesis 1 passage. Furthermore, Genesis 1:4 specifically calls "light" day (yom) - "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day". The passage goes to great length at defining day and night.


The Hebrew word yohm translated as day, actualy can be different lengths of time.

There is no indication of how long the period of creation was before he called the light day and the dark night.

R U actualy saying you think that God created the earth in ne literal day?
That is highly not logical.

Although the original big bang happened in a fraction of a second, other formations and shaping of the earth would have been at great periods of time.

In addition, although the earth was formed that does not mean there was any light yet. that could have been gradual. And remember too that there was a very thick layer of gas over the earth at that time. That is why it says there came to be a day.

The first literal day would be at the time when the rotation of the earth stabilized and light became visable to the earth and the rotation began of the alternating days and nights.

~Lynne
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron