[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Barbarian]

Your picture seems to support a common creator.

If the creator was incompetent. You see, the spine, pelvis, and knees of humans are rather inefficient modifications of structures that evolved in quadrupeds. So we have a lot of trouble with these still poorly-adapted structures. A common creator would have build our bodies on a different plan, and avoided all that trouble. On the other hand, an omnipotent God, using evolution to serve His purposes would make sense of this data.

The gradual change over time, in hominin hips, knees, spines, and hands is pretty good evidence that He did it that way.

 

[Cygnus]

If the creator was incompetent. You see, the spine, pelvis, and knees of humans are rather inefficient modifications of structures that evolved in quadrupeds. So we have a lot of trouble with these still poorly-adapted structures. A common creator would have build our bodies on a different plan, and avoided all that trouble. On the other hand, an omnipotent God, using evolution to serve His purposes would make sense of this data.

The gradual change over time, in hominin hips, knees, spines, and hands is pretty good evidence that He did it that way.

If the plan was as flawed as you say...a God tinkering with evolutionism to build humans...should have then done a better job.

 

[brother Paul]

A common creator would have build our bodies on a different plan, and avoided all that trouble.

Well at least this is what YOU would have done if YOU were the creator (Oh thanks be to God this is not so).

 

[Barbarian]

If the plan was as flawed as you say...a God tinkering with evolutionism to build humans...should have then done a better job.

In fact, what we see is precisely what you would expect to see, if we evolved from quadrupedal primates. As design, it's pretty bad. Anyone with any sense could have designed a better spine for a biped.

 

[Barbarian]

Well at least this is what YOU would have done if YOU were the creator (Oh thanks be to God this is not so).

It's not an arguable issue. We have great problems with lower backs, hips, knees,and feet, precisely because they don't work so well for bipedal use. That's just the way it is.

You might do better, coming up with a reason He designed flawed parts. Or maybe just let it be His way, and admit that these evolved.

 

[brother Paul]

In fact, what we see is precisely what you would expect to see, if we evolved from quadrupedal primates. As design, it's pretty bad. Anyone with any sense could have designed a better spine for a biped.

Really? Please show us your design oh one that has more sense than God! I really am eager to see it. Any upright structure subject to the elements and gravity will eventually become effected and we do inherit earlier models but if evolution as you are suggesting is occurring we would see much improvement within our species (but it is just variety of the same).

I will eagerly anticipate the design your superior degree of "sense" comes up with!

 

[Barbarian]

Really? Please show us your design oh one that has more sense than God!

God didn't design it. It came about by evolution. That's how He made the diversity of living things. Optimal 'design' isn't that important to Him, it seems.

So an easy one: don't run spinal nerves through a narrow bone channel next to vertebral disks. One blows out, and that nerve is compromised.

Alternately, make the nucleus pulposus solid and not goopy, so that it won't protrude into the foramen when the disk fails.

[quote[I really am eager to see it. Any upright structure subject to the elements and gravity will eventually become effected and we do inherit earlier models but if evolution as you are suggesting is occurring[/quote]

You're assuming that mutations arise as needed. Demonstrably false. However, Neandertals show a marked kyphosis of the lower back as opposed to the marked lordosis of modern humans, which is an adaptation to great force on the L5S1 verebral disk (the site of most disc injuries.

 

[brother Paul]

God didn't design it. It came about by evolution. That's how He made the diversity of living things. Optimal 'design' isn't that important to Him, it seems.

So an easy one: don't run spinal nerves through a narrow bone channel next to vertebral disks. One blows out, and that nerve is compromised.

Alternately, make the nucleus pulposus solid and not goopy, so that it won't protrude into the foramen when the disk fails.

[quote[I really am eager to see it. Any upright structure subject to the elements and gravity will eventually become effected and we do inherit earlier models but if evolution as you are suggesting is occurring

You're assuming that mutations arise as needed. Demonstrably false. However, Neandertals show a marked kyphosis of the lower back as opposed to the marked lordosis of modern humans, which is an adaptation to great force on the L5S1 verebral disk (the site of most disc injuries.[/QUOTE]

Wrong again, I am assuming nothing I am trusting He knew what He was doing when He planned us in His mind. Disc injury occurs naturally by aging and also because of injury. Solidity between the discs would terribly hamper mobility. Hyper kyphosis (upper back) and lordosis (lower back) are disorders even common today. IF (note the caps) Neanderthals exhibit kyphosis of the lower back it is probably due to the way they sat and carried since their youth and not genetic at all.

 

[Cygnus]

In fact, what we see is precisely what you would expect to see, if we evolved from quadrupedal primates. As design, it's pretty bad. Anyone with any sense could have designed a better spine for a biped.

There is nothing wrong with the biped spine.....that is if you stop abusing it. It's not suppose to be a crane.

But if you want to believe God directed the evolutionary process of developing it...according to you...God failed.

 

[Barbarian]

There is nothing wrong with the biped spine.....that is if you stop abusing it. It's not suppose to be a crane.

Every time you stand up, you use it as a crane. And as time goes on, just standing and walking degrade the discs, which were fine when they were horizontal in quadrupeds but are not well-evolved for upright stance.

But if you want to believe God directed the evolutionary process

How do you think God "directs" evolutionary processes? You might as well tell me that God spins the Earth to keep it moving.

And why are you judging whether or not a partially-evolved spine is "God's failure?"

 

[Barbarian]

I really am eager to see it. Any upright structure subject to the elements and gravity will eventually become effected and we do inherit earlier models but if evolution as you are suggesting is occurring

Barbarian observes:
You're assuming that mutations arise as needed. Demonstrably false. However, Neandertals show a marked kyphosis of the lower back as opposed to the marked lordosis of modern humans, which is an adaptation to great force on the L5S1 verebral disk (the site of most disc injuries.

Wrong again, I am assuming nothing

See above. You are.

I am trusting He knew what He was doing when He planned us in His mind.

My God is the omnipotent Creator, and doesn't "plan." He never has to figure anything out.

Disc injury occurs naturally by aging and also because of injury. Solidity between the discs would terribly hamper mobility.

See above. I was an ergonomist for 18 years. It would be simple to "design" a disc that doesn't blow out, or spinal nerves not entrapped where they can be compressed by disc failure.

Hyper kyphosis (upper back) and lordosis (lower back) are disorders even common today.

Spinal lordosis is an adaptation to the forces caused by standing upright. As you just learned, there is evidence for this evolving over time.

IF (note the caps)

The fact is in evidence. See above.

Neanderthals exhibit kyphosis of the lower back it is probably due to the way they sat and carried since their youth and not genetic at all.

Sorry, we have a large body of information on the spines of hunter-gatherers (who still live largely as Neandertals did) and they do not exhibit kyphosis any more than any other population of modern humans. However, we do see that this adaptation began rather early in bipedal hominins:


Fetal load and the evolution of lumbar lordosis in bipedal hominins
Nature 450, 1075-1078 (13 December 2007)

 

[brother Paul]

Every time you stand up, you use it as a crane. And as time goes on, just standing and walking degrade the discs, which were fine when they were horizontal in quadrupeds but are not well-evolved for upright stance.

Their spines are also perfect for exactly what He had in mind for them (they are after all to be mostly knuckle walkers and aboreal unlike humans)

And why are you judging whether or not a partially-evolved spine is "God's failure?"

It is not a partially evolved spine, It is perfect for their design. He never called it an unevolved spine OR God's failure....he said there is nothing wrong with a bi-pedal spine.

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry, we have a large body of information on the spines of hunter-gatherers (who still live largely as Neandertals did) and they do not exhibit kyphosis any more than any other population of modern humans.

Exactly, that's why I corrected you and pointed out it is common in our time.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, we have a large body of information on the spines of hunter-gatherers (who still live largely as Neandertals did) and they do not exhibit kyphosis any more than any other population of modern humans.

Exactly, that's why I corrected you and pointed out it is common in our time.

I don't think you read that carefully. It contradicts your assumption. Spinal lordosis (which partially compensates for the disadvantage of a quadrupedal spine on an upright mammal) is more pronounced in modern humans, even those who live essentially as Neandertals did. I'm pointing out that your hypothesis that the kyphosis of Neandertals was caused by life style, is not supported by the evidence.

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry, we have a large body of information on the spines of hunter-gatherers (who still live largely as Neandertals did) and they do not exhibit kyphosis any more than any other population of modern humans.

I don't think you read that carefully. It contradicts your assumption. Spinal lordosis (which partially compensates for the disadvantage of a quadrupedal spine on an upright mammal) is more pronounced in modern humans, even those who live essentially as Neandertals did. I'm pointing out that your hypothesis that the kyphosis of Neandertals was caused by life style, is not supported by the evidence.

Yes I think correct on the first part I did misunderstand your point. But as to why Neanderthals demonstrate a higher case number per capita (since we have not viewed large groups) and because what we are viewing fossilized remains in 99% of the cases (with a few sparse genetic samples) we cannot know for sure how this condition developed in Neanderthal populations. I would suggest you consider that a style of life from youth on does indeed play a major role as there is NO real evidence it was an inheritable genetic normality for this population.

However having said that there is now so much evidence for Neanderthal as a variety of Sapien that this eliminates the need for structural morphism of any kind to be the "explanation" (the narrative attached to the data to fit a hypothesis). One could have had one structure normal to its variety and another to the other normal to its variety (though I believe the environmental does play a major role here...note assuming your example is true, in more modern hunter gatherer populations they demonstrate a higher preponderance...makes sense...maybe even a lack of calcium and magnesium in their diet may have influenced this).

 

[brother Paul]

Barbarian could you show me (or a link) some fossils demonstrating this Neanderthal "lumbar" Kyphosis? I could not find any....I did read the work of Webber and Pusch but IMO the evidence is sparse and the interpretation too speculative to draw such a broad stroke conclusion about the population as a whole.

One has to note and fully appreciate the disclaimer objectivity of these two researchers when they preamble in the abstract that "We speculate that both the kyphosis itself and the massive and heavily muscled skeleton of Neanderthals are causative for the minimal bone degeneration. We conclude that a kyphotic lumbar spine is the natural anatomy in these two Neanderthal individuals. Future research will reveal if this holds true for the entire Neanderthal species."

There conclusion is supportive of the preconceived speculation which they admit (proud of their intellectual integrity) but as we only have two samples of individuals approaching middle age as they also admit we really cannot be sure...(so a matter of opinion at this juncture)...they also admit an "evolutionary interpretation" is possible (not factual, though I have no problem with anatomical differences between varieties within a species and in this case early homo sapiens)

 

[Barbarian]

Every time you stand up, you use it as a crane. And as time goes on, just standing and walking degrade the discs, which were fine when they were horizontal in quadrupeds but are not well-evolved for upright stance.

Their spines are also perfect for exactly what He had in mind for them (they are after all to be mostly knuckle walkers and aboreal unlike humans)

But we have the same spines, only slightly and imperfectly modified to relieve some of the stresses that an upright stance causes. It's why so many of us have bad backs. Not lifestyle; it's a problem inherent in the way the spine works.

And why are you judging whether or not a partially-evolved spine is "God's failure?"

It is not a partially evolved spine,

No, that's wrong. Lordosis can only partially compensate for the additional forces on the L5S1 disk.

For instance, humans are the only mammals that can have scoliosis, a condition in which the spine has an abnormal curvature, said Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.


Owners of a Homo erectus skeleton from around 1.5 million years ago and the Lucy skeleton, more than 3 million years old, both appear to have had back problems, Latimer said.


Humans evolved from an animal whose back was horizontal, parallel with the ground. But the human spine evolved to be upright, and the body needed to balance over hips and feet. That's why the spine needed curves in it, but it's still not an optimal system.


Over the course of a lifetime, with the stresses and loads of daily activities, we're apt to develop problems such as a herniated disk. Even walking, with the process of moving our arms and legs to carry an upright back, results in a constant twisting and torquing of the spine, Latimer said. No other animal has to deal with a mechanical system in this way..."The design specs on your body are about 45 or 50 (years old)," Latimer said. "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through that. But after that, you’re on your own."
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/20/why-your-back-feet-hurt-blame-evolution/

It is perfect for their design. He never called it an unevolved spine

As you see, human spines are only partially evolved to counter the problems with using a quadruped spine on a biped. And ours are only partially-evolved. If they were perfect, there wouldn't be those flaws, would there?

OR God's failure....he said there is nothing wrong with a bi-pedal spine.

The problem, as you now see, is that we have a quadruped spine, only partially-evolved to an upright stance. This is why so many people have back problems.

 

[brother Paul]

It is perfect for their design. He never called it an unevolved spine
As you see, human spines are only partially evolved to counter the problems with using a quadruped spine on a biped. And ours are only partially-evolved. If they were perfect, there wouldn't be those flaws, would there?

OR God's failure....he said there is nothing wrong with a bi-pedal spine.
The problem, as you now see, is that we have a quadruped spine, only partially-evolved to an upright stance. This is why so many people have back problems.


Regardless of your "opinion" on this issue, the clear and understandable point was that Cygnus did not say what you claimed he said. And "perfect" is a value judgment (even no two humans are totally identical). What you call perfect would be the same unalterable success for all individuals but that was not what He planned. We both agree much was intended for nature to play its role, IMO that's not the issue. Nothing in any of these studies implicates a necessary anatomical morphism just differences (variety).

 

[Cygnus]

Every time you stand up, you use it as a crane. And as time goes on, just standing and walking degrade the discs, which were fine when they were horizontal in quadrupeds but are not well-evolved for upright stance.



How do you think God "directs" evolutionary processes? You might as well tell me that God spins the Earth to keep it moving.

And why are you judging whether or not a partially-evolved spine is "God's failure?"

Sounds like were de-evolving. What a great belief you teach here.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like were de-evolving.

Walking upright has it's benefits. Of course, some really, really fundamentalist believers might disagree.

I'm just pointing out that it's best to accept things as God did them, not as we think He should have done them. Evolution, for all its flaws, certainly works better than "design" for complicated things. Turns out, God knew best, once again.

What a great belief you teach here.

Yep.