[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Milk-Drops]

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

There is no such thing as a de-evoloving. Evolve just means change, as any organism ages, it degrades, but doesn't de-evolve.

 

[Cygnus]

There is no such thing as a de-evoloving. Evolve just means change, as any organism ages, it degrades, but doesn't de-evolve.

You do know de-evolution doesn't mean man reverting back to a monkey?

 

[Barbarian]

He's right. There is no such thing as "devolution." It's a joke from a minor pop music group. And it sounded kinda sciencey, so the creationists picked it up.

 

[Cygnus]

no such thing.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You do know de-evolution doesn't mean man reverting back to a monkey?

Oh? What has it been changed to now?


To be quite honest I've just assumed most people who use random terms to disagree with points, have no idea what they are even talking about themselves.

 

[Cygnus]

Oh? What has it been changed to now?


To be quite honest I've just assumed most people who use random terms to disagree with points, have no idea what they are even talking about themselves.

http://www.thinkfish.co.uk/tropical-fish-images/blind-cave-tetra-01.jpg

 

[Barbarian]

So how exactly is a fish living where there is no light, disadvantaged by having no eyes? As you might know, brain tissue (which is why eyes in vertebrates is) takes a huge amount of energy to sustain. So if it's unneeded, those fish that lose eyes will have an advantage.

Here's the part you don't get:

Fitness only counts in terms of environment.

You might as well suppose we are less fit because we only have rudimentary tails.

 

[brother Paul]

http://swami.wustl.edu/more-than-apes

An interesting perspective from one who accepts common ancestry....

 

[Barbarian]

This startlng error makes me wonder:
First (at 6:10), humans are the only known species that has out compete all other sibling species (e.g. Neanderthals and Denisovans) to spread into every habitat across the globe. As far as we know, this has never happened before in the history of the planet.6

Neandertals and Denisovans were not only human, they are of our same species. How does this guy not know it? (edit: he's a physician, and apparently into computers and genomics, so maybe that's not so surprising)

And I'm wondering who he thinks says humans are "just apes." That would be only slightly less strange than saying that humans are "just chordates." We are both, of course, but not merely chordates, not merely apes. As he tangentally suggests, humans are much more cooperative, more loyal to their group, and vastly more intelligent.

As Carl Sagan once remarked, the takeoff point was a cranium roughly the same displacement as a fast motorcycle. At some point, it isn't just the number of neurons, but the connections and the quality of them.

But there's another little twist that anthropologists are just starting to realize:

Humans are more wolflike in behavior than any other primate,and dogs are more humanlike that any other canid. We ended up in a symbiosis that changed us both. Dogs, unlike most domestic animals, seem to have chosen to join us. Their brains work more like ours and ours like theirs, to the point that a dog and his human companion, staring into each other's eyes, have identical brain changes, including a rise in oxytocin.
http://www.livescience.com/31997-dogs-and-humans-evolved-together.html

So it's really not surprising that natural law includes altruism, loyalty, and restraint on communal violence to a degree not seen in other apes. That's how wolves are.

Now if this seems like a lot of convoluted happenstance for this to be the work of God, you should consider the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
Summa Theologica question 22

He works in wonderful ways.

 

[Milk-Drops]

http://www.thinkfish.co.uk/tropical-fish-images/blind-cave-tetra-01.jpg

Nice picture of a fish. I asked you for a definition though.

 

[Milk-Drops]

http://swami.wustl.edu/more-than-apes

An interesting perspective from one who accepts common ancestry....

The article is very interesting. I think the author oversteps because the idea that humans are intelligent apes doesn't necessarily deny humans being exceptional. Our intelligence and ability to make sophisticated plans and tools is what makes humans very adaptive and exceptional compared to our ancestors and genetic cousins within the other apes.

 

[brother Paul]

However, IF humans and apes actually diverged FROM a common "ape-like" ancestor THEN there are two things one should note:

The "ape-like" ancestor (we have not found) is by definition not an ape (and we are only calling it that in retrospect via the hypothesis)

The humans and the apes are two separate groups which came FROM this unfounded ancestor...

The actual hypothesis does NOT SAY that the "ape-like" became apes out of which came humans....

 

[Barbarian]

However, IF humans and apes actually diverged FROM a common "ape-like" ancestor THEN there are two things one should note:

The "ape-like" ancestor (we have not found) is by definition not an ape (and we are only calling it that in retrospect via the hypothesis)

That argument depends on an obfuscation. If you assume "apes" "means Hominoidea, except human", you are correct. But if you mean Hominoids inclusively, then you are wrong.

The humans and the apes are two separate groups which came FROM this unfounded ancestor...

No. Humans and chimpanzees are the two separate groups that evolved from this ancestor. The apes, including the line that led to humans, evolved much earlier.

 

[brother Paul]

That argument depends on an obfuscation. If you assume "apes" "means Hominoidea, except human", you are correct. But if you mean Hominoids inclusively, then you are wrong.

And if some people trying to convince the many of their hypothesis makes up terms so as to make differing groups inclusive (a part of one group) by human compartmentalization and classification methods...then yes those who have been convinced/beguiled/persuaded to believe these are ACTUAL REAL TRUE categories (not merely intelligently designed) will agree with you...

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt...now I see without the filter...

 

[Cygnus]

So how exactly is a fish living where there is no light, disadvantaged by having no eyes? As you might know, brain tissue (which is why eyes in vertebrates is) takes a huge amount of energy to sustain. So if it's unneeded, those fish that lose eyes will have an advantage.

Here's the part you don't get:

Fitness only counts in terms of environment.

You might as well suppose we are less fit because we only have rudimentary tails.

The fish lost the ability...information...to code for eyes. It de-evolved. If you put the fish in "light"....it's offspring will not re-evolve sight.

 

[brother Paul]

Or perhaps this variety never had it in the first place...

 

[Barbarian]

The fish lost the ability...information...to code for eyes. It de-evolved.

You don't know that. Birds used to have teeth. Is is your argument that they lost the information to have teeth? In the case of birds, loss of teeth was caused by additional information. As is probably true in the case of the cave fish, birds still retain all the information to make teeth. They just don't activate the genes.

But as noted before, there is no such thing as "de-evolution." Nor does evolutionary change require an addition in information. In many cases, a loss of information can produce evolutionary change.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That argument depends on an obfuscation. If you assume "apes" "means Hominoidea, except human", you are correct. But if you mean Hominoids inclusively, then you are wrong.

And if some people trying to convince the many of their hypothesis makes up terms so as to make differing groups inclusive (a part of one group) by human compartmentalization and classification methods...then yes those who have been convinced/beguiled/persuaded to believe these are ACTUAL REAL TRUE categories (not merely intelligently designed) will agree with you...

Sorry, that argument won't fly. Long before evolutionary theory, Linnaeus admitted that he should have put humans and apes in the same group, admitting that he was worried that he would be attacked by religious leaders if he had done so. He pointed out that he knew of no character by which he could separate humans and apes, and noted that no one else could show him one.

 

[brother Paul]

So because you are always quoting Linnaeus that makes it the truth? Because he was unable to discern the many differences does not mean they are not obvious to many others.

 

[Barbarian]

So because you are always quoting Linnaeus that makes it the truth?

Pointing out that the evidence for common descent was found long before people realized what it meant. But notice that Linnaeus, a creationist, admits that there is no way to separate humans from other apes biologically.

Because he was unable to discern the many differences does not mean they are not obvious to many others.

Chimpanzees have many differences from other apes. So do humans. And so do orangutans, and so do gorillas. That's not what he was saying. Separating any of those species from apes as a group is impossible.

It is not our bodies that are Godlike. It is our minds and souls.