[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[lordkalvan]

Anyone can understand this simple fact:

The first human to evolve did not have his mate already evolved as human. So does bestiality begins with apes as a requirement of evolution.

And you should understand this simple fact: populations evolve, not individuals. There was no 'first human to evolve' any more than there was a first human to speak French.

 

[Arch Angle]

that's right.

The actual transition is not like drawing a line in the sand. But rather a continuum.But the speed of that transition was very fast. Again, more proof of a god. "time" is a human construct. In terms of geologic time, it was a line.

 

[lordkalvan]

that's right.

The actual transition is not like drawing a line in the sand. But rather a continuum.But the speed of that transition was very fast. Again, more proof of a god. "time" is a human construct. In terms of geologic time, it was a line.

I don't quite follow what you mean by speed of transition being 'proof of a god'. Can you explain in a bit more detail, please? Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
I have no idea what you mean by 50,000 years.

According to evolutionary theory, Eve was created first 50000 years before Adam came into existence.

Um, no. What are you talking about?

This essentially means, Eve was having sex with an ape which is bestiality.

Actually, humans are apes. We and chimps are more closely related to each other than either species is related to other apes.

Hence, Christians who believe in evolutionary theory blaspheme God by saying that he used bestiality as a means for creation, because bestiality is a requirement for evolution.

No, someone's really, really led you down the path, on that one. I'm wondering if you're talking about "mitochondrial Eve." A misnomer, because, even if the theory is correct, that one wouldn't be the first woman, just the last woman to be the common ancestor of all humans.

 

[Adam]

This woman would corrrspond to Genesis 5:31, which indentifies her as the wife of Noah, who had the three "sons" which fathered the three racial so=tocks that founded modern man.
She lived and gave birth to these three 100,000 year before the 40,000 year flood out-of-Africa had begun.
This corrsponds one to one with our science and Genesis.

.

Please stop claiming that.

There is no academic source which makes such a claim.

 

[Arch Angle]

I don't quite follow what you mean by speed of transition being 'proof of a god'. Can you explain in a bit more detail, please? Thanks.

I should of have said another piece of the "proof" for me. Nothing is in stone for me lord. Cepth the rock record. I use the speed of evolution as a piece, in a list of five observations, for concluding that there is a higher probability of "something"than there is the probability of "nothing".

 

[Arch Angle]

I think we just need to recognise its impact on our views and opinions and attempt to limit that impact as much as possible.

You understand its impact. But how can welesson it.

How can we teach people its impact, that can understand it, a way around it? as best we can that is. And how we can lessen the impact threw aprocess? or algorithm? I think you understand that we all are not on the samepage. We are 1/2 a step away from absolutelyno choice in our next action.

The church fathers tried, but they just did not have the data we havetoday. heck, even Jesus tried, with even far less information. It is why I follow him, to lesson my subjective observations..

 

[felix]

And you should understand this simple fact: populations evolve, not individuals. There was no 'first human to evolve' any more than there was a first human to speak French.

But mutations first occurs for only one individual not simultaneously for all. So, the first human had to do bestiality.

 

[felix]

that's right.

The actual transition is not like drawing a line in the sand. But rather a continuum.But the speed of that transition was very fast. Again, more proof of a god. "time" is a human construct. In terms of geologic time, it was a line.

Most animals can do two step tools. But, no animal including apes can do three steps in tools. Only humans can. It means, not simply using a tool to get the job done but using the tool as an indirect agent to get the job done. For example, a banana is kept inside a hollow glass which you can see and you can push the banana down with a stick from under. No monkey or ape was able to do it. If any animal can do it, then it can learn to use any tools known and even build tools for itself, and even compete with humans. This is the intelligence that defines us a humans. so, telling me that a line cannot be drawn is nonsense and unscientific.

EDIT:
There are several tests... one of the famous is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_and_banana_problem

 

[felix]

Quite ridiculous, as ridiculous as proposing that there was a first reason to speak French, everyone else around them speaking some other language. Understand the simple idea that the most recent female common ancestor and the most recent male common ancestor did not have to co-exist for either to mate with another human being. Your 'bestiality' nonsense is a red-herring of sperm whale proportions.

So, what do you want to call the sex between a human and an ape? Whatever word you use, the truth is, it is "bestiality".

Well, Adam and Eve's children, for example. A curious culture that sees adultery amongst unrelated neighbours as significantly more heinous than incest between brother and sister.

Of course it is "incest" and God did not plan that way either. it is the result of sin and fallen world. God's plan was a painless delivery for woman and no work for men. Things have changed since than.

 

[lordkalvan]

I should of have said another piece of the "proof" for me. Nothing is in stone for me lord. Cepth the rock record. I use the speed of evolution as a piece, in a list of five observations, for concluding that there is a higher probability of "something"than there is the probability of "nothing".

Thanks. I was actually wondering about how you saw the 'speed' component being a proof in your eyes?

 

[lordkalvan]

You understand its impact. But how can welesson it.

How can we teach people its impact, that can understand it, a way around it? as best we can that is. And how we can lessen the impact threw aprocess? or algorithm? I think you understand that we all are not on the samepage. We are 1/2 a step away from absolutelyno choice in our next action.

The church fathers tried, but they just did not have the data we havetoday. heck, even Jesus tried, with even far less information. It is why I follow him, to lesson my subjective observations..

I think recognising it is the first step in lessening its impact. I also think systematic approaches such as the scientific method help in this respect, as do the processes of peer review and critical thinking.

 

[lordkalvan]

But mutations first occurs for only one individual not simultaneously for all. So, the first human had to do bestiality.

A single mutation does not immediately result in the emergence of a new species. It is the divergence of a reproductively isolated population (population A.1) from its parent population (population A.0) until such time that all members of A.1 can no longer interbreed successfully with all members of A.0 that results in speciation. At no time can members of A.1 not interbreed successfully with other members of A.1.

 

[lordkalvan]

So, what do you want to call the sex between a human and an ape? Whatever word you use, the truth is, it is "bestiality".

Taxonomically, humans are apes. In popular use, ape is often used to refer to members of the Hominoidea other than humans.

Of course it is "incest" and God did not plan that way either. it is the result of sin and fallen world. God's plan was a painless delivery for woman and no work for men. Things have changed since than.

When all else fails, blame 'the Fall'. Do you not find it the least bit curious that a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god was unable to foresee that his plan would not work out the way he expected?

 

[felix]

A single mutation does not immediately result in the emergence of a new species. It is the divergence of a reproductively isolated population (population A.1) from its parent population (population A.0) until such time that all members of A.1 can no longer interbreed successfully with all members of A.0 that results in speciation. At no time can members of A.1 not interbreed successfully with other members of A.1.

Neither was I referring to any "single mutation" but "mutations" and the first human. I had explained it well in #429. It is intelligence that matters which defined who humans are. You can even consider humans and bacteria as life and even prove sex can occur between them but I am not here to hear those jargon. Considering humans as apes based on classification and conveniently ignoring the key point that there can only be a "single first human" (or only a single Y-Chromosome Adam) according to evolution I mentioned only shows how pretending you are.

 

[felix]

Taxonomically, humans are apes. In popular use, ape is often used to refer to members of the Hominoidea other than humans.

When all else fails, blame 'the Fall'. Do you not find it the least bit curious that a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god was unable to foresee that his plan would not work out the way he expected?

I don't see any problem in that because, God created Adam (male) first without Eve (female who was only an after thought). If God was able to create Adam with the capacity to populate the world without Eve, then I don't see any problem in what He can do for Adam's children.

 

[lordkalvan]

But mutations first occurs for only one individual not simultaneously for all.

Single mutations, genetic drift and sexual selection do not all combine to lead to the offspring of parents A and B bring unable to successfully interbreed with the offspring of parents C and D (and passing on its advantageous traits to their children).

So, the first human had to do bestiality.

Trivially, ridiculously and demonstrably false. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the existence of ring species?

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't see any problem in that because, God created Adam (male) first without Eve (female who was only an after thought).

So not such a well-thought out plan after all, then, given that it needed tinkering with an after-thought?

If God was able to create Adam with the capacity to populate the world without Eve, then I don't see any problem in what He can do for Adam's children.

So Adam's an hermaphrodite now? Do you have any evidence to support this point of view?

 

[felix]

Single mutations, genetic drift and sexual selection do not all combine to lead to the offspring of parents A and B bring unable to successfully interbreed with the offspring of parents C and D (and passing on its advantageous traits to their children).

Trivially, ridiculously and demonstrably false. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the existence of ring species?

There can only be ONE Y-Chromosome Adam and ONE mtDNA Eve, no matter how much you try.
Let me know the name of the so called ring species for humans evolution if I am unaware of.

 

[felix]

So not such a well-thought out plan after all, then, given that it needed tinkering with an after-thought?

The after-thought is still part of the plan and the designer is at work. Remember that he took rest only on the 7th day and was working for the past 6 days?

So Adam's an hermaphrodite now? Do you have any evidence to support this point of view?

You should read Genesis account yourself for it. All what you require is in there.