[_ Old Earth _] Evolve This

  • Thread starter Thread starter bibleberean
  • Start date Start date
B

bibleberean

Guest
Evolve This!

Running Revolution Started as Evolution

"Millions of years before headphone-wearing joggers clotted the streets of
America, the development of the ability to run played a crucial role in the
evolution of early humans, according to new research.

Without running, our bodies might have turned out looking like those of
apes, said Harvard University anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman,
co-author of a new study in the Nov. 18 issue of Nature. "This ability of
ours to run incredibly long distances rather efficiently is incredibly rare.
It's unique," he said. "No other primates like to run, or are even good at
it."

By developing bodies that allow for running, humans may have boosted their ability to both hunt and scavenge for food, Lieberman said...Lieberman and a colleague, biology professor Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah, became interested in the development of running several years ago when they watched a pig run on a treadmill. "He looked at that pig and said, 'That pig can't hold its head still,' and sure enough, the pig was wobbling its head around from side to side," Lieberman recalled. By contrast, "when you look at a human running, they're terrific. We're like pogo sticks. If you watch someone running, particularly someone who has a ponytail, that ponytail will be bobbing up and down, but the eyes of the runner will be stable like a missile. We wondered how on earth we do that."

The researchers found numerous physical traits that evolved in humans and appear to be critical to the ability to run: head designs that prevent
overheating and allow humans to see the world as they run without too much jiggling; a ligament in the back that acts as a kind of shock absorber; shorter forearms that allow for better counterbalancing of the upper and lower bodies; and huge buttocks that provide stabilization (Dotinga, "Forbes
Magazine," Nov. 18 - HealthDayNews).

[TBC: The researchers freely attribute the physiology of humans to "design."

It takes incredible faith, anchored on nothing, to attribute "design" to an
unfeeling, non-sentient, absolutely random process, which has never been
demonstrated].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF YEAR PRODUCT ALERT

Our year-end expanded catalog is available at:
http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletter ... +pdf/29815
.aspx

(PDF file, 1.3 megabytes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EMAIL COMMANDS:

To subscribe, send an email to: updates-subscribe@lists.thebereancall.org
To cancel your subscription, send an email
to:updates-unsubscribe@lists.thebereancall.org
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
Evolution explains this just as well with fewer needless variables such as a designer.
Either way this has already been posted:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11853

Not really. Evolution cannot explain design.

If evolution were true someone had to program the data to make it work.

Cells just don't decide to become a fish.

Think about how absurd the word design is without a designer. :o
 
Anonymous said:
SyntaxVorlon said:
Evolution explains this just as well with fewer needless variables such as a designer.
Either way this has already been posted:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11853

Not really. Evolution cannot explain design.

If evolution were true someone had to program the data to make it work.

Cells just don't decide to become a fish.

Think about how absurd the word design is without a designer.
Please point out where I said design in my post. Furthermore, cells DO just decide to become fish if they have fish DNA, and aren't already organs. If evolution is true, and it has 99.999% probability of being true, then no one had to program the data, by the very nature of evolution.
 
SyntaxVorlorn, if this is completely off topic let me go, but I think it might deliver a valid point for your argument.

Basically, we didn't exactly start making mules to have babies either. They were nothing but a crossbreed; but they evolved, and there have been repeated cases of a male and a female mule engaging in natural intercourse and actually producing offspring. Is this not a form of evolution? Two sterile things become somehow able to produce children!
That is some practical adaptation for you.

What of spontaneity and the anthropic principle?
 
It's more likely a fluke. There really isn't a population of mules in the world. Just a smattering breeded for their strength and usefulness.

The reason that mules are infertile is because they have an odd number of chromosomes, because donkeys have say 20 and horses 22, so mules have 21.(Not necessarily real numbers, can't remember the actual ones) If a mule was somehow able to get that last chromosome or if its sperm or eggs contained an even number of viable chromosomes then of spring could result.
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
If evolution is true, and it has 99.999% probability of being true, then no one had to program the data, by the very nature of evolution.

I am not sure one could say the probability of evolution being true is that high. That would depend on the base.

One statistic I fould interesting is that if one runs the statistical possibilites of even simple life evolving, then not enough time has passed in the universe even if it was accelerated by 10 times. It made me wonder if Carl Sagan had ever ran those numbers. I read it in Henry Morrison's book on creation science. For the record, I was an evolutionist and still find some christian creation theories absurb. I do not buy into the God said it that settles it crowd. However, there is some good work that debunks secular evolution theories.
 
Syntax,

I don't need to point out where you said design in your post.

I said it in mine.

Living beings have purpose and function.

Living beings are designed. They are designed by a Creator that will judge you very soon.

Your contention that evolution has 99.999 % probability of "being true" is bogus.

It has a 0 % chance of being true.

According to the bible only a fool would deny it. 8-)
 
Sir Fredrick Hoyle

"even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" from which life is made, the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. The impossibility of that number can be seen in the following illustration. The likelihood of reaching out and by chance plucking a particular atom out of the universe would be about 1 in 10 with 80 zeros after it.

If every atom in this universe became another universe, the chance of reaching out at random and plucking a particular atom out of all of those universes would be 1 in 10 with 160 zeros after it.

Hoyle then explains why this completely impossible theory is still honored, and accuses the evolutionists of self-interest, unfair pressure, and dishonesty:


This [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory...because of its grip on the educational system....You either have to believe the concepts, or you will be branded a heretic.4

4 From interview by AP correspondent George Cornwall, quoted from Times-Advocate (Escondido, CA, Dec. 10, 1982), A10-11.
 
keebs said:
If evolution were true someone had to program the data to make it work.

No...something had to program the data, namely natural selection.

[edit] Evolution can also be applied to computer algorithms and hardware, and it does a fine job of programming itself...http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/mmg20/dhe/

Absurd...

"The eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?"

Charles Darwin said,


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Natural selection cannot explain the complexities of the eye.

How could natural selection produce an egg laying chicken?

An intelligent Creator God created all life and the evidence of His existence is in His design.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Only a fool could miss it...

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
 
Anonymous said:
SyntaxVorlon said:
Evolution explains this just as well with fewer needless variables such as a designer.
Either way this has already been posted:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11853

Not really. Evolution cannot explain design.

If evolution were true someone had to program the data to make it work.

Cells just don't decide to become a fish.

Think about how absurd the word design is without a designer. :o

8-) Guest,I just couldn't agree with you more if I tried!
Great job!
 
keebs said:
Evolution of the eye: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Dawkins

And as for an egg laying chicken, they lay eggs because they share a common ancestor with reptiles, who layed eggs as well.

BTW, why isn't this in the evolution forum?

:D Hi' there keebs! Long time no see ya'!
How is one of my evolution babies doing?
Did ya' miss me?
I just cannot accept that reptiles and chickens share the same
ancestors. Women have eggs in their ovaries,and we don't have
any ancestors that are reptiles or chickens,though some may beg
to differ. Have you studied human biology from a christian outlook?
 
Evolution is flawed. Its even still called a theory and thats all it is. The very start of evolutuion makes no sence this big bang that came from nothing to make all this....? nope not likly. Evolution is a theory the bible is the truth. :P
 
will said:
Evolution is flawed. Its even still called a theory and thats all it is. The very start of evolutuion makes no sence this big bang that came from nothing to make all this....? nope not likly. Evolution is a theory the bible is the truth. :P

:wink: Amen & Amen!
 
Who was the Guest? As for the discussion, I'm staying out of it till it returns to the original topic. All I know is that Chocolate is a girls best friend. :-D
 
blueeyeliner said:
keebs said:
If evolution were true someone had to program the data to make it work.

No...something had to program the data, namely natural selection.

[edit] Evolution can also be applied to computer algorithms and hardware, and it does a fine job of programming itself...http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/mmg20/dhe/

:D Nope,thats not it. His name is God,or more affectionately, Father
God.

Hello BlueE,

They simply refuse to believe. Sad is it not?

Data and design come from a designer. Creation demands a Creator.

Natural selection is not intelligent. Intelligence created life with the ability to adapt.

You have heard of fools gold?

How about the fools god?

Creation is the non intelligent god of the atheist.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There is no excuse for the blindness of the atheist.

These supreme egotists believe they are wise and don't mind telling anyone who will listen.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

The bible is 100% correct.

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Their goddess is "mother nature" their god is "blind chance". Their hope is that when they die they will not come face to face the God they willingly reject.

There is sufficient light for an atheist to see truth.

John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.


John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
 
:-) bibleberean,I am in total agreement with you.
You are being 100% truthful to all of them,and using
the scriptures to show it. It does take patience to try
to teach these individuals anything when they have their
minds closed to God and wide open to secular views.
 
Back
Top