[_ Old Earth _] Five Fingers vs. Evolution

[cupid dave]

You are really getting silly with your attempts to object to every point with what amounts to nonsense.

Of course there was time when the environment of the Earth was ideal for a general Spontaneous Generation of life of various types.
These were the first sprouts of life.

They were the foundation for the evolutionary developments from that first era of Abiogenesis.

Both of these concepts are in essence the same idea.
Abiogenesis is merely that appearance of life from the atomic dirt of the earth.
The hypothesis offers the view that the organic materials became abundant and available to an organic Chemistry.

Thougth such considerations were beyond the early suggestion of a Spontaneous Generation, the ideas are the same.

 

[Adam]

As far as scientific inquiry and explanations are concerned, they are not.

 

[cupid dave]

In my biology text in school, the chapter on Evolution presented a number of circumstantial "proofs" pleading for Evolution. One example was an illustration of diverse species with five digits at the end of their limbs. Evolutionists love to point to similarity between structures in diverse animals as proof of common ancestry. This similarity is called homology. I’ll quote an Evolutionist in regards to five digits allegedly showing common ancestry:

"There are countless examples of these kinds of homologies."
One frequently cited example is the pentadactyl (five digit) limb of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). When you consider the vastly different functions of the various limbs of all of these creatures (grasping, walking, digging, flying, swimming, etc.) there is no functional reason for all of these limbs to have the same basic structure. Why do humans, cats, birds and whales all have the same basic five digit limb structure? (Note: adult birds actually have three digit limbs, but embryonically these digits develop from a five digit precursor.)

The only idea that makes sense is if all of these creatures developed from a common ancestor that happened to have five digit limbs.

//////

Rather than five digits supporting Evolution, it contradicts Evolution. As a matter of philosophy, not the pseudoscience of Evolutionists, I see five digits as a signature of God. Five is a result of the common designer, not a result of common descent.

You are right but so is the evolutionist.
The hand is evolving as the major connecting link between the evolving mental ability to interpret the external world.
Our thinking is expressed in the use of the hand to react and to investigate the external world.

There is a case to be made that the hand eveolved along with our mental facilities as an adjunct to our thinking process.

The simpliest example of what I mean is that nymbers, count to base 10, for instance, is related to the mind and the hand.
Counting on the fingr=ers of course was the first example of the point I make ere.

But there is an argument possible which demonstrate the Hebrew use of the Hand as the Hand of God in our mind.
We see the reminant of this idea in the surviving vistages of the Kohanim Hand Blessing used inthe synagogues today.

 

[Adam]

There is a case to be made that the hand eveolved along with our mental facilities as an adjunct to our thinking process.

If that were true, other primates would either not have hands or would have the same mental facilities we do.

 

[cupid dave]

If that were true, other primates would either not have hands or would have the same mental facilities we do.

You mean in your opinion?
Based upon that kind of reasoning we woulkd have to understand evolution as wrong, in the sense that we are the end product of a long string of incremental improvements.

In fact, the gradual growth through 22 psecies of now extinct humans has gradually developed an better and better understanding of the Reality "at our finger tips."

The demise of Neanderthal and his replacement as the dominant species by Modern man seems to be based upon this observation, that we just adapted by having the evolved abilty to think better.

We can get a sense of how useful the hands are when we see how much faster and simply Signing communicates between two people as opposed to even speaking to one another.

 

[Adam]

You mean in your opinion?
Based upon that kind of reasoning we woulkd have to understand evolution as wrong, in the sense that we are the end product of a long string of incremental improvements.

No, not in my opinion.

It's simply a matter of logic and fact.

If "the hand evolved along with our mental facilities as an adjunct to our thinking process," then any species with hands would share a similar intelligence.

Obviously other primates, including old world monkeys, have hands but not our intelligence. Therefore, as an observable fact, the hand did not evolve with our mental facilities as an adjunct to our thinking process.



It is also wrong to assume that humans are an "end product" of evolution. That suggests that process of evolution has an intended goal. Your stipulation is an antithesis to evolution, not found in the predictions of the theory.

 

[Adam]

We can get a sense of how useful the hands are when we see how much faster and simply Signing communicates between two people as opposed to even speaking to one another.

If that were true we would see spoken language abandoned in favor of sign language.

Another tear in your claim is that people who spoeak when they sign are able to keep their words in sync with their signing. That would not be possible if signing were faster.

Signing is not faster or more simple than spoken language.

 

[Adam]

In fact, the gradual growth through 22 psecies of now extinct humans...

And of course, as you have had demonstrated to you by literally hundreds of sources, this is not a fact at all.

 

[cupid dave]

Well we don't agree to disagree, its just that we do.