Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geolog

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Nov 2010, 7:27 pm

waltur wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.

i think you'll find a wealth of information that agrees with you at http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

One does not have to prove a known fact. Humans have survived and overwhelmed all other creatures. That cannot be denied. If you want to discover just how this came about that is a matter for examination.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Nov 2010, 8:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We're cleverer than most other animals. A major idea is that human beings partially started moving away from the pack as we developed the ability to make tools, and so this drove our evolution to become smarter and smarter.

I don't think our being clever alone was the thing that separated the primates that eventually developed into homosapiens from the non-human primates which still exist today. It was really the ability for groups to collectively learn and pass on knowledge that drove the process. Of course, the need to be able to both learn and teach survival techniques handed the advantage to families/tribes with greater brain power.

The primates that exist today don't have cultures or acquired knowledge bases. They are clever compared to other mammals but they haven't evolved to be as clever as homosapiens because their behaviors are almost completely pre-determined by genetics rather than learned through culture.

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

15 Nov 2010, 8:39 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

If we're weak physically it's because of our actual way of life. If you want to know the strengh of a phrehistoric man needing a lot of physical activities to survive, look to athletes.

BTW, it's normal that bear are stronger, as they are more massive.

_________________
Down with speculators!! !

Ambrose_Rotten
Velociraptor

Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 453
Location: Madison, WI

15 Nov 2010, 8:47 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

How did we survive long enough to learn how to make tools that would serve as weapons though?

Teamwork. Humans have language and can co-ordinate their activities, such as defense and hunting. One on one humans are not strong, but as a co-ordinated force we can lick just about any mammal or reptile on the planet.

ruveyn

Uh other animals have teamwork, I don't feel teamwork alone would have been that useful verses the predators our ancestors would have had to face.

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.

Bears don't attack groups of people. They may attack one or two, but the fact is that humans and their ancestors lived in groups. Out of all the bear attacks in Glacier National Park recently. None have been on a group of more than three people. Most victims of bear attacks were alone at the time.

Also, early humans were not exposed to Grizzly bears. They lived in different climates.

soulecho
Blue Jay

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 78
Location: Niagara Falls

15 Nov 2010, 8:55 pm

Lecks wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

How did we survive long enough to learn how to make tools that would serve as weapons though?

You assume we were the ones who came up with the idea. Most other primates living today can utilise tools to some extent, and we did not teach them.

Indeed. Chimpanzees are especially famous for sharpening sticks (spears, in other words) and using them to hunt for smaller primates.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 8:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:

waltur wrote:

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.

[/quote

How about a half dozen humans acting in a co-ordinated fashion against that one grizzly. The grizzly does not stand a chance. He might kill a human or two but he is going down.

Humans did not go one on one with the large animals they hunted. They operated in a co-ordinated fashion as hunting parties.

ruveyn

But then how did we know how to make the tools to fight. A large group of humans with their bare hands and maybe sticks or rocks wouldn't be enough to fight an angry grizzly. You actually would have to have weapons.

@ Ambrose_Rotten
Grizzlies were just an example and there were other animals that hunted in packs. How did we survive long enough to learn to make weapons.

@ Tollorin
The fastest human sprinters can't outrun most predators.

@ marshall
Other animals have ways of communicating basically their own languages particularly pack animals.

Ambrose_Rotten
Velociraptor

Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 453
Location: Madison, WI

15 Nov 2010, 9:04 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

waltur wrote:

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.

The grizzly will not mess with a group of people, regardless of how well the people can fight it off.

Inuyasha wrote:

@ Ambrose_Rotten
Grizzlies were just an example and there were other animals that hunted in packs. How did we survive long enough to learn to make weapons.

Tools were developed by earlier, stronger ancestors. By the time we evolved into Homo sapiens, we already had tools.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

15 Nov 2010, 9:07 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

@ marshall
Other animals have ways of communicating basically their own languages particularly pack animals.

The ability to maintain a cultural knowledge base through many generations requires much more sophistication than simple communication. If you look at other pack animals of the same species they are all basically the same in terms of tool use and behaviors. Everything is instinctual. Homo-sapiens learn from each other and retain vast quantities of collective information. That's the most important thing that really separates us from the apes.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 9:13 pm

marshall wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

@ marshall
Other animals have ways of communicating basically their own languages particularly pack animals.

Actually, dogs have their own personalities and are more than simple instincts. I have had a cat that could turn on lights and manipulate switches on a radio (he taught himself how to do that). Wolves actually use tactics to ambush prey, they don't just run at the prey with no strategy whatsoever. To imply animals are entirely stupid relying on instincts and incapable of learning doesn't fit with observations.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Nov 2010, 9:28 pm

Who even said we had to fight grizzly bears?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Nov 2010, 9:30 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

marshall wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

@ marshall
Other animals have ways of communicating basically their own languages particularly pack animals.

Animals do learn and pass on that learning to their fellows. That's true of primates, birds, canines, felines and even bacteria See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121439.htm

But they have no organized symbolic capabilities and humans excel at that.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Nov 2010, 11:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

If by "we" you mean conservatives, one does wonder...

Quote:

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.

Humans are able to dominate other life forms, we simply use other abilities than simple size or strength. Also: what about our vision is set up to be a predator? Our night vision is terrible, and our ancestors did not have extremely meat-dependent diets.

I seldom find creationists foolish enough to question natural selection. Natural selection isn't at all "controversial" even among creationists. Natural selection is a quite readily observed fact. Any high school student with a jar of fruit flies can verify it for you.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Nov 2010, 11:26 pm

Orwell wrote:

our ancestors did not have extremely meat-dependent diets.

Our ancestors were scavengers, mostly. Our first tools were to strip meat from bone.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Nov 2010, 11:31 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Uh other animals have teamwork, I don't feel teamwork alone would have been that useful verses the predators our ancestors would have had to face.

Not to the extent that humans do, as we have developed abstract language, sophisticated tool use, and culture passed down along many generations that allows one human to benefit from the cumulative lifetime experience of all his ancestors. (Note: All of these developments occurred in other hominid species before the origin of anatomically modern humans AKA Homo sapiens. Those hominids were stouter and stronger than we are; our evolutionary path has emphasized more and more tool use and disregarded brute physical strength)

Quote:

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.

A Grizzly is huge. There are very few animals on this planet that could take one of those on. However, a reasonably healthy adult human male should be strong enough to fight (and have a decent chance of winning) against many common large predators, such as a mountain lion or an individual wolf in unarmed combat. Add tool use, even crude tools, into the equation, and humans clearly have the decisive advantage. Humans have been known to kill mother-fucking whales with pointed sticks, they're not exactly pushovers.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Nov 2010, 11:32 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Orwell wrote:

our ancestors did not have extremely meat-dependent diets.

Our ancestors were scavengers, mostly. Our first tools were to strip meat from bone.

Scavengers and gatherers. Once we got the hang of pointed sticks, we started hunting more.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

15 Nov 2010, 11:46 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

The fastest human sprinters can't outrun most predators.

Some sprinters can outrun horses!

In true humans are not buillt for sprint, we are made for long running, running toward our prey until it collapse from exhaustion. May be one of the reasons why we lost so much of our fur, extending our endurance by putting out more heat through sweating.

_________________
Down with speculators!! !

Last edited by Tollorin on 16 Nov 2010, 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geolog Post Reply New Topic

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geolog