Creation Vs Evolution

[Padawanbater2]

And why not? We are a very war-like species and predators exist among the varied species on this planet. Why should natural selection not work the same on other worlds? Any intelligent species doing recon would have plenty of reasons to feel we might be a threat.

I think any alien species that could reach our planet would be advanced enough to understand this stage of our humanity. If they chose to make contact with us, I believe it would be peaceful. Why make contact just to fight or destroy us? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[mindphuk]

I think any alien species that could reach our planet would be advanced enough to understand this stage of our humanity. If they chose to make contact with us, I believe it would be peaceful. Why make contact just to fight or destroy us? It doesn't make sense to me.

Do you see any evidence that we would change just because we make it into space? Avatar seems plausible to me.

In short, they would be powerful, and likely desperate enough to not give a what what about the human race. "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet," he said. "I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach."
To Hawking's mathematical mind, it's much more likely that aliens exist than don't, but figuring out if they would be noble or not is the real question. The bottom line is that he feels trying to contact them is "a little too risky."
"If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." Even though I've seen documentaries on aliens such as Suburban Commando and Explorers that have made me believe aliens would be awesome to meet, I'm going to go with the theoretical physicist on this one that they'd probably be jerks.
Still, even he admits that the human brain probably can't conceive the kinds of life that exist in the universe. "Just as a chimpanzee can't understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains," Hawking believes. We might not even be able to perceive the alien life forms that eventually destroy us. Stop with the signals already!

 

[RickWhite]

So if it is really is all about survival of the fittest, how come humans are not the only species left?

If all the other humanoid species are gone because of evolution, why do we still have numerous species of apes and monkeys? Shouldn't the smartest ones be only ones left?

And if we are killing the planet and wiping out numerous species, why aren't these species evolving? After all, the basis of the theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by environmental stress. So if we are placing all this monumental stress on all these animals, shouldn't they be evolving?

If the polar ice caps are meting, shouldn't the Polar Bears be developing flippers?

 

[mindphuk]

So if it is really is all about survival of the fittest, how come humans are not the only species left?

If all the other humanoid species are gone because of evolution, why do we still have numerous species of apes and monkeys? Shouldn't the smartest ones be only ones left?

And if we are killing the planet and wiping out numerous species, why aren't these species evolving? After all, the basis of the theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by environmental stress. So if we are placing all this monumental stress on all these animals, shouldn't they be evolving?

If the polar ice caps are meting, shouldn't the Polar Bears be developing flippers?

We are the only species that migrate as extensively as we did. We are the fittest hominid in EVERY environmental niche on the planet. For awhile, there were multiple species of hominids occupying Earth. Besides, why pick on hominids? There are plenty of other monotypic examples. Here are just the mammals.

Why do you think species are not evolving? We are evolving along with every other plant and animal in existence. Did you actually read Origin of Species, or do you just give lip service to your 'degree?' You need to understand geologic timescales before you can fully understand evolution.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So if it is really is all about survival of the fittest, how come humans are not the only species left?

Because we recognize that it's a give and take kind of relationship with nature. If we were to exterminate all the other species, we would be exterminating ourselves as we need them for our survival. "Survival of the fittest" is a misleading statement - it implies "biggest, strongest, fastest" survives when that's not the case at all. "Fittest" just means "best adapted to it's environment".

If all the other humanoid species are gone because of evolution, why do we still have numerous species of apes and monkeys? Shouldn't the smartest ones be only ones left?

Other hominid species evolved from a different branch of the same tree. Some were successful at adapting to their environment, others weren't. The ones that were, survived, the ones that weren't, didn't.

And if we are killing the planet and wiping out numerous species, why aren't these species evolving? After all, the basis of the theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by environmental stress. So if we are placing all this monumental stress on all these animals, shouldn't they be evolving?

Natural selection isn't the only mechanism organisms utilize to evolve, I've told you that at least twice before. Environmental changes are not the only cause driving evolution. Also, it takes millions of years for organisms to evolve, they are (we are) all evolving, every single day, it's just so slow you can't see it. Geological time scales are ridiculous compared to the human life span.

If the polar ice caps are meting, shouldn't the Polar Bears be developing flippers?

That was a joke right?

 

[mindphuk]

Ironic that RW comes here touting his college degrees I guess as evidence that he understands the principles of evolution, yet goes on to demonstrate he understands very little.

 

[Xrtnfx]

damn I was going to write something about evolution taking a LONG time but looks like someone already got to it. and aliens would kill us and take our resources, just like we would on any planet with resources. why do you think we are looking for water. for an example suppose we found an underdeveloped plantet with resources on it, and had an efficient way of transporting those resources, whos ever government that is in charge of the space exploration would take resources first and ask questions later. Thats the way life works, those who control resources have the power.

 

[RickWhite]

Actually, the notion that evolution takes millions of years has been replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Understand that nearly all of what you guys know of evolution comes more from archeology which is a bull shit field. Biology is so far more advanced they don't really have time for that stuff. Probably because we are too busy learning stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle

I asked why we are the only human like species alive with nothing between us and apes. The answer was that we out competed them. So, this begs the question of why there are still apes. Sure, there are fossils that nobody agrees upon, but why is there not one other human like species alive? And don't give me that compassion crap. If that is true, wouldn't we have more compassion for apes closer to us? fact is, there just isn't a good explaination.

And what is so great about intelligence anyway? If one dog is just a tad smarter than another, is that dog going to pass on his genes or will the one who is a tad stronger? I'll tell you what - you find the worlds smartest border collie and I'll find the world's toughest pit pull and we'll see who wins. Intelligence doesn't come into play until one learns to use weapons. Would one ape suddenly learn to use a club in a fight? Possible, but doubtful.

And 99.9% of evolution comes from environmental stress. If we are causing so much stress, where are the new species? I can create a new breed of dog in a few years. At the rate we are destroying animal habitats, one would think all kinds of evolution would be going on. Are there any examples of this?

What I'm saying is that I know all the science. I know where it is strong and where it falls short.

 

[mindphuk]

Actually, the notion that evolution takes millions of years has been replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Don't get your information about evolution from creationist web sites.
First of all PE does not replace the time scales of evolution, it only alters the idea of constant gradualism. From your link:

Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous", relative to the several million years of a species' existence.[15] Sterelny notes that "in recent work, they have clarified a second misunderstanding. In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process".[16]
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[17] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[18] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[2] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time.Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[11]
​

Understand that nearly all of what you guys know of evolution comes more from archeology which is a bull shit field. Biology is so far more advanced they don't really have time for that stuff.

Understand you have no clue what I know or don't know about evolution. You are the only douche bag here going around bragging about your college degree but fail to take into account that some of us might also have advanced degrees but aren't deluded enough to think that an argument from authority has any weight.
I'll put my advanced biology degree up against any of yours any day.

I asked why we are the only human like species alive with nothing between us and apes. The answer was that we out competed them. So, this begs the question of why there are still apes.

Already answered or do you have trouble with reading comprehension?
We don't COMPETE directly with apes. We don't share the same ecological niche.

Sure, there are fossils that nobody agrees upon, but why is there not one other human like species alive? And don't give me that compassion crap. If that is true, wouldn't we have more compassion for apes closer to us? fact is, there just isn't a good explaination.

What are you babbling about now? What fossils do we have that "nobody agrees upon?"
Why are you picking on hominids when there are many other monotypic genera out there?

And what is so great about intelligence anyway? If one dog is just a tad smarter than another, is that dog going to pass on his genes or will the one who is a tad stronger? I'll tell you what - you find the worlds smartest border collie and I'll find the world's toughest pit pull and we'll see who wins. Intelligence doesn't come into play until one learns to use weapons. Would one ape suddenly learn to use a club in a fight? Possible, but doubtful.

What is so great about intelligence? That's ironic coming from someone flouting his like a fucking peacock tail.

And 99.9% of evolution comes from environmental stress. If we are causing so much stress, where are the new species? I can create a new breed of dog in a few years. At the rate we are destroying animal habitats, one would think all kinds of evolution would be going on. Are there any examples of this?

What I'm saying is that I know all the science. I know where it is strong and where it falls short.

You obviously don't know the science. There ae new species being formed all of the time and they are being documented. However, 50,000 years is still a tad longer than the average human lifetime, dontchya think?

Here, I'll help you: Instances of Observed Speciation

 

[Patrick Bateman]

So if it is really is all about survival of the fittest, how come humans are not the only species left?

If all the other humanoid species are gone because of evolution, why do we still have numerous species of apes and monkeys? Shouldn't the smartest ones be only ones left?

And if we are killing the planet and wiping out numerous species, why aren't these species evolving? After all, the basis of the theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by environmental stress. So if we are placing all this monumental stress on all these animals, shouldn't they be evolving?

If the polar ice caps are meting, shouldn't the Polar Bears be developing flippers?

All species occupy a niche in an ecosystem

All ecosystems rest in a fairly delicate balance, depending on the survival of the species which ensure the collective success of that ecosystem

For example, Humans cannot convert light energy into CHO which is why we require primary producers

Humans pose no competition (except for habitat destruction) to the species which accomplish this

The most successful primary producers are angiosperms, which is why they have enjoyed so much reproductive success and make up such a large majority of all plant species

Actually, the notion that evolution takes millions of years has been replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Understand that nearly all of what you guys know of evolution comes more from archeology which is a bull shit field. Biology is so far more advanced they don't really have time for that stuff. Probably because we are too busy learning stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle

I asked why we are the only human like species alive with nothing between us and apes. The answer was that we out competed them. So, this begs the question of why there are still apes. Sure, there are fossils that nobody agrees upon, but why is there not one other human like species alive? And don't give me that compassion crap. If that is true, wouldn't we have more compassion for apes closer to us? fact is, there just isn't a good explaination.

And what is so great about intelligence anyway? If one dog is just a tad smarter than another, is that dog going to pass on his genes or will the one who is a tad stronger? I'll tell you what - you find the worlds smartest border collie and I'll find the world's toughest pit pull and we'll see who wins. Intelligence doesn't come into play until one learns to use weapons. Would one ape suddenly learn to use a club in a fight? Possible, but doubtful.

And 99.9% of evolution comes from environmental stress. If we are causing so much stress, where are the new species? I can create a new breed of dog in a few years. At the rate we are destroying animal habitats, one would think all kinds of evolution would be going on. Are there any examples of this?

What I'm saying is that I know all the science. I know where it is strong and where it falls short.

Evolution cannot occur quickly or slowly, it is happening continually

The visible effects of evolution can take a long time to manifest themselves, however in certain instances, adaptive radiation (Cambrian explosion) causes rapid speciation

The notion that evolution is mostly based on archeology is simply not true

Yes, to an extent it is through examining the remains of species which came before us that we can learn much about how we came to be today

But there are many other concepts which come into play when classifying organisms and lineages

For someone with his degree in biology you certainly have a very shortsighted view of evolution

Hardy-Weinberg is a concept that serves as a null hypothesis to see if evolution is acting on a population, I'm not really sure how it is relevant when trying to discredit archeology

Apes will exist as long as there are niches in which they can flourish

The fact that they exist today is solely attributable to their reproductive success within their niche

As for human like species, you should know better that the difference in genetic material between us and certain apes is very slim

You should also be aware of the effects that a single genetic base pair can have on an organism

Intelligence in all forms certainly provides an advantage over competitors, no doubt about it

Your dog analogy is useless, it does not provide any insight into the concept and is a grand oversimplification

Evidence of evolution can be seen everywhere

For example, the current resurgence of TB caused by mycobacteria in humans

The strains who are resistant to the popular forms of treatment have been given a chance to have great reproductive success because the niche formerly occupied by those which have been widely treated has become available

 

[Xrtnfx]

Actually, the notion that evolution takes millions of years has been replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Understand that nearly all of what you guys know of evolution comes more from archeology which is a bull shit field. Biology is so far more advanced they don't really have time for that stuff. Probably because we are too busy learning stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle

I asked why we are the only human like species alive with nothing between us and apes. The answer was that we out competed them. So, this begs the question of why there are still apes. Sure, there are fossils that nobody agrees upon, but why is there not one other human like species alive? And don't give me that compassion crap. If that is true, wouldn't we have more compassion for apes closer to us? fact is, there just isn't a good explaination.

And what is so great about intelligence anyway? If one dog is just a tad smarter than another, is that dog going to pass on his genes or will the one who is a tad stronger? I'll tell you what - you find the worlds smartest border collie and I'll find the world's toughest pit pull and we'll see who wins. Intelligence doesn't come into play until one learns to use weapons. Would one ape suddenly learn to use a club in a fight? Possible, but doubtful.

And 99.9% of evolution comes from environmental stress. If we are causing so much stress, where are the new species? I can create a new breed of dog in a few years. At the rate we are destroying animal habitats, one would think all kinds of evolution would be going on. Are there any examples of this?

What I'm saying is that I know all the science. I know where it is strong and where it falls short.

You claim to know so much, but still somehow you manage to ask absurd questions about populations evolving... You don't even understand the difference between breeds of dogs and species.... Study a little more about speciation and the factors that cause it. And please look up a man named Lamarck, he'd probably agree that polar bears should grow some flippers because of the increased amount they are swimming. He also reasoned that giraffes started with small necks, but then stretched them to reach leaves, and this was passed on to their offspring resulting in giraffes with longer necks. You two seem like you'd get right along, sadly you both need to read a bio book. You obviously have very limited knowlege on this subject

 

[RickWhite]

Not one response comes close to answering a single question I asked. All they say is "you don't understand the science."

That is bullshit. I understand that there is evidence that all life, including humans had common origins.

And I know there are a lot of hypothesis about how humans may have evolved. What I question is the likelihood that evolution alone could have produced such a being. I'm not claiming it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.

There are many hypothesis about what caused the evolution of modern man, none of them is even accepted as fact and they all have flaws and are largely based on assumption and conjecture. If there is such a universally accepted model, please direct me to it.

When I see such a model, I will then look at all of its elements and consider which ones I think make sense and which don't. But even if I saw a single cogent hypothesis regarding how modern man came to be, there would still be the question of how this would be a chance occurrence.

So please, if you know of a unified, cogent, generally accepted hypothesis of how modern man evolved I'd love to hear it.

 

[mindphuk]

Not one response comes close to answering a single question I asked. All they say is "you don't understand the science."

That is bullshit.

Then answer the questions put to you and respond directly to the points presented. If you are going to sit here and claim you understand but we're wrong, present some evidence WHY we're wrong rather than just talk out of your ass. How about addressing your misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium? How about addressing the links I offered with examples of observed speciation?

Answer the question why you think human evolution is somehow special. Why do you set it apart from every other form of life on this planet? What makes you think the modern synthesis and evo-devo are too incomplete to explain human evolution? What model do you expect us to point you to? Evolution is not different for humans than any other plant or animal, so natural selection and mutations played their roles. What is conjecture about that? What more are you looking for? Just claiming we are full of shit and not actually having a conversation is a creationist tactic. Don't do it.

What is the likelihood of ANY particular species evolving? Your comment shows the same misunderstanding of statistics that creationists use all of the time. The likelihood that evolution produced us is 100% since we're here. Now if one were to hypothesize a creature with x,y, and z traits then ask how probable that evolution will produce that, well that's a different question since evolution is not goal oriented so predicting future changes is just guess work.

 

[mindphuk]

[youtube]MCayG4IIOEQ[/youtube]

[youtube]bqpOTJAAwBU[/youtube]

Rick,
Here's another way to answer to your question about the likelihood that evolution alone could produce us.
[youtube]4B1g_DObYIc[/youtube]

 

[RickWhite]

Don't start posting baled faced lies. Someone said that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur. I pointed out that that is not necessarily true and posted a link to punctuated equilibrium. I never said it happens over night. Don't twist my words.

I already explained at length why humans are different from all other animals. Perhaps you should read the entire thread. But really, if you can not see that there is obviously a monumental chasm between humans and our genetically closest relative you have your head up your ass. The fact of our very existence is, in itself, awe inspiring to any thinking person. If you can't see that 'm wasting my time talking to you.

Now, why don't you stop answering a question with another question and explain in detail what caused the evolution of humans. I've already said repeatedly that I know what causes evolution. What I want is a detailed explanation of how one single species evolves that is light years more intelligent than any other.

Again, I'm not saying humans didn't evolve - in fact I'm sure we did. I just want to see a model that explains how and why one species is light years beyond the others. After all, isn't it kind of stupid to point to a chimp using a stick to extract termites and say this is how we were able to build the fucking space shuttle?

So please, instead of more "you just don't understand" bullshit and other personal attacks, go ahead and give me the blow by blow of how we go from a poker stick to the space shuttle.

 

[mindphuk]

Don't start posting baled faced lies. Someone said that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur. I pointed out that that is not necessarily true and posted a link to punctuated equilibrium. I never said it happens over night. Don't twist my words.

I said it takes geologic time. Someone else said millions of years. Both are correct depending on how much change you want to see. However, PE does not in any way make the claim that evolution DOESN'T take an extraordinary long time which is what you appeared to claim when you said that notion was REPLACED. PE didn't replace any theory with new time scales. It only hypothesizes what happens DURING those time scales.

I already explained at length why humans are different from all other animals. Perhaps you should read the entire thread. But really, if you can not see that there is obviously a monumental chasm between humans and our genetically closest relative you have your head up your ass. The fact of our very existence is, in itself, awe inspiring to any thinking person. If you can't see that 'm wasting my time talking to you.

Come on now. I didn't ask how humans were different, I asked why they should be treated different wrt evolutionary theory. If you can't understand the difference, then maybe you need to get YOUR head out of your ass.
Because something is awe inspiring is not an argument, it's a personal feeling. I'm awe inspired by ALL of evolution, not just human. What does that mean when we are talking about facts and evidence?

Now, why don't you stop answering a question with another question and explain in detail what caused the evolution of humans. I've already said repeatedly that I know what causes evolution. What I want is a detailed explanation of how one single species evolves that is light years more intelligent than any other.

Asked and answered. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it's not true. The cause of evolution of people is the same thing that causes the evolution of every other species on this planet, natural selection and random mutation. What 'details' are you missing? Intelligence and brain size go hand-in-hand. Maybe you are interested in brain evolution and not specifically human, IDK because your questions are vague and too general.

Again, I'm not saying humans didn't evolve - in fact I'm sure we did. I just want to see a model that explains how and why one species is light years beyond the others. After all, isn't it kind of stupid to point to a chimp using a stick to extract termites and say this is how we were able to build the fucking space shuttle?

So please, instead of more "you just don't understand" bullshit and other personal attacks, go ahead and give me the blow by blow of how we go from a poker stick to the space shuttle.

You seem to be asking more about how human intelligence progressed rather than how humans evolved.
The key appears to be the ability to communicated abstract ideas and preserve them in writing. You appear to be asking more of a sociology question than an evolutionary one. Man didn't build the space shuttle in one generation, it took many to build the knowledge required. Like Newton said, we're standing on the shoulders of giants. Our ability to adapt because of our intelligence outpaced actual biological evolution. We can adapt to many more environments from extreme cold, to under the ocean, to outer space because of technology, not biology. Technology for the most part has replaced biology in our species.


Questions are being asked of you in order to understand what you are thinking. These questions are for clarification, they are not done to avoid answering yours. So instead of just saying all I did was claim you don't understand, why don't you ANSWER some fucking questions that have been put to you?

 

[RickWhite]

Good job repeating what you said earlier!

I am not answering your questions because I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. In how many languages must I repeat this? I know evolution exists but when it comes to humans, the theories have holes in them.

In case you didn't get the memo, humans suck at everything physical. We can't run or fight for shit and we can't hunt without weapons. There is no way in hell we would have ever survived without the distinct advantage of intelligence. And not just a little intelligence, but a huge monumental leap from a walking sack of lion food to a competent user of weapons.

Did you hear the story in the news recently about what that chimp did to that poor woman? It bit off her hands and ripped her face off. A chimp can tear a man to pieces with almost no effort. The $64,000 question when it comes to how humans evolved, is how we as the pathetic walking sacks of lion food that we are were able to compete with anything. Most people can't even handle direct sunlight for long without SPF15. It is obvious even to children that humans are not designed to survive in nature and that the only thing that allows us to is our advanced brain.

So, where in your little sack of evolutionary models does it explain how we were able to survive, much less evolve? Obviously, we did not learn to make crossbows over night. So, give me your best "smart ape" hypothesis. Explain how the smart ape, and not the strongest one would be the one to pass along his genetic material. Hell, even today the high school quarterback is more successful with the women than the captain of the chess club.

If you can not demonstrate an intelligence based model, you can not make an argument for human evolution. Everything proposed otherwise suggests that we shouldn't be here.

Again, I do not deny that humans evolved. That is why women prefer tall men and guys prefer big tits. I'm just saying that there are uncertainties about the likelihood that humans would have evolved without help. And I'm not saying I know this is true. I am saying that I am uncertain. You are the one claiming to be absolutely certain. And you sound like a religious zealot in your level of conviction. Why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe, there is some uncertainty?

Anyway, since you are the one trying to prove a synthetic scientific hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you. Why don't you post your best "smart ape" scenario and explain how the weakest, least fit animal on Earth rose to where we are now.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I know evolution exists but when it comes to humans, the theories have holes in them.

Evolution works exactly the same way for humans as it does for any other organism. All life is connected and works this same way. I know you already know this, if you think there are holes for human evolution, then you should also think there are holes for every other organisms evolution.

In case you didn't get the memo, humans suck at everything physical. We can't run or fight for shit and we can't hunt without weapons. There is no way in hell we would have ever survived without the distinct advantage of intelligence. And not just a little intelligence, but a huge monumental leap from a walking sack of lion food to a competent user of weapons.

Our greatest strength as a species is our intelligence. It's what makes us top of the food chain. So far, intelligence is a more successful route for evolution to take over strength or speed.

Also, anything can be used as a weapon. Have you ever seen the very first primitive weapons? There are animals in the wild today that utilize weapons. Again, it's not some "giant leap" like you believe it is. Take that into consideration, yes humans are extremely smart animals when compared to a lot of other species, but there are also transitional species in between in an intelligence sense, whales, dolphins, dogs, other primates, etc. that all fit along the spectrum of intelligence. When compared to another spectrum like physical strength or sharpest teeth, we'd be farther down the list and something else would be at the top, but like I said before, that's just our niche that we've utilized as a species and the fact that we're here today talking about it is proof of it's success. Reptiles and insects do not have complex chemical reactions taking place in their brains like other mammals and specifically primates do.

Did you hear the story in the news recently about what that chimp did to that poor woman? It bit off her hands and ripped her face off. A chimp can tear a man to pieces with almost no effort. The $64,000 question when it comes to how humans evolved, is how we as the pathetic walking sacks of lion food that we are were able to compete with anything. Most people can't even handle direct sunlight for long without SPF15. It is obvious even to children that humans are not designed to survive in nature and that the only thing that allows us to is our advanced brain.

Well, again, I don't think you're considering all the variables in play... Think about it - who breeds faster and has more successful mortality rates, humans or lions? Which species has an easier time feeding themselves, a group of primates with developing stages of altruism whose bodies can digest plant life and gain nutrients from them, or a pack of lions who have to kill a medium to large animal every time they need to eat? How fast does each species migrate? How far is their range? How well can they adapt? Dozens of things to consider when assessing your $64,000 question.

So, where in your little sack of evolutionary models does it explain how we were able to survive, much less evolve? Obviously, we did not learn to make crossbows over night. So, give me your best "smart ape" hypothesis. Explain how the smart ape, and not the strongest one would be the one to pass along his genetic material. Hell, even today the high school quarterback is more successful with the women than the captain of the chess club.

Evolution does not apply on an individual basis, it only applies to the species at large. "Smart ape" and "normal ape" genes are passed on, today, in our society, if a person is smarter than the majority of other people, chances are they will be successful. It works the exact same way in any different previous hominid ancestor.

If you can not demonstrate an intelligence based model, you can not make an argument for human evolution. Everything proposed otherwise suggests that we shouldn't be here.

Rick, if all we had to go by were the fossils, THAT would be enough to demonstrably prove human evolution. Every single piece of evidence suggests that we are here because we got smarter and were able to survive and adapt better than everything else.

I'm just saying that there are uncertainties about the likelihood that humans would have evolved without help. And I'm not saying I know this is true. I am saying that I am uncertain. You are the one claiming to be absolutely certain. And you sound like a religious zealot in your level of conviction. Why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe, there is some uncertainty?

"Without help" - what does that imply?

Saying human evolution is uncertain is like saying biology is uncertain, chemistry is uncertain, physics is uncertain.. It's proven as much as it possibly can be.

Why don't you post your best "smart ape" scenario and explain how the weakest, least fit animal on Earth rose to where we are now.

As the rain forests declined as the continents shifted, the mammals became the dominant species and the primates descended from the trees and took to the plains. This was the first stage of what would be human evolution, our unique bipedal walking upright position. Then as our diet shifted more towards meat eaters, with the increase in protein, our brain capacity increased leading to greater intelligence. With this, we slowly developed language and basic weapons, discovered fire and developed the wheel independently in three different locations. Agriculture and animal domestication came next, followed by an explosion in population and potential epidemics as the world had never seen before. A larger number of humans means more people developing and inventing useful things. That's how we get from there to the space shuttle.

 

[mindphuk]

Rick, you aren't answering questions and that makes it difficult to respond to your posts. The question/answer of the Socratic method is extremely helpful in letting your own insight make the leaps of logic that you're asking me to do for you. I really am trying to ask pointed questions that will help explain things more clearly. For example, to answer your question about why we are the only hominids left in existence, I attempted to ask you why is that surprising considering the many other species are monotypic. Fit does not always mean strong or predatory. Intelligence is a useful trait in many species besides humans otherwise it wouldn't develop at all. The brain needs vast amounts of energy in proportion to other organs. Why would ANY animal develop a larger brain unless the benefit outweighed the cost?
I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but when you understand the wide variety of adaptations, many of them very odd, and sometimes it is difficult to figure out the environment that favored those changes. However, just because we don't know specifics, doesn't mean that we give up investigating and say god did it. This is no different than any other god-of-the-gaps argument that are posed by Creationists.
I did link to one hypothesis about the Toba eruption, did you take the time to even watch it? Severe, sudden climate change that killed large populations of various animals and plants may have favored only the most creative humans that learned to adapt to new environments to get their food. Think about it, how many apes migrated? We were walking upright and have the ability to make and grasp stone weapons. We learned to clothe ourselves and are built for stamina, walking and running long distances. We could protect ourselves from the harsh weather while moving south, something our big brains helped us learn would be warmer, while we searched for more shelter in caves. We learned to communicate our ideas, some of them abstract, we know this because this is where we find some of the oldest cave dwellers that buried their dead. This is the point, about 100,000 years ago we many anthropologists believe we became modern humans. Just remember, it was a long way to even get to that point. The incremental gains in intelligence can be inferred from the increasing brain size, especially the pre-frontal cortex. Don't underestimate our ability to use language to convey our thoughts in our rapid progress as humans. That's why I say that much of what you see as intelligence light-years ahead of other species is partially sociology and not biology. Humpback whales have a very complex language. They live in an environment that sound travels for thousands of miles and their lack of digits prevent them from manipulating the environment as we can. We are biased towards our version of intelligence. Who's to say that if cetaceans, with their massive brains and large pre-frontal cortex, could manipulate the environment as readily that they too would be building space vessels?

To claim that any organism that continues to survive was the weakest, least fit on Earth is clearly not something that anyone that understands evolution would claim. The fact that our ancestors survived and created offspring that also survived is PROOF of our fitness.

 

[RickWhite]

So, in other words, neither of you have any explanation at all.

The fact is, humans did evolve but we evolved backward. If we did originate from Africa a tiny measure of intelligence wouldn't help. In fact, it is hard to even imagine a scenario in which a minute measure of intelligence is going to ensure reproductive success. Sure, if we assume that there was some monumental leap in intelligence, that would be helpfully. But, the entire theory is based on small incremental changes. So, it is unreasonable to assume that an extra .0001% of an IQ point is going to help a physically less competent animal.

Now it may be the case that situations arose that provided the perfect amount of intellectual challenge so that the Hominid with the .0001% increased intelligence was more successful. But that would have to be one hell of a magic bullet event. Odds are, the entire population would perish or the strongest, fastest, best swimmer or climber would still come out on top.

But see, this again is where I take issue with you evolution extrapolators. You assume evolution explains everything without question. Then, you invent a "maybe" scenario that answers every question and call it science. And few if any are ever falsifiable or testable in any way. Have either of you ever taken an anthropology course? It is all untested conjecture or "pure bullshit" as I like to call it. Paleontology and anthropology are not science, they are assumption. I have been on tours of ancient ruins and heard these fools try to explain how they knew what they did about a given people and the only thing that was clear to me was that they had no fucking idea what they were talking about.

Now, I have no problem with the assumption that humans did evolve and continue to do so in small ways. What I have a problem with is that there is not a single good explanation as to how evolution created a species that is unfit for any natural environment. Everything about the existence of humans runs contrary to everything postulated by evolution. If you want to demonstrate that humans evolved without some type of "leg up" you need to show how small incremental increases in intelligence (and not giant leaps) made us more successful.