Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
[b]Biology puts the [b]most likely date for the first modern humans at 50,000 years ago, with a maximum upper limit of 100,000 years ago.[/b]
Where are you getting these numbers from? The website I gave the address for claims Homo sapiens sapiens have existed for 200 thousand years.[/b]
Mitochondrial Eve and a common male ancestor are well established.
Originally posted by DarfiusIf you are smart enough to foresee danger you don't have to run. Thus it might be better to have a smart mind than strong legs.
How exactly would larger brains help a plain dwelling ape rather than a tree dwelling one? I would think the ape would be more concerned with speed than intelligence in the open plains.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'll tell you a little philosophical story:
Philosophy won't do much to stop a lion. 😉
Two biologists are in the field following the tracks of a radio-collared lion. All of a sudden, the lion crashes out of the brush and heads right for them.
They scramble up the nearest tree, but the lion starts climbing up the tree after them. The first biologist starts taking off his heavy leather hiking boots and pulls a pair of sleek running shoes from his backpack.
The second biologist gives him a puzzled look and says, "What in the world are you doing?" He replies, "I figure when the lion gets close to us, we'll jump down and make a run for it." Then, the second biologist says, "Are you crazy? We both know you can't outrun a full-grown lion."
The first guy says, "I don't have to outrun the lion, I only have to outrun you!"
So you see, philosophy can stop a lion eating you, and that's how evolution works.
Originally posted by DarfiusWe didn't come from chimps.
"Ridiculously small"? Chimps, our closest relatives, have pretty big brains.
We didn't come from chimps.
Now, let's hypothesize a "common ancestor" or CA for chimps and humans. This ancestor would be a tree dwelling ape ...[text shortened]... be more concerned with speed than intelligence in the open plains.
What was the brain capacity of the CE and how do you know this?
Why would the ancestor be a tree-dweeling ape? Why couldn't it be a plain roaming ape?
Because our closest relatives, the chimp, the bonobo, and the gorilla, all mostly live in the forests of Africa. Sometimes they can be found in the grasslands, but generally they are forest animals with anatomy specialized for climbing and brachiation. So the ancestor probably ventured onto grasslands on occasion, but was primarily a forest dwelling ape that climbed in trees a lot.
The animals of the plains were already really, really fast, and increasing speed wouldn't allow the ape to catch them or escape them. Likewise, the ape was at a natural disadvantage in terms of natural weaponry when compared to the claws and teeth of plains predators or the horns of herbivores. Intelligence provided complex cooperation, fire, more advanced weapons, etc which gave the ape the advantages it needed to survive and thrive much faster than evolution of gazelle like speed and lion like claws and fangs. It allowed the tree climbing hand, which was no longer very useful in that function, to become co-opted (exapted) for tool use instead of having to let it evolve into an entirely different piece of anatomy. A single trait varies (the size of the brain) and all of the sudden the ape has sprouted artificial claws which can be thrown, artificial furs which can be varied depending on the climate, etc.
Originally posted by DarfiusHaving common ancestors is not the same as saying that these were the only ancestors. The Adam and Eve story claims that all humans are descendents of two and only two people, while Mitochondrial Eve and the common male ancestor were probably not the only two people who contributed to the gene pool. They contributed more than others did, maybe.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
Mitochondrial Eve and a common male ancestor are well established.
Think of it this way - with the Adam and Eve story, there was tremendous incest taking place as soon as the second generation began to mate. Brothers were mating with sisters. This is not a necessary consequence of the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis.
Originally posted by Darfiusbut intelegence can. Short of inventing the gun or even a big pointy stick or fire your best chance of surviving a close encounter with a lion is to quell your natural instinct to run and instead hold your ground. Why? Because in simple lion logic, if it runs it's food.
Philosophy won't do much to stop a lion. 😉
Originally posted by DarfiusWhile your statement is more or less correct, the meaning you intended it to have, is completely wrong.
I will remind you that Neanderthals are nearly as distant from us as chimps.
It has been said that if a neanderthal was taken at birth, and raised as a normal 21st century child, it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between the neanderthal and the homo sapien.
Also, believe it or not, but chimpanzees are the worlds most successful predator. Although they don't often eat meat, when they do decide to hunt something, their above average intelligence and ability to act cooperatively results in hunt success percentages much higher than your traditional predator, like lions, tigers, sharks, etc.
Darfius:
"Evolutionists, help me out, what was the purpose of huge brains even before we had agriculture and reliable sources of food?"
Why do you think we need bigger brains just because we have a reliable source of food?
D
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius,
Please help. I'm confused on this issue.
Your approach to these type of discussions come off as insincere and condescending. Please you are not "confused" on this issue. I think you are hoping all of us are going to say and you have presented what you consider all of your evidence is, "Wow Darfius is right and he has proven that the Christian God created everything". As in the past, those who still don't believe will continue to do so.
Why do you just come off as honest about this and start by saying:
"Well it clearly shows in the Bible that God created Man but I know many of you believe otherwise. Does anyone care to engage in friendly debate as to why you feel the Bible is inaccurate?"
Originally posted by DarfiusWell, let's see which tale you think most likely:
Please help. I'm confused on this issue.
All creatures evolve to suit their surroundings and humans stood up straight to compensate for their lack of strength and evolved huge brains to compensate for their physical frailness. If they didn't, they would have joined the dodos, long before the dodos died out.
or
An all knowing and all powerful being created man out of mud and woman out of one of his ribs.
Tell me Darfius...which of the two sounds at least half believable?
Originally posted by Joe FistIn fact, I would imagine it is you who think the non-Christians are "confused" about a great many things so why present these discussions in such a way?
Darfius,
Your approach to these type of discussions come off as insincere and condescending. Please you are not "confused" on this issue. I think you are hoping all of us are going to say and you have presented what you consider all of your evidence is, "Wow Darfius is right and he has proven that the Christian God created everything". As in the p ...[text shortened]... se. Does anyone care to engage in friendly debate as to why you feel the Bible is inaccurate?"
I thought it was a mistake to re-enter the spirituality forum for these type of discussions because none of them go anywhere. For you, all answers are in the Bible and that's great but I think we (those of us who engage in this) have not been persuaded by the arguments you present. I doubt there will ever be a chance of that as I doubt there would ever be a chance for you to see things from a different perspective.
What was the brain capacity of the CE and how do you know this?
I don't know, and the fossil record.
Because our closest relatives, the chimp, the bonobo, and the gorilla, all mostly live in the forests of Africa. Sometimes they can be found in the grasslands, but generally they are forest animals with anatomy specialized for climbing and brachiation. So the ancestor probably ventured onto grasslands on occasion, but was primarily a forest dwelling ape that climbed in trees a lot.
That's another case of circular reasoning. "Taking for granted that evolution is true, the animal that shares the most DNA with us lives in such a way that we must have branched off a common ancestor that lives in this animal's habitat, which proves evolution is true." You just said evolution is true because evolution is true.
And our "CA" could have been an incredibly fast bipedal living in the grasslands, and some branched off to move to trees for more safety, but that required less intelligence. Quit projecting evolution on to evidence.
The animals of the plains were already really, really fast, and increasing speed wouldn't allow the ape to catch them or escape them. Likewise, the ape was at a natural disadvantage in terms of natural weaponry when compared to the claws and teeth of plains predators or the horns of herbivores. Intelligence provided complex cooperation, fire, more advanced weapons, etc which gave the ape the advantages it needed to survive and thrive much faster than evolution of gazelle like speed and lion like claws and fangs. It allowed the tree climbing hand, which was no longer very useful in that function, to become co-opted (exapted) for tool use instead of having to let it evolve into an entirely different piece of anatomy. A single trait varies (the size of the brain) and all of the sudden the ape has sprouted artificial claws which can be thrown, artificial furs which can be varied depending on the climate, etc.
The chimps outlived Homo erectus, Homo sapien archaic and Neanderthals...seems like superior intelligence means squat.