why DID we evolve into humans?

Carico,I really suggest we have a one-on-one discussion regarding evolution.With all due respect, you know absolutely zero about the theory of evolution.Every single point you bring up to show that evolution is wrong agrees with the theory of evolution.You incorrectly bring up these point to falsify evolution because you clearly have no understanding of evolution.Did you know that the Theory of Evolution states?:"We don't just suddenly "mutate" into acquiring the gene to have wings."
"Each species breeds within its species"
"that's what defines a species, not calling a man an animal or plant."
"2 distinct and separate species that each breeds within its own species."
"the gene to have wings does not come from cold or hot weather, or the dislike of being on land."
"mating is how genes are passed along from one offspring to another." Those are all your words, and they all agree with the Theory of Evolution. Are you ready to admit that you have a flawed understanding of the Theory of Evolution?Would you like to learn a bit about it?

So then, why do evolutionists say that acquiring genes has to do with environment instead of being passed along by the mating of parents? Environment plays zero part in what genes we acquire from our parents. Therefore, we cannot acquire wings unless we are capable of mating with birds, nor can apes or primates acquire human genes wihtout being able to breed with humans. You therefore have contradicted your own theory that humans are descendants of primates unless you maintain that primates and humans can interbreed.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 11:44 PM

They do NOT say that. Again, this shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Okay. Okay. The Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that these things happen, either. How many times have you said this, Carico? Do you realize that this is an extremely ignorant statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution?The Theory of Evolution states that apes and humans do NOT interbreed. It agrees with you. You look foolish claiming that it says apes and humans interbreed.Carico, please stop looking foolish, and try to fix your ignorance by learning what the theory of evolution really is.Ignorance is not an insult as long as you try to fix it......let me know if you would like to learn rather than just continue to make false claims about apes and humans interbreeding.I'd like to help.

But a few less teeth. Yup, even in a scant 10,000 years, evolution has noticably shaped our bodies. In this case, we're beginning to adapt to a life of softer, cooked foods. Species don't evolve by aquring the traits of other species; they evolve by aquiring new traits. I mean, duh. It can't possibly work the way you suggest; how could a new species interbreed with a species that doesn't exist yet? And if that other species did exist, then it was the new species. Oh? So, birds developed wings by breeding with insects? And bats had sex with birds, but forgot how to lay eggs? Pick any poster on this board, besides yourself. Anyone of them.That poster - whoever it is - has forgotten more about "basic biology" than you've ever known, if this post is any indication.

They use them on university campuses. Carico gets 24 hours (more or less) to actually read posts written for her.There has only been one other poster here who has shown such a lack of reading abililty. (She actually thought falling stars were stars it seems. ) You need time to read and think. You don't need to keep posting the same foolish nonsense over and over.You will get your privileges back tomorrow sometime.

There can be no doubt that modern man is the result of evolution. Equally there is no doubt that humankind and the entire universe are God’s creation. You mention ”God’s most perfect creation.’ Creation is not perfect. The definition of perfection, as we all know, is anything that is complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement; without any of the flaws or shortcomings that might be present; faultless and correct in every detail. God’s creation is perfect in the sense that it is ever changing, constantly evolving for the purpose of perpetuating His love of Life. Had He failed in the beginning then life would not have continued to evolve over fifteen billion light years, or whatever. Once Life began it was instantly beyond His control. He could not withdraw freewill when it was abused. Creative love cannot be controlled, otherwise it could not be eternal. Life must be free of artificial controls if it is to be self-perpetuating and self-sustaining. Homo sapiens are uniquely qualified to understand God’s purpose and to fully participate in the continuing process of evolution. We also enjoy (if that’s the correct word) the right to choose how to live and love as God’s children.

quote:

---

There can be no doubt that modern man is the result of evolution. Equally there is no doubt that humankind and the entire universe are God’s creation.

---

Wow. Thanks for coming in here and setting us all straight. Let's pack it up and go home folks...there's nothing to see here...move along...go back to your normal lives.Oh, Malachi...next time you care to assert that there is no doubt that this or that happened you might want to bring along a bit of evidence to back up your opinion. The difference between a shouting match and a debate is evidence. If there really were no doubt about those things there would be no reason for this message board.Oh, you might also like to look at the date of the last post in the thread so's you don't dredge up a year-old topic and drag it up to the top of the vat where it makes all the fresh stuff taste yucky.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

lfen

Thanks Wepwawet. I was also questioning the point of the message board. What difference does it make to human progress if we were created or evolved, or both? Should we be more concerned about where we are going, or is it purely a matter of survival of the fittest? I mean, do we bump off the old and weak? Do we teach children the importance of morality, or encourage them to act like their elders? You might think these questions are old chestnuts. But perhaps they are important to some people. Evidence exists in how we live more than how we think.

quote:

---

What difference does it make to human progress if we were created or evolved, or both? Should we be more concerned about where we are going, or is it purely a matter of survival of the fittest?

---

A large part of knowing where you're going is understanding where you've been. We cannot make scientific progress without looking at evidence from the past to see how things work. We then try to draw conclusions from what we've seen and predict what we will see in the future. Look, by the time we see anything it's already ancient history...if we're going to automatically discount the past why should we make arbitrary decisions about what we should look at and what we shouldn't?

quote:

---

I mean, do we bump off the old and weak?

---

It's been known to happen.

quote:

---

Do we teach children the importance of morality, or encourage them to act like their elders?

---

Are those mutually exclusive options? Personally I'd rather teach children how to think for themselves. Ya ever notice that bad things tend to happen when people start telling other people what they should think?

quote:

---

You might think these questions are old chestnuts. But perhaps they are important to some people. Evidence exists in how we live more than how we think.

---

Actually, I think these questions are non sequiturs to the discussion at hand, but I realize some people may feel that science somehow violates ethical principals. At its very core science is a process...completely amoral and with the single goal of advancing our understanding of the universe. We try very hard to separate our own emotions, wants and beliefs from science because we know these things can cause us to reach the wrong conclusions from what we see.The question then becomes: "Is science bad for us because it gives us an impartial view of nature?". I think that's a question for another topic. Here we're supposed to talk about why man evolved. The question sorta makes the assumption that he did.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

HUGE BLOCS OF TEXT BLOCK UNDERSTANDING.Paragraphs are nice

Quote "Oh, you might also like to look at the date of the last post in the thread so's you don't dredge up a year-old topic and drag it up to the top of the vat where it makes all the fresh stuff taste yucky."Since no one has yet come up with the definitive answers to the questions it might be fair to say that most recent posts might taste 'yucky' in less than one year. The vat thickens. And, pray tell, why would I wish to read every posting on all subjects? Would I discover anything important that my life's experience, common sense and personal recognition has not taught me?

quote:

---

Since no one has yet come up with the definitive answers to the questions it might be fair to say that most recent posts might taste 'yucky' in less than one year.

---

Science doesn't claim to provide definitive answers. That's what religions do...there's only a problem if you think the purpose of science is to come along and validate your religion for you.

quote:

---

And, pray tell, why would I wish to read every posting on all subjects? Would I discover anything important that my life's experience, common sense and personal recognition has not taught me?

---

You'll never know unless you read them now will you? It's damned arrogant to assume that you know everything there is that's worth knowing all on your own don't you think? Since you're such a smart feller you just go ahead and feel free to straighten us out on all those little fiddly-points we keep re-hashing without coming up with definitive answers.Just make sure to bring your evidence with you.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Well, I doubt it.No, seriously. Maybe you've heard of people like me? They're called "atheists", or sometimes "agnostics." Basically we're people who demand a somewhat greater burden of proof be met than just some dude on the internet telling us "there is no doubt."

Well, of course, I was speaking personally. There is no doubt in my mind about questions that experience has taught me. I do not imply that my lack of doubt on certain questions can be shared or even believed by anyone else. Unless I'm mistaken I thought these forums were about exchanging ideas and beliefs without having to prove anything. Would anyone disagree that evidence for the existence of spirit is impossible to prove or quantify? Some people may have had a personal experience that can never be scientifically proven but was evident enough to have changed their perspective. In such instances, can anyone say their experience was false or unreal? Can we allow for possibilities of phenomena that can not yet be universally demonstrated? Or are we so tied to tangible 'realities' that we are unable to imagine the existence of 'realities' beyond our present recognition? I am not arrogant. Quite the reverse. I am deeply humbled by my lack of knowledge or understanding of things I can imagine but cannot realize. The only truth I know is what life has taught me. But that is not to say I know anything that you and others know. I may know far less than most, but I hope that does not necessarily diminish the value of my own lessons or lack of learned knowledge.