|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: changes in modern man | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have to say we have changed sence the earlier times... I cannot possibly give you dates, and graphs without years of studying just this question, but think about it. In the beginning of time, people were really just like animals, then they began to wear clothes, eat with a fork, and "evolve". Today we drive cars, attend school, and are "domesticated". We have definitely evolved from the time of driving horse drawn wagons, to today...but be it better or worse would need another discussion. Well, this is not necessarily the result of evolution, but rather of the accumulation of knowledge. I know more about astronomy than Galileo ever did, but this is probably not because I'm smarter than him. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that I can't paint better than Michelangelo or write better poetry than Dante; and by the fact that I have never actually discovered anything new facts in astronomy myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern20 Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 5 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Of course since there is no such thing of macro evolution then this leaves only micro evolution as the topic. I believe you are looking for the impossible in proving the exact answers to your question. It would all be just guess work. Newtons 2nd law of thermodynamics would be busted out if we were not created in the first place. So your question is not valid. Random mutation only degrades, and does not 'make better'. So we are less developed today than at the time of creation. Some people are shorter, some are taller, but our capacity is diminished, just due to the random degeneration of our bodies. We have more knowledge today, but if we had the Creator's original brain given us, un-touched by random change, we would be all the better for it. Our IQ would be higher.
I don't have enough faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Boy you just hit all the PRATT's, didn't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, there are group adaptations to deal with extremes in climate.
Link here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern20 Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 5 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
So what would those adaptions be? I suppose that by 'adaptions' you do mean a micro evoultion model. Am I incorrect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern20 Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 5 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Please explain in a bit more detail.
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern20 Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 5 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I think you are a bit neive. You've gotta be kidding with this explination.
Please try it again, but give it more thought first. I'm sure you will find that you can express it better. BlessingsN20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
PRATTs are "Points Refuted a Thousand Times".
You managed to cram and mangle a number in one paragraph. For fun let's break them out:
Newtons 2nd law of thermodynamics would be busted out if we were not created in the first place. It is not Newton's law. Those laws developed over time from a number of scientists, mostly during the 19th century. When discussing biological evolution the laws of thermodynamics do not present any problem whatever. That has been refuted so much that even the more respectable creationist organizations suggest that such arguements not be used. Just trust me on this one: don't get into thermodynamics if you aren't at least passingly familiar with the ideas.
Of course since there is no such thing of macro evolution then this leaves only micro evolution as the topic. This one always gets in a mess because the terms are never defined very well. Macro and micro evolution are terns used in biology some of the time. By the definitions used there they both occur and can be examined. You will have to define the terms. I suggest that you do so in:
JJ's Definition of Kind Not that you are in a science forum. The guidelines you agreed to mean you have to back up what you say or withdraw it. Good luck.
Random mutation only degrades, and does not 'make better'. So we are less developed today than at the time of creation. This one is utterly wrong too, of course. It is big enough that you might want to start a new thread on it. In your opening post (OP) you should show that you know what kind of mutations there are and how they can only go one way -- downhill. Again, good luck . Three in one paragraph. It's probably not a record but it's good for a first attempt. Another thing: Please don't clutter up threads with things that are not directly on topic. It is usually a good idea to create new threads or use the Search function to find an appropriate one. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern20 Junior Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 5 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Ok
Well taken. New to the place and too much on the mind. Correct, I am in error about Newton. BlessingsN20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Edit to remove off-topic post
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Post off-topic thingy. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Read the link, and you will learn what they are.
quote: Sure. But there is known no mechanism that prevents populations above the species level from evolving. So, "macro" and "micro" evolution are all just "evolution" WRT mechanisms. This is, however, off-topic for this thread. If you would like to look for an existing thread, or propose a new one to discuss macroevolution, I'd be happy to participate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: From all investigations, modern humans have no history prior to 6000 years. All stats, including pops and mental prowess aligns with this. In fact there is no 'history' per se before 6000. If modern man has any definition, its not limited to skeletal and biological imprints, which is common to all life: can anyone offer a 'NAME' of a modern man pre-6000? The oft excuse there was no writings is inadequate: there was no writings in many areas till recently, yet they have a strong recall - so if modern man existed pre-6000, and did anything modern man represents - its evidence would have to come from outside the theoretical and academic: I asked for a NAME - but even a nation, a war or a pyramid type structure would suffice. You've the whole planet and all of ego-history at your disposal. By an equity, we should have MILLIONS of such examples, and all in a non-disputable mode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
From all investigations, modern humans have no history prior to 6000 years. i suppose that depends on your definition of modern man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Well. let's see. to date, all humans still have:
1) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, walk on 2 legs, have 2 arms, have creamy flesh with varying degress of hair, have either blue, brown or green eyes, a heart lungs, teeth, intestines, a liver, stomach, a respiratory endocrine, nervous, circulatory and reproduvtice systems, we sill only breed humans, we have the ability to speak, form complex analyses, rule over the animals and on and on and on. No human has yet: 1) developed wings2) Dropped an arm or a leg to change the species 3) Turned into another animal 4) Turned into a species superior to humans. But humans have; gotten more delusional in claiming that animals can change into humans, gotten more greedy, arrogant, and confused about history in the past several decades which proves that we are in a state of decay rather than evolving into a superior species. And lastly, for evolutionists: what superior species would humans be evolving into according to them? Gods? Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
what superior species would humans be evolving into according to them? None. Species don't evolve into superior species. They evolve into species that are better able to survive and reproduce in the particular environment in which they are found. Edited by Chiroptera, : typo I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024