|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Humans of the future? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think it likely that although anatomically modern humans existed for millions of years or at a least, hundreds of thousands of years, cities and civilization did not grow until the current period of relative calm.
In a world bounded by chaotic seasons, growing areas varying from location to location and najor climatic changes, there is a real question if modern man (the evolved kind) could survive. Other creatures have risen to positions of dominance yet failed when conditions changed. Even a quick glance at the record shows the prospects for humans does not look good. If there is a major shift back to more normal weather patterns, it would not be unreasonable to see a die off among humans of mammouth (pun intended) proportions. That could very well be the incident that leads to the next evolution of humans, and the outcome might be totally beyond current imaginations. It could also be an event that opens an ecological nitch which is then filled by some other critter. Humans are not unique. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well then, we'll just have to move to Jupiter. Bring on Homo Sapiens Stellaris.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we're also not nearly as sucessful as the dinosaurs, who were probably killed by a major environmental change.
you can really only expect to last so long, and then something will get you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Sometimes. Othertimes, the complex organisms die out and more "simple" organisms take over. quote:Is one species of single-celled organism more "complex than another species of single-celled organism? And how would you determine this? Your claim really is not as universally applicable as you want to make it. Or, if we look at it another way, is an Elephant more complex than a tiger moth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Then we wouldn't have any doctors, our hips would be a lot more stable, our eyes would be about 500-1000 times stronger and we would handle varying climated much better, our lungs would not be as succeptible to toxins, our hearts wouldn't so easily be infected with bacteria and so on and so on. We have LOTS of things that really don't work, lots of things we function DESPITE rather than because. Take our eye, f.ex. We have all sorts of stuff stacked in front of the retina, we have nerves, rods, cones, vessels and so on, and also a large blind spot where those nerves then have to run back through the retina. It is a LOUSY "design." If we were so well-designed, if we were the peak of "creation, why don't we have an eye like the hawk, light flowing uninterrupted onto the retina because all the nerves are behind the retina rather than in front? And why don't we have much greater density of rods and cones, so our visual resolution would be so much stronger? And what is that with the pityful nose we got? Things have to just about rot under our nose before we can smell it? You call that "well-designed"?
quote:But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick, why do hospitals and drug companies make so much money? if it was a good 'design" we really shouldn't get sick, and 70 % of fertilized eggs shouldn't fail implantation because of genetic defects. So how is that a good "design"? quote:Actually, it is obvious. Otherwise, we wouldn't need doctors or technology. remember that we are then supposed to be the top of the heap, the ultimate goal of "design," right? Yet we have all those problems. Hmm....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick, why do hospitals and drug companies make so much money? if it was a good 'design" we really shouldn't get sick, and 70 % of fertilized eggs shouldn't fail implantation because of genetic defects. So how is that a good "design"? Wait... wait... I sense a 'that proves the devolution/corruption of man' argument coming...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If it did it would have to apply across the board and to earlier examples as well. Piss poor design is not limited only to humans or modern critters.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Hmm, but really, as this is a trait that has always been present in our species. We are not getting a worse eye but just never started out with a great one, implantation rates do not seem to have changed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Inactive Member |
quote: Loudmouth, do you have a reference for this? I don't doubt the general idea, but I saw a talk a while back and the speaker said 10 times more-- I think it was something like humans have ~10^14 cells and we have ~10^15 bacteria living on and in us. But I looked for a reference later I could not find one. I would like to use the right numbers, but don't have a good reference. thanks, Mike
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Steen writes:
Dude, don't get them started. I have heard them use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to justify this a million times. Basically, they claim that everything was created with perfection at the beginning. Then, the 2nd law of thermodynamics set in and things began to break down. But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick, why do hospitals and drug companies make so much money? if it was a good 'design" we really shouldn't get sick, and 70 % of fertilized eggs shouldn't fail implantation because of genetic defects. So how is that a good "design"?
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
LOL. And they think that a natural law of energy flow somehow applies outside of its parameters?
Well, I am not surprised. I just wonder how they will set up the mathematical formula to show this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick, Aren't you forgetting the sicknesses you alone have had? And the sicknesses that your body alone has fended off? I'd sure like to see my motorbike make itself a new tyre when it goes flat. Also; we have to consider that we are a bit like a race-car. Made to "go the distance" as best we can. Did you know that a formula one car will run efficiently, but after a race, it wouldn't last a trip to the supermarket. If God foresaw our downfall, then wouldn't he also foresee that we would only need our present natural bodies, for a "race-period". I mean, I'd love to fill my bike with fuel and have it run for more than half a century, with it fending off problems for itself. Now surely the heart's efficient aswell? How long does it pump without a service? My own one's pumped for a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tubi417 Inactive Member |
Why would we need better eyes, a better sense of smell, a better anything?
If you look at humans compared to any other animal in the world, we've succeeded pretty well- probably because of our better brains that most other animals don't have. We've been able to get rid of and treat diseases that could kill us- unlike other animals which don't have large enough brians to develope technology to fight other diseases. Humans are a lot better off than pretty much everything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Eh? Aren't you forgetting to actually answer the question? Could it be because you really don't have a good answer? let me ask you again. Is human illness a sign of a "good" design, or is God incompetent when looking at I.D> as a valid hypothesis?quote:Aren't you forgetting the sicknesses you alone have had? And the sicknesses that your body alone has fended off? quote:Funny how your tricycle is NOT a biological organism. Amazing how creationists always try for that nonsense when they are cornered. I see your red herring of diversion for what it truly is, an inability to justify human illness if we supposedly are designed by God as the ultimate biological entity. quote:No, we are not, your inane comparison nonewithstanding. quote:Given that medical science has doubled our lifespan, either God was wrong in the original "design," or God has decided that we need a longer race. Is God a poor designer, or is God just lousy at predicting what race/lifespan humans are set to complete? Your arguments are painting God as an INEPT FOOL! Is that truly your goal? quote:And no doubt, you would love for your bike to have babies, sing lullabies and whatnot. Any particular reason why you push the dishonest comparison with an inanimate object here? quote:Given the rampant heart disease in modern society and the more rampant need for blood pressure medications, the weakness and poor design of the heart should be noted. How does that fit in your argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Why do we need inferior eyes? Are you saying that we are NOT the pinnacle of creation? That we are some second-rank cheap model, that God skimped on the crown jewel of creation? That God didn't make us well, just made us "good enough"? That God was so poor a designer that we needed medical science to double our lifespan? Funny, but sofar, I have never seen any creationist claim that God makes slipshot work. God is supposed to be all-powerful, yet creates us as a lemon, a second-rate model?
quote:Ah, but we are SUPPOSED to be "better" than the animals, aren't we? quote:Given that medical science has taken Natural Selection more or less out of the human race, we have ailments accumulating at a rate much greater than in other populations. Other animal populations do not have that high degree of sick individuals among them. So exactly WHAT have we "gotten rid off"? We merely have become better at keeping ourselves alive DESPITE being sick from this alleged "design" that frankly is quite poor. quote:In comfort, perhaps, but not in strength and health of the population.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024