Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humans of the future?
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 16 of 82 (119584)
06-28-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
06-28-2004 3:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2004 3:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 06-29-2004 9:06 AM jar has taken no action

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 82 (119846)
06-29-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
06-28-2004 3:18 PM


quote:
If we had another ice age (and the records seem to show they can have very rapid onset), how will we feed the worlds population? If farmers can not reasonably predidct growing seasons or areas, how will they farm? If we remove the agricultural base from the worlds economic system, will the rest of the economic system stand? Can cities continue to exist without a steady and reliable economic and agricultural base?

Well then, we'll just have to move to Jupiter. Bring on Homo Sapiens Stellaris.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-28-2004 3:18 PM jar has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ohnhai, posted 02-02-2005 1:37 PM contracycle has taken no action

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 82 (119902)
06-29-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
06-28-2004 3:55 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 06-28-2004 3:55 PM jar has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 82 (120213)
06-30-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tubi417
06-27-2004 2:12 AM


quote:
But through evolution, organisms have become much more complex.
Sometimes. Othertimes, the complex organisms die out and more "simple" organisms take over.
quote:
If every living thing evolved from a single cell, then obviously because of evolution things have become more complex.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tubi417, posted 06-27-2004 2:12 AM tubi417 has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 82 (120226)
06-30-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tubi417
06-27-2004 3:09 AM


quote:
We are pretty well designed though-
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:
we have many complex systems working together. If just one small thing goes wrong we cannot function properly which often results in death-
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:
its obvious that we could not be "jury rigged, patched and full of bondo, held together with spit and lots of duct tape."
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tubi417, posted 06-27-2004 3:09 AM tubi417 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by custard, posted 06-30-2004 3:38 AM Steen has replied
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 07-07-2004 1:12 AM Steen has replied
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2004 4:18 PM Steen has replied
 Message 28 by tubi417, posted 07-12-2004 5:48 PM Steen has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 82 (120271)
06-30-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Steen
06-30-2004 1:18 AM


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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 1:18 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 06-30-2004 11:12 AM custard has taken no action
 Message 23 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 12:13 PM custard has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33890
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 82 (120334)
06-30-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by custard
06-30-2004 3:38 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by custard, posted 06-30-2004 3:38 AM custard has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 82 (120348)
06-30-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by custard
06-30-2004 3:38 AM


quote:
Wait... wait... I sense a 'that proves the devolution/corruption of man' argument coming...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by custard, posted 06-30-2004 3:38 AM custard has taken no action

  
Mike
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 82 (122551)
07-07-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
06-28-2004 2:16 PM


quote:
..."bacterial cells would outnumber your human cells 1,000 to one..."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-28-2004 2:16 PM Loudmouth has taken no action

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 3642
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 25 of 82 (122554)
07-07-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Steen
06-30-2004 1:18 AM


Steen writes:

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"?


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.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 1:18 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:19 PM coffee_addict has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 82 (123763)
07-11-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by coffee_addict
07-07-2004 1:12 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 07-07-2004 1:12 AM coffee_addict has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 82 (123766)
07-11-2004 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Steen
06-30-2004 1:18 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 1:18 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
tubi417
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 82 (124064)
07-12-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Steen
06-30-2004 1:18 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 1:18 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:32 PM tubi417 has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 82 (124104)
07-12-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
07-11-2004 4:18 PM


quote:
quote:
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?
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:
I'd sure like to see my motorbike make itself a new tyre when it goes flat.
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:
Also; we have to consider that we are a bit like a race-car.
No, we are not, your inane comparison nonewithstanding.
quote:
If God foresaw our downfall, then wouldn't he also foresee that we would only need our present natural bodies, for a "race-period".
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:
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.
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:
Now surely the heart's efficient aswell? How long does it pump without a service? My own one's pumped for a while.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2004 4:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-12-2004 8:35 PM Steen has replied
 Message 78 by kingzfan2000, posted 02-02-2005 12:10 PM Steen has taken no action

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 82 (124105)
07-12-2004 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by tubi417
07-12-2004 5:48 PM


quote:
Why would we need better eyes, a better sense of smell, a better anything?
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:
If you look at humans compared to any other animal in the world, we've succeeded pretty well-
Ah, but we are SUPPOSED to be "better" than the animals, aren't we?
quote:
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.
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:
Humans are a lot better off than pretty much everything else.
In comfort, perhaps, but not in strength and health of the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tubi417, posted 07-12-2004 5:48 PM tubi417 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022