Evolution flawed?

[Achilles]

What I am trying to get at is that to basically form protein, and we all are essentially walking globs of protein, according to the theory of evolution, how are these amino acids acquired, in "the beginning"? Because if there is no beginning there is no middle or end.

If you're looking for "the beginning" then you're looking for something completely different from the Theory of Evolution. ToE is a biological Theory that explains the diversity of life, not life's origins.

 

If you are looking for some basic info on this question, then I highly recommend this video.

 

EDIT:

This thread just isn't fair with Achilles banned.

 

Rev7, wait a day or two, and you'll get your answer.

 

_EW_

 

Evolution in my opinion starts to break down when one starts to debate about how life began.

It absolutely does not because they answer different questions. We could find irrefutable evidence that god magically created the universe, put all the building blocks into play and then disappeared to let modern humans evolve on their own, and it wouldn't make one iota of difference for ToE.

 

I'd go for a mix between some aspects of creationism and some aspects of evolution theory.

You're welcome to do whatever you'd like so long you and those that subscribe to your pick-and-choose world view keep the non-science parts out of the science class room.

[Arcesious]

Moses didn't have science; however, he had something that mankind no longer has.

 

"Who am I?", "What am I?", "How did I get here?", "What had occured to create me?" We lost a hightened sense of self-awareness. Moses looked deep into the primitive psyche to find answers. Adam and Eve were not the first two humanbeings to exist; however, they were the first two to have a deeper understanding of awareness. Genesis's first chapter is reflective of how humanbeings wake up from darkness (introduction to knowledge). Humanity before Adam and Eve had self-awareness; however, their evolutionary state was at a primitive form of consciousness. They were unaware of being aware.

 

Should I continue? Walking this path is a deep look at the rawness of life. Some people may not be ready for this type of examination.

 

Calling Evolution flawed is calling the Book of Genesis flawed.

 

Okay this doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, where is the evidence for Adam and Eve existing? I don't know about moses- perhaps he existed, perhaps he did not. (I'm inclined to think he did) What you're talking about is the development of our species' sentient phycology, not the physical evolution of humans. Many stories in the Bible are pretty far fetched. The whole story of Jesus is even quite questionable, as christianity was not the first religion, and it seems to have borrowed (even stolen) many of it's concepts from other religions.

 

Evolution is a biological process, it is not phycology, and it is not based on religious texts today.

[Darth InSidious]

That is very different from Jesus saying they must accept every single thing that Moses said as a scientific or historical fact. I don't see why it is foundational to Christianity that the world is six thousand years old, or any other age.

 

Aside, of course, from it being archaeological bollocks. I hope I don't need to trawl through the reams of material we have from as early as the Venus of Willendorf (c.20000 BC) up? Good.

[JediMaster12]

Is irrelevant. Find me the line in ANY of the Christan holy books that says the earth is 6000 years old.

Only according to people who believe the Bible to be literal fact. Given that there are different translations, this is impossible.

No, they operate on the science that the earth is more than 6000 years old and that life evolved. They don't care how life came to be, or if God started the universe, they only deny a pure creationist viewpoint(adam and eve, garden, 6000 years, ect..).

 

The whole thing about the earth being 6,000 years old comes from the attempt of a bishop if I remember correctly who actually did a linear regression based upon Chronicles and events of the Bible to what he though was the exact date of the Creation. It actually came out to 6,000 years old.

 

That I find rather full of it. I know Achilles has had fun puzzling over how I could be objective with science and still have a faith in Christianity but honest truth is that when it comes down to it, I prefer you have evidence to back it up. I believe the earth is WAY older than 6,000 years considering we have the geological time record and the fossil record to show a great deal of time has passed till it gets to us anatomically modern humans.

 

I am familiar with the Miller experiment of the primordial soup (9th grade biology) and know about the function of proteins. However to say what came first, DNA or proteins is something like the chicken or the egg argument. Proteins provide the basics of life but to get a protein you need to have the right DNA sequences to code for the amino acids. I know it sounds funny but perhaps there just wasn't one single predecessor but multiple predecessors that are connected.

 

That's my thought and of course I know it is flimsy at best but considering how we tend to think in lineal progression, we might be overlooking something that could have occurred simultaneously.

[Achilles]

I am familiar with the Miller experiment of the primordial soup (9th grade biology) and know about the function of proteins.

Depending on the argument at hand Urey-Miller is a poor experiment to reference. There are others that were more successful and had a larger scope.

 

However to say what came first, DNA or proteins is something like the chicken or the egg argument.

Not really. Please watch the video I linked to a few posts up. It cover all this.

 

Proteins provide the basics of life but to get a protein you need to have the right DNA sequences to code for the amino acids. I know it sounds funny but perhaps there just wasn't one single predecessor but multiple predecessors that are connected.

It's possible, however modern genetic research would similarly state that only one of those predecessors survived, leading to life as we know it today. Otherwise we'd have evidence for and examples of all sorts of DNA-like competitors. The fact is that we only have one.

 

That's my thought and of course I know it is flimsy at best but considering how we tend to think in lineal progression, we might be overlooking something that could have occurred simultaneously.

Indeed, it wouldn't be shocking to learn that there were multiple combinations of self-grouping chemical compounds all vying for survival. It's also not surprising that one of them would be better suited for the environment than the others and would go on to become the basis for modern life.

[Yar-El]

Okay this doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, where is the evidence for Adam and Eve existing? I don't know about moses- perhaps he existed, perhaps he did not. (I'm inclined to think he did) What you're talking about is the development of our species' sentient phycology, not the physical evolution of humans. Many stories in the Bible are pretty far fetched. The whole story of Jesus is even quite questionable, as christianity was not the first religion, and it seems to have borrowed (even stolen) many of it's concepts from other religions.

 

Evolution is a biological process, it is not phycology, and it is not based on religious texts today.

Wrong. Part of the human growth process involves physical brain changes that alters a person's psyche. You can look that up anywhere. Children are unable to analitically examine life until their brain becomes fully developed. This occurs durring the adolescent years of every humanbeing. Some form analitical thinking ahead of time; however, others take a lot longer to catch up. It all depends upon when adolescence starts. Nerves and transmitters in the brain do not form and interconnect until adolescence. Its a seven year process.

 

Adam and Eve formed analytical thinking due to an evolutionary process. Humanbeings before them were incapable of abstract thoughts. Why? It physically didn't developed until Adam and Eve's stage of the evolutionary cycle. Physical makeup of the brain changed to accommodate abstract thinking.

 

I will explain where Christ comes in the process later. He may be the next step in our evolutionary process. He may not.

[Arcesious]

Please, proof that Adam and Eve existed would be nice, and I'm not hearing any proof that people didn't mentally 'evolve' before the supposed existence of Adam and Eve... You're making claims, but not presenting proofs to back them up.

[Yar-El]

Please, proof that Adam and Eve existed would be nice, and I'm not hearing any proof that people didn't mentally 'evolve' before the supposed existence of Adam and Eve... You're making claims, but not presenting proofs to back them up.

Post #23 for your answers. Look at the word symbolism. I don't have to prove it. Why? I didn't say Adam and Eve themselves existed. They are a symbolic references to the first two humanbeings to exist with a hightened sense of awareness. Caused by evolution.

[Arcesious]

Okay, that makes more sense. So you're saying that people by the names 'Adam and Eve' probably didn't exist, but that two humans, male and female, having heightened awareness, did exist. Exactly how were these 'abstract' thoughts different from that humans before them though?

 

Just what is an abstract thought? Are the inovative humans before Adam and Eve simply good problem solvers, or did they have heightened awareness?

 

Consider this, expecially the Stone Age era (Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world

 

When exactly do you think the two humans sybolized as 'Adam and Eve' existed and brought about a generation of greater sentience? If not 6,000 years ago, and instead as many as 100,000-50,000, then we're at no disagreement.

 

If you're talking about the advancement of sentience as the inventing of religion in the early bronze age, then I'd also be able to agree, if you can back it up.

[Yar-El]

Okay, that makes more sense. So you're saying that people by the names 'Adam and Eve' probably didn't exist, but that two humans, male and female, having heightened awareness, did exist. Exactly how were these 'abstract' thoughts different from that humans before them though?

 

Just what is an abstract thought? Are the inovative humans before Adam and Eve simply good problem solvers, or did they have heightened awareness?

Abstract thinking is an individual's ability to preceive complex experiences; thus, they are able to think rationally and logically about sensations, feelings, and relationships. Love is not love - Love is more complex, and other elements are involved. Adam and Eve represent the point where humanbeings started to observe their relationship to the world in more complex terms. Pre-Adam and Eve humans functioned with more animalistic abilities. All they knew about is gather food, protect onself, and survive. There was no thought in thinking about numbers, colors, perspectives, or deep problem solving. Physical brain limitations prevented pre-Adam humans from becoming fully aware. There was no thought in observing - "Who are we?" "Why do I exist?" They just existed.

 

When exactly do you think the two humans sybolized as 'Adam and Eve' existed and brought about a generation of greater sentience? If not 6,000 years ago, and instead as many as 100,000-50,000, then we're at no disagreement.

Scientists who are studying Darwin are working on this issue. We currently have people collecting primitive skeletons to create the evolution of man. I will have to get you that information. I personally don't have all of the facts; however, we are very close in bulding a full timeline.

 

They also discovered a second species that could stand and function like humanbeings. I will have to get you that name as well. They evolved independantly from our species. Scientists are still trying to solve their fate.

 

Next I will use scripture from Genesis to explain evolution and birth. I'm just going to wait for a reply.

[Rev7]

I'm not sure if the original poster will permit this; however, I present some food for consumption.

 

(1) Evolution + Birth = Book of Genesis.

(2) Moses wrote the Book of Genesis with a hightened sense of awareness that drew upon primitive thoughts and the exploration of human existance.

(3) Darwin created the Theory of Evolution while drawing upon the Book of Genesis.

(4) Genesis is a complete symbolic book of an individual's observation of the human condition. Birth, evolution, and death.

 

Evolution is a theory based upon another individual's theoretical examination of one's self. God originally created mankind, and then man created god through self exploration. God does exist. How you find him is not through fundamentalism.

 

I will expand on these issues if the original poster will permit me.

The stage is yours, feel free to expand. I have just been at school all day.

If you're looking for "the beginning" then you're looking for something completely different from the Theory of Evolution. ToE is a biological Theory that explains the diversity of life, not life's origins.

 

If you are looking for some basic info on this question, then I highly recommend this video.

So, this man is talking about abiogenesis? Regardless, thank you for finding this video for me. It pretty much answers my question.

[Achilles]

So you're saying that people by the names 'Adam and Eve' probably didn't exist, but that two humans, male and female, having heightened awareness, did exist.

Which time? Keep in mind that evolution is not a smooth, linear process, but one riddled with fits and starts.

 

The most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve", however human ancestors were around a long time before her.

 

So, this man is talking about abiogenesis?

Right. Abiogenesis = current hypothesis about how organic life began on earth. ToE = scientific theory which explains diversity of life on earth. Completely different subjects.

 

Regardless, thank you for finding this video for me. It pretty much answers my question.

I'm glad to hear it. Now, go drop some knowledge on your science teacher for extra credit. Tell him Achilles sent you

[Rev7]

I'm glad to hear it. Now, go drop some knowledge on your science teacher for extra credit. Tell him Achilles sent you

Her

[Achilles]

Even as I typed it, I feared that might be the case. Oh well.

[Rev7]

Even as I typed it, I feared that might be the case. Oh well.

It's fine.

[Yar-El]

I found an old 1998 srticle 3 Human Species Coexisted Eons Ago, New Data Suggest.

 

I will get to the bible scripture references to birth and evolution in the next post. Some people who study only religion sometimes ignore the physical progress of science. I know the article is old; however, it does show that science keeps proving Darwin's points.

 

Some quotes -

Scientists have found stunning new data showing that a third human species apparently coexisted on earth with two others as recently as 30,000 years ago.

 

In research that could redraw the human family tree and is certain to be controversial, the scientists re-examined two major fossil sites along the Solo River in Java and found that an early human relative, Homo erectus, appeared to have lived there until about 27,000 to 53,000 years ago.

 

Confirmation of the new dates would mean that at least in Java, this archaic species, which evolved 1.8 million years ago, survived some 250,000 years after it was thought to have become extinct. This surviving population of H. erectus in Indonesia would have been alive at the same time as anatomically modern humans -- Homo sapiens -- and also Neanderthals, whose exact place in human evolution is a subject of endless debate.

 

The Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and western Asia for some 300,000 years, appear to have made their last stand 30,000 years ago in southern Spain. By then, modern H. sapiens, who are widely thought to have evolved in Africa 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, had spread all over Africa and Eurasia, as far as Australia. It is not known how much contact the three species had, or if they could interbreed.

 

Natural selection and strongest survives.

 

P.S. - Thank you Rev.

[Nedak]

hmm, I thought it was already accepted that we evolved from homoerectus?

[Achilles]

Accepted by who?

[Nedak]

Accepted by who?

 

Scientists.

 

That is how we were taught in school.

[Achilles]

Scientists.

Precisely

[Yar-El]

I don't mean to bump an old thread; however, there has been a small updated article.

 

Article - Human evolution kicks into high gear

Researchers debate whether our species is growing apart or together

 

Clip -

For decades the consensus view — among the public as well as the world’s preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiens emerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we’ve called culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.”

 

This view has become so entrenched that it is practically doctrine. Even the founders of evolutionary psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, signed on to the notion that our brains were mostly sculpted during the long period when we were hunter-gatherers and have changed little since. “Our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind,” they wrote in a background piece on the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

 

So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers has done just that.

 

They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history.

 

Correction: Its a five page article.