Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

The difference between these brains, might not be as big as you think.

Having said that, it's had some 7 million to get to this point. Which is quite a long time.

Well, bonobos aren't on the verge of killing themselves environmentally. Only humans, with their supposedly evolved brains, are.

 

[Astrophile]

Of course, censuses were not taken thousands of years ago, but doesn't mean I have not been thinking. And here is what wikipedia says about population thousands of years ago (even according to evolution...)
"A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals."
Now that's interesting, even though I believe differently.
World population estimates - Wikipedia

LOL, I'm not sure what you mean by that. But -- as wikipedia stated, many many years ago (according to scientific musings and speculations), apparently in that "bottleneck" of humankind a long time ago, there were relatively few humans alive. Says the article, "It is supported by some genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago." Regardless of what you believe, yes, I was wondering how many can come from a few. Quite a few, apparently.
(Notice the phrase, "supported by some genetic evidence..." )
See? There's your evidence. (Supported by some genetic evidence.) (Citations in the article.) Anyway, doesn't matter -- many can come from just a few...
Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

It is interesting. The present human population is estimated to be 7.6 billion. If the population 70,000 years ago was 1000 individuals, the implied annual rate of increase is is 0.02264%. This in turn implies a doubling time of between 3000 and 3100 years. This calculation shows how, given enough time, a great many can come from a comparative few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. The excuses for clothing made maybe 170,000 years as they "emigrated" from Africa is nothing but guesswork. The more I learn about this, the more ridiculous it becomes. And, I am beginning to think, you know it is, too.

All you have are special pleading fallacies. Meanwhile you ignore the fact that the evidence makes evolution a slam dunk. So much so that you are once again calling your God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kind of like Haeckel's concept, is that right. (Where's the proof? The observed concept? What nonsense, I am realizing while it may sound like a puff piece -- philosophical -- there really is nothing to back it up in real-time.) While I certainly don't have all the answers, you guys have certainly helped me to see what holes there are in the philosophical meanderings of some thinkers.

You cannot logically demand evidence when you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

"From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.
They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500."

You can do the same calculation with these numbers. If the world's population 1.2 million years ago was 18,500, and the present population is 7.6 billion, the average annual rate of increase was 0.00108% and the doubling time was between 64,000 and 65,000 years.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, so there's nowhere you say where there are no planets, no moons, no suns, no stars, is that right? (And you know this, how?)

There are intergalactic voids, with diameters of 10 to 100 megaparsecs - see Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia. These have been observed, but they are part of the universe,not something outside it. There may be stars and planets in these voids, but they are literally few and far between, much farther apart than stars inside galaxies.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to be taken seriously you really need to stop asking what are at best silly questions. Clothing was a relatively late invention of man's. There are such things as foolish questions. I am sure that you do not want to look like a fool.

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

All you have are special pleading fallacies. Meanwhile you ignore the fact that the evidence makes evolution a slam dunk. So much so that you are once again calling your God a liar.

Again, you really can't answer why it is that humans alone make and wear clothing for themselves. Except you conjecture it must be climate change and emergence from Africa. Africa?
Yet you still have not told me why you keep saying I am calling 'my' God a liar. Please do try to back up your claim there, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are intergalactic voids, with diameters of 10 to 100 megaparsecs - see Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia. These have been observed, but they are part of the universe,not something outside it. There may be stars and planets in these voids, but they are literally few and far between, much farther apart than stars inside galaxies.

So, in other words, you believe and maintain the thought that the universe is not only ever-expanding, but there is no stopping point where there is no universe, is that right? (And, of course, you also must maintain that it came about by natural circumstance, somehow but not exactly like evolution, by itself without a superior intelligence designing it, is that also correct about your idea?)
To review, do I understand your take on this correctly -- namely that the universe has no end to it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing.

Hermit crabs don't come with their own shells. Instead, they dress themselves in whatever cast-off shells may be available -- sometimes even in cast-off food tins left by careless humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hermit crabs don't come with their own shells. Instead, they dress themselves in whatever cast-off shells may be available -- sometimes even in cast-off food tins left by careless humans.

Although that's interesting, and I"ll surely look that up, in that sense they are still not like human beings, who do or do not have to wear and make clothing for themselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

Again, you really can't answer why it is that humans alone make and wear clothing for themselves. Except you conjecture it must be climate change and emergence from Africa. Africa?
Yet you still have not told me why you keep saying I am calling 'my' God a liar. Please do try to back up your claim there, thank you.

So what reason are you giving for why humans wear clothes? Because God made "aprons" for Adam and Eve? Just to hide their naughty bits?

But surely, God did not make neckties, or muumuus, or tuxedos, or socks and shoes. From the Bible, you get zero hint that God was doing anything except trying to make humans feel ashamed of the exposure of their sex organs. Aprons were not going to keep anybody warm, or advertise social status.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to be taken seriously you really need to stop asking what are at best silly questions. Clothing was a relatively late invention of man's. There are such things as foolish questions. I am sure that you do not want to look like a fool.

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

If you want to be taken seriously you really need to stop asking what are at best silly questions. Clothing was a relatively late invention of man's. There are such things as foolish questions. I am sure that you do not want to look like a fool.

Hermit crabs do these things (molt) in order to live, I am supposing. I briefly looked up hermit crabs. I couldn't yet find all about their births, but they do shed shells as they grow. Humans, on the other hand, are sometimes arrested if they go naked in certain populated areas. Plus, human babies don't look for their own clothes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

Again, you really can't answer why it is that humans alone make and wear clothing for themselves. Except you conjecture it must be climate change and emergence from Africa. Africa?
Yet you still have not told me why you keep saying I am calling 'my' God a liar. Please do try to back up your claim there, thank you.

Man alone has the intelligence necessary to make clothing. Other animals can sometimes make rudimentary coverings, but I would not call them clothing. Still it shows that what we do is not unique.

And since all of the evidence points to evolution and only evolution you would have to explain why God made it look exactly as if life was the product of evolution. You are in effect saying he planted false evidence. That would make him a liar. Very few Christians believe in a lying God so those that understand evolution tend to accept it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing. Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

Hermit crabs do these things (molt) in order to live, I am supposing. I briefly looked up hermit crabs. I couldn't yet find all about their births, but they do shed shells as they grow. Humans, on the other hand, are sometimes arrested if they go naked in certain populated areas. Plus, human babies don't look for their own clothes.

Caddis fly larva make a protective covering out of detritus.

Once you grasp a straw you do not want to let go.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know that you are very ignorant when it comes to these matters. If you knew there would be no reason to believe. Knowing is superior to mere belief, but for some reason you refuse to learn. Is your faith that weak? Most Christians do not believe that God lied, Yet you apparently do.

And what did I just tell you about asking foolish questions. This particular one has been answered for you multiple times. You are still stuck on Haeckel for some odd reason.

So is there a evolutionary progression in the womb from vegetation to monkeys and then humans, perhaps dinosaurs in the mix? You still have not answered that question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Man alone has the intelligence necessary to make clothing. Other animals can sometimes make rudimentary coverings, but I would not call them clothing. Still it shows that what we do is not unique.

And since all of the evidence points to evolution and only evolution you would have to explain why God made it look exactly as if life was the product of evolution. You are in effect saying he planted false evidence. That would make him a liar. Very few Christians believe in a lying God so those that understand evolution tend to accept it.

Other animals make rudimentary coverings for their bodies? Such as: ??

 

[YoursTrue]

Caddis fly larva make a protective covering out of detritus.

Once you grasp a straw you do not want to let go.

I want to understand. Butterflies and other types have a metamorphosis not of their own will. Humans are certainly unique in the respect of making and wearing clothes. So how and why you think this is evolved brain is beyond me. Yes it is beyond my realm of reasoning. So maybe I have Neanderthal brain. (lol...) Just not as developed as yours and others.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is interesting. The present human population is estimated to be 7.6 billion. If the population 70,000 years ago was 1000 individuals, the implied annual rate of increase is is 0.02264%. This in turn implies a doubling time of between 3000 and 3100 years. This calculation shows how, given enough time, a great many can come from a comparative few.

Give or take a few disasters.

 

[YoursTrue]

Man alone has the intelligence necessary to make clothing. Other animals can sometimes make rudimentary coverings, but I would not call them clothing. Still it shows that what we do is not unique.

And since all of the evidence points to evolution and only evolution you would have to explain why God made it look exactly as if life was the product of evolution. You are in effect saying he planted false evidence. That would make him a liar. Very few Christians believe in a lying God so those that understand evolution tend to accept it.

One cannot believe in evolution as currently explained and the Bible at the same time. Here's something more about evolution: findings appear to refute speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. Now isn't that interesting? Really? Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

 

[YoursTrue]

Caddis fly larva make a protective covering out of detritus.

Once you grasp a straw you do not want to let go.

So would you know if these larvae learned from other larvae or the adults how to make a protective covering out of detritus?