Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

Primitive man didn't understand how plants came to be. You take for granted the understanding that plants come from seeds because even a toddler knows that these days. But primitive man would have thought you were absolutely BONKERS to suggest that a massive tree many times his size comes from an acorn - especially if he was nomadic and didn't stick around to see a sapling grow year after year.

Most animals don't know that plants grow, let alone where they start from, or that seeds need soil and water. Man had to learn all of that - those initial leaps from a basic instinctual understanding of the world to a more rational understanding were probably very hard and came slowly. Especially for people who didn't go up using their brain that way.

But it's our ability to use a brains in that way that allowed us to end up on top of the food chain.

What logical theories of Evolution are there that try to show the evidence that man developed their brain in this way in order to survive and to reach the top of the food chain?

 

[FoolKiller]

Most animals don't know that plants grow, let alone where they start from, or that seeds need soil and water. Man had to learn all of that - those initial leaps from a basic instinctual understanding of the world to a more rational understanding were probably very hard and came slowly. Especially for people who didn't gow up using their brain that way.

But it's our ability to use a brains in that way that allowed us to end up on top of the food chain.

I fear what would happen if ants were bigger. Advanced social structure, growing plants from seeds, farming aphids, and the ability to reproduce a million at a time. Humans wouldn't have lasted.

 

[Metar]

I fear what would happen if ants were bigger. Advanced social structure, growing plants from seeds, farming aphids, and the ability to reproduce a million at a time. Humans wouldn't have lasted.

There was this book, "The City", which described a similar situation:

Note: The following stuff is longer than the actual book.

Year(s): Future, from pretty-near to very-extreme-distant.
Revolved around the story of a single family/family-house.

At first, after improvements to hydro-farming, regular "dirt" farming because useless - so people bought huge farms for their families. Including that family. People began to develop agoraphobia because they didn't exit their mansions and grounds for years.
People have colonies at Mars, Moon, etc, using a device that transforms you to the creature living on the given planet. Humanity attempts to live on Jupiter, but none of the humans transformed return - Assumed Dead.
Back on earth, guy from that family develops some operation that enables dogs to talk - and apparently, they can. Implants all his dogs.
Humanity evolves a bit - some humans get separated from society, called "Freaks". Not exactly freaks, just a step up in the ladder of evolution. Super-intelligent and with slightly odd logic, one of them finds out why ants are so stupid (The cold during the winter deletes the memory). Builds a glass to keep a colony warm, and they begin to build buildings. He puts miniature tools, they discover fire, iron, farming, etc. He looses interest (freak/evolution, typical), breaks glass - but ants are too evolved to die or forget.
Guy and his dog on Jupiter, get transformed - and discover that the Jupiterian body is superior - the ability to use 100% of the brain, live longer, telepathic powers, etc. Manages to return, somehow, after having to struggle with himself. Spreads message to humanity, humanity swarms there. Earth is now populated by animals, some freaks, and some humans who stayed, and robots.
Dogs start to enforce that procedure on all other animals. Robots group together, freaks group together (Seperate themselves from society). One wise robot (from that same family), advises dogs to forget about killing and never to mention it. The society of animals is now clear of any killing, all live peacefully and talk like humans. Meanwhile, ants are beginning to build a human-size house instead of that colony.
Dogs invent a new kind of science, "Listening". They discover the presence of other dimensions, and somehow mysterious invisible creatures slip through the dimensions. Ants develop "Ant-bots", which infect robots, causing them to be ordered to help built that new ant-house. Ant house grows to the size of a city.
A small fox accidentally kills a bird while playing with a stick and a piece of string, re-inventing the bow. Starts to kill for food.
Ants start to cover countries and continents with that house.
Same wise robot counsels the head of the dogs, after being on a 1000 year trip through dimensions, exploring possibilities. Dogs ask him, what humans did to ants. He remembers, but doesn't say - claims that it's better to loose the whole world than to loose the absolute absence of killing.

Note: The whole book is revolving around "Myths" told by dogs - one of them is about "The Falling of the City" (Hydro-stuff explained above), and the question, What the city actually was and what it meant.

 

[Danoff]

In hundreds of thousands of years nobody stayed in the same spot for more then a year to figure out what, where and when a plant would bear fruit? Where is the top of the food chain logic in that? If gathering food to surivive is your one and only objective I'm sure that even a cave man could have figured it out. (insert Geico commercial here)

Lions have had hundreds of thousands of years to figure it out, why haven't they? What about your average parrot? A wolf? Does a wolf know to plant seeds? Deer? They eat plants, why don't they understand why plants grow? They've had thousands upon thousands of years to figure out how plants work. It took time for modern man to develop.

One thing that we didn't have to learn is how to reproduce. So...I still am thinking that our population should be greater then it is. Shouldn't there be more primitive man fossils?

There are many fossils showing the various types of hominids that developed. But our numbers increased dramatically when we managed to learn how to extend our lives, feed ourselves efficiently, and completely dominate the food chain.

Agreed...but the intelligence curve isn't matching up with modern evidence. (mine included)

What modern evidence are you referring to?

What logical theories of Evolution are there that try to show the evidence that man developed their brain in this way in order to survive and to reach the top of the food chain?

Natural selection shows that an animal - especially one as weak as humans - would be aided drastically by the development of tools, even primitive tools like spears or rope.

 

[Pako]

So.....what developmental process had to take place for us to evolve from non-tool berry eaters to spear throwing meat eaters?

 

[Danoff]

We're omnivores, like most primates (I think)

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, grass seeds, and in most cases some quantities of meat and invertebrates—either hunted or scavenged—along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world.

The development that needed to occur was a larger, more complex brain. This development occurred over time via natural selection.

 

[wfooshee]

In hundreds of thousands of years nobody stayed in the same spot for more then a year to figure out what, where and when a plant would bear fruit? Where is the top of the food chain logic in that? If gathering food to surivive is your one and only objective I'm sure that even a cave man could have figured it out. (insert Geico commercial here)

Nobody stayed in one place long enough to see it happen, because staying in one place long enough meant starving. Don't assume that because any 2-year-old today can explain farming that it was always an obvious way of life. If you don't connect seed and crop in your thinking, then you have no reason to stay in one place and watch it happen.

Nomadic hunter-gatherer was the way you stayed alive. One day a group feasted on some fruit they found, and moved on. As they passed the spot again in their migrations and wanderings, somebody noticed a bunch of plants where there were none before. After noticing that several times, somebody realized that it happened where the pits were disposed of. Of course, enough of those seeds and pits have to have not been carried off as food by some other critter for there to have been anything to notice on the first place.

So how good are you at describing a piece of land you saw 6 months ago, and comparing your memory of it to how it looks as you pass it today? What's different, and what might have happened to make it different? That reasoning ability, which the lions and deer and squirrels haven't quite mastered, was the step needed for agriculture to develop.

As for "same spot for a year," nomadic tribes would tend to follow the same paths during the year, just not stay in the same place. They follow the herds, stay near water, don't wander too far from shelter, need wood for fire, and so on. They might spend Spring in the same general area every year, but not an entire year.

Also realize that giving up mobility means not just learning to grow food, but to store it. And to do so in a manner that keeps it edible and safe from scavengers, and defensible from others trying to steal it. The discovery of agriculture brought barn-burning and cattle-rustling as well. Maybe it was easier to wander around looking for food than trying to store it and defend it. You need a group larger than a few families for that.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Lions have had hundreds of thousands of years to figure it out, why haven't they? What about your average parrot? A wolf? Does a wolf know to plant seeds? Deer? They eat plants, why don't they understand why plants grow? They've had thousands upon thousands of years to figure out how plants work. It took time for modern man to develop.

Because God made man more intelligent than animals

There are many fossils showing the various types of hominids that developed. But our numbers increased dramatically when we managed to learn how to extend our lives, feed ourselves efficiently, and completely dominate the food chain.

There is still not a good answer here for why it took so long other then you guys just saying that it happened that way.

What modern evidence are you referring to?

Written history of our advances in technology, farming, and understanding of how things work. We have figured out more in the last 100 years then the last 1 million is what I was refering too.

Nobody stayed in one place long enough to see it happen, because staying in one place long enough meant starving. Don't assume that because any 2-year-old today can explain farming that it was always an obvious way of life. If you don't connect seed and crop in your thinking, then you have no reason to stay in one place and watch it happen.

And your evidance of staying in one place would be what? None of us could prove that people didn't colonize near a fruit orchard. Think of it this way...The animals eat the fruit...the people eat the animals and the fruit that the animals were eating. Back in those times all you would have had to do is eat, no jobs, no hobbies, nothing to distract them from observing how nature is working all around them. OH....and unless my 2 year old was told how farming worked he wouldn't figure it out on his own. At 2 years old he has not aquired the skills from its parents to observe life in that type of logic.

Nomadic hunter-gatherer was the way you stayed alive. One day a group feasted on some fruit they found, and moved on. As they passed the spot again in their migrations and wanderings, somebody noticed a bunch of plants where there were none before. After noticing that several times, somebody realized that it happened where the pits were disposed of. Of course, enough of those seeds and pits have to have not been carried off as food by some other critter for there to have been anything to notice on the first place.

I think a flaw in the nomad logic would be shelter. Cavemen are called Cavemen because well....he lived in a cave! We didn't call him "WANDERING MAN".

So how good are you at describing a piece of land you saw 6 months ago, and comparing your memory of it to how it looks as you pass it today? What's different, and what might have happened to make it different? That reasoning ability, which the lions and deer and squirrels haven't quite mastered, was the step needed for agriculture to develop.

Well...my memory of land might not be that good but I can tell you were I can get food for miles around where I live. And the chances of a deer figuring out how to evolve enough to start shooting back at me are 100% never!

As for "same spot for a year," nomadic tribes would tend to follow the same paths during the year, just not stay in the same place. They follow the herds, stay near water, don't wander too far from shelter, need wood for fire, and so on. They might spend Spring in the same general area every year, but not an entire year.

For instance here in colorado the ELK move down the mountain for the winter and then move back up the mountain during the summer. The point being that they stay with a realitively small area. Its a back and forth cycle...not a lets migrate to mexico.

Also realize that giving up mobility means not just learning to grow food, but to store it. And to do so in a manner that keeps it edible and safe from scavengers, and defensible from others trying to steal it. The discovery of agriculture brought barn-burning and cattle-rustling as well. Maybe it was easier to wander around looking for food than trying to store it and defend it. You need a group larger than a few families for that.

Again the point here would be that we figured that out in a very short time. I can't see you making a valid point of why it didn't happen even ten thousand years ago. You have an idea why but nothing scientific like you guys normally count on.

 

[Danoff]

Because God made man more intelligent than animals

Science proposes that man came from animals. I'm explaining why that transition would be slow.

There is still not a good answer here for why it took so long other then you guys just saying that it happened that way.

That it is slow is a natural consequence of where science suggests we came from. There is a large amount of evidence supporting the claim that man evolved from animals. I was trying to get you to think of how far we've had to come in order for our brains to be where they are. You take much knowledge for granted (see below), not appreciating the fact that it first had to be discovered (according to science) by men who had barely more mental power than the rest of the animal kingdom.

Written history of our advances in technology, farming, and understanding of how things work. We have figured out more in the last 100 years then the last 1 million is what I was refering too.

We build upon the knowledge we have. It's a lot easier to discover the existence of black holes when you have a cohesive understand of physics and can predict them and their characteristics. Physics comes first.

OH....and unless my 2 year old was told how farming worked he wouldn't figure it out on his own. At 2 years old he has not aquired the skills from its parents to observe life in that type of logic.

Thank you, that proves my point nicely.

I think a flaw in the nomad logic would be shelter. Cavemen are called Cavemen because well....he lived in a cave! We didn't call him "WANDERING MAN".

Think Native Americans. We called them nomads, and they wandered from Russia into the Americas.

For instance here in colorado the ELK move down the mountain for the winter and then move back up the mountain during the summer. The point being that they stay with a realitively small area. Its a back and forth cycle...not a lets migrate to mexico.

Buffalo migrate quite a bit farther. As do birds. Plus, there is incentive for man himself to migrate to avoid the cold weather.

Again the point here would be that we figured that out in a very short time. I can't see you making a valid point of why it didn't happen even ten thousand years ago. You have an idea why but nothing scientific like you guys normally count on.

There was much to be learned, and without a solid foundation of knowledge (ie: fire does not come from God, fevers are not caused by spirit possession, rain does not come from dancing), it takes time to learn.


Edit: The rain dance is actually an excellent example. There are native American tribes that STILL TO THIS DAY practice the rain dance. Even in spite of all of the knowledge that we have today they STILL cling to the notion that rain comes from dancing. THAT is the thick headedness of man that must be overcome for knowledge to progress.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Science proposes that man came from animals. I'm explaining why that transition would be slow.

Agreed in point from your side of the fence. I am only talking about from the upright version of man being slow to adapt.

That it is slow is a natural consequence of where science suggests we came from. There is a large amount of evidence supporting the claim that man evolved from animals. I was trying to get you to think of how far we've had to come in order for our brains to be where they are. You take much knowledge for granted (see below), not appreciating the fact that it first had to be discovered (according to science) by men who had barely more mental power than the rest of the animal kingdom.

The point I am making is that it hasn't been slow. The natural curve of how quickly we are evolving right in front of our eyes doesn't lend its self to the theory that we have been here for millions of years. Insert about 5000 or so years to that population chart I showed a while back and it fits very nicely.

We build upon the knowledge we have. It's a lot easier to discover the existence of black holes when you have a cohesive understand of physics and can predict them and their characteristics. Physics comes first.

All true as the fact that you exist.

Thank you, that proves my point nicely.

If that proves anything, It proves how hard your evolution theory really is. Your telling me that everything had to happen on its own without guidence from any outside source. I'm telling you that a 2 year old will be stronger and better and have more knowledge because there is a foundation to learn from. IE...god starting the whole ball of wax.

Think Native Americans. We called them nomads, and they wandered from Russia into the Americas.

I do believe that there were nomads in the sense that even in modern times we have people that explored new worlds. You tend to believe...er...not believe...whatever...that they migrated mainly for food. In our modern man we can find loads of people that have that nomad mindset. Often in never had anything to do with food sources.

Buffalo migrate quite a bit farther. As do birds. Plus, there is incentive for man himself to migrate to avoid the cold weather.

True again...the point still being that they return to the same place they started from. Wether is a whale traveling half way around the planet or not it still goes in a big giant circle. Go to Florida or Arizona to see current examples of how man currently does this.

There was much to be learned, and without a solid foundation of knowledge (ie: fire does not come from God, fevers are not caused by spirit possession, rain does not come from dancing), it takes time to learn.

Agreed again...but reperducing is natural enough that the population of man should have been increasing at a faster rate. More people = More trial and error = more knowledge.

Edit: The rain dance is actually an excellent example. There are native American tribes that STILL TO THIS DAY practice the rain dance. Even in spite of all of the knowledge that we have today they STILL cling to the notion that rain comes from dancing. THAT is the thick headedness of man that must be overcome for knowledge to progress.

Well...if we could just get them to move out of the desert, It wouldn't be such an issue.💡

 

[Danoff]

What kind of a background do you have in math? Are you familiar with exponential growth? Geometric growth? Are you familiar with the concept of growth that starts very slowly, but increases with a factor that allows it to eventually take off and skyrocket? That's man, in terms of population and in terms of knowledge.

In terms of population it's proveable mathematically. In terms of knowledge it's a bit more of an abstract argument.

 

[UnoMOTO]

What kind of a background do you have in math? Are you familiar with exponential growth? Geometric growth? Are you familiar with the concept of growth that starts very slowly, but increases with a factor that allows it to eventually take off and skyrocket? That's man, in terms of population and in terms of knowledge.

In terms of population it's proveable mathematically. In terms of knowledge it's a bit more of an abstract argument.

To show danoff my understanding of the math

The point I am arguing is the starting point on the chart.

 

[fideles1986]

my mythology teacher once hinted this : Ape + Alien = Human
Now think about what an ape looks like and an alien (what everyone thinks they look like) and CROSS them together. Aliens fragile skin + Apes tough coat = our skin, aliens large brain capacity + apes not so big brain = our brain and so on... could possibly be a human IMO, but i really don't believe that theory. just thought it was kinda interesting.

 

[wfooshee]

03R1, you are completely missing the point. Your 2-year old would not have too much trouble figuring out farming within a few months from now because (here it comes!) HE HAS FARMS TO OBSERVE! Without that observation, what clue would he have? I distinctly remember the meal that was going on at my family's dinner table when I learned that meat was actually animal flesh, not just something you got in a package at the store. (I'm not sure how I explained bones before that, but there you go. Actually, it may have been a question about bones that brought it up.) I wasn't disgusted by it, but it certainly changed my understanding of the food chain fundamentally.

You also seem to have missed my point about nomadic hunter-gatherers migrating seasonally. They go to the same places every year, at different times of the year, just like the food animals. The reason? They're going where the food is! The meat animal migrates south for the winter, and the berries and nuts come out on certain trees and bushes in the spring and summer, which is actually different times as the people move back north for the summer (they follow the spring northward.) And your whales? Do you think the Eskimo presence on the coast at the same time is a coincidence? Of course they go to the same place every year. But if the herd animals did not migrate, they would die. A field cannot sustain a large grazing herd all year. When the grass dies, they move on. The predators follow them, including Man.

It isn't an aimless wandering, hoping to come across something to eat. It's a systematic movement to where years of experience have taught that food will be available. (This applies to the animal herds and to the people, both, equally.)

Cave people migrated. The caves were probably a winter shelter, with storage for food gathered during the year, fruits, nuts, dried meat. (I'd actually mistyped "fried" instead of "dried." Thank God for the Edit button!) In Spring they'd set out for the seasonal movements, summer camps, gatherings, exchanges of population, even. (Yes, I said "probably." The archeological evidence points to it, but obviously none of us were there to observe, we can only deduce from the sites we find. You find a bowl made from wood that doesn't grow within 200 miles, you have evidence of migration, or at least trade.)

Without connecting somehow in your mind that seeds make plants, and that those plants can be made with just a little care anywhere, as long as it's the right time of year, agriculture has no chance to get started.

Also, you've misused some words. I'll start with nomad. An explorer is not nomadic. A New York stockbroker retiring to Arizona is not nomadic. Native Americans of the upper West were nomadic. They moved with the food. Their lodges were tents, for crying out loud. A whole village could hit the road in a few hours, be set up miles away in a few hours a couple of days later. You'll notice that southern Native Americans tend to not be nomadic, and they built communities, developed agriculture, etc. These would be the river tribes along the Mississippi, what many people think of as "mound" civilizations. Think perhaps easier weather has anything to do with that? If it's raining nuts, berries, and squirrels, there's not much need to move out for food, even without agriculture. Same with Central and South American native peoples. Better climate, easier life, very large, very old civilizations, wiped out by conquest and disease when Europeans appeared in the "new" world.

Modern man does not migrate. (Another misused word, in your "Florida or Arizona" reference.) That's just someone who can afford to do so taking care of his personal comfort, getting out of the cold in the winter. He doesn't do it for survival or to find food.

For "If we could just get them to move out of the desert," I know it was tongue-in-cheek, but have a look at your history. The Apaches were forcibly relocated to useless, unproductive land in Arizona. Their original homeland was also in Arizona, but hardly useless and unproductive. The Cherokee were forcibly evicted from Georgia. There are no federally recognized tribes in Georgia to this day. They may have a tough time of it in the southwestern deserts, but that was the white man's intention during the westward expansion, after all.

Lastly, your "chart" did a very good job of explaining your understanding of the math. It doesn't convey any information at all. That was funny.

As for the math of population growth, reproduction is, as you say, easy enough. Survival is not. What if only one in 5 babies survived a year? What if only one in 5 people lived past say, 35? You have the occasional grandparents, but for the most part you have two living generations. In modern times 3 generations is a given, 4 is very common. My own family has 5 right now - my wife and I are grandparents twice, and my wife's grandmother is still with us. With two living generations, how much opportunity is there to pass knowledge down to the next? They have no leisure time. There is no room for "Let's try this and see what happens." People who do that report their results to the rest by their absence, which in itself is enough motivation for "Let's don't try what they did. It's no good." The child learns what to eat, where it comes from, how to avoid being eaten, and spends the rest of his life using that knowledge, hopefully passing it to his own children.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Here is a link that better supports my argument if you like. I have included a more detail graph for you picky types. And for you wfooshee...I thought I did explain how I believe that people did migrate seasonally with my elk example. I don't disagree with all of your migration, nomad, wonderer, hunter gatherer examples.

Your two year old argument is getting weaker by the minute. Try a true life experiment and put your child in the middle of a farm and leave him there all by himself and see how long that child lives. Part of our status at the top of the food chain requires that our off spring be reared many more years than species as you already know. At two...the child would simply die and never figure out what a farm is even if you put him in the middle of one.

As for native americans...Per my Colorado history, they have lived in western deserts LOOONG before the Europeans pushed them to the current locations.

http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

 

[FoolKiller]

Can I ask where you are going with this farming thing? Are you trying to suggest that we were taught by God how to farm or that we just knew because we were created, something along those lines?

 

[Danoff]

^^ I was kinda wondering that myself. Because the 2 year old argument just keeps working against you. Even when you're the one making the argument.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Can I ask where you are going with this farming thing? Are you trying to suggest that we were taught by God how to farm or that we just knew because we were created, something along those lines?

No...God did not teach us how to farm. God created us with a developed brain. This in turn would inable us to figure out things like farming, hunting and building shelters. Our powers of observation are there at the time of birth. We didn't need to evolve to that point. We did and still need trial and error to gain knowledge but we didn't start with an unthinking, unable to process mind. Does that clear my position up for you?

edit: Let me point out in our kid in the farmers field general problem. As you know there are very few mammals that can birth offspring and just let it off in to the world to figure it out. If it is a bear, tiger, dog or cat, there is a certain amount of rearing and teaching that a parent does. Within that time, without any teaching the offspring will die. I am just demonstrating that the two year old is in that time zone and would not understand the concept of farming unless it is shown the way by the parent. Besides that I didn't start this two year old converstation, I just am the one rebuting it.

 

[FoolKiller]

No...God did not teach us how to farm. God created us with a developed brain. This in turn would inable us to figure out things like farming, hunting and building shelters. Our powers of observation are there at the time of birth. We didn't need to evolve to that point. We did and still need trial and error to gain knowledge but we didn't start with an unthinking, unable to process mind. Does that clear my position up for you?

So, ants learned how to farm from what? They have far from a developed brain, yet they still managed to learn farming in nearly every way humans have.

Learning how to grow, harvest, and herd takes far less than an advanced brain and/or diety intervention.

So, let's put the whole thing to rest. Human's ability to farm shows that we are no better than ants.

 

[Danoff]

Human's ability to farm shows that we are no better than ants.

Man's inability to farm without help explains why it took so long for man to develop the knowledge.

 

[UnoMOTO]

So, ants learned how to farm from what? They have far from a developed brain, yet they still managed to learn farming in nearly every way humans have.

Learning how to grow, harvest, and herd takes far less than an advanced brain and/or diety intervention.

So, let's put the whole thing to rest. Human's ability to farm shows that we are no better than ants.

Ok you win...Ants farming is equal to human farming. Ants and humans are on the same level intellectually. How could I ever argue that point?

 

[FoolKiller]

Man's inability to farm without help explains why it took so long for man to develop the knowledge.

So, we're lower than ants because they beat us to it?

I always was suspicious that my Ant Farm ants were actually watching me.

Ok you win...Ants farming is equal to human farming. Ants and humans are on the same level intellectually. How could I ever argue that point?

Well, they grow plants, herd other animals, and even milk aphids. Don't even get me started on their very human-like social structure.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Well, they grow plants, herd other animals, and even milk aphids. Don't even get me started on their very human-like social structure.

Trust me I won't...Why it was just the other day when I got stuck behind a tractor going down the road. As I was FINALLY passing it I didn't even think twice about the 1 million ants working together as one operating it.

EDIT: I've learned all I need to know from the following resources. A Bugs Life, Antz, The Ant Bully.

 

[ledhed]

Humans can and do have a " hive " mentality. India and Hinduism with its caste system anyone ? A "Kibbutz" in Isreal or Communism.

 

[FoolKiller]

Trust me I won't...Why it was just the other day when I got stuck behind a tractor going down the road. As I was FINALLY passing it I didn't even think twice about the 1 million ants working together as one operating it.

I am just trying to point out that the ability to farm and colonize means nothing. The ability to learn and develop really strengthens the evolution concept more because it shows how we continue to develop and adapt.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I am just trying to point out that the ability to farm and colonize means nothing. The ability to learn and develop really strengthens the evolution concept more because it shows how we continue to develop and adapt.

I'm not sure why we got side tracked on farming anyway. I have given info on population not farming, In the hopes of picking holes in evolution. Nobody seems to want to comment on my research, rather to argue how other species (ants) learned to survive.

 

[wfooshee]

I'm not sure why we got side tracked on farming anyway. I have given info on population not farming, In the hopes of picking holes in evolution. Nobody seems to want to comment on my research, rather to argue how other species (ants) learned to survive.

We got sidetracked because you asked why it took so long to figure out, if we're so special at the top of the food chain. We've tried to show you. Generally, farming is not the result of a group of humans deciding to stay in one place rather than continue a nomadic existence, farming allowed them to stay in one place and not starve to death. I'm thinking you have the chicken before the egg. They didn't say, "Why don't we plant our food instead of going out looking for it?" But once the concept was discovered, the question was, "Hey, since we can grow food right here, why do we need to wander all over tarnation to find stuff? Let's stay here and store this stuff up when it grows." That change, from a tribal, nomadic lifestyle to farming and city-building was supposed to be the answer to your question about the timing of the sharp growth in human population.

Compare Danoff's list in the next post with the last paragraph of my post 4874.

As for desert nomads, there is food and water in the desert. Look at North Africa. NorthWest China. You have to know where to look, and being forcibly removed from the places it can be found, having your migratory patterns smashed by forcible imprisonment to a restricted, useless area, is not the same as being a desert nomad.

 

[Danoff]

Nobody seems to want to comment on my research,

What kind of comment would you like? Are you expecting to hear "wait a minute, you're right, the current population proves the bible is the word of god."?

What do you want to know? How many ways the website you linked is wrong? How absurd it is to consider that there could have been more than 6 billion people before the "great flood", only a few thousand years ago?

Do you want me to list the reasons why man might not have had geometric growth in the early days:

• He had not dominated his environment, and so early man populations were held at equilibrium levels with the available resources
• Life expectancy was low
• infant mortality was high
• territorial wars were fought
• animals killed many early men
• disease killed many early men

Until man learned to overcome disease, other animals, the elements, infant mortality, and increase life expectancy by eating better, having better hygene, learning to build better shelters and have more steady supplies of food - man could not grow beyond levels directly supported by nature. If you think man started similarly to other animals, why is it hard to believe that the population of man grew similarly to other animals (ie: strikes an equilibrium with available resources). Why is that a difficult concept to grasp?

 

[UnoMOTO]

We got sidetracked because you asked why it took so long to figure out,

And you have not provided the proof or evidence to back up your thoughts that you live and die by. Just theories that are as good as the ones that I use equally to say the bible is the word of god.

As for desert nomads, there is food and water in the desert. Look at North Africa. NorthWest China. You have to know where to look, and being forcibly removed from the places it can be found, having your migratory patterns smashed by forcible imprisonment to a restricted, useless area, is not the same as being a desert nomad.

What did I say to make you rant about this? Did I say people couldn't live in the desert? Did I say anything about the right or wrongs of people in the past?

What kind of comment would you like? Are you expecting to hear "wait a minute, you're right, the current population proves the bible is the word of god."?

If its a conversation, it would take any kind of comment other then the silent one. I already know where you stand and I obviously know what your general answer is going to be. If you'd rather not make a comment, sorry to pull it out of you.

What do you want to know? How many ways the website you linked is wrong? How absurd it is to consider that there could have been more than 6 billion people before the "great flood", only a few thousand years ago?

Sure...this is what we are doing here right?

Do you want me to list the reasons why man might not have had geometric growth in the early days:

• He had not dominated his environment, and so early man populations were held at equilibrium levels with the available resources
• Life expectancy was low
• infant mortality was high
• territorial wars were fought
• animals killed many early men
• disease killed many early men

How could you observe the evidence of these things if they happened millions of years ago. Many of those items wouldn't be visable in a fossil or geological record. You may apply those assumptions per what you see now and assume that it was that way in the past too. I do agree with your method, but it has too many variables to be presented as fact. I also do not assume my link could be proven as fact. Would you prefer that I not bring up subjects for debate in this forum?

Until man learned to overcome disease, other animals, the elements, infant mortality, and increase life expectancy by eating better, having better hygene, learning to build better shelters and have more steady supplies of food - man could not grow beyond levels directly supported by nature. If you think man started similarly to other animals, why is it hard to believe that the population of man grew similarly to other animals (ie: strikes an equilibrium with available resources). Why is that a difficult concept to grasp?

Its not at all...we can witness it all around us each and everyday.

 

[Danoff]

How could you observe the evidence of these things if they happened millions of years ago. Many of those items wouldn't be visable in a fossil or geological record.

Logic, reason, rational thinking.