One thing that bothers me

One thing that bothers me is that christians always think the process of evolution always makes the organizm "better" which is totaly erroronous. It's a matter of adapting to the environment.
They often complain about humans being weaker than their predecessors - monkeys.
What they fail to understand is that with less muscles we are:

Lighter
Better at using tools
We require less energy

Monkeys need upper body strength because theey belong in trees, mostly. We, on the other hand, belong on the ground. We need to catch our prey by running. We are very endurant runners.

Is this an improvement?
In some ways yes, in others no
upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by Sorgmodig


I thought Christians believed in Adam & Eve, that God created people.
Not evolution. Or not the theory of evolution created by Darwin anyway.
Of course, we see evolution even in our short lives, if creatures/humans don't adapt, well..... they don't survive.

So in the last few hundred years, why have humans gotten taller? whether we are short or tall we are still very agile, don't have the monkey muscle weight you mentioned, and can use tools either way.

Originally posted by horseplay
reply to post by Sorgmodig

 

I thought Christians believed in Adam & Eve, that God created people.
Not evolution. Or not the theory of evolution created by Darwin anyway.
Of course, we see evolution even in our short lives, if creatures/humans don't adapt, well..... they don't survive.

So in the last few hundred years, why have humans gotten taller? whether we are short or tall we are still very agile, don't have the monkey muscle weight you mentioned, and can use tools either way.

They do belive in god, hardly ever in evolution. Although,they often claim they know all about evolution,
Short people are more agile than long people, although their are advantages about being tall as well.
But most important to notice is that evolution in humans is not really the same as in animals. Even retarded people/people with genetic desises sometimes get to spread their genes. We are to "humane" for the best of our species.

God obviously does not exist. I think we have that all cleared up by now.
I don't claim being that educated in evolution, but from what I've heard i know they are onto something.
It's a work in progress and more proof are found every day.
Stop being supersticious.

Christians fail to understand the concept of evolution .

I'll give you an example :

If you take a word , and modify only one letter at a time , after some several changes , you will end up with a word which has nothing in common with the word that you started with .

team

teaR

Rear

rOar

Boar

bEar

beEr


This is a simplistic way to explain evolution .

team ----> beer

reply to post by Sorgmodig


Actually the evolution of the homo sapien is a bit more complex than that. We evolved primarily because of several mutations. One mutation decreased the mass of the muscle connecting our lower jaw to our skull. This made our brain mass bigger but also made our biting power less. This made us need to use tools and communication skills to survive. Another mutation was in our facial muscles which gave us the ability to articulate sound to a greater degree. thus making our language capabilities enhanced.


The reason that people are getting taller is because of the degree of nutrition in our food more or less. If you look at holland there was a food shortage there for a few generations which is over now, and people are getting much taller. But I'm only 5'6 which means I have a lower center of gravity than a taller person.

reply to post by Sorgmodig


Actually many Christians/Catholics have no problem with evolution. The Catholic Church's stance on evolution is that it's probably true and also that there's nothing incompatible with the Bible and Evolution and they're right about that in my opinion. Cause the Bible doesn't actually say anything for or against evolution. If you pay attention the Bible says God created some things, and the earth brought forth some things on its own as well. But not mentioning evolution to a bunch of Sumerian farmers is a long way from the Bible saying that evolution isn't possible at all. It really just doesn't mention it directly, but it does actually mention it.

In fact evolution is a requirement and must be true for some of the stories in the Bible to make any sense. So, the Bible is actually okay with evolution.

However it's the creationists and intelligent designers in America that read it that way and differently than most other Christians in the world. The problem isn't really Christians. Your problem is with strict creationists mainly that believe God created everything and nothing ever changed. Not all Christians are strict creationists and believe that way.

However, the idea that creationists think every evolved animal is superior to what they evolved from. That's not true. That's what the eugenicists like Hitler believed that the Ayrian race was supreme and what not.

Creationists however believe that evolution isn't possible because everytime there's a change in genetics it leads to mutations that almost always end up killing the animal. That's their stance, that evolution isn't possible because everytime an animal "evolves" it usually falls over dead due to the mutation.

So they actually believe the exact opposite. That evolution is false because every evolved animal ends up being inferior, not superior. So, I think what you're actually referring to is the eugencics like Hitler that think they can kill all the inferior animals and evolve a super race.

But remember, many many Christians, especially the Catholic Church don't believe any of that. They believe in regular old evolution.

Originally posted by Sorgmodig
One thing that bothers me is that christians always think the process of evolution always makes the organizm "better" which is totaly erroronous. It's a matter of adapting to the environment.
They often complain about humans being weaker than their predecessors - monkeys.
What they fail to understand is that with less muscles we are:

Lighter
Better at using tools
We require less energy

Monkeys need upper body strength because theey belong in trees, mostly. We, on the other hand, belong on the ground. We need to catch our prey by running. We are very endurant runners.

Is this an improvement?
In some ways yes, in others no
upload.wikimedia.org...

edit on 6-12-2011 by Sorgmodig because: (no reason given)

It's simply perspective. Evolution of a species by adaptation is a function of programming and not a random mutation. Take this Owl Butterfly pattern. No way that a random mutation could be achieved apart from conscious choice or programming. Natural selection demands subtle mutations, not a work of art by image. We do have an example that explains this.

Genesis 1 states that time, space, matter and energy are formed into images by a creator from information (Word).

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy). Check my article on the Physics of God. The Word comes from John 1 and the image form Genesis 1:27.

Further, this combination of word is reflected in the duality of light, both particle and wave. Wave does produce an image in natural patterns. Look up cymatics for an example. The problem is, to equate this to natural selection is saying that the image was reflected, one to the other. Not a chance apart from programming of information with purpose.

Once we can verify that consciousness originates changed states in matter and not the other way around, we then have the obvious answer to evolution. FALSE! The indeterminate wave of infinity is collapsed by the observer to change states in matter. Never the other way around. Matter only influences changed states in the observer by image, not choice. Wave Function Collapse

Evolution doesn't even begin to account for entropy in information. DNA is digital, adding yet another layer of proof that information is programmed, entirely beyond what we can comprehend.

Rupert Sheldrake postulated that random mutation is "helped" along by morphic resonance fields moving backwards through time, giving existing organisms a kind of guide to what mutations will work better in the future. Random mutation is too random, and any organism relying solely on that would waste too much energy coming up with different useless forms just to hit on one that will work given a change in their environment.

Of course, reverse-time morphogenic fields are extremely hard to detect.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Rupert Sheldrake postulated that random mutation is "helped" along by morphic resonance fields moving backwards through time, giving existing organisms a kind of guide to what mutations will work better in the future. Random mutation is too random, and any organism relying solely on that would waste too much energy coming up with different useless forms just to hit on one that will work given a change in their environment.

Of course, reverse-time morphogenic fields are extremely hard to detect.

Interesting. Don't you think that, eventually, we just simply admit the obvious? When the complexity of mutation starts to enter the realm of purpose, we can no longer simply say random. There is way too much complexity to reduce to random or accidental. At some point, way back a few decades, it began to seem absurd to avoid information and consciousness as separate form the obvious design. Interdependent systems represent meaning and not mere chance.

Why does feces smell bad and roses sweet? Why does pain hurt and pleasure feel nice? Why is poison bitter? Logic would conclude that mutation cannot make it past death. Did poisonous plants know what was bitter to the predator. You can say that the bitter plants survived because they were eaten less and the sweet plants died out. What about corn or fruit? Did sugar know to be pleasing to the brain, or did the brain know that sugar is pleasing? It's easy to say the brain knew, yet entire people groups lived longer without sugar than with. Couldn't sugar figure out that being bitter to humans would ensure their survival? Same for some poisons. There is no consistency in access to information apart from programming.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Evolution doesn't even begin to account for entropy in information. DNA is digital, adding yet another layer of proof that information is programmed, entirely beyond what we can comprehend.

Tell me how Information Theory is relevant to proving or disproving Evolution. The whole digital thing is speculation. You can not prove it nor disprove it, therefore it is a little hard to dismantle strong, well-researched theories with it.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Evolution doesn't even begin to account for entropy in information. DNA is digital, adding yet another layer of proof that information is programmed, entirely beyond what we can comprehend.

Tell me how Information Theory is relevant to proving or disproving Evolution. The whole digital thing is speculation. You can not prove it nor disprove it, therefore it is a little hard to dismantle strong, well-researched theories with it.

Information will degrade over time. It doesn't regard its environment unless its environment is engineered. A computer bit will degrade over time when the media degrades. Digital information requires a lasting state of order. In nature, we have an environment that is not stable by any means. A bit of information should degrade quickly, yet what we see is DNA, the must resilient memory know to mankind, possessing the greatest storage capacity ever witnessed. Not only this, it is SMALL.

What is an acorn? Is it the 75 foot oak tree in an image, or is the oak tree an acorn in image? The answer is neither. They need the other. They also need the soil. At the essence of the acorn is information (DNA). Why is this so important?

What else acts as soil for information? The mind of consciousness. Tell someone something and it germinates. If it is not already understood, much like what some may find in this thread, the seed grows if union occurs. Give this seed of thought long enough and it expresses form. These words are doing this very thing in your mind.

Truth is expressed and grows if the soil is good and the information in the seed is full of correct purpose. Consciousness is inescapable. Matter changes states by thought. Not the other way around. Matter can only reflect what is already there.

Do you see light? No. You see what light hits and reflects from. Otherwise, you would see a wash of glowing energy between yourself and the monitor. Air is smaller than light waves, otherwise, they would reflect. If you agree with this, I can ask it again with more meaning. Do you see light? Take out your cell phone, engage the camera, then hit it with your IR remote and see what happens. You see IR if you look at the camera, but when you look at the remote, you see nothing.

Is the ocean the surface and waves, or is there more? The pearl is found down in the darkness. Come back to the light and reveal what reflects to your mind. What taught you more? The pearl or the journey to the depths? If you can answer this life with purpose greater than what you see, you are reflecting on a source greater than yourself.

All streams flow away from their source. Entropy in energy demands this. Yet, life flows against entropy toward its source. Nothing is greater than its source.

Can there be an infinite number of finite things? Can there be an finite number of infinite things? No to each. Both must exist. All things are dual. Light is both particle and wave. Substance is animated. Matter is a duality of consciousness and energy if it's in motion. What is in motion is immortal. What is not in motion is infinity at rest. Man is mortal because he is finite. God is infinite. Can information be stored and reanimated into another finite object (media)?

Information theory has everything to do with evolution. No information = no movement by law. We can clearly see that movement is governed by law. This requires information. The law for our movement is consciousness, restricted by abilities.

Do you make your eyes see? Do you make the sun shine or the earth turn. Nope. Each of us are equal. We can think and we can move, governed by our abilities and the laws of nature. Information against entropy.

God obviously does not exist. I think we have that all cleared up by now.

reply to post by Sorgmodig
That is the most un-educated, un-realistic statement I have ever seen on this website.

I don't claim being that educated in evolution, but from what I've heard i know they are onto something.

I think this one runs a close second.

"I don't claim being that educated in Christianity, but from what I've heard i know they are onto something."
Using your own statement as a reflection, hopefully you can see the futility that it is built on. By your own argument, you SUPPORT the concept of Christianity more than the theory of evolution - because your statement is purely FAITH BASED. " You don't know much about it - but it sounds right. "

Instead of spouting biased, judgemental opinions (and then openly admit that you know nothing about the subject matter that shapes that opinion), please DO some research for both the For and Against on the subject matter. You will not only increase your own knowledge and understanding, but your conclusion may then hold much more credibility amongst your peers.

Originally posted by Sorgmodig
One thing that bothers me is that christians always think the process of evolution always makes the organizm "better" which is totaly erroronous. It's a matter of adapting to the environment.

I just want to observe that this error is not limited to Christians.
The same assumption is being made by the different groups of people speculating about "the next stage in evolution".
Eg the whole "we are going to evolve out of our bodies into something more spiritual" crew.

That is the most un-educated, un-realistic statement I have ever seen on this website.

Really? I doubt that! I've seen threads about people claiming to be alien hybrids, mediums and infiltrators of NASA.
I think it's more uneducated to claim that some guy is sitting above the clouds, watching over us humans, creating planets, turning people into pillars of salt and sending evil angels to slay his enemies.

"I don't claim being that educated in Christianity, but from what I've heard i know they are onto something." Using your own statement as a reflection, hopefully you can see the futility that it is built on. By your own argument, you SUPPORT the concept of Christianity more than the theory of evolution - because your statement is purely FAITH BASED. " You don't know much about it - but it sounds right. " Instead of spouting biased, judgemental opinions (and then openly admit that you know nothing about the subject matter that shapes that opinion), please DO some research for both the For and Against on the subject matter. You will not only increase your own knowledge and understanding, but your conclusion may then hold much more credibility amongst your peers.

When I said I didn't know much about evolution I was talking about how mutations work, the history of a bunch a species, etc. We are taught evolution in school just as well as we are taught f.e math, yet I'm no math wiz either.



Also, I have done reaserch in christianity, I've even read the bible. THat's how I came to know it's all a fairy tale

Originally posted by OrNaM3nT
Christians fail to understand the concept of evolution .

Wow, you definitely win the "does my ego overshadow my intelligence" award for today. What an ignorant statement.

/TOA

reply to post by OrNaM3nT

You have failed to take into account by your explanation that an outside intelligence has to alter the letters in your words.

The words cannot alter themselves at all - ever. That is the point that 'Christians' are trying to get across I believe.

This is a simplistic way to deny evolution.

Also, I have done reaserch in christianity, I've even read the bible. THat's how I came to know it's all a fairy tale

reply to post by Sorgmodig
With all due respect, may I ask where you researched the Bible ? (just for curiosities sake)

With my own experience, everywhere that I have searched about the Bible, I have found compelling, solid, irrefutable, accurate, well documented / supported factual evidence.

I have also found good evidence to support the possibility of evolution, but it seems to have many, many more holes and inconsistencies in the theory than does the Biblical account. What adds to the confusion, is, if you present Biblical facts to an evolutionist, they claim it to be "psuedo-science" and completely disregard it all together. Yet Christians have "counter-evidence" as opposed to ignorance.

I even had one fellow atheist ATSer, tell me that the whole human history of Israel as a nation is COMPLETELY FABRICATED because there is supposedly no 'archeological' evidence to support the Bible account of the exodus. He told me that the Jews DON"T KNOW their own history !!!!

Now that is pure ignorance.

They often complain about humans being weaker than their predecessors - monkeys.

In all my years alive on this planet, I have never heard ANYONE (little own Christians) complain about being weaker than monkeys ! If you could provide some direct quotes or other evidences to support your statement, it would be very appreciated amongst your peers here at ATS.

One thing that bothers me is that christians always think the process of evolution always makes the organizm "better" which is totaly erroronous.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the whole theory of evolution (micro and macro) exactly that? - species adapt and change and become better suited for survival - both biologically and enviromentally? - losing those attributes that hinder its chances of survival and evolving "better" attributes to ensure its survival? - constantly becoming "better".

What they fail to understand is that with less muscles we are:

Lighter
Better at using tools
We require less energy

Whilst trying to find a comparison in the number of muscles in the human body to the chimpanzees body, I stumbled upon this webpage that I thought you may like to read.

WHYEVOLUTION.COM

Would these statements be considered a tenet of the theory of evolution?

"A random mutation grants an organism a greater chance of survival compared to its fellow organisms."

"Mutations accumulated over time result in a change from one species to another."

Not ALL Christians.... In fact I would say that the majority of Christians in the US support evolutionary theory. 58% of Catholics do....

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Not ALL Christians.... In fact I would say that the majority of Christians in the US support evolutionary theory. 58% of Catholics do....

This is true. There's really no reason to think the bible is 100% dead on literal in every single story. It is a collaboration of stories written by tons of different people from different time periods. There's no way to tell what's fact and which scriptures are simply stories written to teach morality. If you look at the meaning as a whole or of each individual story, it doesn't have to contradict evolution at all. Evolution could be a tool that a creator used.