Biological origin of human values

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You were searching for “evolution man lemur chart”… what is a lemur chart?? Or did you mean the animal… in which case that is a very odd search I think?
 
The publisher, Routledge, is highly regarded for the publication of academic works.

Clearly, human values arise naturally, like hair color. More storytelling to convince the unwary.
Well, if you read it, the writer makes clear that it is all digression into speculations. Why would speculations about evolution be more important than any other non-scientific realm?
 
You were searching for “evolution man lemur chart”… what is a lemur chart?? Or did you mean the animal… in which case that is a very odd search I think?
Evolution: Lemur to Man.

I think it’s a very odd claim, but that was the most recent “missing link news”.

I’d also like to see the chart which details this evolutionary path. It will eventually end in Africa where a chimpanzee became a human for the first time. Thus teaches evolutionary doctrine.

Oops … we need to change the old facts, and replace them with new facts.

(Evolution is all about the facts. But it never said that they were always “true facts”.)

A skull that rewrites the history of man
It has long been agreed that Africa was the sole cradle of human evolution. Then these bones were found in Georgia…
The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been ***thrown into doubt ***by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind.
… The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia – **before moving back into Africa **to complete the story of man.

Professor Lordkipanidze raised the prospect that Homo erectus may have evolved in Eurasia from the more primitive-looking Dmanisi population and then migrated back to Africa to eventually give rise to our own species, Homo sapiens – modern man.

Chimpanzees couldn’t find enough food in the forest so they migrated to the African plains and turned into human beings (due to mutations and natural selection).

The revised version of this evolutionary tall-tale gives a more crystal-clear explanation:

Chimpanzees evolved in the plains of Eurasia because natural selection turned them into humans. Then, they moved to Africa because these humans wanted to live in the forest. Then, they moved out of the forest to get more food in the plains.

It all makes perfect sense! Just ask evolutionist David Lordkipanidze of the Georgia National Museum and he will make it all very certain (more certain than gravity):
“The question is whether Homo erectus originated in Africa or Eurasia, and if in Eurasia, did we have vice-versa migration?"

Most importantly, we can be sure that there ***is no reason to doubt ***the slightest thing about evolutionary theory.

It’s all very certain. We have all of the important facts. Sometimes, those facts need to be changed for different facts that will fit the theory better. In that case, we just get rid of other facts that don’t fit the theory.

That’s just how science works. Anyone who doubts it obviously knows nothing about evolution. Homo erectus evolved first in Africa – everybody knows that.
 
I cannot stress enough the strong marketing push for something called evolution. The media obsesses about it:

wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/lluca/

And it appears that whatever evidence is found is not as important as keeping the theory intact. Something gradually changed into something else. But the science, what little there is, pales in comparison to attributing the origin of man to a series of random accidents or mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
 
The emphasis is not merely to refute religious past, but to justify secular future.

A really, really, really, really ,really bad day is one the way.
 
Goodness gracious how many “missing links” can a theory have and still be considered true? It seems every few months they discover some new “missing link” in the evolutionary chain, and it makes me wonder, if the theory has so many parts missing to it, why in the world do people believe it so adamantly?
 
Goodness gracious how many “missing links” can a theory have and still be considered true? It seems every few months they discover some new “missing link” in the evolutionary chain, and it makes me wonder, if the theory has so many parts missing to it, why in the world do people believe it so adamantly?
A very good question. Part of the answer is trust. Your teacher trusted the person who taught him or her. Your teacher trusts the authors of the textbook they use.

Think about it. On a science program, you are told the following: “If we find planets that have liquid water and the building blocks of life, we will likely find life on other worlds.” Scientists are asking us to trust that statement, but what does it mean? It means liquid water and amino acids will spontaneously produce life.

Peace,
Ed
 
Goodness gracious how many “missing links” can a theory have and still be considered true? It seems every few months they discover some new “missing link” in the evolutionary chain, and it makes me wonder, if the theory has so many parts missing to it, why in the world do people believe it so adamantly?
… are you… serious? :confused:

-------O---------O--------] = there are 2 links. This means there are 3 missing links. Lets add al link.

-------O—O----O--------] = now there are 3 links, and 4 missing links.

Do you see the unreasonable expectation some people have now? Ignoring all the links and current evidence just because every possible fossil hasn’t been found is like me saying you didn’t grow up from a baby because I haven’t witnessed every single second of your life.
 
…And it appears that whatever evidence is found is not as important as keeping the theory intact. Something gradually changed into something else. But the science, what little there is, pales in comparison to attributing the origin of man to a series of random accidents or mistakes.
And yet the evidence is overwhelming!! How weird is that? Silly old evolutionists, fancy basing their theories on evidence. A sky hook is a far more convincing explanation! :rolleyes:
 
Evidence of what exactly? Viruses remain viruses, bacteria remain bacteria, and the breeding of dogs produces dogs.

Peace,
Ed
 
Evidence of what exactly? Viruses remain viruses, bacteria remain bacteria, and the breeding of dogs produces dogs.
Hmmm, let’s see. Darwin’s theory is just about 150 years old. The first single-celled organisms originated between 3 and 4 BILLION years ago. That’s a factor of at least 20 million. And your argument is that you haven’t seen much change recently?
 
Hmmm, let’s see. Darwin’s theory is just about 150 years old. The first single-celled organisms originated between 3 and 4 BILLION years ago. That’s a factor of at least 20 million. And your argument is that you haven’t seen much change recently?
Scientists do not teach spontaneous generation of life as a fact. Life has not been created in the lab.

Viruses have the built in ability to change but always remain viruses.
Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria but always remain bacteria. This capability is already built in.
Dogs only produce dogs after crossbreeding. This ability is already preexisting, otherwise nothing would happen.

Peace,
Ed
 
Scientists do not teach spontaneous generation of life as a fact. Life has not been created in the lab.

Viruses have the built in ability to change but always remain viruses.
Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria but always remain bacteria. This capability is already built in.
Dogs only produce dogs after crossbreeding. This ability is already preexisting, otherwise nothing would happen.

Peace,
Ed
It’s simply a matter of timescale and opportunity. By your logic, if you walked in on a long chess game and watched it for 1 second you would refuse to believe that any pieces had even been moved.
 
Scientists do not teach spontaneous generation of life as a fact. Life has not been created in the lab.

Viruses have the built in ability to change but always remain viruses.
Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria but always remain bacteria. This capability is already built in.
Dogs only produce dogs after crossbreeding. This ability is already preexisting, otherwise nothing would happen.

Peace,
Ed
Greetings! You are right about spontaneous generation. The idea that life originally arose from lifeless matter is only speculation for which there is some supporting evidence following Oparin’s thinking. T.H. Huxley, the evolutionist said it is a metaphysical vision, a sort of philosophic faith that believes life originated, naturally, from lifeless matter in a sort of primeval soup.

Plants and animals reproduce according their types because nature is orderly and exhibits rational design. However, there is more to the biological picture. The fossil record clearly shows the existence of life forms that did not exist at a much earlier date. That is, species exist now for which there are no very ancient fossil records. The situation necessitates the belief that new species have originated over time. Spontaneous generation has been disproved as a possible explanation. So, how does one account for the origin of new species?

The possible answers are not that many. (1) There are various theories of biological evolution. (2) The creationists posit a special creation of each new species. (3) St. Augustine (and St. Gregory of Nyssa) offered a theological hypothesis of rationes seminales in which matter was originally created with the potencies for new life forms that emerge over time as the opportunities present themselves.

My question for you is, How do you explain the emergence of new species?
 
Thank you for your reply. The current level of knowledge indicates several things that require looking outside of the box. First, dating methods are highly suspect. Fossilized trees pass through many rock strata. Supposedly extinct plants have been found on land and in the ocean. The coelocanth appears to be a survivor of supposedly millions of years of changes in the composition of ocean water. There is evidence that man saw and depicted dinosaurs on pottery and metal.

The Cambrian Explosion shows animals in their finished state. The dinosaurs, which came before, died out for reasons unknown. The latest research indicates birds likely evolved in parallel with dinosaurs. The geologic column shows evidence of rapid burial in some spots, suggesting catastrophic events. The earth may not be 6,000 years old but it appears it is younger than millions of years. As Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, there are no clearly transitional fossils. It appears that animals can vary to some degree as a result of their environment. Humans vary from Oriental to Caucasian, but we are all human regardless of differences in skull shape, skin color or epicanthic fold in the eyes.

At this point, I am doubtful speciation occurred. It appears animals were created in their finished state with the built-in potential for some environmental modification. Look at dogs. The variation among skull shapes is great, as well as body types, but they are all dogs.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you for your reply. The current level of knowledge indicates several things that require looking outside of the box. First, dating methods are highly suspect. Fossilized trees pass through many rock strata. Supposedly extinct plants have been found on land and in the ocean. The coelocanth appears to be a survivor of supposedly millions of years of changes in the composition of ocean water. There is evidence that man saw and depicted dinosaurs on pottery and metal.
To whom, may I ask, are dating methods suspect? Dating methods have gotten ever more precise. Employing multiple methods of dating provides a check. It is common for young earth creationists to cite errors in dating as evidence for the unreliability of dating methods. However, the arguments are flawed because whenever an error in dating is suspected scientists analyse, evaluate and correct the error. Scientists are the first to be concerned about the reliability of and possible errors in dating. I don’t know of a single member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who doubts the general reliability of radiometric, carbon-14, and other widely used methods for dating artifacts, fossils, etc.

The fact that there are discoveries of living varieties of forms once thought to be extinct does not constitute evidence that contradicts evolution in the broad sense. The vast majority of species that have ever lived are now extinct. Extinction is the rule. Some species, however, can claim an atypical ability to survive. Bacteria have changed little over gazillions of years.

Do you have some clear pictures, links to photos of pottery and metal depicting dinos?
The Cambrian Explosion shows animals in their finished state. The dinosaurs, which came before, died out for reasons unknown. The latest research indicates birds likely evolved in parallel with dinosaurs. The geologic column shows evidence of rapid burial in some spots, suggesting catastrophic events. The earth may not be 6,000 years old but it appears it is younger than millions of years. As Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, there are no clearly transitional fossils. It appears that animals can vary to some degree as a result of their environment. Humans vary from Oriental to Caucasian, but we are all human regardless of differences in skull shape, skin color or epicanthic fold in the eyes.

At this point, I am doubtful speciation occurred. It appears animals were created in their finished state with the built-in potential for some environmental modification. Look at dogs. The variation among skull shapes is great, as well as body types, but they are all dogs.
Peace,
Ed
What evidence can you cite that clearly favors a world that is millions of years old over a world of 4.5 billion years?

The absence of transitional forms presents a genuine problem for the Darwinian version of gradual transmutation. But since you mentioned Cardinal Schoenborn on this issue, you did not mention that he thinks the world is billions of years old and that the ever increasing variety of new forms of flora and fauna are the result of evolution, evolution understood as the instrumentality of second causes operating under the influence of God’s creative activity rather than evolution operating randomly in the extreme Darwinian sense.

The existence of macro-evolution is strictly inferential. No one has ever observed a change in species. Evolutionist Lynn Margolis has taken the Darwinians to task on macro-evolution. The question hinges on the evidence supporting the inference of macro mutations. The true ground for evolution in not Darwinian natural selection, but the instrumentality of species in the production of new forms.

What evidence, scientific, Biblical, or theological can you offer for the direct creation of each new species?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top