Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Feb 20, 2015.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Evolution and Creation, in my opinion, based on the timing, addresses two different eras in evolution. Creation is about the rise of modern human consciousness, who has willpower and choice; Adam and Eve. The bible dates this transition about the 6000 year ago, which science says, coincides with the invention of writing. The first words of the bible are; In the beginning was the word and word was God. This is so obvious, that blind bias has made it hard for both sides to see.
What modern man, with willpower and choice, brings to the table is he becomes a force for change, replacing natural selection with artificial selection. The modern dog is no longer a pure product of natural selection. Farming, weeding and grassy lawns is not how nature works, the land. The crops are selected by choice. If you dam a river or mine the earth, you change the earth. Even now man is being blamed for altering global climate with CO2. This is not natural by a product of human will.
Creationism begins it clock at time=0, using an evolutionary analogy for the change from BC to AD. Natural selection is still at work, but there are very few pristine places where man has not added his footprint. The change had to do with changes in the human brain and mind. The human mind, by being capable of artificial selection, implies the human mind had transcended the DNA, at some level, since the DNA and evolution is connected to natural selection. Instead of BC and AD, which is about Christianity changing the human clock, maybe Evolution to Creation, could be denoted as NS and AS to denote the transition from natural to artificial selection; impact of human choice on nature.
The critters of Genesis are based on what the first humans wished to see; by choice, as the chosen critters. This is still consistent with the modernist who take this literally; by choice. The discussion would benefit by adding the NS to AS, transition, since religion is more in tuned with early AS it pertains to changes humans do themselves, to become more unnatural and less of a part of NS. The bible is about a balance between the two sides.
What the invention of writing brought to the table, was helped to fix thoughts through written media. With only spoken language, the memory changes and people will begin to disagree as time goes on. The memory will begin to drift. If we write it down, get people to sign, when this memory divergence begins, we have a way to get back to the agreement.
If you were breeding dogs and needed to maintain a pure bloodline pedigree, if you did not keep records, memory drift and natural selection would cause the line to drift away. The writing keeps the choice in line in terms of family tree. Writing was needed so willpower could be sustained for long periods of time; writing can help oppose the natural drift of the mind. Law is something that is written and enforced, to prevent drifting away from intent of the law. An unwritten law is subject to subjective interpretation leading to drift and change; lack of willpower.
With Genesis one of the first written documents it provided a way to return to the original intent. It is not subject to either objective and subjective drift; maintained as was. It helps us to learn about the original changes into AS, through the eyes of those undergoing change and the pitfalls they saw. It is not 20/20 hindsight of science and the Monday morning quarterback; revisionists, but through the eyes of those in the game.
Your opinion is not science. Adam and Eve are mythology and not science. The bible is mythology and not science.
Why do you seem completely unable to discuss science with out making shit up or bringing in mythology?
Why are you trying to derail this thread? This is just your rambling thoughts that have nothing to do with evolution. Make your own thread in religion or random thoughts if you find your ideas that compelling.
Off topic, but isn't it high time to stop talking about "when the dinosaurs ruled the world" and start calling it "when the birds ruled the world?"
The dating of the writing of Genesis is about 6000 years ago. The invention of writing, occurred at about 6000 years ago according to science. What is the problem with an inference that adds 2 plus 2 and notice both things occur close in time. This is based on science dating. The bible begins; in the beginning was the word. Science show the word 6000 years ago was connected to the invention of writing.
The next science based question is, what did writing bring to the table, in terms of humans. Bible aside, writing helps you to study and remember, which is why we don't have just lectures in universities, without text books and notes. If you only had lectures in college, with nothing in writing, minds would diverge, since people absorb and remember differently, with even the input memory also changing with time. With writing, we all have the same meeting of the minds as a goal. Time heals all wound; memory changes, unless it is put down in writing; memory refresh.
The natural drift of the human mind is back to the divergence of thought. The impact of writing on human evolution, was with thoughts now carved in stone; written, the humans, as a group, could now follow, exceed or even degrade natural instinct; war. Artificial selection begins to take over as humans begin to alter nature; herding, farming, mining, sanitation problems, etc.
Natural selection in a city is impacted by the choices of man. City is now part of the environment that is defining the needs of selection. Genesis is written 6000 years ago and it is a written account of the first generation of humans, where the memory solidifies due to writing; man has free will via an external tool.
People 6000 years ago did not know all he rules of modern science, anymore than Darwin knew about genetic theory. Both Genesis and Darwin occurred earlier than either modern invention and each reflect the state of the art for its own day. Liberalism tends to teach revisionist history, so maybe you fail to understand history, in the context of its own time, Rather you want to use modern thinking and bias to Monday morning quarterback the past. Maybe Adam had an i-pad and could have Google searched whether snakes could talk, in revisionist history.
In modern times, the human life expectancy is increasing due to the human mind, with writings in journals part of the capacitance of thinking, that allowed humans to build to this. If we burned all the books and stop teaching anything in writing, the mind would drift backwards as divergence appears ,and only instinct works to integrate. There is a capacitance of written tradition that is fluff humans in being part of artificial selection. This all begin somewhere; first writings.
Not all dinosaurs were in the therapod line, nor in the narrower line of those that led to the Aves. But: good ol' Troodon, eh? Russell's 'dinosauroid' was just a touch too humanoid, but one wonders, eh? What might have happened if the comet hadn't crushed them? - or, alternatively, led to the ecological damage that probably did them in. In fact, what happened in that 12 million year gap (an enormous stretch of time, simply breathtaking) between the first identifiable Troodon and the K/T boundary? Mind you, if anything semi-intelligent came out of that, they didn't become world dominators anything close to us, simply because we'd be tripping over their bloody skeletons left right and centre. But it does make one wonder.
I like to visualize being among the people of 6000 years ago. I can see someone coming up with the invention of writing. This tool is very powerful for opposing the natural drifting of memory, making thoughts, tangible and persistant. Thoughts had been like smoke that float by and are forgotten. Good idea that comes and goes if not acted upon immediately. Now these smoky things, take solid form, being recorded by writing. Now I can refresh my mind and go from there.
Now that thoughts can be made tangible and enduring, it was now time to observe and write about the things we see around us. You notice the sun and the moon, the sky and sea are both blue and appear to touch. You notice and write down the flying things and the things that walk and crawl that you see near you.
These solid thoughts, put down in writing, forms a new foundation for the mind, one that doesn't drift in and out of consciousness via the ebb and flow of instinct. The world is forming in a tangible way, built on a solid platforms, that is separate from the ebb and flow of instinct. These new humans saw the world forming before their eyes. The world was always there, just not solid like it was now becoming; all can agree.
This platform now allows all types of invention to persist. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is interesting because the symbols tell us that law of good and evil, was not supposed to be written down; carved in stone. If written it would replace natural instinct with artificial instinct, cast in stone, unable to diverse back to natural; Eden is sealed. Natural instinct is neutral but law is polarized so neutral becomes polarized and by being written in stone, original sin would persist.
I like to speculate, if law of good and evil had not been written down, such that humans continued to relate to each other, based on natural instinct, we as modern humans would still be a part of natural selection. What would still be written down, would be observations of nature, science, invention, commerce, history and math, architecture and all things neutral and useful. Humans would be very advanced, but connected to nature in ways where humans are causing nature to evolve with them as they mature as a new species that is both inside and outside itself; instinct and tangibles of writing.
First of all the writing of the Torah was about 3500 years ago not 6000.
Secondly you wrote:
Creation is about the rise of modern human consciousness, who has willpower and choice; Adam and Eve. The bible dates this transition about the 6000 year ago.
If you have any evidence of this, other than your unsubstantiated conjectures based on mythological writings, I would sure like to see it. The best current estimate of the transition to fully human occurred about 100,000 years ago.
Your attempts to tie the evolution of humans to the bible and Adam and Eve is patently absurd.
Humans are still subject to natural selection.
According to Wikipedia, it isn't even that old, being written during the Babylonian exile, less than 3,000 years ago.
To suggest that the Torah was written around 4000BCE contradicts everything we know about the Jewish people. They first appear in the archeological record around 2000BCE, one of many tribes speaking Semitic languages--a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family that also includes the Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian and Omotic branches.
Since populations of Semitic speakers are found in both Asia Minor and North Africa, it's impossible to determine where their earliest ancestors lived. They have interacted and interbred with every group of explorers, conquerors, traders and refugees who passed through the region, so their DNA isn't much help in solving the riddle of their origin either.
I've seen it pushed to 150KYA, but who's counting.
The invention of the technology of spoken language seems to have occurred roughly 70KYA, because this is when we see bountiful evidence of complex, coordinated activities that could not possibly be performed by people who were using their hands to communicate at the same time. Could it have evolved in a mere 30,000 years?
Indeed, but there is considerable unnatural selection at work. Parents steer their children toward marriages within their own religion or within their own ethnicity, or practice hypergamy, marrying them to someone from a higher social rank or a higher income bracket.
But our species also has an instinct named the Westermarck Effect, which urges us to choose a mate to whom we are not closely related. This is why, despite the racism that has been common in our culture for millennia, we continue to marry people of other races simply because they seem exotic. On a smaller scale, Westermarck urges us not to marry a member of our own family.
This instinct probably has a lot to do with the success of our species. It's not easy for defective chromosomes to double-up.
If you really do wanna nitpick the ol' texts, in Genesis the sun wasn't created untill the fourth day, so whatever math came up with 6,000 years, it doesn't have to be 6,000 Solar years, it can be any length of time. I saw that in Inherit the Wind.
Anthropologists discuss a Y-chromosomal Adam and a Mitochondrial Eve, which is something about calculating the spread of genes back to a genetically common ancestor in either gender of the human race. Wiki says, "A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago." So there.
That's Genesis 1. Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve) is a completely different story.
Each of these individuals was a genetic bottleneck, a time at which the human population shrank perilously--due to a famine, an epidemic, the sudden appearance of a more aggressive species of apex predator, etc.
It's unlikely that there was a moment at which only one male human or one female human lived long enough to procreate, but it's reasonable to deduce that at one moment all members of a generation were descendants of one male human or one female human.
Every every living human has the mitochondrial DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, and every living male human has the DNA of Y-chromosome Adam. (Males have both an X and Y chromosome, while females have only Y chromosomes.)
They were bipeds, with fore-limbs that could have evolved into manipulators. They were large-brained predators, fast moving, with a brain/body-mass ratio similar to modern birds. They could have become the raw-material for the evolution of a highly-adaptable general-purpose predator, whose evolutionary speciality was the ability to adapt to new situations. That would have put them in the same position that the early primates that gave rise to the first hominids.
Oh man, Geoff! Could you imagine if somebody found primitive stone tools associated with the remains of larger-brained variants in their line? I guess the earlier hominids in our primate line weren't hugely numerous at first and were restricted to the rift valley area of East Africa.
No, I'm not peddling that, either. Not since some biomolecule was spawned three or four billion years ago by some lightning bolt hitting a random set of atoms, or landed on the planet on some comet or what ever it was, could we ever have descended from just one individual, or a pair, and even then it's not that likely. I understand that much. It's just that some people are still stuck in perceiving specific texts as eternal soothsayings, which heavily limits scientific inquisitiveness, unless you grant them the window of metaphorical interpretation based on those dogmatic conclusions about Creation. Texts, which BTW were written by human beings with what ever local agendas, conscious or subconscious, not some perceived being or beings mastering the forces of the Universe (beings, which for no particular reason always has an ethology quite similar to our own). There are no words of God, 'cause the forces of the Cosmos doesn't speak, it is humans that speak (and possibly dolphins, but that's disputed).
I think you made a typo there Fraggle. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.