quote:
Not necessarily true. A lot of mainstream theologians would argue that Adam and Eve had perfect bodies before they fell from grace, and since then humans have had imperfect (and consequently mortal) bodies.

So Adam and Eve didnt have things like appendixes, poor eye design and recurrent laryngeal nerves? They didnt have wisdom teeth or unused DNA? All things arose after the fall?

Not to mention the fact that genetics shows beyond a shadow of a doubt humanity could not have arisen from just two people a few thousand years ago.

quote:
Not really making your point very well. If different organs can step up and help out when needed, that's a positive design feature, not an imperfection, and it undercuts the idea that any organ is useless. That's true even if you believe the design feature was created unconsciously by evolutionary processes.

This is not true. Minimal gain is not selected for if the gain is outweighed by detrimental effects, as it is with the appendix. Whatever minimal function it has has no identifiable longterm benefits compared to those without an appendix, but those with an appendix are much more likely to suffer from certain life threatening diseases than those without it.

A good example of this is the gallbladder. We dont require a gallbladder to live, and the gallbladder can end up giving you some pretty unpleasant conditions, but without a gallbladder people suffer noticeable side effects and related conditions often due to malnutrition and fluid loss through diarrhea. So, the gallbladder even with its possible deleterious effects would be selected for because it allows better aquisition of nutrients and its benefit outweighs its risks.

This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 3:03 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

Premium Member

Member since Jan 2005

71567 posts

Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:23 pm to Roger Klarvin

quote:
So Adam and Eve didnt have things like appendixes, poor eye design and recurrent laryngeal nerves? They didnt have wisdom teeth or unused DNA? All things arose after the fall?

Multiple problems with that argument. First, your alleged flaws in the human body have already been debunked by NC Tigah. Second, you're assuming that all of those features were detrimental in hunter-gatherer societies. Our bodies are built (whether you want to credit God or evolution or both) for a very different world from the one we have today, and the environment has changed too rapidly for us to evolve. So characteristics that may have been beneficial in the past are now detrimental.

quote:
Not to mention the fact that genetics shows beyond a shadow of a doubt humanity could not have arisen from just two people a few thousand years ago.

A 6000 year old earth is bad theology. The Hebrews didn't record genealogy the way we do today. We would say Prescott Bush begat George HW Bush, who begat Jeb, who begat George P. To the ancient Hebrews, it would have been perfectly acceptable to skip or combine generations, so they might say Prescott begat George P. The only way to arrive at a 6000 year old Earth is to apply contemporary Western genealogical standards to Genesis.

As far as the most recent common ancestor, it could be a lot more recent than you assert. I've seen population experts conclude that one could have lived as recently as AD 55. 20% of Irish males have Niall's Y chromosome. So it's definitely not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the MRCA lived more than a few thousand years ago.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board