re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin

quote:

---

What a joke

For 250,000 years they barely could feed themselves, yet they had the exact same brain power on Dec 31st of the Stone age, that they did on Jan 1st of the Bronze age. But somehow had no time for self-improvement, or hadn't figured out how to feed themselves for 250,000 years. TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND

How do you tie your shoes in the morning? There is no fricking way that you believe Homo Sapiens had sufficient enough population NOT to go extinct, yet 'survived' daily for 250,000 YEARS

Unbelievable the gymnastics you evolutionists go through to shoehorn your theories together

---

Dude
We know man's history over the past 7200 yrs or so, right?

You mean to tell me that after 99% of that history, manned flight was a pipedream. Yet in less than 1% we suddenly went from no flight to landing on the moon?

No Way!

quote:

---

RobbBobb

---

How many demons have you sent back to Hell?

He's still here. He's definitely one of the God Warriors that pops into these threads.

I thought they were interesting. As in, what happened in that dude's life to make him the way he is.

quote:

---

Loons like this is why I love these threads.

---

So let me get this straight, you believe that Homo erectus lived for 1.5 MILLION years, sustaining himself daily in sufficient numbers not to go extinct, and his daily food was of such high quality that it allowed him to evolve into a higher form ....

Yet the minute that Homo sapiens evolved, they forgot all of that learned shite and regressed to barely sustaining himself, even though we have documented evidence of the progress H. Sapiens have made in the last 3,000 years since the bronze age

But you want me to believe that Homo Sapiens went up to 400,000 YEARS with nothing but the knowledge of sticks and stones?

You simply cannot believe that horsehit. We're talking 400 THOUSAND YEARS with the body and intellectual capacity of current man. I get it that you are forced to accept that, because of the slowness of the evolution theory and all, but there is no way that H. Sapiens sat around for 400,000 years with sufficient populations and food stores, AND IMPROVED NONE

Its not even remotely believable. Just admit it that its a matter of your faith, and move on. But quit pretending that it actually happened

quote:

---

Though I was looking forward to challenging CivilTiger and his microevolution with reptilian genome characteristics of the platypus.

---

quote:

---

So let me get this straight, you believe that Homo erectus lived for 1.5 MILLION years, sustaining himself daily in sufficient numbers not to go extinct, and his daily food was of such high quality that it allowed him to evolve into a higher form ....

Yet the minute that Homo sapiens evolved, they forgot all of that learned shite and regressed to barely sustaining himself, even though we have documented evidence of the progress H. Sapiens have made in the last 3,000 years since the bronze age

But you want me to believe that Homo Sapiens went up to 400,000 YEARS with nothing but the knowledge of sticks and stones?

You simply cannot believe that horsehit. We're talking 400 THOUSAND YEARS with the body and intellectual capacity of current man. I get it that you are forced to accept that, because of the slowness of the evolution theory and all, but there is no way that H. Sapiens sat around for 400,000 years with sufficient populations and food stores, AND IMPROVED NONE

Its not even remotely believable. Just admit it that its a matter of your faith, and move on. But quit pretending that it actually happened

---

No way.

More likely, we'd be immortal if a woman stuck to chocolate instead of apples and was terrified of snakes like every other fricking woman on the planet.

quote:

---

Though I was looking forward to challenging CivilTiger and his microevolution with reptilian genome characteristics of the platypus.

---

Well Huckleberry, what say you?

quote:

---

We're talking 400 THOUSAND YEARS with the body and intellectual capacity of current man. I get it that you are forced to accept that, because of the slowness of the evolution theory and all, but there is no way that H. Sapiens sat around for 400,000 years with sufficient populations and food stores, AND IMPROVED NONE

---

You are conflating intelligence with knowledge. Intelligence is inherent, while knowledge must be acquired.

You are also comparing the rate of advancement of the distant past with the rate of advancement today. You don't seem to grasp how difficult it is to gain knowledge when there is a limited base of existing knowledge to build on.

You also don't seem to understand how difficult it is to retain knowledge and pass it down. Even in recent history, knowledge can be lost and must be regained. We're still not sure how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Humanity forgot how to make concrete for centuries. It takes a lot of time and effort to record knowledge, and to teach it to others so that they might build on it. This is especially true when there are no widespread languages or writing systems.

Can you imagine how people might have reacted when they first saw fire? How many times, how many people, do you think had to encounter it before someone finally thought to try to harness it? And how many times, how many people, do you think had to try to harness it before someone was finally able to do it? And how many times do you think that happened before the knowledge finally spread around the world? With no universal language, with no way to record the knowledge. The knowledge required to control fire was likely gained and lost independently hundreds of times. Similarly the ability to create fire. Then people had to figure out how to cook, a skill many of us have still not acquired.



Then there is the fact that people like YOU have always existed, actively fighting against knowledge. You seem to be afraid of the truth of evolution, because it challenges your entire worldview. So even WITH the tools of writing, and the existing knowledge base, we still have people like YOU who deny the truth of evolution. In Darwin's time, it was accepted as fact that the earth was 6,000 years old, not nearly enough time for evolution to produce the varied life on earth. This was a significant problem, as you might imagine. The best scientists of his time, physicists, astronomers, figured that the earth couldn't be more than maybe 100 million years old. Still not long enough. It wasn't until decades later that we learned to calculate rates of radioactive decay, and finally we knew that the earth was billions of years old. Yet people like YOU still didn't accept the truth. We are only now scratching the surface of unlocking the secrets of DNA, but every new discovery paints a clearer picture of evolution. We can predict traits and disease from DNA. We can edit DNA to produce desirable traits. We are toying with the source code of life. We can see the results of our changes. We can observe the results of nature's changes. We can see the similarities and differences between any two organisms. Yet people like YOU still don't accept the truth.




So you want to know how humans could have gone hundreds of thousands of years while making seemingly little technological progress? Ignorance. If you are ignorant to the facts and possibilities, then you have no guidance on where to go. You don't know what to look for, what to try. You have no idea what the next step should be. Ignorance, willful or not, is the root of stagnated advancement. So if everyone were like YOU and chose to remain ignorant even when presented with knowledge, then we would still be hunting with sticks and stones.

quote:

---

You don't seem to grasp how difficult it is to gain knowledge when there is a limited base of existing knowledge to build on.

---

Hell. Just within recorded history, we've discovered that certain things were "discovered" and then re-discovered several times.

For your knowledge to pass on you at the least need to be able to write it down in some way AND, have your writings survive if your particular subset of humans dies in a plague or due to famine or war. Among myriad other things.

quote:

---

With no universal language, with no way to record the knowledge. The knowledge required to control fire was likely gained and lost independently hundreds of times. Similarly the ability to create fire. Then people had to figure out how to cook, a skill many of us have still not acquired.

---

Yeah. It seems like RobbBobb thinks everything learned would have spread. This is sheer fantasy. Those isolated tribes we see today? Yeah. Basically ALL tribes were isolated for a very long time in human history. And, if your tribe got really good at shite, that just meant YOUR tribe got really good at shite. Alas, if famine hit your tribe, no one ELSE got good at that shite.

And, that's assuming some larger tribe with better fighters didn't show up to kill you for your hunting grounds.

Which brings us to another RobbBobb problem. While knowing how to write shite down is great, it wouldn't bave been a primary skill for survival at the outset.

The ability to hunt and avoid being hunted would have absolutely won the day between two tribes should they come in contact with each other.