How the heck did we get here?!
Thursday, November 8, 2001 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Depending on your religon (or lack there of) you probably have a belief of how we humans got to be on this earth.
What's your view on it?
Here's mine (based on a collection of reading over the years):
About 4 million years ago in East Africa a particular type of ape lived in the jungle. This ape was the prececessor of what we now call humans and chimps. The climate was changing in that part of Africa to be a lot dryer forcing some of these apes to begin leaving the trees. The ones that stayed became chimps. The ones that went out there mostly died.
They died because they couldn't see the lions and other nasties out there. But a handful of them figured out that if you stood on your hind legs that you could see further. Hence those lived and passed their genes on. As time went on, more and more of these surviors were walking up right. This was important not just because they could see further but they could walk further.
This freed their hands up to do other things and most of them were still dying to lions and other nasties. But some of them were bright enough to throw rocks and they lived, to pass on their genes. Repeat this cycle for 3.9 million years and you have homosapiens. Add some other birth defects in that pushed us alon gin having to obtain a variety of food that chimps don't (humans can't produce Vitamin C, we have to consume foods that have it) and only the smarter ones survived.
Around 60,000 years ago these homosapiens, for reasons I don't know, figured out how to communicate verbally. Perhaps it was a mutation (all humans have a birth defect that causes us to be unable to drink and breath at the same time, this allows us to make a lot more sounds than any other mammal - while we're not choking anyway). Once we were able to start communicating like this, ideas could be passed along and within 60,000 years we went from hunting and gathering to farming (around 8000 years ago) to where we are now.
So what's your view?
What's your view on it?
Here's mine (based on a collection of reading over the years):
About 4 million years ago in East Africa a particular type of ape lived in the jungle. This ape was the prececessor of what we now call humans and chimps. The climate was changing in that part of Africa to be a lot dryer forcing some of these apes to begin leaving the trees. The ones that stayed became chimps. The ones that went out there mostly died.
They died because they couldn't see the lions and other nasties out there. But a handful of them figured out that if you stood on your hind legs that you could see further. Hence those lived and passed their genes on. As time went on, more and more of these surviors were walking up right. This was important not just because they could see further but they could walk further.
This freed their hands up to do other things and most of them were still dying to lions and other nasties. But some of them were bright enough to throw rocks and they lived, to pass on their genes. Repeat this cycle for 3.9 million years and you have homosapiens. Add some other birth defects in that pushed us alon gin having to obtain a variety of food that chimps don't (humans can't produce Vitamin C, we have to consume foods that have it) and only the smarter ones survived.
Around 60,000 years ago these homosapiens, for reasons I don't know, figured out how to communicate verbally. Perhaps it was a mutation (all humans have a birth defect that causes us to be unable to drink and breath at the same time, this allows us to make a lot more sounds than any other mammal - while we're not choking anyway). Once we were able to start communicating like this, ideas could be passed along and within 60,000 years we went from hunting and gathering to farming (around 8000 years ago) to where we are now.
So what's your view?
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
CariElf
Reply #22 Thursday, November 8, 2001 1:41 PM
Reply #22 Thursday, November 8, 2001 1:41 PM
Earlier this year at a family reunion, I had the chance to talk to two atheists (who both have degrees in philosophy and who both used to be Christian). They are both monalists (sorry if I'm spelling it wrong), which means that they believe that there is nothing more than the physical, that emotions are merely firing synapses. Basically, that humans are little better than machines. Because one of them was my cousin and the other was another cousin's boyfriend, it was a civilized discussion. Unforunately, me and my cousins who do believe in God weren't able to argue as well as the other side because we didn't have the education to pull it off. We would have gone all night if we weren't in someone else's hotel room. As it was, I left the conversation feeling rather frustrated. People who believe in the intangible have the harder argument because it's much harder if not impossible to prove empirically. Logical, scientific people can sit there and point out all the inaccuracies in the Bible. The accuracy isn't really the point. The Bible is a collection of works written by people who were struggling to describe something that was too big, too intangible for words. When it comes down to it, faith is a personal experience. Parents can drag their children to Church, read them children's Bible stories and do everything they can into brainwashing their children into believing in a religion, it doesn't stick when the child grows old enough to think for him/herself unless the child experiences faith. It could be a big thing, or it could be a small thing, but unless something speaks to a person, his/her faith will not thrive. Yet, too often when the faithful try to share their experiences, they are denounced as liars, frauds, or labeled as delusional, because it's not something that the skeptical can understand: it's not in their experience. I can only feel compassion for the people who have not experienced faith. Perhaps someday they will, and then they will know what they are missing. When you are a child, reality doesn't scare you very much because Mommy and Daddy will take care of it. When you are an adult, whose hands can you put your worries in if not God's? You can argue that you can depend on yourself, on friends, on family, but it is not the same as the absolute trust that a child has for his/her parents. So go ahead. Mock us. Tell us that we're credulous, illogical fools. Whatever. It doesn't matter. We know what we know and you know what you know. I am happy. Are you?
paxx
Reply #23 Thursday, November 8, 2001 2:17 PM
Reply #23 Thursday, November 8, 2001 2:17 PM
Wel about 2 or 3 months ago, I had some friends over and we started talking about religion, or the spiritual. We soon realized that among the 5 people around the table, not two people believed the same thing. Once was a scientist-catholic (believed in evolution and in God, and argued that the Bible was only humans trying to write down God words, which leads to inacuracies and fables), one was a reincartionist, one was a pure catholic (the Bible should not be interpreted, but followed to the letter), one just believed there was something there but believed in no specific religion, and there was me saying I don't think there is anything there but who knows... It was quite a facinating discussion. We were all adults and we all listened and talked calmly. A memorable evening.
Emily
Reply #24 Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:52 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:52 PM
"Walking with Dinosaurs" appears on the Discovery channel. In essence the Dinosaurs were dominate and then an asteroid hit and wiped everything large out. The mammals were in that period a galaxy of rodents which evolved in all kinds of directions. Rodents to protomonkeys. Protomonkeys into true monkeys.Monkeys to apes. Apes to human beings.
These theories do not replace the belief in a higher power. Evolutions doesn't conflict very much with Genesis.
These theories do not replace the belief in a higher power. Evolutions doesn't conflict very much with Genesis.
JayG
Reply #25 Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 PM
Reply #25 Monday, November 12, 2001 10:18 PM
still takes faith to believe in these odds. in order for this to happen a lot of unimaginably unlikely things had to happen first. monkeys and apes and humans are the only animals with arms that are so flexible. the hands were already properly ready to be used. if a cow had stood up on its hind legs what good does that do? it can't move its arms and it has no hands.
kith
Reply #26 Monday, November 12, 2001 11:46 PM
Reply #26 Monday, November 12, 2001 11:46 PM
Personally I think I relate closest to Paxx's Scientist-Catholic description. I just have a hard time believing all of this is just a stroke of luck. However evolution did (is) happen (ing)and that much is a fact. This I think poses a much more interesting question.
Where the heck do we go from here?
If evolution happened as Brad described and Humans evolved from something less, can we continue to evolve. The reason I ask is that in the above scenario we achieved what we are by propagating through selectivity. The strong shall survive and the weak shall perish. Only the strongest and smartest would live to breeding age thus securing better genes for the next generation and so on. Now through the "miracles" of modern science even the weakest are able to live long fulfilling lives. While this is wonderful for the individual it begs the question if it's best for the Human race. Will we continue to evolve physically? Mental evolution is almost assured. However if physical evolution were to continue what changes would you like to see in your body? I for one would have appreciated not having an appendix, mine almost killed me.
Of course none of this really matters if there is something more powerful going on here...
Where the heck do we go from here?
If evolution happened as Brad described and Humans evolved from something less, can we continue to evolve. The reason I ask is that in the above scenario we achieved what we are by propagating through selectivity. The strong shall survive and the weak shall perish. Only the strongest and smartest would live to breeding age thus securing better genes for the next generation and so on. Now through the "miracles" of modern science even the weakest are able to live long fulfilling lives. While this is wonderful for the individual it begs the question if it's best for the Human race. Will we continue to evolve physically? Mental evolution is almost assured. However if physical evolution were to continue what changes would you like to see in your body? I for one would have appreciated not having an appendix, mine almost killed me.
Of course none of this really matters if there is something more powerful going on here...
Frogboy
Reply #27 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:25 AM
Reply #27 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:25 AM
Hmm. Well I don't mean to say that we evolved from something less. Just that we evolved from something different. Evolution doesn't produce better species, merely species that are better adapted to survive in their specific environment.
The Dinosaurs survived for over 100 million years. When the dinosaurs arrived, there were only reptilian mammals around.
100 million years ago there were no flowers, no grass, no bees, no ants (bees, ants, grass, flowers are all relatively recent, I flinch when I watched "Dinosaur" from Disney as they tromped on grass but I digress).
Evolution for humans is basically over. We now control evolution in our particular species and countless others. Oranges were created by humans. Cows and other livestock are quite different than they once were. Corn did not evolve naturally either. Controlled development will create interesting results.
The Dinosaurs survived for over 100 million years. When the dinosaurs arrived, there were only reptilian mammals around.
100 million years ago there were no flowers, no grass, no bees, no ants (bees, ants, grass, flowers are all relatively recent, I flinch when I watched "Dinosaur" from Disney as they tromped on grass but I digress).
Evolution for humans is basically over. We now control evolution in our particular species and countless others. Oranges were created by humans. Cows and other livestock are quite different than they once were. Corn did not evolve naturally either. Controlled development will create interesting results.
zathrus
Reply #28 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:55 AM
Reply #28 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:55 AM
No one has mentioned (I think) that while you're in your mother's womb, there is a short period where you are actually equiped with gills, and a tail. I find this somewhat disturbing.
I'm lucky enough to have a mother who has a collection of medical books that could rival... um, well its impressive ('specially the old ones). Anyway I'm going to go see if I can (re)find the facts to back this up.
wierd.
I'm lucky enough to have a mother who has a collection of medical books that could rival... um, well its impressive ('specially the old ones). Anyway I'm going to go see if I can (re)find the facts to back this up.
wierd.
zathrus
Reply #29 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:01 AM
Reply #29 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:01 AM
Frogboy: "Evolution for humans is basically over. "
Well, there are the little things. Like: we definately have less hair than ancestors, and this looks like its continuing to this day. Have you noticed, for instance, male pattern baldness is increasing? I believe this directly linked to the way we pretty much control our environment to suit ourselves. We're not in the sun all the time. We have air-con. And spiffy clothes.
Ok, so I was splitting hairs here... Forgive me
Well, there are the little things. Like: we definately have less hair than ancestors, and this looks like its continuing to this day. Have you noticed, for instance, male pattern baldness is increasing? I believe this directly linked to the way we pretty much control our environment to suit ourselves. We're not in the sun all the time. We have air-con. And spiffy clothes.
Ok, so I was splitting hairs here... Forgive me
craeonics
Reply #30 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:12 AM
Reply #30 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:12 AM
Like froggy said, it's not about the strong or the smart, but about those who are best adapted. Or the other way around, those that do not go extinct.
So me might want to save the panda, but evolutionwise it's dying. Or not?
As for human evolution: smaller toes, I think we're going to loose some, in time.
So me might want to save the panda, but evolutionwise it's dying. Or not?
As for human evolution: smaller toes, I think we're going to loose some, in time.
paxx
Reply #31 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:18 AM
Reply #31 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:18 AM
Oh, evolution is never over.
For example, I never had any wisdom teeth, my dentist said that some people never have any, part of an evolution thing. We are also taller than our ancestors (and no, it's not just about good nutrition - the first men were no more than 4 feet tall).
In our human world, fittest means smartest. I do think human evolution will work that way and that the humans of the future will me much smarter.
For example, I never had any wisdom teeth, my dentist said that some people never have any, part of an evolution thing. We are also taller than our ancestors (and no, it's not just about good nutrition - the first men were no more than 4 feet tall).
In our human world, fittest means smartest. I do think human evolution will work that way and that the humans of the future will me much smarter.
zathrus
Reply #32 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:39 AM
Reply #32 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:39 AM
Then its almost reassuring that we only use a small percentage of our brain. Could you imagine what would happen if we were at capacity. I thinking of how Windows spazzes out when the HDD get full.
kimk546
Reply #33 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:09 AM
Reply #33 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:09 AM
I agree that we will continue to evolve to some degree. It only makes sense.
I saw a program on the Discovery Channel a few months back that discussed this. Basically saying that certain physical features that are considered "more attractive" will become more common. The example they gave is the "baby face" - we are generally more attracted to people with a round face and younger looking features.
I would like to see humans without excessive body hair (or some body hair altother) and toenails. These are a few of my least favorite things.
I saw a program on the Discovery Channel a few months back that discussed this. Basically saying that certain physical features that are considered "more attractive" will become more common. The example they gave is the "baby face" - we are generally more attracted to people with a round face and younger looking features.
I would like to see humans without excessive body hair (or some body hair altother) and toenails. These are a few of my least favorite things.
Doreen
Reply #34 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:48 AM
Reply #34 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:48 AM
you guys all need to go read the readme...
It's called the Bible
It's called the Bible
jtfolden
Reply #36 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:15 PM
That's funny Doreen... I'm running a different Belief System that you are though, so the readme is different as well.
Reply #36 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:15 PM
That's funny Doreen... I'm running a different Belief System that you are though, so the readme is different as well.
Jafo
Reply #37 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:58 PM
Reply #37 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:58 PM
Doreen...are you referring to the Bible as a RTFM?....
pjpowell
Reply #38 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:27 PM
Reply #38 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:27 PM
Bible == Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
And that is what I believe it is. It explains what we need to do to get to know our Lord and creator so we can go to be with Him forever. I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible and believe the whole thing is inspired by God from start to finish.
As to the subject: I do not believe in evolution as it is described by Darwin with people evolving from monkeys etc. I believe the story of Genesis fully and see no contradictions there. But I do see contradictions with that account and the theory of evolution. Maybe this isn't the place to really go into that but I have read around the subject and there are some astounding facts which seem to be overlooked by many scientists.
crae: The first account is of the creation of the world and contains the references to the days (which I believe to be normal days). The second centres on the Garden of Eden specifically. The first describes a specific order. The second just says that these things happened and centres purely on the man, woman and the garden. I don't see any reference in this second account to days or anything like that in my Bible.
And that is what I believe it is. It explains what we need to do to get to know our Lord and creator so we can go to be with Him forever. I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible and believe the whole thing is inspired by God from start to finish.
As to the subject: I do not believe in evolution as it is described by Darwin with people evolving from monkeys etc. I believe the story of Genesis fully and see no contradictions there. But I do see contradictions with that account and the theory of evolution. Maybe this isn't the place to really go into that but I have read around the subject and there are some astounding facts which seem to be overlooked by many scientists.
crae: The first account is of the creation of the world and contains the references to the days (which I believe to be normal days). The second centres on the Garden of Eden specifically. The first describes a specific order. The second just says that these things happened and centres purely on the man, woman and the garden. I don't see any reference in this second account to days or anything like that in my Bible.
paxx
Reply #39 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:29 PM
Reply #39 Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:29 PM
Actually, I'm reading a book right now. Highly interesting. I'm learning that the Bible had way more than 4 Gospels until the 5th century. It was then decided that only those four were to be released "to the public" while keeping the only Gospels for the more initiated, the christian expert so to speak, because the other books didn't exacly tell the life of Jesus the way the early church wanted to. One of those book was the Gospel of St-Thomas.
I also learned that noen of those 4 Gospels were written by anybody who had known or met Jesus directly; in fact, the first 3 Gospels were not the work of one person, but a group of people, adding or removing parts of what others had written. Experts can easily see that the styles and sytnax vary greatly whitin each book. The only Gospel that appears to be written by one person, is the book of St-John, and then again, it's not the same St-John as the apostle, but somebody who lived about 50 years later.
BTW, the book I am reading is writen by a Christian, who still believes in God and Jesus. He has only found in his reasearches that men have done a very poor job carrying His words and actions on paper. He says that he believes in God within his heart and needs no book to meet with his Lord.
I think that's beautiful, and if I believed in God, I think i'd be like him.
I also learned that noen of those 4 Gospels were written by anybody who had known or met Jesus directly; in fact, the first 3 Gospels were not the work of one person, but a group of people, adding or removing parts of what others had written. Experts can easily see that the styles and sytnax vary greatly whitin each book. The only Gospel that appears to be written by one person, is the book of St-John, and then again, it's not the same St-John as the apostle, but somebody who lived about 50 years later.
BTW, the book I am reading is writen by a Christian, who still believes in God and Jesus. He has only found in his reasearches that men have done a very poor job carrying His words and actions on paper. He says that he believes in God within his heart and needs no book to meet with his Lord.
I think that's beautiful, and if I believed in God, I think i'd be like him.
zathrus
Reply #40 Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:27 AM
Reply #40 Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:27 AM
The bible has been through so many translations and editions (yes, parts have been taken out, or modified) over the years, that I find it very reconcile basing my like on it. That, and many other reasons are probably a large factor in my atheism (Jafo, I don't think that was spelled right..).
Ok, I'm gonna go sit in my fallout shelter for a bit.
Ok, I'm gonna go sit in my fallout shelter for a bit.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, November 8, 2001 12:22 PM