I began to doubt

It isn't one woman...

"Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story, has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when all the women in a particular matriarchal ancestry had only sons, or no children at all."

"Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineage, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 150,000 years ago, the MRCA is estimated to have been living within historical times (3000 BC - 1000 AD), though the MRCA was probably less recent than that when accounting for long isolated peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

Your putting words in my mouth... I didnt say he or I for that matter should accept "everything" we hear from "religious believers".

Bipedalism is technically not good at all compared to quadripedal mechanism, do you really think one of those austrapithecus are sitting down and thinking; "Hey, why not start waking with two legs, it would make our hands free so we could carry stuff easierly!" or does it want to improve its speed and swinging abilities if it could chose, purely Neo darwinisticly? Walking on four makes its (monkey) life much more easier, were both weaker and slower.

Its enough to cite Solly Zuckermans(given title "lord" in England) and his teams accomplisments under a project that took them 15 years to finish (under the supervision of the British Goverment). They concluded that australpithecus were most certainly quadripedal and nothing else! (that my respected trippin includes Al-288-1, lucy) They wrote this somewhere (dont remember what page) in the book, "Beyond the ivory tower"

Fred Spoor and his team did another research about this by using a whole different method, they analazed the air channel of homo habilis and australpithecus and showed that they indeed were structured for quadripedal motion thus excluding habilis from "homo" and certainly proving that the ape was an ordinary ape. (Im note sure, but I think they posted it in an article named "Implications of the early labrythine Morphology for the evolution of Homonid bipedal locomotion", volum 369, around page 645 and forward)

Evolution is a theises, it throws away everything that doesnt support it, despite its thousands of problems there is no way we are going to even consider something else, since this would mean that we have to leave materialism, the only factor that evolution lives on. The notion of everythings meaninlessness, a lie that is a festering problem on this surface.

May God guide your soul brandon ^^

 

As far as bipedalism being inefficient, you're wrong. Look at chimpanzees, when they knucklewalk, they are some of the most ineffieicnt quadrepeds alive. It's because they have to compromise between walking around and swinging in the trees: their long arms and short legs are bad for quadrepedalism. Early bipeds seemed to have found a better way, perhaps walking along branches in trees rather than mainly swinging (one idea, anyways). Whatever the reason, humans (bipeds) walk far more efficiently than knucklewalking apes like chimps.

And Zuckermans was clearly an idiot, because anyone can look at the austrolopithecine pelvis and knees and feet and know that it walked on two legs. No one else seems to agree with him either, and haven't for 60 years, but you probably suspect a conspiriacy in that

 

Bipedalism and quadrapedalism both have advantages and disadvantages...

Bipedal:
Pros
Keeps hands free
More efficient (takes less energy to walk the same distance)
Cons
We are slow

Quadraped:
Pros
Faster
If you live in the trees, it is easier to walk on al fours along the branches as opposed to two feet
Cons


I dunno, I really don't feel like over analyzing this, but I think I made my point clear...

 

Evolution and materialism are not related. Don't say evolutionists are materialists or don't have morals or have no reason to look out for anyone but themselves, 'cause that's just plain ol' not true.

 

Evolution as a science is certainly materialistic. All science is. The scientists themselves may not be pure materialists (though many are) but evolution, like any other science, depends on hard data, evidence, and reasoning.

and Burbot, bipeds are slow compared to most quadrepeds, but compared to chimps we are pretty even because of their physiological compromises. Plus, slow we may be, but we can walk a long time (not most of us, being so lazy in our offices, schools, and cars) without really tiring. A chimp basically can't. That said, I bet bipedalism was a combination of factors, not just a single reason, being such a unique form of movement.

 

Yes, I am aware of that, my point though was that neither is nessecarily "better" (the argument between you and cabd) and that if you look for them there can be advantages and disadvantages to either...

 

Bipedals are natural marathoners. Two legs use less energy than four. We may not be built for intense speed (like a cheetah), but we are build to be able to run or walk for a long time. It is a theory for why early humans may have spread so far across the globe, we are made to travel.

 

That's true, but early on it would have been mostly limited for walking, as the upper chest opening for the windpipe would be too small to allow for much running, even just "jogging". But by the time Homo habilis, and certainly by the time Homo erectus evolved, running would have been more practical. In fact, H. erectus was more efficient than even we moderns, because they didn't need such wide hips for childbearing, so they were more stable walkers. I guess the males are somehow included, perhaps even modern men have somewhat wider hips than our ancient forbears.

 

Evolutionary science ascribes the advent of intelligence (the increase in brain mass) to the inclusion of meat into the diet. In the Bible, the first acceptable sacrifice was a slaughtered animal. Wonder if there is a tie-in?

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf

I find it funny that people will so easily dismiss Intelligent Design....because its infeior or weakminded not scientifcly backed etc etc.... Meh everyone can be smarter then an Oxford teacher now! Honestly people...Think about it We will never truly know so why worry about it?

We spend all that money on Evolution etc etc to find out where we came from...We need to spend it on where we are going.

 

The Hebrews were pastoralists, not farmers. Thus, their god liked slaughtered animals, rather than offerings of the harvest. It's a literary mechanism of sorts, making themselves look good, and illustrating the age-old enmity between the pastoralist nomads and the settled farmers.

 

But then you can compare the ID people to the Ph. D.'s who don't go for ID, and there are a lot more of them. The guy's 81. I'd change, too. Just in case.

 

hahaha! the 81 part made me laugh.

Yeah, what i was mainly getting at is Athiest go to Theist Theist to Athiest....But each side says the are 100% correct and basicly that can translate to the smartest preson in the world.

 

What if Adam (or, at least, the lead male in a supporting role in the story of Adam) was the first man to realize he was, somehow, more than just an animal?

What if Adam was simply the first creature to have human consciousness?

In this way, both human evolution and Genesis can still make perfect sense. Both can be true and they certainly can be renconciled with one another.

Peace and Love

 

Ah, but we still don't know that much about the physiological nature of conciousness. Chimpanzees seem to express emotions like love, fear, et cetera, and posses a good capacity for problem solving. Until we know for sure what has conciousness and what doesn't (assuming the distinction is that easy), we can't know the physiological nature of it. And that's a hurdle that's going to be pretty hard to get over.

 

I wish I had some ancestor...You people argue over Monkey's and God...Try living with the fact you were born out of a test tube!

 

Doubts are useful
If everything was certain, like very predictable,
there would be no surprises. Where would be the fun in planning something in the future, in having goals, in making decisions?
It would be boring.

Doubts are also useful because when there is no doubts, you often achieve very interesting moments and state, until you doubt again about something (else?).

The debate you have in the US about creationism vs evolution sounds strange to me.

I mean, of course both can work together, (without the Adam Eve stuff, without reading Bible from to close perspective)
one could say: something was created and it is observable that there is evolution in this creation
I mean there is a difference between nothing and something, a big one.
If there was nothing, nothing could evolve...
There must be something to evolve.
The question of creation comes before evolution. Does evolution supporters claim there has always been something? It's just thier feeling about it, just a claim, they can not be sure of that.
Now about the men descending from the ape or from Adam and Eve, this question makes also little sense to me. With the present state of knowledge (about such a crucial question) we can not choose between the two and be 100% sure, which leaves a place for doubt... Great