|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 12:50:52 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
If today's monkeys eventually evolve sufficient intellect to distinguish between good and bad will they suddenly get souls too? Since retarded people can't differentiate between good and bad do they have souls?
Heck if I know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 12:51:30 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7499
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Good question. That is why I clarified the assumption. One could just as easily say that the whole genus Homo is "human" which takes us back to the Australopithecines as human predecessors.
But that would mean that there was more than one human species in the past, some contemporaneous with each other. I take it that would be theologically difficult for some to accept.
Biologically, it would not be a problem. There are many species of deer, mice, bees, orchids, almost any life form you can name. Why not many species of human?
So it comes down to whether you prefer a biological or a theological definition.
Theologically, we could say that not even all Homo sapiens were "human" and restrict "human" to "descendants of Adam" who need not have been the first biological specimen of Homo sapiens.
IOW there is no real clarity of the relation of the term "human being" to the scientific designations of hominin species. Just depends on how widely (or narrowly) you want to cast the net.
Thanks for the clarification.
Might you now answer the question, what is the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens that makes one 'human' and the other not?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 12:51:47 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
If today's monkeys eventually evolve sufficient intellect to distinguish between good and bad will they suddenly get souls too? Since retarded people can't differentiate between good and bad do they have souls?
That is a very good reason not to connect the image of God with specific qualities such as intellect. It leads to making distinctions between people who might and might not be "human" or have the image of God in them. All humanity, regardless of their qualities of body or mind, are made in the image of God, and it is important to recognize this.
Evolution, therefore, presumably, has nothing to do with our relationship to our Creator. It is only the origin of our biology (the "dust" we are made of) not of our spiritual status.
btw, why do you think having a soul has something to do with telling good from bad? Did Adam and Eve not have souls before the Fall i.e. before they knew good from bad?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 12:56:01 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Thanks for the clarification.
Might you now answer the question, what is the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens that makes one 'human' and the other not?
I have answered the question to the best of my ability. Tell me the characteristics you consider key to classification as "human" and we can then discern whether your concept of human would distinguish between H. sapiens and H. erectus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:06:52 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7499
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have answered the question to the best of my ability. Tell me the characteristics you consider key to classification as "human" and we can then discern whether your concept of human would distinguish between H. sapiens and H. erectus.
Well I think a soul distinguishes human from other living things. Did Homo erectus have a soul?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:15:30 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
Why did God make adam and eve that way? There was no need as they were already genetically perfect.
What is "genetically perfect"? I don't think a study of genetics would allow for such a concept. Variation is important to the survival of a species. How could you have many genetic variations and still have all of them be genetically "perfect"? But how could a species be genetically perfect without the variability needed to survive?
quote:
Also, I don't understand how you can be Christian and believe in evolution.
Same way you can be a Christian and believe in gravity.
quote:
Somewhere along the evolutionary line did the species which became humans just suddenly become reflective of God's image enough for us to have a soul and be worthy of eternal life?
No one is worthy of eternal life. God gives eternal life out of the abundance of God's eternal life. You don't evolve into it. You don't earn it. You receive it because God chooses to give it.
Accepting the theory of evolution does not mean changing basic theology.
quote:
The bible says God created us because he wanted someone to love, why would he want to wait 6 million years or whatever it was for humans to pop up when he could have just made us there and then?
Who says God waited? What is 6 million or 4 billion or 13 billion years to God? To God 13 billion years could just as well be 13 nanoseconds. Let us not impose our time-bound perceptions onto God's eternal perspective. According to Revelation, the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. Yet in human history it happened only 2,000 years ago.
quote:
How can you believe in some parts of the bible and not others? It's like fabricating your own religion.
I do not know any Christian who accepts evolution who only believes some parts of the bible. I do not find it necessary to divvy up the bible into parts I believe and parts I don't.
I suggest you read some of the rapidly growing list of resources on evolutionary creationism (aka theistic evolution). Here is one place to start: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/welcome-to-dialogue.html
There are lots of people asking the same questions you are asking. And finding answers to them as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:23:02 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7499
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suggest you read some of the rapidly growing list of resources on evolutionary creationism (aka theistic evolution). Here is one place to start: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/welcome-to-dialogue.html
"An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution"
Funny how these 'dialogues' consistently include only one perspective.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:31:47 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I have answered the question to the best of my ability. Tell me the characteristics you consider key to classification as "human" and we can then discern whether your concept of human would distinguish between H. sapiens and H. erectus.
Well I think a soul distinguishes human from other living things. Did Homo erectus have a soul?
That depends. Is there anything in the skeletal structure of Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Is there anything in the tools made by Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Does the fact that Homo erectus used fire indicate the presence of a soul?
What would you consider to be a reliable fossil indicator of a soul?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:38:57 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7499
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That depends. Is there anything in the skeletal structure of Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Is there anything in the tools made by Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Does the fact that Homo erectus used fire indicate the presence of a soul?
What would you consider to be a reliable fossil indicator of a soul?
Well, I don't think there is a skeletal indicator of a soul - do you agree that a soul is what primarily distinguishes an animal from a human being?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 2:30:45 AM
|
|
|
Ryu
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do not know any Christian who accepts evolution who only believes some parts of the bible. I do not find it necessary to divvy up the bible into parts I believe and parts I don't.
The bible explicitly states that adam was made by God from soil, and when God found that he needed company he created eve from one of his ribs. This means that a complete fully evolved human existed at one time on this earth when there was only one sex. To say evolution is true is to totally deny this fact and declare something in the bible as false.
quote:
No one is worthy of eternal life. God gives eternal life out of the abundance of God's eternal life. You don't evolve into it. You don't earn it. You receive it because God chooses to give it.
But if you accept evolution then there's no way around this fact. You must evolve into it because intellectually we would have been no different from other animals at one stage. There would have been no differentiating factor between other animals and pre-humans to make one worthy of eternal life and not the other.
quote:
What is "genetically perfect"? I don't think a study of genetics would allow for such a concept. Variation is important to the survival of a species. How could you have many genetic variations and still have all of them be genetically "perfect"? But how could a species be genetically perfect without the variability needed to survive?
My point was that adam and eve had no imperfections. They were as healthy and intelligent as humans can get so it was unnecessary for God to implement physical attraction in such a way because evolution of the gene pool wouldn't be necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 9:55:42 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
Why did God make adam and eve that way? There was no need as they were already genetically perfect.
What is "genetically perfect"? I don't think a study of genetics would allow for such a concept. Variation is important to the survival of a species. How could you have many genetic variations and still have all of them be genetically "perfect"? But how could a species be genetically perfect without the variability needed to survive?
quote:
Also, I don't understand how you can be Christian and believe in evolution.
Same way you can be a Christian and believe in gravity.
quote:
Somewhere along the evolutionary line did the species which became humans just suddenly become reflective of God's image enough for us to have a soul and be worthy of eternal life?
No one is worthy of eternal life. God gives eternal life out of the abundance of God's eternal life. You don't evolve into it. You don't earn it. You receive it because God chooses to give it.
Accepting the theory of evolution does not mean changing basic theology.
quote:
The bible says God created us because he wanted someone to love, why would he want to wait 6 million years or whatever it was for humans to pop up when he could have just made us there and then?
Who says God waited? What is 6 million or 4 billion or 13 billion years to God? To God 13 billion years could just as well be 13 nanoseconds. Let us not impose our time-bound perceptions onto God's eternal perspective. According to Revelation, the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. Yet in human history it happened only 2,000 years ago.
quote:
How can you believe in some parts of the bible and not others? It's like fabricating your own religion.
I do not know any Christian who accepts evolution who only believes some parts of the bible. I do not find it necessary to divvy up the bible into parts I believe and parts I don't.
I suggest you read some of the rapidly growing list of resources on evolutionary creationism (aka theistic evolution). Here is one place to start: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/welcome-to-dialogue.html
There are lots of people asking the same questions you are asking. And finding answers to them as well.
Actually most people who claim to be Christians believe some parts of the bible but not all of it. They don't believe genesis but believe many of Christ's words. But what they don't realize is that once they reject some part of the bible, they've rejected all of it because they don't believe in a perfect God. So their god is not the god of the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 10:23:37 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
That depends. Is there anything in the skeletal structure of Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Is there anything in the tools made by Homo erectus that would serve as an indicator of a soul? Does the fact that Homo erectus used fire indicate the presence of a soul?
What would you consider to be a reliable fossil indicator of a soul?
Well, I don't think there is a skeletal indicator of a soul - do you agree that a soul is what primarily distinguishes an animal from a human being?
Yes.
I also agree there is no skeletal (or any other physical) indicator of a soul. Hence, the answer to your question about Homo erectus is that we have insufficient evidence to determine whether or not H. erectus had a soul.
Therefore, if "soul" is what distinguishes human from non-human, we have insufficient evidence on which to base a conclusion about the human/non-human status of H. erectus. Interestingly, we can say the same for any other fossil hominin, including H. sapiens.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 10:27:28 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Actually most people who claim to be Christians believe some parts of the bible but not all of it.
That may be, but it doesn't make it right or necessary.
Nor does accepting evolution make it necessary.
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 1:59:24 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Same way you can be a Christian and believe in gravity.
If by evolution you mean neo-Darwinism or macro-evolution then this is a very bad statement.
How many scientists or average Joes have a problem with gravity? None.
How many have a problem with Darwinism? 1000's of scientists, and millions of average Joes.
Any joe on the street can demonstrate gravity in a minute.
No one can demonstrate macro evolution at all.
quote:
“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else. --¯ Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 2:00:32 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Actually most people who claim to be Christians believe some parts of the bible but not all of it.
That may be, but it doesn't make it right or necessary.
Nor does accepting evolution make it necessary.
I agree that it doesn't make it right. In fact, it shows that they aren't true Christians. As Jesus tells us, "A good tree cannot bear bead fruit and neither can a bad tree bear good fruit." So the bible can't be partially right and partially wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 3:58:09 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
quote:
No one is worthy of eternal life. God gives eternal life out of the abundance of God's eternal life. You don't evolve into it. You don't earn it. You receive it because God chooses to give it.
But if you accept evolution then there's no way around this fact. You must evolve into it because intellectually we would have been no different from other animals at one stage. There would have been no differentiating factor between other animals and pre-humans to make one worthy of eternal life and not the other.
You seem to be saying that there is some way we can be inherently worthy of eternal life. That goes against basic Christian theology. The only thing that makes us worthy of eternal life is God's grace. And God's grace is unlimited. If God chooses to give a mosquito eternal life, then the mosquito is worthy of eternal life.
quote:
quote:
I do not know any Christian who accepts evolution who only believes some parts of the bible. I do not find it necessary to divvy up the bible into parts I believe and parts I don't.
The bible explicitly states that adam was made by God from soil, and when God found that he needed company he created eve from one of his ribs. This means that a complete fully evolved human existed at one time on this earth when there was only one sex. To say evolution is true is to totally deny this fact and declare something in the bible as false.
Well, this is the sort of problem you get into when you treat a theological text as if it were a scientific text. I don't know exactly what you are thinking, but let me guess that your thought process is something along these lines:
A Christian believes the biblical accounts of creation are true.
A Christian who accepts evolution also believes the scientific account of human origins is true.
If both are true, then there must be agreement between the biblical account and the scientific account.
And that means "a complete fully evolved human existed at one time on this earth when there was only one sex."
Obviously the scientific account does not allow for this. So do we have to say the biblical account is false?
No, but what we do have to say is that the biblical account is not science.
The fact that it is not science does not make it false, but it means we need to approach the truth of the biblical account in a different way--in a theological way--not a scientific way.
The bible is not trying to tell us that at some point in history, a surgical operation removed a man's rib and made a woman out of it. That would be a scientific interpretation of a non-scientific account.
The bible's message is theological, not scientific. What does it mean theologically to say woman was made from man's rib? What does it tell us about the relationship of men and women in marriage? Because this is what the story is about. It is about the first marriage. (Note that this is why Jesus refers to it when asked about divorce.)
In fact, this is the danger of treating the biblical accounts as if they were scientific. We end up missing what the real message is.
I have no problem affirming that the biblical text is true as it stands. But I understand that truth is not a scientific proposition. It is a theological proposition. And as theology, it does not conflict with the scientific account of human origins.
quote:
My point was that adam and eve had no imperfections. They were as healthy and intelligent as humans can get so it was unnecessary for God to implement physical attraction in such a way because evolution of the gene pool wouldn't be necessary.
And again, this is a mish-mash of science and theology that drains the truth from both. "Genetically perfect" is neither a scientific nor a theological concept. The scripture, in fact, does not say that creation was "perfect". It says creation was "good". Maybe you have disagreements with what God calls "good", but you can take that up with God. In any case, it has nothing to do with the scientific concept of genes or genetic inheritance.
And scientifically, there is no way of defining what "genetically perfect" means.
Better to let scripture speak for scripture. God's creation is good, very good.
And let science speak for science. Human physical norms are encoded in the DNA of the human genome.
Assuming that God created the human genome, we can conclude that it is good. And maybe it is good because it can change.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 5:10:22 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Organisms cannot change beyond the boundaries of their own kind. Creationists say that if two organisms can reproduce fertile offspring, then they are of the same kind.
Can the theory of evolution account for the non-physical aspect of man? Man has certain features that cannot be reduced to anything that is physical such as his thoughts, beliefs, desires, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 8:32:44 PM
|
|
|
Ryu
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fact that it is not science does not make it false, but it means we need to approach the truth of the biblical account in a different way--in a theological way--not a scientific way.
So what should I make of these verses?
15And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it.
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
No theological interpretation can be made. They mean exactly what they say. They couldn't possibly mean anything else.
quote:
And again, this is a mish-mash of science and theology that drains the truth from both. "Genetically perfect" is neither a scientific nor a theological concept. The scripture, in fact, does not say that creation was "perfect". It says creation was "good". Maybe you have disagreements with what God calls "good", but you can take that up with God. In any case, it has nothing to do with the scientific concept of genes or genetic inheritance.
It would have created major problems for mankind if everyone descended from two genetically imperfect people, wouldn't have it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 9:07:29 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ryu
So what should I make of these verses?
15And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it.
18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
No theological interpretation can be made.
They mean exactly what they say. They couldn't possibly mean anything else.
What does "exactly what they say" mean? Does it mean these are scientific statements? Why do they have to be scientific statements?
What does "no theological interpretation can be made" mean? How can a biblical statement not be theological? Why does the text say this if it cannot have a theological meaning?
"It is not good for the man to be alone" is a very theological statement.
quote:
It would have created major problems for mankind if everyone descended from two genetically imperfect people, wouldn't have it?
I repeat, "genetically perfect" is a phrase without content. It doesn't have any biological meaning.
If you want to say that God's creation was very good, why not use the phrase already in scripture instead of inventing a pseudo-scientific phrase that really says nothing at all?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 10:07:53 PM
|
|
|
Godhead
Posts: 352
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
Has anyone seen an eyeball evolving over millions of years?
Has anyone seen a chicken evolving from a reptile?
You guys are talking about things that have no evidence for.
The process would still have to be a change in the DNA, but how does an eyeball begin to form in the first place. For millions of years it wouldn’t function until all the wiring, came together. What would the need for it to form in the first place. It cannot simply be a matter of a complicated organ such as the eye starts to form for no reason and if it did for a reason, what reason would cause a complex organ to form. How could these things just form? However slow, it is still a rewriting of the DNA code.
_____________________________
But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. (Psalm 49:15)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/6/2008 10:37:09 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Godhead
Has anyone seen an eyeball evolving over millions of years?
Has anyone seen a chicken evolving from a reptile?
You guys are talking about things that have no evidence for.
The process would still have to be a change in the DNA, but how does an eyeball begin to form in the first place. For millions of years it wouldn’t function until all the wiring, came together. What would the need for it to form in the first place. It cannot simply be a matter of a complicated organ such as the eye starts to form for no reason and if it did for a reason, what reason would cause a complex organ to form. How could these things just form? However slow, it is still a rewriting of the DNA code.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MmYBMOXj0&feature=related
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/7/2008 4:39:16 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1124
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
They are:
1) Apes can't breed squirrels, lions, tigers, ducks, goats or humans any more than humans can breed; goats, lions, squirrels, giraffes or monkeys as descendants. All anyone has to understand is the simple birds and bees to know why.
The problem with your criticism is that it rules out common ancestry for animals that we know share common ancestry. For example, Great Danes do not breed Chihuahuas, and the two are incapable of breeding with one another. In your parlance, a Dog Great Dane can not breed with a Dog Chihuahua therefore the Chihuahua is not a Dog.
quote:
3) The weak and strong co-exist in every society, so the survival of the fittest is a myth
The theory states that the strong have more grandchildren than the weak. It does not state that the strong and weak can not coexist.
quote:
4) No one in history has ever passed along accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors. So evolution can't be backed up by history either.
There are humans who live in trees right now, so I really don't understand this problem. There are dogs that do not remember being wolves either, and yet we know that dogs came from wolves.
quote:
So everything about the theory of evolution is a fairy tale because it exists in the imaginations of men, not in reality.
Evolution is happening right now and those observations can be found in the peer reviewed literature.
quote:
In fact, the only reason that anyone believes this ridiculous theory is because of Satan,
This is completely wrong. The theory of evolution is used by biologists because it works.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/7/2008 4:46:18 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1124
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Organisms cannot change beyond the boundaries of their own kind. Creationists say that if two organisms can reproduce fertile offspring, then they are of the same kind.
Chihuahuas and Great Danes can not produce offspring. Does that make them different kinds?
quote:
Can the theory of evolution account for the non-physical aspect of man? Man has certain features that cannot be reduced to anything that is physical such as his thoughts, beliefs, desires, and so on.
Thoughts are physical as is shown by functional MRI.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/7/2008 4:52:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1124
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Thanks for the clarification.
Might you now answer the question, what is the difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens that makes one 'human' and the other not?
Both are human. However, H. erectus is not an anatomically modern human. Only H. sapiens are considered to be MODERN humans. As an analogy, the language we are speaking in now is modern english which previous versions were old (or olde) english. However, both modern and old english is still english.
For the most part, the lower torso of H. erectus was very much like ours. There are a few differences in the wrist, but the major differences are in the skulls. Modern humans have a much larger forehead, less of a jutting lower jaw (prognathus), less pronounced brow ridges, a smaller lower jaw, and a larger occipital region.
You can find a facial reconstruction of H. erectus at the following site. It might help you recongnize the major differences that I have listed above. The only feature that is not apparent in the reconstruction is the occipital region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homo_erectus.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/7/2008 4:54:18 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7499
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Both are human. However, H. erectus is not an anatomically modern human. Only H. sapiens are considered to be MODERN humans. As an analogy, the language we are speaking in now is modern english which previous versions were old (or olde) english. However, both modern and old english is still english.
For the most part, the lower torso of H. erectus was very much like ours. There are a few differences in the wrist, but the major differences are in the skulls. Modern humans have a much larger forehead, less of a jutting lower jaw (prognathus), less pronounced brow ridges, a smaller lower jaw, and a larger occipital region.
You can find a facial reconstruction of H. erectus at the following site. It might help you recongnize the major differences that I have listed above. The only feature that is not apparent in the reconstruction is the occipital region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homo_erectus.JPG
So you disagree with glaudys that a soul distinguishes an animal from a human?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
