Fur to sweat

[nebula]

But how can random changes tie in so neatly together?

It is because there are millions of years to work out the bugs.

Sorry, but the time factor still doesn't do it for me. To me, this only seems believable because you want it to be believable.

[nebula]

Sorry, but the time factor still doesn't do it for me. To me, this only seems believable because you want it to be believable.

I can make the same argument.

I'm sure you can.

You don't think it seems believable because you don't want it to be believable.

Actually, no. I am regarding the theory of evolution with the same critical eye I've been applying to Creationism and the like.

as it's said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You should try looking at your own beliefs with a critical eye from time to time as well, just as you ask the rest of us to do.

Time is an essential requirement for evolution, and for adaptation, which you do believe in.

Of course.

Let's look at the descendants of Noah. According to your understanding all the present human races had to evolve from Noah and his children. But was there time for this to happen? When would you place the Flood? . . . .

Like I said, I'm applying to the theory of evolution the same critical eye I've given the traditional Creationist account and the like. I have come to believe Genesis contains the history we need to understand the Lord, but I am not so sure it contains all we need to know about the history of the Earth and the human race. I've calculated the years between the flood and the birth of Abraham, and I'm not seeing how civilizations and cultures could have been advanced to the degree they are described in Abraham's day in that short period of time.

I think this presents a serious problem to the belief that the races evolved from Noah.

Nope.

[canuckamuck]

But how can random changes tie in so neatly together?

It is because there are millions of years to work out the bugs.

Sorry, but the time factor still doesn't do it for me. To me, this only seems believable because you want it to be believable.

I can make the same argument. You don't think it seems believable because you don't want it to be believable.

Time is an essential requirement for evolution, and for adaptation, which you do believe in. Let's look at the descendants of Noah. According to your understanding all the present human races had to evolve from Noah and his children. But was there time for this to happen? When would you place the Flood? About 4000 BC? Maybe later? From extant historical records, from figures carved on monuments, and so on, all the races we now know existed by about 2000 BC? That means all the races had to evolve to there present form in only about 2000 years. Yet even more time has elapsed to the present so why don't we see evidence of continued micro evolution in humans? Do you follow my reasoning? The races had only a short time to evolve from Noah and then the forms had to lock in and not make any further changes. Does this make sense? I don't see that the human races we know could have evolved in only 2000 years. If this actually happened should we not see obvious evidence of continued microevolution in humans since that time? Races should have gone through obvious changes even since the time of Jesus.

I think this presents a serious problem to the belief that the races evolved from Noah.

You know what all the races looked like 2000 years ago? Were there no variations among the groups?

Do you think there are not significant variations among racial groups today. What you describe is some kind of uniform distinctions between races. Clearly different racial features pop up all over the place. How would you identify continued microevolution amongst humans.

Edited July 28, 2009 by canuckamuck

[MorningGlory]

I think this presents a serious problem to the belief that the races evolved from Noah.

No one believes the races 'evolved' from Noah...where did you get that? The races DESCENDED from Noah.

[artsylady]

Why wouldn't the people who have lived in colder climates for millenia not have regained the fur trait?

That's an interesting question which I can only speculate on but off the top of my head I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of early hominid evolution took place in warm climates, particularly in Africa, so there's the possibility that hominids simply weren't around cold environments long enough for natural selection to select for this trait. Additionally, after a certain point hominids started getting really freaking smart and did what humans are awesome at: using tools. This allowed us to hunt more efficiently and to use the skins of other animals to insulate ourselves against the cold - in such instances survival ablities would trend toward faster and smarter hunters rather than slightly more hairy hunters.

How long ago do they tell us man migrated to the northern climates?

[nebula]

I think this presents a serious problem to the belief that the races evolved from Noah.

Nope.

You have provided an in depth rebuttal of my reasoning. I don't know how to counter it.

Did you read what I wrote before this . . . about how I calculated the years?

Like I said, I'm applying to the theory of evolution the same critical eye I've given the traditional Creationist account and the like. I have come to believe Genesis contains the history we need to understand the Lord, but I am not so sure it contains all we need to know about the history of the Earth and the human race. I've calculated the years between the flood and the birth of Abraham, and I'm not seeing how civilizations and cultures could have been advanced to the degree they are described in Abraham's day in that short period of time.

What I am saying is that you are arguing a point against me that I am not standing by.