Religion Beliefs of Adam verse Evolution of Man

[freedom13]

Did the origin of the First Man begin in the Garden of Eden or from Apes?
What's the pigmentation of the First Man or Apes?
Did this First Man or Apes begin in The Eastern Asian World, Africa, Middle East or The Western World?

[freedom13]

A team of 45 scientists from 14 different countries led by Professor Tim White from Berkeley University has uncovered and assembled three fossils of skulls from Ethiopia that provide the oldest record of modern humans. The fossils give strong support to what is known as the Out of Africa theory: that humans first evolved in Africa and then migrated to other regions and ultimately the entire globe.

My belief will be that the origin of man begins in Africa, the Motherland.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: freedom13 Did the origin of the First Man begin in the Garden of Eden or from Apes?

According to biology: apes.

[samsara15]

Try this URL:

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of Africa, definitely. The oldest recorded Homo sapiens skull came from South Africa, roughly 36,000 years ago.

Pigmentation not known.

[freedom13]

samsara15

Out of Africa, definitely. The oldest recorded Homo sapiens skull came from South Africa, roughly 36,000 years ago. Pigmentation not known.

The pigmentation should be oblivious since you believe these fossils come out of South Africa. Africa is a very hot sunny climate of people with dark skin color. The climate didn’t darkened African people skin color, they were born with it. Dark skin protects against ultraviolet light; this light causes mutations in skin cells, which in turn cause skin cancers. Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions.

[freedom13]

grammar error: not oblivious but obvious

The pigmentation should be obvious since you believe these fossils come out of South Africa. Africa is a very hot sunny climate of people with dark skin color. The climate didn’t darkened African people skin color, they were born with it. Dark skin protects against ultraviolet light; this light causes mutations in skin cells, which in turn cause skin cancers. Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions.

[Masoom]

Avoiding Difficult Questions If you are going to reply to 15 questions regarding a thesis you oppose, then you will be expected to deal with each one in a tangible manner. If, on the other hand, you come up with imaginary questions and waste time with the answers to them, then your readers will naturally come to doubt your credibility. Avoiding getting to grips with the real questions is a sign that you are trying to deceive yourself or your readers. Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" is just such an example of "avoiding the truth." Right from the start, a number of those questions reveal that this is what is going on: "Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law." "Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created." "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" None of the above are objections expressed by critics of the theory of evolution. Everyone who offers serious criticism knows what the concept of "theory" actually means, and accepts that scientific research into events in the past cannot be carried out by means of observation and recreation. In the same way, no scientists who seriously criticize the Darwinist thesis as regards the origin of man would ever offer such a ridiculous objection as "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" John Rennie, the author of the article, should no doubt be well aware of this. Yet the way that he puts the above three statements forward as "creationist objections" and imagines that he has given satisfactory replies to them shows that he is "tilting at windmills." If he really wants to "reply to the creationists" then he needs to reply to such real questions as how it is that nearly all animal phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian without any trace of evolutionary ancestors; why not one example of a mutation that developed the genetic information of living things has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been found of the billions of intermediate form fossils that Darwin anticipated. The truth about the questions that Rennie has tried to reply to, most of which can again be seen as "easy questions," is set out below.

Harun Yahya - Articles - Scientific American's 15 Errors

[Athena]

DNA evidence is that humans, chimpanzees and apes came from the same creature and split into these separate species.

The case against Eve: When the apes went their separate way - 22 June 1991 - New Scientist If the evolution of modern humans has left its mark in mitochondrial DNA, what about earlier events? Researchers in the US have examined mitochondrial DNA sequences for evidence of another evolutionary milestone: our divergence from apes six million years ago.

DNA evidence points to Africa as the origin of the human species.

http://chocd.blogspot.com/2006/12/dn...-hit-snag.html As early humans split off in different directions, distinct mutations accumulated in the DNA of each population. Like bread crumbs, these genetic markers, passed on intact for millennia, can reveal the trail of the original pioneers. All non-Africans share a mutation that arose in the ancestors of the first people to leave the continent, for instance. But the descendants of those who headed north and lingered in the Middle East carry a different marker from those who went southeast toward Asia.

[Jack]

Quote by: Masoom why not one example of a mutation that developed the genetic information of living things has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been found of the billions of intermediate form fossils that Darwin anticipated.

Contrary to popular opinion, neither the term nor the idea of biological evolution began with Charles Darwin and his foremost work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). Many scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers on had inferred that similar species were descended from a common ancestor. The word "evolution" first appeared in the English language in 1647 in a nonbiological connection, and it became widely used in English for all sorts of progressions from simpler beginnings. The term Darwin most often used to refer to biological evolution was "descent with modification," which remains a good brief definition of the process today. Darwin proposed that evolution could be explained by the differential survival of organisms following their naturally occurring variation--a process he termed "natural selection." According to this view, the offspring of organisms differ from one another and from their parents in ways that are heritable--that is, they can pass on the differences genetically to their own offspring. Furthermore, organisms in nature typically produce more offspring than can survive and reproduce given the constraints of food, space, and other environmental resources. If a particular off spring has traits that give it an advantage in a particular environment, that organism will be more likely to survive and pass on those traits. As differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms diverge from their ancestors. Darwin's original hypothesis has undergone extensive modification and expansion, but the central concepts stand firm. Studies in genetics and molecular biology--fields unknown in Darwin's time--have explained the occurrence of the hereditary variations that are essential to natural selection. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision. Genetic mutations arise by chance. They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment. But if a gene variant improves adaptation to the environment (for example, by allowing an organism to make better use of an available nutrient, or to escape predators more effectively--such as through stronger legs or disguising coloration), the organisms carrying that gene are more likely to survive and reproduce than those without it. Over time, their descendants will tend to increase, changing the average characteristics of the population. Although the genetic variation on which natural selection works is based on random or chance elements, natural selection itself produces "adaptive" change--the very opposite of chance. So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed. The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

The problem isn't lack of evidence but the creationist's refusal to consider anything but a god-centric view as valid. They want to find a fossil that is completely half-bird, half-reptile without understanding how evolution works. They don't grasp that we are a transitional phase between what humans were (shorter in stature, shorter lifespan, etc.) and what we will evolve into in the future.

[Osborn F Enready]

Good post Ish.

I would like to recommend people interested to read a book that has a nice view of things, backed in science. He talks about the migration of man, as well as social and technological changes that set the development of societies.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Amazon.com: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies: Books: Jared M. Diamond

Guns Germs, & Steel: Home

He also gives a good example of how religions are started, as in the case of the "John Frum" religion in Papua, New Guinea.

John Frum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Diamonds next book was very good also, titled "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ."

Amazon.com: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Books: Jared Diamond

[freedom13]

Mendel's Genetic Laws

His work led to the discovery of particulate inheritance, dominant and recessive traits, genotype and phenotype, and the concept of heterozygous and homozygous. Unfortunately, Gregor Mendel was not recognized for his work by his scientific peers. He found actual proof of the existence of genes, and is considered to be the father of genetics, though his work was relatively unappreciated until the early 1900's.

Gregor Mendel

Melanin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jack]

Here's a true sample of fundamentalist creation thinking. This is the kind of thing that can make a rational person's brain hurt:

-- the fossil record should show countless organisms that are the failed experiments of evolution -- eyes on the back of heads, noses on feet...cats or other mammals with worthless wingsprouts....countless bum organs or useless tissues -- yet we don't see any of that. All we see are millions of different kinds of animals....there is no evidence of any animal "evolving" into some other type of animal. " guzman (supersport)

[nerdvincent]

Only if this rational man doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject. These are bad "God-of-the-gaps" arguments.

[freedom13]

Ancient Egyptians Advanced Civilization:

The evidence of civilization in the Egyptian period was pyramids and sphinxes.

Darwinism maintains that Man—and thus the culture he possesses—advanced from rudimentary, primitive, tribal stages toward civilization. However, archaeological findings show that since the very first day of human history, there have been periods with societies that maintained very advanced cultures along with others whose cultures have been more backward. Indeed, most of the time, very wealthy civilizations have existed at the same time as backward ones. Throughout the course of history, most societies of the same period had very different levels of technology and civilization, with very great sociological and cultural differences—just as is the case today. For example, though the North American continent is very advanced today in terms of medicine, science, architecture and technology, some communities in South America are rather backward technologically, with no links to the outside world. Diseases in many parts of the world are identified using the most advanced imaging techniques and analysis, and are treated in very modern hospitals. Yet in other parts of the world, diseases are thought to develop under the influence of so-called evil spirits, and attempts to heal the sick involve ceremonies to banish such spirits. Such societies as the people of the Indus, the Ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians, who all lived around 3,000 BCE, possessed cultures incomparably richer in all respects than that of these present-day tribes, and even than that of societies more advanced. This means that in all periods of history, societies with highly advanced civilizations have been able to survive together with more backward ones. A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century. This demonstrates that there has been no development within an evolutionary process—in other words, from the primitive to the civilized. Over the course of history, of course, major advances have been made in all fields, with great strides and development in science and technology, thanks to the accumulation of culture and experience. However, it is neither rational nor scientific to describe these changes as an "evolutionary" process in the way that evolutionists and materialists do. Just as there are no differences in physical characteristics between a present-day human and someone who lived thousands of years ago, so there are no differences in regard to intelligence and capabilities. The idea that our civilization is more advanced because 21st-century man's brain capacity and intelligence are more highly developed is a faulty perspective, resulting from evolutionist indoctrination. The fact is people in very different regions today may have different conceptions and cultures. But if a native Australian may not possess the same knowledge as a scientist from the USA, that doesn't mean his intelligence or brain haven't developed enough. Many people born into such societies may even be ignorant of the existence of electricity, but who are still highly intelligent. Moreover, different needs have arisen during different centuries. Our standards of fashion are not the same as the Ancient Egyptians', but that doesn't mean that our culture is more advanced than theirs. While skyscrapers are symbols of civilization in the 21st century, the evidence of civilization in the Egyptian period was pyramids and sphinxes.

A Historical Lie: The Stone Age

[Jack]

Let's put their opinion in context. From their site:

In all probability you may never have heard any of these facts. On the contrary, you may have been handed the mistaken impression that these people were half-ape and half-human, unable to stand fully upright, lacking the ability to speak words and producing only strange grunting noises. That is because this entire falsehood has been imposed on people like yourself for the last 150 years. The motive behind it is to keep alive materialist philosophy, which denies the existence of a Creator. According to this view, which distorts any fact that stands in its way, the universe and matter are eternal. In other words they had no beginning, and thus have no Creator. The supposedly scientific basis for this superstitious belief is the theory of evolution. Evolutionist scientists—in order to account for the supposed evolutionary process that they claim extends from a single cell to multi-celled organisms, and then from apes to man—have rewritten the history of mankind. To that end they have invented imaginary eras such as "The Cave-Man Age" and "The Stone Age" to describe the lifestyle of "primitive Man." Evolutionists, supporting the falsehood that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor, have embarked on a new search in order to prove their claims. They now interpret every stone, or arrowhead or bowl unearthed during archaeological excavations in that light. Yet the pictures and dioramas of half-ape, half-man creatures sitting in a dark cave, dressed in furs, and lacking the facility of speech are all fictitious. Primitive man never existed, and there never was a Stone Age. They are nothing more than deceptive scenarios produced by evolutionists with the help of one section of the media. These concepts are all deceptions because recent advances in science—particularly in the fields of biology, paleontology, microbiology and genetics—have totally demolished the claims of evolution. The idea that species evolved and transformed into "later" versions of each other has been deemed invalid. In the same way, human beings did not evolve from ape-like creatures. Human beings have been human since the day they came into existence, and have possessed a sophisticated culture from that day to this. Therefore, "the evolution of history" never happened, either. This book reveals scientific proofs that the "evolution of human history" concept is a falsehood, and we shall show how the fact of creation is now supported by the latest scientific findings. Mankind came into the world not through evolution, but by the flawless creation of God, the Almighty and Omniscient.

Knowing their bias and agenda helps put their comments in perspective. My biggest objection to the conclusions they attempt to make is their confusion over the concepts of biological evolution and social evolution. The term evolution was invented well before Darwin. He borrowed it because the idea of gradual change over time applied to his theory. It also applies to civilizations, but not in the exact same manner. Of course there have been civilizations that for their time were highly advanced. But were they as advanced as modern civilizations? Could they create alloys, did they understand the cause of illnesses, did they understand climate?

[freedom13]

From Isherwood:

Of course there have been civilizations that for their time were highly advanced. But were they as advanced as modern civilizations? Could they create alloys, did they understand the cause of illnesses, did they understand climate?

A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century. This demonstrates that there has been no development within an evolutionary process—in other words, from the primitive to the civilized.

A Historical Lie: The Stone Age
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt

The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt is the largest of the original Seven Wonders of the World that is basically stilled in tact. This pyramid is an architectural feat that cannot be duplicated with our modern technology and advanced knowledge. Many, including the Japanese, have tried to build a smaller pyramid to scale, but have not been successful.

[Jack]

A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century.

Is there any historical support for that contention? If you suggested George Bush may actually be an alien, I may want to agree but I'd still ask for some sort of evidence.