If we had access to all the really old skeletal finds, if they were listed online, perhaps, would we be able to see as many links as we do existing species? Would we find as many bones of the creature that came before the common ancestor of the rabbit and the leopard as of the rabbit and leopard, themselves?
For that matter, of all the bone finds we have, how many of them fall into the category of links? To me, I wonder if there shouldn't be just as many bones from the links as from the known species, themselves.
(Edited Feb. 13, 2015)
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
Thursday, February 5, 2015
If Environments Differed, Why Didn't Man Evolve into Separate Forms?
Man came out of Africa, it is said, and migrated to the other climes of earth. Some were hot, some were cold. Some would have placed him fishing in oceans, and other had him chasing the hills for his meat. Not every environment was the same.
So, why is man all the same? Why did only one form evolve?
He might have swung from trees in one environ while not a tree was to be had in another, but rather there was nothing but parched land to walk on. He faced even different foes of nature, for even the beasts he fought against probably varied from clime to clime. And even the diseases and pestilences he encountered probably differed.
So, why did just one form of a man evolve? The clothes he threw on his back varied. It is they that were dictated by the environment, not the form of the man, himself. Maybe he hunched over a little more back in those early years and maybe he was shorter, but the form has remained basically the same, and that despite the different climates that should have pressured different looks
Doesn't adaptation to the environment suggest that different types of humans would have evolved? And, in migration, many of these humans became so far removed from each other that there would not have been much cross-breeding going on between them, that they should remain the same.
Yes, different races developed, but can we look at those different races and see the influence of environment in their differences? Skin pigmentation is perhaps the chief thing. If it is a result of environment, why didn't the environment affect us in other ways, in our form? None of us have a different form, such as being web-footed or fur-covered.
Differences? I am told some in high climates have wider nostrils and broader chests, to accommodate breathing the thin air. And, some of those in colder climates developed shorter limbs, so the blood would not have to go as far when circulating. I have not double-checked those thoughts, but would guess they are correct. If so, they temper the point I am making, a little.
At this point, noting men from different climes share the same form, and noting that image appears to be the same as when homo sapiens were first to have come about, I think of a scripture. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." (Genesis 1:27)
Is it significant that only one image, one form, of the human evolved? for if all men were to be in the image of God, indeed, only one image would evolve.
I wonder if in this matter, as to why man did not evolve into different forms, if religion does not hold a better answer than what evolution does.
(Post edited and parts rewritten Feb. 8, 2015)
So, why is man all the same? Why did only one form evolve?
He might have swung from trees in one environ while not a tree was to be had in another, but rather there was nothing but parched land to walk on. He faced even different foes of nature, for even the beasts he fought against probably varied from clime to clime. And even the diseases and pestilences he encountered probably differed.
So, why did just one form of a man evolve? The clothes he threw on his back varied. It is they that were dictated by the environment, not the form of the man, himself. Maybe he hunched over a little more back in those early years and maybe he was shorter, but the form has remained basically the same, and that despite the different climates that should have pressured different looks
Doesn't adaptation to the environment suggest that different types of humans would have evolved? And, in migration, many of these humans became so far removed from each other that there would not have been much cross-breeding going on between them, that they should remain the same.
Yes, different races developed, but can we look at those different races and see the influence of environment in their differences? Skin pigmentation is perhaps the chief thing. If it is a result of environment, why didn't the environment affect us in other ways, in our form? None of us have a different form, such as being web-footed or fur-covered.
Differences? I am told some in high climates have wider nostrils and broader chests, to accommodate breathing the thin air. And, some of those in colder climates developed shorter limbs, so the blood would not have to go as far when circulating. I have not double-checked those thoughts, but would guess they are correct. If so, they temper the point I am making, a little.
At this point, noting men from different climes share the same form, and noting that image appears to be the same as when homo sapiens were first to have come about, I think of a scripture. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." (Genesis 1:27)
Is it significant that only one image, one form, of the human evolved? for if all men were to be in the image of God, indeed, only one image would evolve.
I wonder if in this matter, as to why man did not evolve into different forms, if religion does not hold a better answer than what evolution does.
(Post edited and parts rewritten Feb. 8, 2015)
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
If Man has been Here for 200,000 years, Why aren't there More of Us?
ISIS and Jordan? Measles? Nay, those are important topics, but I remain interested in evolution tonight. Now, I know it is considered an irrefutable fact that man evolved from a one-cell organism, and perhaps it is so, then.
But, I remain with questions. Like, if our species began to evolve 200,000 years ago, why are there not more of us? Look at how the earth has been filled with humans just in the last few thousands years. There have been diseases and plagues and wars to reduce the population, but it has soared upward, just the same.
So, a few thousand years versus roughly 200,000 years. Why not more people? Why was the earth not filled with people long, long, long ago? Or was it, at some point, or at many points, only to be killed off by ice ages or such? I believe the last glacial period was 8,000 to 12,000 B.C. and I am not studied enough to know if much of man was killed off at that time. No time to study tonight. But, I still wonder. Even if that ice age killed off the better part of us, it leaves about 4,000 years before the time when most say Adam and Eve were here, time for a lot of people to be added to the earth's surface.
Just saying.
But, I remain with questions. Like, if our species began to evolve 200,000 years ago, why are there not more of us? Look at how the earth has been filled with humans just in the last few thousands years. There have been diseases and plagues and wars to reduce the population, but it has soared upward, just the same.
So, a few thousand years versus roughly 200,000 years. Why not more people? Why was the earth not filled with people long, long, long ago? Or was it, at some point, or at many points, only to be killed off by ice ages or such? I believe the last glacial period was 8,000 to 12,000 B.C. and I am not studied enough to know if much of man was killed off at that time. No time to study tonight. But, I still wonder. Even if that ice age killed off the better part of us, it leaves about 4,000 years before the time when most say Adam and Eve were here, time for a lot of people to be added to the earth's surface.
Just saying.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Will Man Someday be Manufactured Like a Car off an Assembly Line?
Will the day come that scientists will be able to manufacture a human, not growing him, and not cloning him, but just putting him together like a car off an assembly line?
Such is the question I pose on Facebook, to a group of atheists. I asked it to an atheist friend at work, and he said, Yes.
For my atheist friends, here's the follow-up: If man can do it, then why not God? Most atheists laugh at the notion God just snapped his fingers, and the man was created.
Me? I don't know how the creation came about. I know the Bible is true, and I know Adam and Eve were real, but I don't know whether God just created them, or used evolution.
Such is the question I pose on Facebook, to a group of atheists. I asked it to an atheist friend at work, and he said, Yes.
For my atheist friends, here's the follow-up: If man can do it, then why not God? Most atheists laugh at the notion God just snapped his fingers, and the man was created.
Me? I don't know how the creation came about. I know the Bible is true, and I know Adam and Eve were real, but I don't know whether God just created them, or used evolution.
Monday, February 2, 2015
These People (Including Me) Should be Allowed Their Opinions
Now, why should a religion be criticized if it calls for civil rights for the same-sex community and at the same time asks for the right of religious expression?
If you favor equal housing and employment opportunities for those of same-sex, you don't oppose them there. But, if you oppose their right to religious expression, why?
I am a member of that faith. I know and love people of same-sex unions. I hail the call to give them their employment and housing rights.
Marriage? I hesitate. Not only do I have the teachings of my faith that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I have the words of the Bible. Am I to be allowed to follow my leaders, and to follow the Bible? If I bear no malice toward them, if I show love toward them, am I to be given the middle finger and showered with 20 shades of hatred if I simply believe marriage is between a man and a woman? If I say, "If you marry, you will still be welcome in my workplace, still be welcome in my rental unit, and I will still want to be around you and enjoy a friendship with you. But, no, I do not believe your marriage is right," am I to be thrown to the pavement?
Intolerence is not in having an opinion of what another person does, but rather it is in how you treat them as a result of that opinion.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Do the Scriptures Hold Insights into Whether Life Comes from Non-Life?
I wonder what of this thought, that life might come out of non-life. I'm told, its a proven fact, that it was achieved in 2010 by a team led by J. Craig Venter.
Well, I don't know. I do know that God was the guiding force behind the creation of man, and of all beings. I like, though, to weigh what I learn in such matters against the scriptures.
And, I am not so sure the scriptures rule out abiogenesis (that is what they call the process of life arising from non-life). Tonight, I will share with you one scripture, and we will consider what it has to say on the matter.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
This scripture does address the topic. It does deal with the non-living becoming the living. It does speak of man being formed out of the dust, which might be a way of saying, out of the elements. Is there anything to the wording, that God breathed into him life? Can we take a non-living thing, and it remains non-biological until life is "breathed" into it? To me, and to others, that breathing of life into it would refer to the spirit entering the body.
Oh, I think and wonder of more. I know some of what I wonder is not correct in theory, but I think it not wrong to consider all things. I wonder at the thought of scientists, that life comes from amino acids, and I read somewhere of someone inferring heat is involved, and I think of the term used in the scriptures, that man is no more than "dust and ashes."
Well, I don't know. I do know that God was the guiding force behind the creation of man, and of all beings. I like, though, to weigh what I learn in such matters against the scriptures.
And, I am not so sure the scriptures rule out abiogenesis (that is what they call the process of life arising from non-life). Tonight, I will share with you one scripture, and we will consider what it has to say on the matter.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
This scripture does address the topic. It does deal with the non-living becoming the living. It does speak of man being formed out of the dust, which might be a way of saying, out of the elements. Is there anything to the wording, that God breathed into him life? Can we take a non-living thing, and it remains non-biological until life is "breathed" into it? To me, and to others, that breathing of life into it would refer to the spirit entering the body.
Oh, I think and wonder of more. I know some of what I wonder is not correct in theory, but I think it not wrong to consider all things. I wonder at the thought of scientists, that life comes from amino acids, and I read somewhere of someone inferring heat is involved, and I think of the term used in the scriptures, that man is no more than "dust and ashes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)