Greg Jennings
New member
Are you saying that early man wasn't a hunter? I can assure you we have mounds (literally mounds of bones and weapons) of ample evidence to support this assertion
Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Although it incorporates evolutionary bias, here is a summary of 2 papers that are interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112135516.htm
Links are provided to the full papers but I am too cheap to subscribe!
It should also be remembered that, according to our timeline of history, the so-called prehistoric cave men lived during the same general periods as other prosperous and advanced civilizations. They just lived in different places and under different circumstances for, perhaps, a thousand different reasons.
If, 5000 years from now, you were to archaeologically compare our life in the city with life on a farm just by the animal bones, you might think one came before the other.
(Actually, you might think the garbage dump was the center of activity! - ha)
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, the role of a scientist is to discover truth about the natural world. Sometimes that means overturning the establishment. Other times that means refining and clarifying established ideas.
If it was always overturning established ideas, science would be in constant whiplash.
Greg Jennings
New member
Although it incorporates evolutionary bias, here is a summary of 2 papers that are interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112135516.htm
Links are provided to the full papers but I am too cheap to subscribe!
It should also be remembered that, according to our timeline of history, the so-called prehistoric cave men lived during the same general periods as other prosperous and advanced civilizations. They just lived in different places and under different circumstances for, perhaps, a thousand different reasons.
If, 5000 years from now, you were to archaeologically compare our life in the city with life on a farm just by the animal bones, you might think one came before the other.
(Actually, you might think the garbage dump was the center of activity! - ha)
Thank you for the link George. From what I could read of it the paper indicates that people have been getting less intelligent only over the past hundred years or so as a result of natural selection being buffered due to the comfort provided by modern society. To put it another way: in modern society there is no need to be the strongest or smartest or fastest to survive. Even the weakest among us can easily get by. Before modern society those that were a burden to the group normally were left to die as opposed to today where we go out of our way to care for the sick and needy. We have the resources to be able to afford this altruism now, but that's a luxury that ancient man couldn't bestow onto their weaker tribe members without suffering drastic consequences.
I've taken several courses on world history and I can tell you assuredly that there were no grand civilizations prior to Mesopotamia around 5-6000 years ago. That's actually when prehistory ends because the Mesopotamian culture developed the first form of writing, Cuneiform. Prehistoric literally means before recorded history. When writing was developed then people recorded their history, this the end of prehistory. Anyway the point of that is that cavemen is generally a term used to refer to pre-societal man, something like 6000+ years ago. So while there were certainly people living nomadically as hunter-gatherers well after the rise of Mesopotamia (there are still some today) they aren't considered cavemen.
6days
New member
Interesting link, George.
I was mostly thinking of intelligence from a Biblical perspective that God would have created Adam with great intelligence.
But even from a science perspective it makes sense that genetic burden also effects our brains and intelligence.
Here is something I previously posted...
"Science continues to confirm the Genesis account of creation and sin. Every since sin entered the world, humans have increasingly become weaker as mutations pile up in our genes. Where as we were created perfect, we now have thousands of diseases we are subject to. Increasingly, humans are becoming more susceptible to allergies and sickness. And now scientists tell us that our brains have shrunk by 10%. Intelligence is not solely related to brain size, but it is a factor. This article tells us that "Surprisingly, based on skull measurements, the human brain appears to have been shrinking over the last 5,000 or so years."
http://www.livescience.com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html
6days
New member
That reminds me of another post from previous where an evolutionist inadvertently comes very close to the truth.....
Who would claim that all humans came from a common ancestor 5000 years ago?
The claim comes from Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University of London. Jones is ANYTHING BUT a creationist. He is a ardent (and arrogant) evolutionist. His claim can be read in the BBC link.
From the article:
"To get to the universal ancestors (when everyone was the forefather of everybody alive today, or of nobody) we need go back only 5,000 years. Had you entered any village on Earth, the first person you met would, if he or she had heirs, trace their descent straight to you and your partner."
The creationist view on this is that humans did all come from a common ancestor about 6000 years ago. In breeding (brother /sister) at that time was not morally wrong. It was only later under levitical law that God forbade the practice. (And since that time incest is now considered repugnant). The BBC link discusses gentic problems that arise from inbreeding. The creationist viewpoint is that there would have been no genetic, or birth defects in the beginning. Defects and abnormalities were something that afflicted the human race only later as the years passed.. The more years that pass, the more prone we are to mutations and defects. The human race is continually becoming more susceptible to genetic disorders. There are now several thousand genetic disorders and the number is growing.
As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Actually, that is not what it says at all.
"The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples before our ancestors emerged from Africa...
"...From that point, it's likely that we began to slowly lose ground."
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Good find 6!
6days
New member
Here is another I posted previous... Last one... I promise, I think maybe.
"Creationists have always been able to explain how some Old Testament people were able to live so many years. Finally science now agrees!. A study from the University of Utah says, "if all processes of aging could be eliminated and oxidative stress damage could be repaired, ‘one estimate is people could live 1,000 years.’” Those processes and stress are a progressive product of a cursed world. Mutations accumulate causing a genetic burden on the human race. It is no surprise that ancient humans could live such long lives. "
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/telomeres/
Greg Jennings
New member
Ok I guess I should restate my summary to say that people have been getting less intelligent as a result of lack of natural selection since the advent of civilization. In my last post to you I explained how the effects of natural selection are buffered by organized society. It's the same thing here that I was saying. You see less fit individuals surviving in society where they probably wouldn't pre-society, and they pass on their genetic info to the next generation. In the wild their less fit genetic info would be eliminated by natural selection. In society they are protected and free to live and reproduce at the same rate as a more fit individual
Greg Jennings
New member
I don't think your quote here is from this link you've provided. I looked over all of the slides and I can't find any reference to creationists at all. Maybe you made an honest mistake, but you should be aware that it comes off as dishonest when you claim sources say things that they do not.
And do you have any evidence that human genetics were ever so perfect that humans could live for thousands of years? I'm fairly sure there are no such evidences. Another thing: if our genome is getting so badly degraded then why have lifespans been steadily getting longer for hundreds of years?
So you're just going to ignore everything you got wrong and manipulate a win down a rabbit trail?
Yes. And when you don't provide anything that stands against what I say, "yes" is good enough.
genuineoriginal
New member
It appears that the rise of Liberals in society could be considered as proof of your theory.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
That's because you are not paying attention to the quote marks.
He is quoting from another post and within that, there is a quote from the article.
"Maybe you made an honest mistake, but you should be aware that it comes off as dishonest..." This is where Stripe would say; "Evolutionists can't read with comprehension"; and he would be right.
6days
New member
Greg.... it was something I posted previously. *The quote within my post is on the last sentence of the article.*Greg Jennings said:
Greg Jennings said:
A perfect Creator, created humans to live forever...and we will. (Obviously not in current body) However God cursed creation, physical death entered the world.*
Greg Jennings said:
It certainly is not because our genome is improving, but instead due to improved medicine. Geneticists recognize genetic burden is increasing.... Natural selection is incapable of removing the 100+ additional mutations added to our genome with each successive generation. Geneticists have referred to this with terms such as the population bomb.*
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Stripe,
The rest of your post consisted of
a) a response to a different person,
b) two emoticons,
c) a rhetorical question, and
d) an unsupported supposition which I already disproved in a previous post
Which one did you think merited extra consideration?
Jarrod
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Wait... you're a young-earth creationist, and you admit that Neanderthals existed?
Whatever happened to "no tweeners?"
Jarrod
6days
New member
Only evolutionists think they were "tweeners". Science proved the evolutionists wrong.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
No argument here.Neanderthals were people.
I haven't really talked to any YEC adherents in a decade or so. Apparently YEC has nuanced itself somewhat, because the last time I had discussions about this, the YEC people were telling me that homo-anything-but-sapiens didn't really exist, and that it was just the result of some scientists with an agenda putting bones together wrong.
Jarrod