On the other hand, a spread of human like selection pressure would be the cause of humanoid like creatures across the spectrum?
But God is not that lacking in Creativity!
Is there even one thing, that would provoke humanoids to come from other species? Where's the selection pressure, that created Man, and nothing else?
- Thread starter Gottservant
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But God is not that lacking in Creativity!
TinMan
Well-Known Member
Because pressure is generally ubiquitous.
Why would selection pressure be placed specifically on monkeys (to become men)?
That is a huge assumption.
TinMan
Well-Known Member
If it was ubiquitous then you wouldn't be asking why are humans the only human like residents of the planet?
Monkeys didn't become human.
No that's what I am saying: the pressure is generally ubiquitous, why would ubiquitous pressure not create ubiquitous homo sapiens?
TinMan
Well-Known Member
because that pressure varies by location and the response to that pressure varies by the species that is reacting to it. Severe drought brought on by an ice age years ago put pressure on the ancestor of humans and the ancestor's of dolphins. Each species adapted to the pressure. One by changing to walk upright and move from a dense wet forest habitat to a dry savannah habitat and the other to move into water and adapt to living there. The same pressure resulted wildly different adaptations. both equally successful for their species.
If the general argument is not heard, overstepping becomes smashing through.
In other words, men who believe in trans-specieism are less men.
The wise thing to do with men that are less, is to keep them focused on a greater cross (selah)
In other words, men who believe in trans-specieism are less men.
The wise thing to do with men that are less, is to keep them focused on a greater cross (selah)
Space_Karen
Well-Known Member
Evolutionists still haven't explained the "missing link" humanoid. There appears to be gaps in the evolution scheme. So I wouldn't worry too much about it. It is easily disproven by evidence missing.
TinMan
Well-Known Member
They seemed to have interbred with humans. I've seen estimates that Caucasians have 7-9% neanderthal DNA. It seems that both blue eyes and red hair came from the neanderthals
TinMan
Well-Known Member
""Missing link" is a hypothetical or recently-discovered transitional fossil. It is often used in popular science and in the media for any new transitional form. The term originated to describe the hypothetical intermediate form in the evolutionary series of anthropoid ancestors to anatomically modern humans (hominization). The term was influenced by the pre-Darwinian evolutionary theory of the Great Chain of Being and the now-outdated notion (orthogenesis) that simple organisms are more primitive than complex organisms." Ref
The point is, we don't even see a partial change in anything else but humans. Cats don't form human heads, dogs don't form human tails.
Where is the selection pressure, that makes monkeys humans, but nothing else?
Where is the selection pressure, that makes monkeys humans, but nothing else?
Think about this: is there a selection pressure, that will bring Man back to Man, if something beyond Man should fail?
Isn't going back to what we were, called 'repentance'?
Isn't going back to what we were, called 'repentance'?
TinMan
Well-Known Member
You seem to be thinking that somehow humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We aren't. No single species is. Everything here and now is here because of the adaptations they made for their situation(s) and there is no best species.
Space_Karen
Well-Known Member
What ever happened to:
The branch leading to wooly mammoths?
The branch to tasmanian tigers?
The more someone thought on the topic.
The more they might realize branches trend towards disappearing, moreso than remaining.
The branch leading to wooly mammoths?
The branch to tasmanian tigers?
The more someone thought on the topic.
The more they might realize branches trend towards disappearing, moreso than remaining.
Similar threads
