Evolution - A serious question.

[DutchJazzer]

Do tell about the "pre-adamites", I haven't heard this story before.

it does not surprise me since the christian church who sprung out of Judaism translated and left out lots of stuff from the old jewish writing/religion. and wikipedia is not entirly truthfull about this pre-adamite situation.
but lets say we only have old testament to work with, cus christians only took old testament. and not the talmud, kabalah and lesser known merkabah. but they did take some of the moral and ethical stuff from the talmud.

now u say we only have old testament to work with no frills.
now it is stated that the old testament/torah was given to the 1000th generation.
now if you count the genrations from adam to moses(when torah was given) it is only 26 generations. so that means either its a mistake or their are 974 "lost" generations.
so those 974 generations is/was not human. the word human might maybe then mean a more inteligent form of man than those 974 pre-adamites.
seeing as Adam in Hebrew means human. so stuff gets lost in translation, but this seems reasonably correct.
what if i told u even in the bible/old testament there are mentions of DINOSAURS!

if the pope wasnt busy enriching the vatican h might have noticed this.

get what i am saying?

ofocuse if u expand the source material beyond the old testament it explains a bit more about 976 generations.
also i need to research somehting again. dont have the exact details on hand. but i remember also something about adam and eve being estranged for a while and having other "mates".



edit human meaning more in a spiritual sense. aka humane.


#lovewins

 

[Bronco70]

I'm kinda ape-like

Apes can't handle the Fireball like you, tho...

 

[babe]

Brigham Young said "Adam" was brought here from another planet. Some theorize he came with a whole colony, some theorize there were earlier attempts to institute "mankind" into this planet. I don't know anything about it, myself. . . hearsay, sorta. . . even the Bible I take as written by "faithful" people who might have simplified the story, of left some things out, or whatever. So from thousands of years ago we have some rumors, it's not all exactly the same story. Doesn't matter. The LDS Church can't even keep the same story going for two hundred years. . . people demand to hear stuff they wanna hear. . . . but whatever is true, that's where "God" is on it all. Siro makes a fundamental logical error in rejecting "God" because humans don't know stuff, or didn't know stuff. Another error is thinking we know stuff now that's gonna keep "valid" for a couple of hundred years against constant seeking, experiment, research, learning. . . .

I'm OK with scientific results whether they support a religious dogma or not. I look at the genetic contents of different species and see a lot of correspondences, some things being closer related in specific details than others. We haven't gotten close to having all the details. It's still a huge set of assumptions to string it all together and declare we "know" how it all happened.

ya, somebody in the dark ages put some cowdung in a jar and found flies a few weeks later, and claimed "spontaneous generation" explained it all. Just a few details can force wholesale changes in our theories. . . .

I'm pretty certain there were humans living around the shore of Lake Bonneville 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Brigham Young said those caves were inhabited by "Jaredites" but that was just wrong by about 8,000 years to say the least.

 

[fishonjazz]

Apes can't handle the Fireball like you, tho...

Fireball vs drinking own piss/feces

Apes ftw

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm kinda ape-like

REPORTED for RACIALISM in the FIRST DEGREE!

 

[Bronco70]

Heres a thought that just popped into my head: is the reason so many religious people(no matter the denomination) oppose/believe homosexuality is a sin because they've been taught that people are created in the image of God. And being born gay isn't possible because it would completely shatter that theory?

Sorry replying to this so much later...

Hopefully, people are smarter than that. Is God afraid of heights? Does he like spicy food? Does he prefer blondes or brunettes? Does he find farts funny? Maybe being created "in his image" doesn't mean "exactly like him".

Again, hopefully people are smart enough to get it.

But many aren't.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Do tell about the "pre-adamites", I haven't heard this story before.

grabbed some of my books but have to disappoint u about elaborating more on my previous post. kinda tired. and not everything is on the internet btw.
and not everything on the internet is true. maybe another day. i wanna be absolutely sure about how and what i say.
only thing i can say with absolute certainty for now is:
1.the 1000 generations meaning 974 lost onese.
2.dinosaures are mentioned in old testament.
in genesis 1:21 there is stated that the giant "tanin" where created. we dont hear the hebrew word tanin anymore untill exodus something something about Moses/pharaohs henchmen staf turning into "tanin" which by now is accepted as snake/reptiles. so giant "tanin" refers to giant reptiles. thats old testament alone. in the talmud there is some more elaboration on what they where and where they "disappeared" too.
3.if you look at order of which things came first in genesis i think it was aquatic animals, land animals, mammals and humans
(might have forgotten a step in there) it is the same sequence as descirbed by evolution. maybe i was a well informed guess or just plain luck.






#dontwannahearaboutdammemails

 

[♪alt13]

Just in case my explanation wasn't clear, we are indeed apes. And we are descended from other apes that are now extinct.

Extinction is another kinda funny human category. It seems like a misnomer to me to refer to a creature that has living descendants as extinct. I kinda think the concept of extinction is somewhat counter productive when talking about evolution. Our evolution is one continuous lineage all the way back to the beginning of life and I think sometimes the concept of extinction obscures that. I think that if people think about relationships instead of categorically evolution makes more intuitive sense.

 

[fishonjazz]

When I die, I will be extinct

 

[Siro]

Extinction is another kinda funny human category. It seems like a misnomer to me to refer to a creature that has living descendants as extinct. I kinda think the concept of extinction is somewhat counter productive when talking about evolution. Our evolution is one continuous lineage all the way back to the beginning of life and I think sometimes the concept of extinction obscures that. I think that if people think about relationships instead of categorically evolution makes more intuitive sense.

Are you touching upon reification(click word for definition)? If so, then yes, absolutely. But why stop there? The concept of a "species" is even more fluid and dynamic than that of extinction. Let alone those of higher order classifications like Class and Order. I actually enjoy having conversations that poke holes into practically any human classification you can come up with.

But the category is useful, and I think, meaningful. Many types of life currently share the planet with living members of their ancestral germ-line with which they can no longer procreate. That's not the case with humans and, say, chimps. If you follow human generations back down the line, you will get to a point where you will look upon the animal whose descendants eventually made up what we today call humans and chimps. That animal no longer exists in that form today. That form is thus extinct.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Extinction is another kinda funny human category. It seems like a misnomer to me to refer to a creature that has living descendants as extinct. I kinda think the concept of extinction is somewhat counter productive when talking about evolution. Our evolution is one continuous lineage all the way back to the beginning of life and I think sometimes the concept of extinction obscures that. I think that if people think about relationships instead of categorically evolution makes more intuitive sense.

but what if a mammoth lost its hair because it moved to a warmer place and became an elephant.
so mammoths are not extinct

long live the mammothsphant

if so what is then truly extinct? the dino's? or are aligators and crocs descendants of them
#mybodymychoice

 

[♪alt13]

Are you touching upon reification(click word for definition)? If so, then yes, absolutely. But why stop there? The concept of a "species" is even more fluid and dynamic than that of extinction. Let alone those of higher order classifications like Class and Order. I actually enjoy having conversations that poke holes into practically any human classification you can come up with.

But the category is useful, and I think, meaningful. Many types of life currently share the planet with living members of their ancestral germ-line with which they can no longer procreate. That's not the case with humans and, say, chimps. If you follow human generations back down the line, you will get to a point where you will look upon the animal whose descendants eventually made up what we today call humans and chimps. That animal no longer exists in that form today. That form is thus extinct.

It's funny you brought up species. Originally I included it in my post but I didn't want to expand too far. I agree that categories are useful thinking tools but I don't think enough people understand them that way. A lot of people, maybe even most, view categories as reality instead of as a representation of it.

I have had multiple conversations with people about evolution where a statement along the lines "You know what I don't get, if we are descended from something that is extinct, Neanderthals or whatever, how are we still here? I don't know do you get what I'm trying to say?" comes up.

I've also often heard "If we came from monkeys why are monkeys still here?"

The only times it seems that I have sufficiently answered their question is by 'breaking' their categorical idea of species and extinction.