The answer to the bold is quite obvious man. Come now?
We have evolved to a stage where we use our bodies much less, as in AI has taken over lol, among other things of course. We've become much lazier than our ancestors.

building skyscrapers and building the pyramids of egypt...

Seems like a lot morebodily work than swinging from trees.

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 5 2014 11:33am

What would you expect in place of tadpoles, fish and apes? They are quite well adapted to their environments.
Our ancestors relied more on strength to survive, which necessitated tougher bodies (including bones). We rely more on our intelligence, so resources are diverted towards the brain and away from physical development. Evolution improves survival in a specific environment, and you can't argue that we are much better at survival than our ancestors.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
Unless you believe we have evolved for only a few thousand years, according to religion...



This.

looking at the responses, I'm going to assume you all believe in Darwinism.
I should of started off writing what is below, instead of asking questions.


Science is built on observation and repetition.
Suppose we observe and repeat an experiment where we allow natural laws to work on a mountain for the next 100 years.
Will we ever get the faces on Mount Rushmore? Never.

You say, maybe natural laws would do it if we give them billions of years. No, they wouldn't. Why? Because nature disorders, it doesn't organize things (the fact that nature brings things toward disorder is another aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
More time will make things worse for the Darwinist, not better. How So?

Let's suppose you throw red, white, and blue confetti out of an air plane 1,000 feet above your house. What's the chance it's going to form the american flag on your front lawn? Very Low. Why? Because natural laws will mix up the confetti. You say, "Allow more time" Okay, let's take the plane up to 10,000 feet to give natural laws more time to work on the confetti. Does this improve the probability that the flag will form on your lawn? No, more time actually makes the flag less likely because natural laws have longer to do what they do - disorder and randomize.

What is different about the origin of the first life? You might say that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply continuously to living systems. After all, living things do grow and can get more ordered. Yes, they grow and get more ordered, but they still lose energy in the process of growth. The food that goes into a living system is not processed at 100% efficiency. So the seconds law applies to living systems as well.

That's not even the point i'm trying to make, i guess i should have just started with this instead of questions. The point is - we're not talking about what something can do once it's alive; we're talking about getting a living thing in the first place/ .




How did life arise from nonliving chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when nonliving chemicals are susceptible to the second law of thermodynamics? You guys have more faith than any religion out there.

Can you guys explain all the incredible specified complexity in life? Atheists and theists alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from nonliving chemicals. The figures they calculate are astronomically small - virtually zero. For example, Michael Behe said that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the desert three times in a row. To get life, you need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together.



It sounds to me that you are the one with the Secular religion of naturalism that leads you to ignore the empirically detectable scientific evidence for design.

Seriously though, you guys need to stop youtubing Atkin debates and do your own research.

*awaiting your rebuttals which will probably all be sarcastic questions, with no grounds for a factual response*

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 5 2014 12:36pm

I got nothing more to say about the subject at hand.
You brought up the debate about evolution, being unreal (I'm guessing here)
And the example you proposed gave you some responses.

My opinions never even mentioned religion, so telling me I believe this or that is pointless.
I asked you if you believed in it. Thats cause you compared the time of pyramid building and the time when we were more like monkeys.
Imo. the difference in those 2 moments in history is much bigger than yours. I might be wrong.

Then you wrote a wall of text, that I have no idea. I read it a couple times, and you're talking about, chance?

From what I've studied, depending on your surroundings you evovle to accomodate that surrounding, and that evolution takes much much more than 100 years.

---

Am I to understand you do not believe in evolution? Or you talking about the topic, which everyone admited the title is missleading.

The example i gave was just trying to set the stage for "Nature = Disorder" I don't believe in evolution, i give my reasoning in the wall of text. (Which is actually worth the read, I did take a good amount of time writing it) Most of my disbelief come from the second law of thermodynamics.

I wasn't specifically talking about you in my response, more-so about the OP. When I wrote, you or you all. It's simply aimed at anyone reading what I wrote who doesn't agree with me. I believe in intelligent design.






This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 5 2014 12:59pm

Microevolution is completely different from macroevolution.

Could you elaborate? Because i do believe in microevolution.

(1) 'Microbes-to-man evolution' to replace 'macroevolution'
(2) 'Fruit flies-to-fruit flies evolution' to replace 'microevolution'.

The second term really emphasizes, I think, that the creature you start with is the creature you end with.

Abiogenesis and evolution do not violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you think so, you greatly misunderstand either one or the other or both.

Allow natural laws to work on a mountain for 100 years. Will you get an exact identical replica of ANY mountain in the world? Never. Throw confetti out of a plane, record the exact pattern it formed and then throw the confetti out again. Will it form the exact same pattern as last time? No. By your logic you just demonstrated that the every mountain in the world and every confetti pattern is intelligently designed, because it can't be reproduced through random processes in our experiments.



Life is just nonliving chemicals interacting in a way that we, humans, find meaningful. There's nothing objectively special or unique about the chemical interactions in your body.



Fortunately we have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in just the observable universe, so the chances of life developing on just one of them don't seem so bad all of a sudden.



Don't you think that's a little ironic coming from a guy that copy/pasted most of this post from the web?


No you didn't. A simple google search for a random snippet of your post:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Okay%2C+let%27s+take+the+plane+up+to+10%2C000+feet+to+give+natural+laws+more+time+to+work+on+the+confett&oq=Okay%2C+let%27s+take+the+plane+up+to+10%2C000+feet+to+give+natural+laws+more+time+to+work+on+the+confett&aqs=chrome..69i57.447j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

This post was edited by russian on Nov 5 2014 04:31pm