Page 5 of 5

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 2:49 pm
by anthrochick
Originally posted by humbug:


Lets take a trait like bipedalism. The advantages of bipedalism are huge (hunting, gathering, building, etc) which points to natural selection. A GREAT deal of research has been done tracing the development of bidedal locomotion in our species. Turns out bipedalism requires many (too numerous to enumerate here) anatomical changes versus say a quadraped. A larger brain, smaller upturned pelvis, larger birth canal, completely different feet and leg structure. Scientists can trace OUR bipedalism back to our quadrapedal ancestors including all of the "transitional" forms.
Ok, I'll get the hang of these postings yet! To continue with the topic of bipedalism research that humbug talks aobut, part of my recent research has been to examine SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) in light of the co-sleeping argument (that is, whether the arguments made by 'parenting experts' in magazines against co-sleeping with one's children as dangerous is valid). In order to understand the issues, many factors must be considered particularly birthing histories in primate lineage and cultural practices of co-sleeping. All this aside, one must consider the evolutionary data for birthing in humans. SIDS research has not recognized that human infants have an evolutionary past and have focused on uraban and industrialized areas.

The consequence of bipedalism in Australopithecus afarensis and subsequently Homo erectus is that offspring are born more neurologically immature in that most of their development takes place postnatally. Let me explain. In order to transition from quadrapedal to bipedal locomotion, the pelvis must broaden and rotate forward which then diminishes the size of the birth canal. Thus the postnatal care for human infants is greater than that of other primates.

So humbug you are absolutely right on (except that human birth canals have become narrower to accommodate our upright motion). There are other important factors in this research, both biological and sociocultural. But the point is that even though there are gaps in evolutionary data (anthropology/biology is not perfect but continued learning and more knowledge gained as a result of increased research) does not mean that the evidence is not there.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 2:57 pm
by anthrochick
also, another point of information on genetic change in the last 10,000 years is sickle cell hemoglobin and persistence of intestinal lactase (which coincidentally you don't need to examine fossils for but rather coprolite which is fossilized fecal matter). There are numerous investigations that archaeologists undertake to reach conclusions that support their hypotheses. Fossil remains are not the only avenue.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 3:00 pm
by cmoo
Darwin presented evoloution as a theory, not as truth
Darwins theory is NOT "evolution". It is simply his attempt to explain WHY EVOLUTION IS OCCURING. SHEESH!!

This discussion is futile.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 10:30 pm
by Marty
Kerry Tobin, I was just kidding about the stray bullets. I imagine that since alot of them had to be home made back then, they wouldn't be flying around alot either. :D

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 11:17 pm
by looks-too-far
This discussion is futile, and it will end up going positively no where. Each side has their view and have done their "research". The condensation is getting thick.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 1:44 pm
by anthrochick
I'm surprised that looks-too-far and cmoo didn't realize this over a month ago when this discussion began but the argument went on......

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 2:23 pm
by looks-too-far
I think Anthrochick and Humbug should go have coffee together and discuss how smart they are and how much more of superior intelligence that they have compared to the rest of us slugs who have no breeding, schooling, manners or brains. They are quite possibly the only two people that could get along with each other. Hey, maybe that does explain evolution!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 2:48 pm
by anthrochick
I don't recall anyone throwing derogatory remarks your way looks-too-far, why belittle me? I neither put down anyone's comments or posted any comment that anyone was 'beneath me'.

My last post pointed out the fact that the frustration you exhibit could have been quelled weeks ago. We all know that this line of discourse is not going to 'prove' anything although it has been stimulating conversation on both ends. It had been enjoyable until now.

Don't come down on me for anything that I have said. I have spent years studying in the anthropological field and thought I could add some points of interest to the conversation. My knowledge in this area may exceed others just as their knowledge exceeds my own.

Shame on you. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (or the discussion)!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 4:31 pm
by looks-too-far
I'm not going to argue the point about aguing to you, as that would be pointless as well. You have no clue how you talk down to people and come across. You make your point and then go the extra mile at making your last statement make the rest of us feel like toads. I have dealt with such like ones in the past, and the next thing they alway do is typical of what you did. I can stand the heat, heck, I'll even sit on the stove. I like discussions, which is what we WERE having.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 4:38 pm
by anthrochick
yes we WERE having a conversation until you threw a fit. grow up!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 4:43 pm
by anthrochick
other participants have been gracious in this dialogue (cmoo, aphephilia, humbug, clementine, baby,...)
Thanks, I loved the conversation but perhaps this one has reached the end.
Until next time.....

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:12 pm
by looks-too-far
I know, you are a much better person than I am, you have certainly proved that. I am humbled by your comments as well as your admonition. Thank you for showing me my errant ways. Thanks to your common sense and aged fews, I now know that I am much better off...

Regards.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 7:21 pm
by Webmaster
Stick to the topic and leave each other alone or the discussion will be ended!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 8:57 pm
by aphephilia
!!!SQUELCH!!! :roll:

Re:

Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 12:33 pm
by Dopey Dwarf
.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 6:43 pm
by taco man
Why was this movie titled 'The Passion of the Christ' rather than 'The Passion of Christ'?

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 8:59 pm
by aphephilia
hmmmmm sounds like a question for Mel Gibson... :D

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 3:00 pm
by clementine
Dopey Dwarf-- your point is exactly the one I started out with, that evolution and creation can coexist.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:51 am
by humbug
Of course they can coexist. All you have to do is ignore the fact that THEY DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!! If you ignore that little detail, then you're good to go!!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 4:29 pm
by anthrochick
Lest I be misquoted, misinterpreted, pigeon-holed, typecast, or harrassed, let this serve as an implied disclaimer for my subsequent statement.

There is an trend in both scientific and theological circles toward a belief in "theistic evolution" where a connection between evolution and creationism has been created. The material is an intriguing read for persons of either 'camp'. The basis of theistic evolution, as I understand it, is that while the book of Genesis provides the 'why' and 'who' of creation, it does not explicate the exact method or process. Theistic evolutionists believe that God is the omnipotent Creator, Genesis is not a factual historical account but rather allegorical in nature, and evolution is given a guiding hand by God.

Again, I am not advocating the preceding information but only passing on information I have read.

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 7:20 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Humbug,

Why do they have to contradict each other?

How long is a day if you are eternal?

What was God's method for creating man? Remember that those who wrote the bible were "inspired" by God and "interpreted". For all we know one day is a billion years to a divine power... Heck, we could still be a work in progress!!!

Re: the passion of the christ

Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:30 pm
by prinsesz
I may be changing the subject just a bit. BUT I must admit that I'm having a very hard time being the christian I was raised to be. How can I look people in the eye and learn God's word from them when they are sinning themselves??? By that I mean, molesting children, doing drugs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Basically, not walking in the steps God has laid for him. Granted, not everyone is like this nor am I saying everyone is. SOME people sitting in the front row at church are also the people sinning the most. I have such a hard time with people going to church on Sunday, asking forgiveness, only to do the same thing again the following Sunday. Am I being ridiculous? How can I take religion seriously when it seems some (not all) of the people preaching to me aren't walking in the Lord's path? Does it make sense???