Creationism vs. Evolution

Thought we were talking about women that live to 80-100+ year and could increase average life expectancy like you insist should be. Those 50-100+ year old women generally stop giving birth in their early 40s if not much earlier. And men fathering children past 50s isn't a large number, you can look it up.

Your premise is evolution says everything must get better including longevity. You've failed to explain through evolution why you make that conclusion other than to say it should. Evolution science doesn't expect increases in longevity since age of death doesn't factor much into increased procreation. Evolution doesn't really predict things getting better as you assume, it predicts a tendency to favor beneficial traits for the environment. Longevity in humans isn't an obvious benefit.

 

I grow weary of this thread. Let's all talk about pornographic movies with tori black in them.

Or if you're into dudes evan stone.

 

Worthy, for you, one more post:

I was speaking in general of the species, not just women. You might have to backtrack a little to see my original post.

Actually, it does make that very prediction - that things get better. Otherwise, what is the point of evolution? If evolution and natural selection do not improve the species, then what do you have? Stagnation? Regression?

Quote below from the "Concise Encyclopedia" portion of this page from Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

"The heart of Darwinian evolution is the mechanism of natural selection. Surviving individuals, which vary (see variation) in some way that enables them to live longer and reproduce, pass on their advantage to succeeding generations." (Italics, bold and underline added)

 

Maybe the Concise Encyclopedia isn't the most thorough explanation in 1 sentence of what evolution is.

Survive until able to reproduce is another way of reading live longer and reproduce. It does not mean 1 function of evolution is to live longer and the other is to reproduce. It means those that survive reproduce, due to variations that produce survival advantage.

The point of evolution is that survival favors something, and that something is what is reproduced, not that things get better. Darker skin might be the thing that survives, longer legs, shorter legs, depends on the environment. Evolution doesn't know about a species, it is very local in what is favored, until recent human mobility.

 

J. Craig Venter answered questions put to him by CNN about the achievement. Some of what he had to say may apply to your concerns..

----------------------------------------------------------------

CNN: What exactly have you done?

J. Craig Venter: We announced the first cell that is totally controlled by a synthetic chromosome, that we designed in a computer based on an existing chromosome.

We built it from four bottles of chemicals.. that's over a million base pairs [of chromosomes]. We assembled that and transplanted it into a recipient cell and that new chromosome started being read by the machinery in the cell, producing new proteins, and totally transformed that cell into a new species coded by the synthetic chromosome.

So it's the first living self-replicating cell that we have on the planet whose DNA was made chemically and designed in the computer.

So it has no genetic ancestors. Its parent is a computer...

.......CNN: Did you create new life?

Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch. We created, as all life on this planet is, out of a living cell.

 

OK, two more posts:

And by extension, the longer something survives, the more likely it is to produce more offspring with the traits of longevity retained in the "gene pool". I understand that in its strictest sense, evolution is simply change/modification over time. However, if evolution does not lead to a "better" species, what is the point?

Would we not consider a human to be superior to bacteria or some other "lower" form of life? If a tree "evolves" to where it can live thousands of years, why not a human that has already cleared so many evolutionary hurdles to be where he is in the "food chain"? Again, man has had 350,000-600,000 years of evolution since neanderthal. So much effort and expense is made to extend our lives today. Why then, with the great leaps in "evolution" over millenia, have our life spans not expanded to meet the capacity of the brain in our heads (of which we use a minute portion of its capacity during a lifetime)? I realize we will not agree on this, but to me, evolution requires a lot more "faith" than what I believe.

 

All right. One more (gets me to 500 posts), and I just can't help myself!

That is what I saw on his website and from other sources. I do find it interesting that even he points out that all life on this planet originates (or is out of) from a living cell. Which takes us back to my post from a couple of nights age regarding Stanley Miller's experiment and the origin of life.

This time, I am done...I really really mean it...until the next time

 

Again, longevity must not be a key factor in survival. Something else was occurring that lead evolution down a path where reproduction in humans stops long before end of life, and life expectancy remains relatively constant since it isn't important for reproduction.

 

Guess I don't really understand your concern then. Venter never claimed to have created life out of nothing. Truth is the germ of life on planet earth billions of years ago could have been transplanted here from elsewhere in the universe amongst the cosmic debris fields that coalesced into our galaxy as well as this tiny (comparatively speaking) solar system we call home. We just don't know for sure. That Stanley Miller's experiment pursued one line of inquiry into the origin of life certainly does not mean that no other lines of inquiry exist.

 

Sounds like a good argument for Intelligent Design.

 

Or



Just sayin'

 

Found the truth.

 

I don't understand how you think extremely long life is the goal of evolutionary changes for humans

 

I think there was a VICE documentary about a group in florida that believed in that decades ago.

 

Also Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Neanderthals, they went extinct a few years back in the 70s... except for Bigfoot/Sasquatch of course.

 

races

Sasquatch are most definitely NOT Neanderthals

 

Tell 'em I said Hi the next time you seem them.

 

I am going to need some DNA evidence.

 

Totally understand, just explaining my point of view. And as far as your examples, well that all comes down to context.

 

K