Human brain result of 'extraordinarily fast' evolution

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
Anonymous

Post by Anonymous »

FrAndrew wrote:Hey,

I don't know if it's already been referred to, but one philosophy is that the human brain has now reached its evolutionary capacity - in otherwords, if the brain grows even bigger, we will decrease in knowledge rather than increase. Many modern day philosophers now believe, that our evolution now carries on in society rather than in the brain - through computers and systems etc...

In Christ,
Fr. A
Yes that correct, Thats the belief now from science. Although human intelligence hasnt stopped here. Because most of us by the mid to the end of 21st century we will have basicly used many methods like genetic engineering and Implants to people stronger, healther, possibly more intelligent or quicker learning ability.

And possibly we will use biotechnology and Nanotechnology within the next 30 years to help extend our life expectency
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

Last edited by ikester7579 on Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

O sorry August, thought you were defending toe. I'll leave up what I said anyway, but it's not directed towards you.
------------------------
Is every mutation beneficial? Evolution would have you think this. But there are mutations such as cancer that will kill you. And because it dominates this way, it would make the mutation stronger than life itself. And after all the millions of years of mutations. It would seem to me that our bodies would have formed a mutated defense against this. But people still get it, and only have a 30% survival rate. But even the percentage is based on what you would deem surviving to be. Because if you go beyond the determined time, your in the percentage. But the truth is, cancer mutation kills in the 90% range (meaning that when they died, the cancer was the direct cause).

And there are other mutating diseases as well. And none of these are ever mentioned with evolution. Why? Because as long as science can make evolution look as easy as baking a cake, no one will ask questions. But, if all the variables to it were included, it would make the individual have to think for themselves. Evolution cannot have someone doing this because to put it into question only shows all the flaws involved.

Then we have our immune system. Care to explain how different organs evolved without our immune system rejecting them? There are even diseases caused by the immune system doing this. And there are people who have there immune system attack their whole body, and they die.

Anyone who has had an organ transplant knows very well how the immune system could kill them. And take pills to suppress it. But there is still no guarantee.

Even through organ transplants it is shown how unique each person is. Because you cannot just stick one persons organs into another. And is why there is a organ donor waiting list.

The brain itself produces an electrical current. Would you care to explain how a cell evolved to produce an electrical current?

Would you care to explain how the brain, and the organs, evolved a method to communicate using this electricity?
Last edited by ikester7579 on Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

ikester7579 wrote:O sorry August, thought you were defending toe. I'll leave up what I said anyway, but it's not directed towards you.
------------------------
Is every mutation beneficial? Evolution would have you think this. But their are mutations such as cancer that will kill you. And because it dominates this way, it would make the mutation stronger than life itself. And after all the millions of years of mutations. It would seem to me that our bodies would have formed a mutated defense against this.
If cancers prevented propogation then either a defense mechanism could have arisen or the species would have serious problems. However cancer effects most people well after they are able to have children.
ikester7579 wrote:But people still get it, and only have a 30% survival rate. But even the percentage is based on what you would deem surviving to be. Because if you go beyond the determined time, your in the percentage. But the truth is, cancer mutation kills in the 90% range (meaning that when they died, the cancer was the direct cause).

And there are other mutating diseases as well. And none of these are ever mentioned with evolution. Why? Because as long as science can make evolution look as easy as baking a cake, no one will ask questions. But, if all the variables to it were included, it would make the individual have to think for themselves. Evolution cannot have someone doing this because to put it into question only shows all the flaws involved.
Mutations occuring in a grown adult cells as in cancer, do not contribute to the genomes of their children.
ikester7579 wrote:Then we have our immune system. Care to explain how different organs evolved without our immune system rejecting them?
The immune system does not use a checklist to determine if a specific organ is meant to be there or not. It works by reacting to surface proteins on individual cells. In an organ that has been transplanted these surface proteins are not identical to those of native cells. Thus imuno suppressant drugs are needed to keep the immune system from tearing apart the transplanted organ.
ikester7579 wrote:There are even diseases caused by the immune system doing this. And there are people who have there immune system attack their whole body, and they die.

Anyone who has had an organ transplant knows very well how the immune system could kill them. And take pills to suppress it. But there is still no guarantee.

Even through organ transplants it is shown how unique each person is. Because you cannot just stick one persons organs into another. And is why there is a organ donor waiting list.

The brain itself produces an electrical current. Would you care to explain how a cell evolved to produce an electrical current?
You may be accustomed to thinking that electricity is some sort of mystical man-made phenomena. But all things in technology take advantage of natural phenomena. Cells taking advantage of electrical conductivity may seem surprising to you but it is in no way unnatural.
ikester7579 wrote:Would you care to explain how the brain, and the organs, evolved a method to communicate using this electricity?
The fact that many organisms have fundamental commonalities in their nervous systems suggests that multicellular mobility requires some sort of sensory processing.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

If cancers prevented propogation then either a defense mechanism could have arisen or the species would have serious problems. However cancer effects most people well after they are able to have children.
Tell the kids who have this. And their number is growing. And in the evolution theory, the strongest survive. Or is that only when it supports the theory?
Mutations occuring in a grown adult cells as in cancer, do not contribute to the genomes of their children.
Studies have shown that cancer genes can be passed from parent to child. As well as other diseases.
The immune system does not use a checklist to determine if a specific organ is meant to be there or not. It works by reacting to surface proteins on individual cells. In an organ that has been transplanted these surface proteins are not identical to those of native cells. Thus imuno suppressant drugs are needed to keep the immune system from tearing apart the transplanted organ.
If we all evolved from the same source, how did such uniqueness between each other evolve between the same species? Uniqueness shows a Creator design. Evolution relies on likeness for relation to each other. The evolution process itself suggest that we should not be so different, but yet we are.
You may be accustomed to thinking that electricity is some sort of mystical man-made phenomena. But all things in technology take advantage of natural phenomena. Cells taking advantage of electrical conductivity may seem surprising to you but it is in no way unnatural.
Anything that produces electricity, also produce a frequency and a magnetic field of sorts (weak or strong). In the case with humans, each cell in the body produces it's own frequency. Why? Because it becomes charged through the nervous system, and only like cells can produce like frequencies. The brain itself produces enough energy to run a 10 watt bulb. You take and add up all the different cells in each human, and because this number has endless combinations. The frequency the body generates itself is unique to each human.

The human body consists of a huge number of cells, on the average about one billion cells per gram tissue. The whole body contains many cells that are not alike. Red blood cells, white blood cells, bone cells, nerve cells, all the different organ cells, etc... And not two humans have the same exact amount of these different cell combinations. Through all of this, and what makes us more individual than the same, only points to a Creator.
The fact that many organisms have fundamental commonalities in their nervous systems suggests that multicellular mobility requires some sort of sensory processing.
There is nothing common about the brain, and the rest of the human body being able to process some type of communication.

Example: It has been recently found that the heart can communicate to the brain in four different ways.

Neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), bio-physically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain's activity.

It is now believed that this is why our heart hurts when we lose someone near and dear to us, or we break up with someone we were attached to. Because they are finding that the heart plays a role in our emotions through this extra way of communication.

For one organ to be able to do this, how would natural selections make the selection required for this to happen? When it's main function is to only pump blood?
Attachments
Heart_pain1.jpg
Heart_pain1.jpg (33.66 KiB) Viewed 4727 times
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

ikester7579 wrote:
If cancers prevented propogation then either a defense mechanism could have arisen or the species would have serious problems. However cancer effects most people well after they are able to have children.
Tell the kids who have this. And their number is growing. And in the evolution theory, the strongest survive. Or is that only when it supports the theory?
You misunderstand the theory.
ikester7579 wrote:
Mutations occuring in a grown adult cells as in cancer, do not contribute to the genomes of their children.
Studies have shown that cancer genes can be passed from parent to child. As well as other diseases.
Exactly, which shows where you missed the point. As long as reproductive viability is not hindered the suceptability to cancer will continue to be inherited.
ikester7579 wrote:
The immune system does not use a checklist to determine if a specific organ is meant to be there or not. It works by reacting to surface proteins on individual cells. In an organ that has been transplanted these surface proteins are not identical to those of native cells. Thus imuno suppressant drugs are needed to keep the immune system from tearing apart the transplanted organ.
If we all evolved from the same source, how did such uniqueness between each other evolve between the same species? Uniqueness shows a Creator design. Evolution relies on likeness for relation to each other. The evolution process itself suggest that we should not be so different, but yet we are.
No evolution relies on variability. Mutations could account for the origin of variability between individuals. Every snowflake is said to be unique. Yet we know how they form and originate.
ikester7579 wrote:
You may be accustomed to thinking that electricity is some sort of mystical man-made phenomena. But all things in technology take advantage of natural phenomena. Cells taking advantage of electrical conductivity may seem surprising to you but it is in no way unnatural.
Anything that produces electricity, also produce a frequency and a magnetic field of sorts (weak or strong). In the case with humans, each cell in the body produces it's own frequency. Why? Because it becomes charged through the nervous system, and only like cells can produce like frequencies. The brain itself produces enough energy to run a 10 watt bulb. You take and add up all the different cells in each human, and because this number has endless combinations. The frequency the body generates itself is unique to each human.
You show a misunderstanding of the immune system and how electrical potential is being used to propogate signals. If you wish we can start a thread for this topic.
ikester7579 wrote:The human body consists of a huge number of cells, on the average about one billion cells per gram tissue. The whole body contains many cells that are not alike. Red blood cells, white blood cells, bone cells, nerve cells, all the different organ cells, etc... And not two humans have the same exact amount of these different cell combinations. Through all of this, and what makes us more individual than the same, only points to a Creator.
Even from day to day we have differing amounts of these cell types. If you would like to discuss biology and more specifically the circulatory and immune systems we can begin a new thread on this subject.
ikester7579 wrote:
The fact that many organisms have fundamental commonalities in their nervous systems suggests that multicellular mobility requires some sort of sensory processing.
There is nothing common about the brain, and the rest of the human body being able to process some type of communication.

Example: It has been recently found that the heart can communicate to the brain in four different ways.

Neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), bio-physically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain's activity.

It is now believed that this is why our heart hurts when we lose someone near and dear to us, or we break up with someone we were attached to. Because they are finding that the heart plays a role in our emotions through this extra way of communication.

For one organ to be able to do this, how would natural selections make the selection required for this to happen? When it's main function is to only pump blood?
One needs to understand that intricacies such as these are the same things that are found everywhere in nature. A person may see scissors as useful only for cutting paper. But I can also use it for poking holes, digging holes, completing a circuit etc. When the automobile was invented it was intended as a mode of transportation. No one could have imagined that it would be used for war in the form of tanks or form the backbone of a vast economic system requiring trucks as a major way to transport goods. Take some time to examine the circulatory systems of other organisms to get a better grasp of the subject.
Imagine evolution like pickup sticks in reverse. Each stick is added on top of the stack. As you do so each stick is dependant on the ones below. Add next a yellow stick. Then a few more. Now the yellow stick is a foundation for the newer sticks.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

Nice dodge. As usual, near to nothing was answered. Only the political dodge explain away tactic. Never answer the question directly, just explain your way around it.
One needs to understand that intricacies such as these are the same things that are found everywhere in nature. A person may see scissors as useful only for cutting paper. But I can also use it for poking holes, digging holes, completing a circuit etc. When the automobile was invented it was intended as a mode of transportation. No one could have imagined that it would be used for war in the form of tanks or form the backbone of a vast economic system requiring trucks as a major way to transport goods. Take some time to examine the circulatory systems of other organisms to get a better grasp of the subject.
Imagine evolution like pickup sticks in reverse. Each stick is added on top of the stack. As you do so each stick is dependant on the ones below. Add next a yellow stick. Then a few more. Now the yellow stick is a foundation for the newer sticks.
If all I can get from debating you are insults in explainations made for elementary school, why bother? The only thing I get from this post is: Your a creationist, and therefore stupid.

And your comparison to made objects being like evolved objects? Is evolution as easy as baking a cake?
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

ikester7579 wrote:Nice dodge. As usual, near to nothing was answered. Only the political dodge explain away tactic. Never answer the question directly, just explain your way around it.
One needs to understand that intricacies such as these are the same things that are found everywhere in nature. A person may see scissors as useful only for cutting paper. But I can also use it for poking holes, digging holes, completing a circuit etc. When the automobile was invented it was intended as a mode of transportation. No one could have imagined that it would be used for war in the form of tanks or form the backbone of a vast economic system requiring trucks as a major way to transport goods. Take some time to examine the circulatory systems of other organisms to get a better grasp of the subject.
Imagine evolution like pickup sticks in reverse. Each stick is added on top of the stack. As you do so each stick is dependant on the ones below. Add next a yellow stick. Then a few more. Now the yellow stick is a foundation for the newer sticks.
If all I can get from debating you are insults in explainations made for elementary school, why bother? The only thing I get from this post is: Your a creationist, and therefore stupid.

And your comparison to made objects being like evolved objects? Is evolution as easy as baking a cake?
I can assure you I am not trying to be condescening in any way.

Please direct me to any unanswered questions I may have dodged and I will happily answer them.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

Never mind. I'm not playing the dodge game, then the innocent game (who me? What questions?), soon to go into the blame game. Then to repeat it all over again.

I have debated all kinds of evolutionists over the past few years. I know when I'm being toiled with. You used that post worded the way it was for a reason. In fact, I'll break this post down to show what was going on.
One needs to understand that intricacies such as these are the same things that are found everywhere in nature. A person may see scissors as useful only for cutting paper. But I can also use it for poking holes, digging holes, completing a circuit etc.


One needs to understand=one does not understand which is an assumption because we have just met.

The example of the scissors is how simple minded you think all creationist are. Keep it simple, they're stupid.


When the automobile was invented it was intended as a mode of transportation. No one could have imagined that it would be used for war in the form of tanks or form the backbone of a vast economic system requiring trucks as a major way to transport goods.


This is just some bable.
Take some time to examine the circulatory systems of other organisms to get a better grasp of the subject.
Here's another assumption made because I'm a creationist. I need to take time because I can't grasp the things you do. Your to smart for me.
Imagine evolution like pickup sticks in reverse. Each stick is added on top of the stack. As you do so each stick is dependant on the ones below. Add next a yellow stick. Then a few more. Now the yellow stick is a foundation for the newer sticks.
Evolution of the stick? Which came first, the stick or the tree?

Guess I better run out to the kiddy store to buy some pick up sticks. :roll:

So, was this entertainment for your lurker friends that visit here?
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

ikester7579 wrote:Never mind. I'm not playing the dodge game, then the innocent game (who me? What questions?), soon to go into the blame game. Then to repeat it all over again.

I have debated all kinds of evolutionists over the past few years. I know when I'm being toiled with. You used that post worded the way it was for a reason. In fact, I'll break this post down to show what was going on.
One needs to understand that intricacies such as these are the same things that are found everywhere in nature. A person may see scissors as useful only for cutting paper. But I can also use it for poking holes, digging holes, completing a circuit etc.


One needs to understand=one does not understand which is an assumption because we have just met.

The example of the scissors is how simple minded you think all creationist are. Keep it simple, they're stupid.
When the automobile was invented it was intended as a mode of transportation. No one could have imagined that it would be used for war in the form of tanks or form the backbone of a vast economic system requiring trucks as a major way to transport goods.


This is just some bable.
The implication here was once a heart has been developed other functions could be added onto the original framework.
Following is a series of hearts from various organisms.
anneilids, notice there are 5 aortic arches.
Image
Image
ikester7579 wrote:
Take some time to examine the circulatory systems of other organisms to get a better grasp of the subject.
Here's another assumption made because I'm a creationist. I need to take time because I can't grasp the things you do. Your to smart for me.
Imagine evolution like pickup sticks in reverse. Each stick is added on top of the stack. As you do so each stick is dependant on the ones below. Add next a yellow stick. Then a few more. Now the yellow stick is a foundation for the newer sticks.
Evolution of the stick? Which came first, the stick or the tree?

Guess I better run out to the kiddy store to buy some pick up sticks. :roll:

So, was this entertainment for your lurker friends that visit here?
I beleive I addressed your original questions. I don't doubt you having debated many people in the past, however statements such as
"Is every mutation beneficial? Evolution would have you think this."
"Care to explain how different organs evolved without our immune system rejecting them?"
had me suspecting that you neither understand the theory nor anatomy and medicine. If I was wrong please forgive me as I was only trying to convey thoughts and in no way trying to be condescending.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
SpaceCase
Familiar Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:27 pm
Christian: No
Location: New Jersey

Post by SpaceCase »

ikester7579 wrote:
If all I can get from debating you are insults in explainations made for elementary school, why bother? The only thing I get from this post is: Your a creationist, and therefore stupid.
I didn't get that from you AT ALL Bgood...

ikester7579, since you are new here, you didn't know, Bgood is some sort of Biology Guru, may have even invented it, I saw no insults. But without knowing your level of expertise on the subject, why wouldn't Bgood start simple? I am not a Biology expert, I need it simple...
8)

YE, OE... details. We can laugh about it in heaven...
:lol:
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Bgood is an engineer, not a scientist. An engineer who can help me program, so nobody annoy him so he feels like leaving.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
ikester7579
Newbie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:47 am
Christian: No
Location: Florida

Post by ikester7579 »

Never mind. I can tell the YEC view is not welcome here. Glad I found out now, then later. I won't be wasting anymore of anyone's time here.

And by the way: It was the reason what was said, was said. YEC is the most hated by science, and the followers of their theories. And why this person and this board cannot see what I see. It's ok, is why. Bash the YEC everywhere he goes for sticking to the word of God. It's the norm for those who take to science more than the word of God. For you cannot mix darkness with light. And is the reason you can shine light into darkness, but darkness cannot shine into the light.
1 John 1:
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Christ is the light of the world, and anything that blocks this light can only bring darkness.
Revelation 21:
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by August »

Hi Ikester,

All views are welcome here, but do expect them to be debated. Some of our moderators also hold a YEC view, so there is no such thing that it's not welcome.

August
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
SpaceCase
Familiar Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:27 pm
Christian: No
Location: New Jersey

Post by SpaceCase »

ikester7579,

Several, but not all, of us believe that God loves us, AND HE created the earth AND that the earth experienced 14+ billion years of time.

What I see, is after the discussion wasn't favoring YOUR position, you stormed off and cryed foul. There was no bashing that I saw.

It is obvious that it has NEVER occurred to you that the earth might actually be old!!!

Why are you of the opinion that for God to be right, science must be wrong. Why cant they both be right? Wouldn't that be something?

No one, not you, me or Bgood, has all the answers, but its in our nature to look for them.

I'll say it again;
YE, OE we'll laugh about this in heaven...
Jesus is the way.
Post Reply