Sentences with phrase «human evolution did»

At what stage in human evolution did the modern races evolve?

The task, for example, of grafting the history of salvation onto to the phylogenetic tree of human evolution does not belong to the teaching office of the Church.

The account of the players and theories in the field of human evolution does highlight how much of the debate involves mere name games, with lumpers and splitters arguing ad nauseam about the same few specimens widely scattered through space and time.

In humans evolution does care about ages 50 - 70.

Not exact matches

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

It is part and parcel of Ham's argument that it was 6, 24 - hour days, that god did this 6,000 365 - day - years ago, that humans did not evolve / evolution does not take place.

Atheists aren't innocent either: eugenics, the belief that certain races do not deserve to live because they could hinder the evolution of the human species.

Many who believe in evolution assert that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs.

The concept of God did not spring out of thin air - intelligent humans created him and then thousands of years later used the idea to explain what they did not understand and / or like about evolution.

Technophobe,: Christians, Muslims and Jews do believe in micro-evolution (the evolution inside species) but none of these religions believe in evolutionist macro evolution, the evolution of organisms changing species (ie, fish turning into reptiles, then turning to humans)

By extension, evolving from less advanced life forms is distasteful to those same individuals, as that necessitates a point in evolution at which humans are not really humans at all in the modern sense, which then brings up problems such as «do slugs go to heaven?»

I don't have to use my imagination to know that we have endless evidence showing the evolution of many types of species, including humans.

Please do your research on the subject matter, as there is much more to learn about human evolution.

But I want to respond to people throwing out examples such as: The human body is too complex to have formed from evolution or where did the universe come from, both must have come from god because none of you can explain it.

How do Adam and Eve relate to what we have learned about the evolution of modern humans from Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis?

Most importantly, note this: I am a Christian, I'm gay, I'm a recovering alcoholic, I believe in Evolution, I believe the universe is 13 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 or so billion years old, I believe man evolved from lower primates and that Adam was the first man who God gave a soul and sentience, I do not believe in hell but I do believe in Satan, I do not believe the Bible is a book of rules meant to imprison man or condemn him but that it is rather a «Human Existence for Dummies» guide, I believe Christ was the son of God but I do not believe Christianity is the only «valid» religion, I do not believe atheists will go to hell, while the English Bible says God should be feared, the Hebrew word used for fear, «yara», such as that used in the Book of Job, actually means respect / reverence, not fear as one would fear death or a spider.

Of course the sequencing is not quite right, because the poem was written / inspired (take your pick) before science did its work.But the intuitive observer could see a clear evolution form plants to animals to human life, with continuities and differentiations.

Let me help Nathan out a bit... Christ, if you are a medical student as still think that the theory of evolution claims that the human body happened «randomly,» please leave school now and do not endanger people's lives.

The English honey bee was in fact Natural Selection and all Hitler did was attempt to replicate that evolution in humans; through intellegent design, such as the horse.

actually you do nt have to prove the many deities or Gods that they really exist, because they really had existed in their times, They are part of the evolutionary process for us humans to transcend to higher consciousness.To simplify the analogy, when we were young and we are in the lower grade school, we were taught simple subjects not advance literatures but simple stories even mythicals, The same with religion, thousands of years ago when there was no science yet, primitive people had a religion, of course man made faiths to conform with their state of mind or intellect.But later atfter thousands of years we evolve into a more educated people and so new concept of God again was presented to them, another man made concept, and this go on and on, until a few thiousand years ago.monotheism, Judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, etc also evolved, But with the accelerated evolution, these faith again is threatend with obsolesencs because of of scientific developments and education.In panthroteistic faith, the future religion needs to conform to evolutionary process, This proves that God is always there guiding the change.And it his will that made this a reality in history since the begining of the universe 13 billion years ago, and this will continue to exist until He will completely fulfill His will to infinity, Thats PANTHROTHEISM, the futue, man made religion under His guidance through scientifiic evoluition after the Bi Bang

Yeah but they want to teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed theories that fly in the face of the evidence.

(Answers: 1) because they lived and died millions of years before humans and extant forms; 2) because humans and dinosaurs never coexisted; 3) this simply didn't happen, but the creationist response is apparently, and ironically, «hyper - evolution» from severely bottle - necked gene pools; and 4) because we share a common ancestor with egg - laying organisms)

Of course we know that this evolution was promoted by humans but it doesn't really matter.

It does make possible a quantum jump in the degree to which humankind can take control of the evolutionary process, including the evolution of human beings.

Evolution is just an human abstraction to attempt understanding some real phenomena, following an ideological determination to do it in purely materialist and mechanicist terms.

So how do those who deny evolution explain the human remains found in archaeological digs, having been radio - carbon dated, in some cases over two million years?

Evolution has nothing to do with understanding human emotions or sociological explanations for how people live.

First, you sound a little unsure about how a computer works, and secondly nuclear energy has nothing to do with evolution, unless you are looking into creating mutant humans and animals.

Organisms with a spine do not automatically become human, human isn't the goal of vertebrate evolution.

What I'm really going to do is to rid the gene pool of its 10,000 worst contributors, in an effort to speed up the evolution of the human race (yes: I made the system automatic, so that I didn't have to bother diddling with it at every moment: Darwin was right, but the process turned out slower than I expected, and I got bored, hence the urge to speed things up a tad).

It does take faith in evolution because that is not a repeatable experiment in relation to human existence.

For Bergson, like many process thinkers (Peirce, James and Dewey come particularly to mind), the entire concept of «necessity» only makes sense when applied internally to abstractions the intellect has already devised.11 Of course, one can tell an evolutionary story about how the human intellect came to be a separable function of consciousness that emphasizes abstraction (indeed, that is what Bergson does in Creative Evolution), but if one were to say that the course of development described in that story had to occur (i.e., necessarily) as it did, then one would be very far from Bergson's view (CE 218, 236, 270).

As reason sets human beings apart from all other animals, it seems that our rational nature can not be explained by evolution alone, for we do not find stages of lesser reflective selfconsciousness before the human species but evolution requires only gradual changes at a time.

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns — This book came along and just the right time for me.

The onward drive of «Evolution'therefore, does not lie in material mutation, nor in any fundamental change to human nature and its laws of good and true.

Oh, next time I go to the zoo, I'll say HI to some of your relatives that didn't evolve Mr. Catholic Christian believing in «An evolving creation»; where the principles of biological and social evolution are indeed part of the design of an intelligent creator who is NOT all powerful and not «NICE» in the Human context, but «benevolent» at a cosmic scale.

The term moderate evolution might therefore be applied to a theory which simply inquires into the biological reality of man in accordance with the formal object of the biological sciences as defined by their methods and which affirms a real genetic connection between that human biological reality and the animal kingdom, but which also in accordance with the fundamental methodological principles of those sciences, can not and does not attempt to assert that it has made a statement adequate to the whole reality of man and to the origin of this whole reality.

According to evolution things are made by themselves things just happen by chance to say that evolution knew than humans would need to eat to survive suggests that something would have to know this are they considering evolution is a thinking force that knows what a creature needs to do to adapt ti certain things or that evolution knew that spiders needed to make webs to catch flies?

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns (see my review)

To get a proper and adequate understanding of human freedom, one has to see man in the total context of evolution, for freedom did not start with man; it had its evolutionary roots at the infrahuman level.

Nor does this theory provide any clear answer to the question: Now that further evolution in man is partially subject to his conscious control, toward what goals should he influence future human development?

I maintained that, contrary to the commonly expressed or tacitly accepted view, the era of active evolution did not end with the appearance of the human zoological type: for by virtue of his acquirement of the gift of individual reflection Man displays the extraordinary quality of being able to totalize himself collectively upon himself, thus extending on a planetary scale the fundamental vital process which causes matter, under Certain conditions, to organize itself in elements which are ever more complex physically, and psychologically ever more centrated.

How come we still have monkey's... I guess they do not get CNN saying they have evolved... The only solution is that gay marriage will pass and everyone becomes gay and that will solve the problem of the evolution atheist debate since the human race will be extinct.

But it is here, in my view, that the importance becomes manifest of an intuitive notion which, timidly evolved less than fifty years ago by a small group of human minds, is now beginning to pervade twentieth century thought as rapidly as did the idea of evolution in the nineteenth century.

It seems to me that both Bergson and Peirce had the insight that the cosmos, including human languages, does involve evolution from past to future that expands reality.

Has nothing to do with actual fossils that demonstrate an evolution of a single species over time; whether dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, or humans.

We do not deny or circumscribe the Creator, because we hold he has created the self - acting originating human mind, which has almost a creative gift; much less then do we deny or circumscribe His power, if we hold that He gave matter such laws as by their blind instrumentality moulded and constructed through innumerable ages the world as we see it... Mr Darwin's theory need not then be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill... At first sight I do not see that «the accidental evolution or organic beings» is inconsistent with divine design - It is accidental to us, not to God.»

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins By Peter Enns.

Generis: «For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God» [italics added].

If it is true that, bound by the collective interaction of its liberties, the human social group can not escape from certain irreversible laws of evolution, does this mean that, observed along its axis of «greatest complexity» (i.e. increasing liberty) the World is coiling upon itself with as much sureness as it is in other respects radiating outwards and explosively expanding?