I remember reading a long while ago that the makeup of our spinal nerves, cortex and brain stem were all different as in 'typically seen in other species'.
These were,
1. Reptilian
2. Cetaceous
3. Primate

...and apparently explained as an evolutionary map but I wonder....

Did the Man in the Moon splice them all together and after 3 odd attempts, settle on Homo Sapiens?

Perhaps some supporting anecdotes like the way we feel at varying times or think could port over to the idea e.g Most times I am a blank minded creature who can react stunningly fast with no emotional fuel to incite fight or flight (Reptilian?), sometimes I am an emotional mess (Primate?)and sometimes I feel so disconnected from the thrumming masses that I wonder "Where did you all come from?"(Cetaceous? original inhabitants?)

Disturbingly, there is the matter of affinity with these genus's as well as the supposed deadlink to 85 odd% of our brain or mind functions to ponder over and then, who the hell put all those receptors into our brains for hallucinogenics questions.

Somehow the standard 'evolutionary' generalisation just doesnt make sense, I mean, 3 million years to get to where we are now, common, give me a break here... and as for God, well you can toss cultism to winds for all I care.
But perhaps the most disturbing is the self evident fact we are all just animals but why do we always seek to distance ourselves from our fellow animals with all those purile self justifications about 'civilized accomplishments, tool wielding and complex languages or the way we distance ourselves from nature even when we are all so obviously an integral componant of nature?

Who are we trying to kid and why?

Is there a secret audiance watching us for entertainment value perhaps that we feel we have to constantly address each other in a third person perspective?

Hey..what gives ???

The impossible exists and the possible does not exist..lol

i wanna be made

and that "earthTV" idea you got from south park for sure ok... i have really understanding problems reading your post, i don't get your point.

I thought you were made, then born.

And as for why we separate ourselves, we have become weak due to our dependence on ever advancing technology, and have alienated our fellow animals by destroying their environments. If all living creatures were able to communicate we would be too ashamed to speak to them. Of course, we might not have done what we have done given the ability of global communication.

Quote:

---

3 million years to get to where we are now, common, give me a break here.

---

There are 100 billion cells in the neurological system alone. 100 billion/3 million means that an average 33333.333 new complete neuron cells evolved per year, 91 per day. Not only did they evolve perfectly, but they also had to fit perfectly among hundreds of connections.

Even if you trace neurological evolution back to one cell 3 billion years ago it still represents 33 per day, an enormous and impossible task. If mutation caused the added brain cells in such a frequency, why doesnt it still add them today? And what caused such incredible rates of mutation? To discuss how random chance would be responsible for the addition of any one brain cell would be very enlightening to the scientific and medical community indeed.

Quote:

---

Who are we trying to kid and why?

---

We are trying to kid ourselves and why? So that we dont have to accept the moral obligations of a creator.

Quote:

---

So that we dont have to accept the moral obligations of a creator.

---

Haha! Get's right to the point. Good job bro.

@Phemox
I dont think you understand my statement, though I indeed understand your point, however I am not talking about the mutation involved in the design of the neuron itself, I am talking about the mutations involved in the genome which would call for the addition_of_those_neurons.

Logically, the neuron itself supposedly evolved at some point in time, if, as the scenario was presented states, that the neuron as we know it today evolved 3 million years ago, there would be some genetic information which would state how many neurons would exist, call it "quantitative info" or whatever. Then, there would also be genetic information which would tell each neuron how to connect with the others call that "connect info". Those different types of info are seperate and distinct from the mere design of the neuron itself.

@Doug

Quote:

---

There isn't anything random about it. Take any two humans and count their brain cells, you'll find that they vary by millions if not billions of cells.

---

Sure, depending upon the age and other factors, however most estimates give a number of 100 billion at your prime age of 20. web page Your right. I was incorrect to think that the addition of one brain cell itself would be a monumental discovery, thank you for clearing that up. What I meant to say was that one cell is very very complex, and science does not yet know how even one cell could have 'evolved', I can see how you might have thought I was refering to the addition of one cell by the way I phrased it, I will clear it up in a future post about cell structure perhaps.

My overall point is that the growth of the human brain would follow two rules if evolution were true:

1.dna coding for more cells, the positioning, functioning and interconnections of those cells has grown by a certain rate(unless it all evolved spontaneously)

2.Given the amount of time proportional to the amount of dna involved in coding the current amount of interconnected brain cells, we would be able to see marked differences in brain sizes and cell amounts today. Which we cannot observe, at least not at the rate which evolution would require.

If I have my estimates wrong, please tell me how much we can expect the brain to grow in size, neuron amount and function within, say, a hundred year period. Or even in one years time. I would be very curious to know what this evolution rate is and even more curious to find out HOW this evolution occurs. If you say that evolution would not occur randomly, what mechanism will cause the addition of brain cells in our head?

Evolutionists estimate that our brain has grown in size from 400 to 1350 cubic centimeters. I think overall my estimates at least represent a simple picture of the alleged evolution. Perhaps someone has a better rate?

Yes, perhaps 3 Billion years worth of existance and growth can account for the existance of what we know to be real today but then again perhaps not.

The presumption here is that an evolutionary line maintains a constant existential geneology over the duration of that timeline and as far as the interpretation of our history goes from every conceivable science looking into the matter, this is simply not possible at all.
We see this now in our world with climate changes, planetary axical shifts, solarsystem orbital dangers and so on presenting definate possibilities of life extinction to all, let alone ourselves.

It is the one factor evolutionists overlook and one which needs to be raised into the light of any argument or discussion concerning the "WHY" that such threads fish for perhaps.

If the Universe was indeed a controlled laborototy then I would certainly favour an evolutionary angle..however, to my mind, both Evolution and God should be seen as one and the same, an anomolous factor never to be seen again.

Both are retrospectivly discernable in one form or another but contemporanous or probable forward temporal discernment is always dim and therefore unkbown.

In short, its a wild guessing game on many fronts.

As for moral obligations to a theory, no That doesnt gell with me at all.
To my mind each and every individual has a moral obligation only to the self as part and parcel of the self preservation drive, and therefore to each other as a dependancy drive for mutual coexistance.

So if our arguments or presented cases for discussions can reach a platau of agreement that defines our probale creation or moments of evolutioary growth (Be they mutations or "Thy Will Be Done")at a more immediate timeline spanning perhaps 120 to 250k years as would seem to be the most likely period to look at given the limited genetic diversity we currently have, can we honestly 'assume' that we are the result of an unbroken genetic mutable line spanning this impossible 3 Billion year duration?

As pointed out previously, the structure and composition of our genes intergrate amazingly well to produce life as we know it but how could this have possibly been the result of random selection? Its as though a programmer wrote the genetic code! It is so complex and co-dependant as to seem 'Designed'.

The point of this post?

To gather the background of my game project in order to base it on a solid storyline foundation.

You may recall my prior posts of test levels and demo's and maybe you even read my then 'Storyline', well, its a game that pursues these questions in a (I hope) serious tone and porjected to span the above timelines, 3 Billion or 300K years.

The question of and for life, its definitions, variety and direction given over to a computer game may spark more light on the subject for me as well as resolve or add to the many questions the first post laid out.