951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


The Future of Humans!?!

  

As we like to discuss so much in these blogs, we believe the future to be wrapped up in all that has been prophesied through the pages of scripture. This includes resurrection from the dead, God’s righteous kingdom being established on Earth by Jesus the Messiah, etc. Well, I came across the following on MSN that describes our evolutionary past and what we could expect in the future:

MSN Interactive Evolution Thing (Try it out and have some fun…the only humans I’ve ever seen with a cylinder head were newborn babies right after they’d come through the birth canal :-))

What I find so fascinating about the above interactive thing is how it is presented. Someone looking at this, without any critical thinking, could easily see how scientists have effectively “proven” this evolutionary path of humans.

The following site does a good job of providing some critical thinking tools so that we can filter through this kind of stuff and not get taken in. Actually, it is a really good idea to keep these things in our mind as we are considering ANY information. God gave us a brain to use…not to blindly follow what other people say.

Baloney Detector

The major issue here deals with the inability for humans to accurately predict Biological functions. Unlike such things as the theory of relativity, which provides precise equations for many observable phenomena, the theory of evolution is extremely imprecise and is only “observable” in the fossil record. There have been no observed mutations, natural selection, or otherwise that provide an INCREASE in genetic information.

31 Responses to “The Future of Humans!?!”

  1. on 24 May 2007 at 1:19 pmVictor

    I think I have seen the future already on star trek: the next generation.

  2. on 24 May 2007 at 1:46 pmJohnO

    It is funny the massive extrapolation – in the past, the particular details and size of our heads have changed, forehead, nose, brain size. Yet in the future they extrapolate that sooo much further than one could even think. I mean, if financial experts made claims like that based on the same quality of previous evidence, they’d have some serious problems.

    Matt, your last paragraph has always been my strongest reason for not believing in evolution. 1) Mutations are shown to be more harmful than good. 2) Mutations are rare. Conclusion: the possibility of a useful mutation occurring is low. Secondly, with death, the diversity within the gene pool is lowered resulting in less total information. You cannot create a higher order system by *losing* information. Even if the birth rate exceeded the death rate, it wouldn’t matter. To create new useful information the very low chance of a useful mutation coming into being must exceed the death rate. Only then could you create a higher order system. And there is no evidence of such a thing happening either.

  3. on 24 May 2007 at 9:03 pmjimS

    I’ve always been keenly aware of evolution within it’s own “kind”, but never intra genus evolution. God will not be mocked what ever a man sows THAT will he reap. As people exclude Yahweh from their mind how then can understanding be reaped. Unto the lawless all things are lawless.

  4. on 25 May 2007 at 7:19 amSean

    It is often urged by evolutionists that no matter how minute the odds may appear given enough time eventually the insurmountable will become possible and the improbable certain. Matt, perhaps you could address the issues of time & chance in a future post?

    It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution
    [Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, 1976, pg 137]

  5. on 30 May 2007 at 3:31 pmSkeptic

    First of all, there will be no future human evolution. Humans may make changes to their species as they gain the technological capabilities to do so, but natural selection no longer works with humans. Even evolutionists agree on this. For natural selection to work, the less fit must die off, leaving the fitter to pass their fit genes on to the next generation. Advances in health care have put a stop to human natural selection. With medical technology, even those who are less fit can still live a full lifespan and pass their genes on to the next generation. So whether human evolution has occurred in the past or not, human evolution cannot occur in the future, not through natural selection. It could occur through artificial selection, but that would require that we stop caring for the sick and start killing off the “inferior” through holocaust. So let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

    The MSN Interactive “Thingy” presents the process of human evolution according to the Theory of Evolution, as well as some speculation at where humans are going in the future. The section that deals with the past should be regarded as a theory, because it has supporting evidence. The section that deals with the future should be regarded as pure speculation, since it has no supporting evidence, and only time will tell what will really happen to the human race. Note how some of the proposed future changes of mankind are not at all related to evolution through natural selection, but rather, technological advancement. For instance, the cyborg. I find it farfetched that they do not predict the coming of the cyborg for three million years. According to Moore’s Law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law ) which has supporting evidence since all technological advancements made in transistor and integrated circuit technology has followed the law thus far, computer circuits are advancing exponentially, racing faster and faster into infinity. The advancement of computers to the point where they are smarter than humans, which should allow for the integration of computers into the human brain, is called the “Technological Singularity.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ) If Moore’s Law continues as it has for the last forty years, than the estimated date for the coming of the Singularity is 2035. Cyborgs are expected to occur within our lifetime. I don’t see any reason why it would take three million years.

    But enough of that rant. What I really want to talk about is genetic mutations.

    QUOTE: “There have been no observed mutations, natural selection, or otherwise that provide an INCREASE in genetic information.”

    This is a common creationist myth. In fact, I used to believe it myself, back when I was a young-earth fundamentalist. Then I realized that this theory that mutations cannot ever cause an increase in genetic information wasn’t true. It was, quite simply, a lie.

    See here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    There have been numerous observations of an increase in genetic information occuring through genetic mutations.

    However, even if there weren’t, it wouldn’t matter, because the amount of DNA actually has little to do with the complexity of the organism. 97 percent of the human genome is “junk DNA.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA ). In other words, only three percent is actually used by our body. The rest is supposedly left over from evolution.

    A bean cell has more DNA than a human cell. Yet humans are way more complex than beans. The bean just has more junk DNA.

    More DNA does not necessarily mean more complexity.

    QUOTE: “1) Mutations are shown to be more harmful than good. 2) Mutations are rare. Conclusion: the possibility of a useful mutation occurring is low. Secondly, with death, the diversity within the gene pool is lowered resulting in less total information. You cannot create a higher order system by *losing* information. Even if the birth rate exceeded the death rate, it wouldn’t matter. To create new useful information the very low chance of a useful mutation coming into being must exceed the death rate. Only then could you create a higher order system. And there is no evidence of such a thing happening either.”

    Mutations can be good or bad, but most of the time, they’re neither. Mutations usually have little effect, since they create such tiny changes, but when they do have an effect, the chances of the mutation being good or bad are basically 50/50. It’s either good, or it’s bad.

    Mutations are not rare. Not all of our cells have the same DNA. There are subtle differences that resulted from mutation during cell mitosis. For instance, birthmarks can be the result of a genetic mutation in the skin. Mutations like this happen all the time, especially with bacteria, which reproduce like crazy. This is how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. They keep reproducing, and with each replication, subtle mutations are made. Eventually, a mutation is made which makes the bacteria resistant to the antibiotics. The bacteria that are not resistant die off, leaving the resistant bacteria to continue reproducing. This is an example of a mutation which is beneficial for the bacteria, and it has been documented countless times.

    But obviously, humans operate differently than bacteria. With humans, a mutation can only be passed down to the next generation if it is made in the sex cells (sperm or eggs), and those sex cells are used in reproduction. This is why human evolution requires millions of years, while bacterial evolution can happen in a day.

    A high death rate is actually good for evolution: it means that the less fit are dying off, leaving only the fit. Even if there’s less total information, it’s still better because there’s less “unfit” information, leaving only the fit information.

    As I said before, the amount of genetic information has little to do with the complexity of the organism. What matters is the way the genetic information is arranged. Even if genetic information if being lost, a species could still become more complex.

  6. on 30 May 2007 at 3:55 pmJohnO

    When I wrote “increase” I did in fact mean “increase in diversity among the gene pool” since it is that diversity that is needed to create something “different”.

    If mutations occur constantly, but don’t affect much at all, that is fine – it still supports the conclusion I came to before: “Conclusion: the possibility of a useful mutation occurring is low”. You seem to agree.

    The unfit/fit information argument doesn’t help you, because what is more important is variation. If all variation ceases to be passed on, the organism will never change. Only the same information is repeated with the next generation.

    I have no quarrel with micro-evolution. But there is a significant cognitive discord between micro and macro evolution. And perhaps I should have stated that upfront. With the conclusion that useful mutation has an incredibly slim chance – and add to the fact that the vast majority of multi-celled organisms do not reproduce asexually (which means that in a non-dominant gene situation the other gender would need the same incredibly slim mutation) – macro evolution just seems way beyond any acceptable statistical measure, given any amount of energy, time, and chance.

    The Junk DNA point is interesting, since 97% of human DNA is junk, and 99% of our DNA is the same as chimps – I wonder if you differentiated that, how much overlap there would be. If the 1% difference fell into the junk %, I wonder how many fingers would be pointing :). And if the 1% difference fell into the 3% of non-junk – one would think that evolution would not take millions of years since there is only a handful of genes that are different, and mutation occurs all the time.

    It seems that no matter which way you slice evolution, the theory doesn’t line up with reality.

  7. on 30 May 2007 at 11:14 pmMatt

    Sceptic,

    Thanks for your post. It is certainly true that we YEC use that argument with a vague definition of “information”. In this particular instance I was endeavoring to communicate that macro-evolution has not been observed.

    I am certainly no genetic/DNA expert but found the following interesting (discusses “Junk DNA” which may not be “Junk” after all).

    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0504.htm#gene185

  8. on 31 May 2007 at 6:19 amjoshuag

    well i think that we can all agree that in a few million years: a) we’ll still be living on the earth b) we’ll have different bodies and possibly look different.

    Praise God!

  9. on 31 May 2007 at 4:12 pmSkeptic

    Although it’s the best theory for the origin of life that science has come up with thus far, the theory of evolution is certainly far from perfect, which is why I do think it deserves to be questioned, just as anything that has not been proven should be questioned.

    I wouldn’t be too surprised if junk DNA does have a use that we just don’t know about yet. Who knows… new discoveries are being made everyday.

  10. on 31 May 2007 at 6:00 pmJohnO

    Right, it is the best theory that Science has come up with.

    But doesn’t Gods statement better fit the facts? From Matt’s link, one could show that this junk DNA isn’t junk. The common elements are common for a reason. God doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel in every organism. One would expect similar DNA in beings that are *designed*, and that is what we find.

  11. on 31 May 2007 at 8:04 pmSean

    I would be curious what “skeptic” thinks about Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. To hear Michael Behe himself explain this click here; he calls this “Darwin’s Black Box.”

  12. on 02 Jun 2007 at 10:44 amSkeptic

    Irreducible complexity sounds like a good argument, at first. For instance, the flagella motor (found on some single-celled life, an incredibly complex microscopic engine which spins a long tail, powering the cell forward) is irreducibly complex. Remove one part, and the system won’t work.

    This means that, rather than evolving part by part, the entire thing evolved in one mutation (which is ridiculously unlikely), OR the better explanation which evolutionists use as a counter-argument for irreducible complexity, is that it evolved part by part, and the parts simply had no use until they were all there. The useless parts would put the organism at a disadvantage, but not so much so that it would go extinct. It would continue to reproduce, until, after a long time, all the parts evolved so the system could work.

    Evolutionists use vestigal organs as evidence of this theory. They have no use now, but maybe they will after some more parts get added to them over a long period of time.

    More info here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

  13. on 02 Jun 2007 at 11:12 amJohnO

    The useless parts would put the organism at a disadvantage, but not so much so that it would go extinct

    This seems to go against the entire ‘engine’, if you will, of evolution – natural selection. It seems that evolutionists have turned natural selection into what is nearly a “good faith” random change. Nature decides I’m not going to kill that off, it might come in handy in 100,000 years.

    To the counter-point of vestigal organs, aren’t there claims that these organs are not vestigal at all? Secondly, haven’t humans stopped evolving (one of your first points)? Therefore these organs will never evolve into something else, or we will not evolve past them (so they are gone). Seems that the arguments are starting to stab one another in the back.

    Like you’ve said before, “evolution is the best explaination science has”, I believe God’s explaination to be much much better than science’s. Therefore I do not have faith in the claims of science, but rather the claims of God. These are indeed “claims” of evolution and not truths, because you indeed recognize all the holes as holes.

  14. on 02 Jun 2007 at 11:31 amSean

    Vestigial organs could be just as much as evidence or reverse evolution as anything. In other words, these organs may have had a purpose in the past but now they no longer do. Perhaps this is in line with the general Christian idea of increasing corruption the farther one gets from the introduction of sin; as well as, the scientific 2nd law of thermondynamics which may be applicable to biological systems on a large scale.

  15. on 02 Jun 2007 at 12:25 pmSkeptic

    Vestigial organs will stay in humans precisely because humans have stopped evolving. Evolution isn’t always the addition of new parts to a species, it can be the elimination of parts also. With evolution, nobody is deciding anything. There’s simply billions of organisms with tons of random stuff happening to them as mutations take place. And once in a while, an organism gets an advantage over the rest, and passes that genetic advantage down to future generations. It still takes a long time for unfit species to die off, leaving them time for their disadvantages to become irreducibly complex advantages with the evolution of new parts.

    I think it’s possible that vestigial organs, like junk DNA, could have a use that we just don’t know about yet. I’ve never heard of Sean’s idea that vestigial organs may have had a use that they no longer have before. It’s an interesting idea, but I think reverse evolution (or “devolution” as some creationists call it) is very unlikely. As unlikely as evolution is (which is either “very likely” or “very unlikely” depending on who you talk to), reverse evolution would be much more unlikely, since it goes against Natural Selection.

  16. on 02 Jun 2007 at 1:27 pmJohnO

    Skeptic, again Natural Selection is your presumption. Even your own evidence speaks that Natural Selection is an incorrect assesment:

    The useless parts would put the organism at a disadvantage, but not so much so that it would go extinct…

    To which I said

    It seems that evolutionists have turned natural selection into what is nearly a “good faith” random change. Nature decides I’m not going to kill that off, it might come in handy in 100,000 years.

    If Natural Selection is a false presumption – devolution is a highly likely explanation of all the facts.

  17. on 02 Jun 2007 at 1:46 pmSean

    The Christian model sees perfection in the beginning. Then with the advent of sin comes corruption which escalates non-linearly until the cataclysmic moment when the parousia occurs. Thus the Christian perceives a downward trend of increasing corruption (possibly due to genetic mutations).

  18. on 02 Jun 2007 at 3:26 pmKaren

    “corruption which escalates non-linearly”

    Corruption, yes, but why escalation? Sin entered. We have no more or less sin now than people did in the past, it’s just expressed differently (and reported and observed more easily).

  19. on 02 Jun 2007 at 4:11 pmSean

    I said non-linear because I was thinking of the flood in particular. In that catastrophe much of the current “natural disasters” find their origin. Thus there was a great corruption initially in the original sin, but life spans were still very long until right after the flood. Furthermore, it appears that genetic errors have a way of accumulating over time increasing the likelihood of handicap in the offspring. Originally there was no problem marrying one’s sibling but today this would result in an exceedingly high likehood of handicap in the children. For example, in modern Amish communities and other “closed” societies/communes the gene pool gets shallow and problems result. This was apparently not an issue in the early days.

    With reference to the increase of sin, I would say that with the increas of population there is an increase of sin. Unfortunately there does appear to be a strong correlation between the two, unless I’m missing something. In addition, culture (in America) appears to be degenerating morally. Lastly, the Scriptures teach that at the end there will be a very great amount of wickedness before the parousia (coming of Jesus).

  20. on 02 Jun 2007 at 6:45 pmKaren

    “Furthermore, it appears that genetic errors have a way of accumulating over time increasing the likelihood of handicap in the offspring.”

    It can work the other way too, though. Think of sickle-cell anemia, which protects the bearers of that gene from contracting malaria.

    “This was apparently not an issue in the early days.”

    Not in Biblical days, but it’s been the case for at least the last 1000 years.

    “I would say that with the increas of population there is an increase of sin.”

    In purely numerical terms, you’re right. But I don’t think that individual humans are any more sinful now than they’ve always been.

    “culture (in America) appears to be degenerating morally”

    It’s no more degenerate than Weimar Germany, or the latter days of the Roman Empire, to take just two examples. Those cultures were actually worse in many ways. There’s nothing new under the sun….

  21. on 03 Jun 2007 at 6:07 amPatty

    I find it note worthy to observe that it isnt the type of sin that is different but the obsevation that to try to live a holy life and not sin is being equated with “sin” or a negative harmful life style. I am sure to some degree this has happened in the past. I just of a sense that this idea is increasing in the hearts and minds of the worlds population. When partial birth abortions are considered to be justified by your everyday “nice” person then I sense that something has gone terribly wrong in the magnitude of the expression of sin. When its ok for teens to be sexually active and its expected as normal behavior. When you would be hard pressed to turn the tv on and not find sin even on the disney channel and stuff being sold to our youngest children, then I might say that sin is “increasing”. When the world is accepting sin as normal and healthy and the more wholesome as negative and abnormal and even as harmful then we might have an “increase” of sin.

  22. on 03 Jun 2007 at 6:14 amPatty

    What I should have added is that this inrease is not restricted to a culture in one area of the world but appears to be world wide.

  23. on 03 Jun 2007 at 7:28 amKaren

    In ancient Rome, and many other cultures, unwanted children were left out to die after they were born, surely a practice as horrible as abortion. Before the advent of Christianity, almost every culture practiced slavery and some type of human sacrifice.

    Every generation thinks that theirs is the worst. But read some history and you’ll find that it’s simply not so. We tend to compare our world now with the immediate postwar years, a very small slice of time in which we had the nuclear (as opposed to extended) family as a focus, Dad went to work, Mom stayed home with her 2.3 children, and there was (for those in the West) adequate food, clothing, shelter and nutrition.

    Of course there was also plenty of premarital and extra-marital sex; it wasn’t talked about, however, and was frowned upon by society, which was something of a deterrent to teens. There were also fewer abortions, because it wasn’t legal, and that has been a big change for the worse. But there was also endemic racism, lynchings, anti-Semitism, etc. If it hadn’t been for the upheavals of the 60s and 70s (when our ‘moral decline’ supposedly began), I wouldn’t have been able to go to the college I did, and my family wouldn’t be living in this house right now: the neighborhood was restricted (no Jews, blacks, or Catholics) until 1972.

  24. on 03 Jun 2007 at 4:49 pmPatty

    So let me get this correctly, so are you saying that the acceptance of evil as good has never changed and when the scriptues say things will wax worse has no relevancy in our observance of the world today. ? History is full of horrors are you saying that it has gotten better, because I believe that man is moving further away from God and while it may look at times more “civilized” man or humanist are the gods of this time they determine what is right and while that may not appear as ugly as some past atrocities I believe that God doesnt make such a difference between the two. Its increasing because the love of God and the things of God are being actively fought against. Its not that this has never happened before but its because the foothold is becoming deeper and more widespread. Its done in a cleverly devised way a way that will deceive the masses of people.

  25. on 03 Jun 2007 at 5:03 pmPatty

    No one in our culture would accept the idea of babies left to die, but when clothed in humanitarian jargon of choice its ok for their brains to be sucked out and soon homosexual marriages will be legal, but greater than all of these is the transformation of our worldwide culture into a Godless Disney World where just the mention of a supreme God and his agent Messiah Jesus will be bad news for you.This is what I see is happening this is why I think sin is increasing. What is your definition odf sin? Perhaps this should of been my first Question.

  26. on 03 Jun 2007 at 7:46 pmKaren

    “So let me get this correctly, so are you saying that the acceptance of evil as good has never changed and when the scriptues say things will wax worse has no relevancy in our observance of the world today. ?”

    When scripture says that things will wax worse, I don’t think we have any idea of what that really means. It’s going to make everything that’s come before, including the worst excesses of man’s history, seem like paradise in comparison.

    “History is full of horrors are you saying that it has gotten better,”

    Some things have gotten better and some things have gotten worse. My point was that, with perhaps brief interludes here and there, history shows that people do the same sorts of things and commit the same sorts of evils now as they always have. Homosexuality was rampant in the ancient world, and marriage as we think of it (the free joining together of two people because of love) was unheard of. Babies were left to die then, and we have abortions now.

    “Its increasing because the love of God and the things of God are being actively fought against.”

    And they weren’t in the past?

    “the transformation of our worldwide culture into a Godless Disney World where just the mention of a supreme God and his agent Messiah Jesus will be bad news for you.”

    This has already happened in the totalitarian states of the 20th c. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live where and when I do than in Stalinist Russia, or 16th c. England, or 13th c. France, where my views about God would have gotten me consigned to the gulag or burned at the stake. 21st c. America has many problems, to be sure, but we are very, very blessed to be living here and now.

    “What is your definition odf sin?”

    Anything that is contrary to God’s will.

  27. on 03 Jun 2007 at 10:37 pmSean

    Perhaps my comments were not clear. I was speaking in the context of accumulated biological corruption. The biblical model of humanity presents us in the begining with a perfect man and a perfect woman directly created/formed by God himself. Sin entered the picture and so began the biological corruption. Life spans shortened as each generation got further away from Eden. Then in the Noahic flood massive changes occured in the earth which apparently resulted in even severer shortening of life spans. This trend continued until modern medicine entered the picture which has actually reversed to life span to make it longer. Even so, the accumulation of biological weakeness has made it so that today sibling marriage is unthinkable and very often detrimental to the offspring.

    I’m not sure that there has been an elevation of the kind of sin committed but there are more humans committing sins so the downward trend from a quantitative perspective may be justified. Karen is right to point out the atrocities of past civilizations (especially that of Rome).

    However, what is clear from the Scripture that I alluded to and Patty quoted is that a time of great tribulation will come just before the parousia (coming of Christ). This period (3.5 years?) is likened to labor pains (the messianic woes) when organized persecution will occurr against those who will not worship the image of the anti-christ (the beast of Revelation 13). So in this sense times will be worse in the future; Jesus said the great tribulation will be worse than any other time in history. So in this sense it is clear that things will get worse, but at the same time, belief in the coming tribulation/persecution does not preclude some/many social/medical/technological improvements.

  28. on 04 Jun 2007 at 5:43 amPatty

    Once again God does not think like man. Things may look better, this is the great deception that man can do this by himself without God. Its a great counterfeit and in that sense it is more evil and sinful. What is the greatest sin? It is getting easier to commit that sin today. With all the removal of barbaric practices, although we know they still exist in some form if not as blatant as in the past the counterfeit snow balls with grater and greater strengh. This is the greater sin, the removal of the hope of eternal life dont you think yjat is more serious, And again it seems to be world wide not in a select area of the world.It just seems logical that something is going to get worse in order to allow the final prophesies to work out.

  29. on 04 Jun 2007 at 7:14 amKaren

    “So in this sense times will be worse in the future; Jesus said the great tribulation will be worse than any other time in history. So in this sense it is clear that things will get worse, but at the same time, belief in the coming tribulation/persecution does not preclude some/many social/medical/technological improvements.”

    “It just seems logical that something is going to get worse in order to allow the final prophesies to work out.”

    I agree with both of you, here. I’m simply saying that what may seem terrible to you now (and I don’t dispute that there’s plenty of rampant sin in the world) will be as nothing compared to the tribulation that Jesus tells us of. I’ve heard too many Christians say “if only society was like it was 30, 40, 50…200 years ago, when things were so much better”, to which I say: poppycock. 🙂 Read writers going back to ancient Rome, and they all say the same thing. Particularly in America, we tend not to look back past our lifetimes or perhaps our parents’, when there are thousands of years of history that we should be aware of.

  30. on 06 Jun 2007 at 10:27 amJohnO

    In some of my comments I noted that microevolution is absolutely proven, but I find an intense lack of evidence for macroevolution. Here is an op-ed piece by a Republican candidate for President who also does not believe in macroevolution. Very well written.

  31. on 06 Jun 2007 at 11:36 amSean

    This article is a great read. Short and very inciteful. Faith and reason are NOT mutally exclusive concepts. One should test everything and hold on to what is good. We must use our God-given reason to determine the best person/thing to put our faith in. The two work together. We need not check our brains at the door when we enter the church.

  

Leave a Reply