# Question for evolutionists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2001, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478 "2001-05-25T14:06:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Felix\_007](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Felix\_007](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felix_007)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/1 "2001-05-25T14:06:25Z")
Why aren’t human feet adapted to walking on rough surfaces, say for example, bushland, which is where we “supposedly” came from? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/2 "2001-05-25T14:14:26Z")
Who says they’re not? The sole of the human foot is very susceptible to building callouses. People who constantly walk without shoes develop a nice leathery sole that allows them to walk great distances onver fairly rough country. People who protect their feet in shoes all the time only tend to build up callouses on the ball and heel. There are a goodly number of societies where shoes are not worn, even today. I don’t see those people constantly limping or hobbling around on damaged feet by the age of twelve. (If you point out that they do suffer fot damage by age fory–and I do not know that this is actually true anywhere, I will note that by age forty, they will probably have already bred and raised thier children, so evolution has succeeded in getting what it needed out of them.) ---
**Author:** ![shagadelicmysteryman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ea924/32.png) [@shagadelicmysteryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shagadelicmysteryman)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/3 "2001-05-25T14:23:45Z")
Felix, i’ll explain this to you with my limited knowledge on evolution, thanks to the link from Ben. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Evolution is a change. Did you ever bother to think that we may have changed back seeing that we came from those bushlands…well, quite some time ago. The people in the bushlands still have tough feet. I’d bet money on it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/4 "2001-05-25T14:27:36Z")
Felix: Welcome to Straight Dope. Human feet adapt fairly easily to rough terrain. How do you see your question as bearing upon natural selection? ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/5 "2001-05-25T15:03:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Felix\_007 \* > \*\*Why aren’t human feet adapted to walking on rough surfaces, say for example, bushland, which is where we “supposedly” came from? > > \*\* Native populations the world over go barefoot in most any terrain. The Sherpas of the Himalayas even go barefoot over glaciers carrying heavy packs. I don’t think you have done much research before deciding what the human foot is suited for. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/6 "2001-05-25T16:36:44Z")
One addition … the original poster may have been asking why human feet aren’t _optimized_ for walking on rough surfaces. If so, the answer is that evolution is not “globally optimizing” process. Personifying evolutuion (which is of course formally wrong), it has no long term goal or direction. It automatically finds a “local optimum”; what works best **here** and **now**. Human feet are good enough for walking on the surfaces on which we walk. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/7 "2001-05-25T18:09:18Z")
Well, that was easy. Got a _tough_ question, **Felix**? (Oh, BTW . . . what in tarnation is an “evolutionist?” Is it simply someone who accepts that a preponderance of evidence supports evolutionary theory? Or are there actually still people out there who believe that evolution is a belief system?) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/8 "2001-05-25T18:25:53Z")
Actually, yes. There are still people who subscribe to Henry Ward Beecher’s theology, of which Darwin’s work is the cornerstone. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/9 "2001-05-25T19:34:50Z")
What I can never figure out is why the Creator (Intelligent Designer, whatever) gave us an appendix. Doesn’t seem very Intelligent to Design something with no purpose that gets infected and kills you. Unless maybe its purpose is to kill you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/10 "2001-05-25T19:57:12Z")
Intelligent Design does not necessarily imply a creation of man fiat ex nihilo. It more often implies a general intelligent design of such things as the laws of physics and natural selection. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/11 "2001-05-25T20:30:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, yes. There are still people who subscribe to Henry Ward Beecher’s theology, of which Darwin’s work is the cornerstone. Er, as far as I know HWB founded no religions, and no movements. He preached acceptance of evolutionary theory. That doesn’t make evolution a religion or belief system, any more than it makes the other issues he preached–abolitionism, temperance, suffrage–religions. ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/12 "2001-05-25T21:12:34Z")
I just wanted to chime in and point out that not everyone believes that humans evolved chiefly in bushland. The aquatic ape theory states that an important evolutionary precursor to humans was a wading, swimming, fishing hominid which lived near the Indian Ocean and/or the Red Sea, and/or in marshlands and rivers near them. I hope I summarized that theory pretty well. I don’t know a ton about it, but it is interesting since it attempts to explain a bunch of differences between humans and apes at one fell swoop: apes are thin and furry; we are fat and naked, etc. Anyway, I think human feet would be pretty good for general purpose duties. They are flat, which would be better for wading than hooves or cat/dog feet, which might cause heavy humans to sink into the silt. They are presumably better for walking cross-country (from marsh to marsh, or something) than the comparatively “hand-like” feet of many primates. They are okay for climbing trees, at least comparied to hooves (although chimps have us handily beaten in this regard). Anyway, I didn’t want the tacit “humans are certain to have evolved exclusively in scrubland” assertion to go unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/13 "2001-05-25T22:49:44Z")
Andros Beecher didn’t found a religion per se, in the sense that Jim Jones did, but that’s not what I said. His theology was considered highly unorthodox at the time (I feel his pain…) because he presented new ideas about man that were unthinkable without the integration of Darwin’s theories. He wove, or tried to weave, the man of Christ and the man of Darwin together, and presented scripture passages as concurring with evolution. He even saw Paul as a sort of Darwin precursor! From one of his sermons… > [@](#): > > Now the Apostle says: “You are free, Christ came to set you free; only abuse not your liberty as an occasion to the flesh.” You are not free in material and bodily conditions. Man is not free to fly; he has not any wings. Man is not free to act without eating; he has got to eat. The circle of our liberty in bodily matters is a very small circle; but in that small circle men have an amazing amount of liberty. And so the Apostle says; “Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, but do not mistake the currency, do not take the wrong kind; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” There is not a man or woman in this congregation who ever fulfilled that law - not one. “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” Moral cannibalism is very largely practiced yet. “This, I say then, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” Paul makes two men out of every one; or, rather, there are two men in every one; and in that he touches very close on to the modern scientific doctrine that man was born as an animal first, and that by evolution through the Divine decree and the Divine Spirit, there was super induced upon the animal man - man social, moral, intellectual, spiritual. If you take the seventh chapter of Romans, no man can steer through that troubled passage unless he goes upon this theory, that man, according to the Apostolic idea, is a double being - the lower part is an animal, the upper part - the upper part, there is an upper part - rides him, and is not ridden by him. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/14 "2001-05-25T22:56:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Doesn’t seem very Intelligent to Design something with no purpose that gets infected and kills you The egyptians thought this of the brain didn’t they?🙂 [sub] well maybe not infected[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/15 "2001-05-25T23:08:20Z")
:shrug: I don’t see how drawing a parallel between Paul’s version of the duality of human nature and Darwin’s ideas means that Beecher’s theology was dependent on evolution. There are no ideas in the passage you quoted which require evolution. This is as close as he gets: > [@](#): > > no man can steer through that troubled passage [Romans, Chapter 7] unless he goes upon this theory, that man, according to the Apostolic idea, is a double being So man has a bestial nature, but has the potential for more. He’s not the first to say that, and won’t be the last. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/16 "2001-05-25T23:28:04Z")
Andros: From the passage quoted: > [@](#): > > [Paul] touches very close on to the **modern scientific doctrine** that man was born as an animal first. You’re so used to evolution that maybe you don’t understand what a jolt it was back then — _especially_ to Christian theologians. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/17 "2001-05-25T23:48:34Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re so used to evolution that maybe you don’t understand what a jolt it was back then — especially to Christian theologians. No, I think I understand very well the impact it had. But perhaps we’re reading the line differently. As far as I can see, Beecher is saying: “Where traditional theologies hold mankind to be divine and far removed from beasts, modern scientific thought holds that we are directly related to animals, developed from animals. Paul holds we have an animal nature. There is a seeming parallel here.” I cannot see this as suggesting that Paul somehow knew of evolution or was a “Darwinist” (whatever that means); rather, it merely points out that Paul knew that mankind has an animal nature that must be striven against. (Regardless, I still haven’t seen that any of Beecher’s theology was at all _dependent_ on evolution, much less a cornerstone.) I’ll try to dig up some HWB sermons tonight or this weekend, but if you can provide any further support for the “evolution as religious tenet” idea, I’d truly appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/18 "2001-05-25T23:57:30Z")
Here’s one from [The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences](http://www.ctns.org), as part of an article written by Dr. Francisco Ayala, Professor of Biological Sciences and Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. > [@](#): > > There were, however, many theologians, philosophers, and scientists who saw no contradiction then nor see it now between the evolution of species and Christian faith. Some see evolution as the “method of divine intelligence,” in the words of the nineteenth century theologian A.H. Strong. Others, like the American contemporary of Darwin, Henry Ward Beecher (1818-1887), made evolution the cornerstone of their theology. These two traditions have persisted to the present. I don’t think he was saying Paul was a Darwinist, but I think he was saying that, contrary to the hysteria in the church over evolution, Paul’s doctrine was not challenged by Darwin. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/19 "2001-05-25T23:59:58Z")
I meant to add, “and in fact was augmented by it.” ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2001, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478/20 "2001-05-26T00:03:49Z")
From Dr. Ayala: > [@](#): > > There were, however, many theologians, philosophers, and scientists who saw no contradiction then nor see it now between the evolution of species and Christian faith. OK. > [@](#): > > Some see evolution as the “method of divine intelligence,” Yup. > [@](#): > > Henry Ward Beecher (1818-1887), made evolution the cornerstone of their theology Hold the phone. _Upon what does Ayala base this?_ And what does he mean by it? You said: > [@](#): > > I don’t think he was saying Paul was a Darwinist, but I think he was saying that, contrary to the hysteria in the church over evolution, Paul’s doctrine was not challenged by Darwin. Yup, not problems there, either. Lots of folks nowadays believe that evolution does not necessarily contradict Paul. They didn’t in Beecher’s day, true, but that in itself does not make evolution _per se_ a cornerstone of his theology. (I’m heading home now . . . I’ll be back sometime over the weekend.) -a- [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-evolutionists/66478.md?page=2)