Evolution Vs. Creationism

[DLH]

"Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to develop and then test hypotheses and theories. " - Science Learning Hub

The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.

With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos for decency, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.

Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.

In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.

 

[pood]

"Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to develop and then test hypotheses and theories. " - Science Learning Hub

The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.

With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos for decency, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.

Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.

In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.

Congratulations. Almost every word in the above glurge is incorrect.

 

[pood]

A few preliminary points:

The ancient Greeks speculated about evolution of various kinds, but all of them — with the sole exception of Empedocles — had no idea about Darwin’s key insight, natural selection. Empedocles did posit a certain form of natural selection, but it has almost nothing in common with the real deal.

Macroevolution has been observed and documented, and is abundantly evident in the fossil record and confirmed by molecular biology. We have, to take one example, nearly a full fossil record of the macroevolution of a land mammal into a whale. In any case, anyone who gives it two seconds of actual thought would realize that if microevolution is correct, then inevitably small incremental micro-changes that accrue gradually over time will involve macro changes, including changes to phenotypes.

Evolution is not a “failed metaphysical experiment” — it is not even metaphysical — and misuse of evolution to promote racism and eugenics is totally irrelevant to the truth of evolution, which is both a fact and a theory. It is an observed fact, and the theory of evolution fully explains the observed fact.

No one, except for bible thumpers, gives a flying fuck at the moon what the bible says about anything.

 

[pood]

Speaking of the bible, at this point — consulting it as I so often do for wisdom — I am flummoxed as to how to proceed. For — as usual! — the bible contradicts itself.

So now I am torn between the two following bits of advice I encounter in this “perfect” book:

1. Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too.

2. Answer a fool. If you don’t, he will think himself wise.

What to do, what to do?

 

[pood]

Also, when you post a video, you are supposed to give a summary of it. I believe that’s a rule here.

 

[pood]

Speciation in real time

Five animals that have evolved recently

So, yes, in addition to macroevolution being supported by the fossil record and molecular biology, we can observe it happening in real time.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The Bible promotes slavery but I'm sure you think that's OK because the Bible says it or some stupid shit.

 

[WAB]

What's amazing is that superstitious texts written thousands of years ago are STILL referred to as relevant and used as guides to morality and everyday living. It has to be the greatest miracle ever. What kind of strange power do such texts hold, that we as a species have not been able to escape them, despite their obvious shortcomings and problems?

 

[pood]

What kind of strange power do such texts hold …

They are supernatural!

 

[DBT]

"Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to develop and then test hypotheses and theories. " - Science Learning Hub

The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.

With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos for decency, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.

Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.

In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.

As it stands: Life/living things adapt and evolve in response to environmental conditions.

Or, failing to adapt, life goes extinct.

 

[Swammerdami]

The ancient Greeks speculated about evolution of various kinds, but all of them — with the sole exception of Empedocles — had no idea about Darwin’s key insight, natural selection. Empedocles did posit a certain form of natural selection, but it has almost nothing in common with the real deal.

Maybe ancient Greeks, but what about the Roman Lucretius?

Everything is transformed by nature and forced into new paths. One thing dwindles . . . another waxes strong. In those days, many species must have died out altogether and failed to multiply. Every species that you now see drawing the breath of life has been preserved from the beginning of the world by cunning, prowess, or speed.
...
[Google's AI: "He suggests that organisms that are better suited to their environment have a better chance of surviving and reproducing"

 

[pood]

The ancient Greeks speculated about evolution of various kinds, but all of them — with the sole exception of Empedocles — had no idea about Darwin’s key insight, natural selection. Empedocles did posit a certain form of natural selection, but it has almost nothing in common with the real deal.

Maybe ancient Greeks, but what about the Roman Lucretius?

Everything is transformed by nature and forced into new paths. One thing dwindles . . . another waxes strong. In those days, many species must have died out altogether and failed to multiply. Every species that you now see drawing the breath of life has been preserved from the beginning of the world by cunning, prowess, or speed.
...
[Google's AI: "He suggests that organisms that are better suited to their environment have a better chance of surviving and reproducing"

Good point, but he didn’t really hit on the key concepts of natural selection and species descending from other species. He also questioned the assumed superiority of humans to other animals, and while he did not deny the existence of Gods, he said they had no effect on or interest in humans. He was one of the first naturalists.

 

[Swammerdami]

The ancient Greeks speculated about evolution of various kinds, but all of them — with the sole exception of Empedocles — had no idea about Darwin’s key insight, natural selection. Empedocles did posit a certain form of natural selection, but it has almost nothing in common with the real deal.

Maybe ancient Greeks, but what about the Roman Lucretius?

Everything is transformed by nature and forced into new paths. One thing dwindles . . . another waxes strong. In those days, many species must have died out altogether and failed to multiply. Every species that you now see drawing the breath of life has been preserved from the beginning of the world by cunning, prowess, or speed.
...
[Google's AI: "He suggests that organisms that are better suited to their environment have a better chance of surviving and reproducing"

Good point, but he didn’t really hit on the key concepts of natural selection and species descending from other species. He also questioned the assumed superiority of humans to other animals, and while he did not deny the existence of Gods, he said they had no effect on or interest in humans. He was one of the first naturalists.

Good points! But other ancients did hypothesize about species descending from other species, including the pre-Pythagorean Anaximander and the 13th-century Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. (See below.)

I find it interesting that the several pieces of Darwin's celebrated conclusion were all conjectured before Darwin, but very few put these pieces together. And yet one obscure writer did put the pieces together before Darwin and Wallace did. I mentioned this a few years ago:

... Loren Eiseley has written a book, Darwin's Century, which tells much about 19th century developments, both by Darwin and by others, of evolution theory....

One interesting fact in Eiseley's book is that an obscure 1831 book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, by Patrick Matthew, has a few sentences which outline the Theory that Darwin published 28 years later. When Matthew complained, Darwin acknowledged that this book, which he hadn't [hitherto] read, laid out the key ideas, albeit in just two paragraphs in an appendix.

As Nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing -- either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence.
. . .
Geologists discover ... fossil species [and] an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit, either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter ...

Ancient suggestions of species origin via evolution:

Anaximander believed that humans, who need a long period of nurture, could not have survived if they had always been what they are now, and therefore, humans originated from some other kind of animal, possibly fish-like creature.
...
Al-Tusi believed that organisms adapt to their environments and that those with beneficial adaptations are more likely to survive and reproduce, leading to increased variation within species. He suggested that humans are derived from advanced animals, with "transition forms" between the human and animal world, such as "anthropoid apes".

(Lest I be criticized for quoting from Google's AI Overview, which I have denounced, note that my information comes from memory and uncopiable sources. I Google just for citation, and then save time by copying the Google Summary.)

 

[pood]

The ancient Greeks speculated about evolution of various kinds, but all of them — with the sole exception of Empedocles — had no idea about Darwin’s key insight, natural selection. Empedocles did posit a certain form of natural selection, but it has almost nothing in common with the real deal.

Maybe ancient Greeks, but what about the Roman Lucretius?

Everything is transformed by nature and forced into new paths. One thing dwindles . . . another waxes strong. In those days, many species must have died out altogether and failed to multiply. Every species that you now see drawing the breath of life has been preserved from the beginning of the world by cunning, prowess, or speed.
...
[Google's AI: "He suggests that organisms that are better suited to their environment have a better chance of surviving and reproducing"

Good point, but he didn’t really hit on the key concepts of natural selection and species descending from other species. He also questioned the assumed superiority of humans to other animals, and while he did not deny the existence of Gods, he said they had no effect on or interest in humans. He was one of the first naturalists.

Good points! But other ancients did hypothesize about species descending from other species, including the pre-Pythagorean Anaximander and the 13th-century Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. (See below.)

I find it interesting that the several pieces of Darwin's celebrated conclusion were all conjectured before Darwin, but very few put these pieces together. And yet one obscure writer did put the pieces together before Darwin and Wallace did. I mentioned this a few years ago:

... Loren Eiseley has written a book, Darwin's Century, which tells much about 19th century developments, both by Darwin and by others, of evolution theory....

One interesting fact in Eiseley's book is that an obscure 1831 book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, by Patrick Matthew, has a few sentences which outline the Theory that Darwin published 28 years later. When Matthew complained, Darwin acknowledged that this book, which he hadn't [hitherto] read, laid out the key ideas, albeit in just two paragraphs in an appendix.

As Nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing -- either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence.
. . .
Geologists discover ... fossil species [and] an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit, either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter ...

Ancient suggestions of species origin via evolution:

Anaximander believed that humans, who need a long period of nurture, could not have survived if they had always been what they are now, and therefore, humans originated from some other kind of animal, possibly fish-like creature.
...
Al-Tusi believed that organisms adapt to their environments and that those with beneficial adaptations are more likely to survive and reproduce, leading to increased variation within species. He suggested that humans are derived from advanced animals, with "transition forms" between the human and animal world, such as "anthropoid apes".

(Lest I be criticized for quoting from Google's AI Overview, which I have denounced, note that my information comes from memory and uncopiable sources. I Google just for citation, and then save time by copying the Google Summary.)

I don’t believe I had ever actually heard of Tusi, so thank you for bringing him to my attention. The lack of knowledge of many in the West about the great Islamic culture over the centuries may perhaps point to the modern fixation on the minuscule numbers of Muslims who practice terrorism, and even many of those who do arguably are doing so more for geopolitical reasons than out of religious conviction. And, ironically enough, Tusi wrote his book putting forth his ideas on evolution while in captivity by a group of religious terrorists called The Assassins. He also, I find, predicted the existence of land masses beyond the Atlantic, and anticipated the modern conservation laws.

In any case, from the information I’ve been able to glean so far, his views on evolution appear to be more Lamarckian than Darwinian. He does not seem to have had the key insight of common descent and descent with modification via natural selection. Instead he seems to have thought that animals and plants adapted themselves, somehow. He also believed in a “scale of nature” that placed minerals over elements, plants over minerals, animals over plants, and humans over all of them. He seems to have had in mind some sort of telos in which humans are highest on the ladder towards some kind of spiritual perfection.

I think, yes, we have clear anticipations of evolutionary theory from antiquity, but Darwin and Wallace put all the pierces together, and, crucially, appear to be the first who went out and looked in a systematic way. He and Darwin developed evolutionary theory based on evidence. Tusi had it the other way around, posing a theory, or hypothesis, first, but never checking on it — not so surprising, because the modern methodologies of science did not exist then.

 

[pood]

Information on Tusi here.

 

[Ford]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

 

[DLH]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

 

[pood]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

Anyone who cares to understand themselves and the natural world, and how it all works, cares, and that is why they care. Maybe that doesn’t include you.

 

[DLH]

Let me guess...the only possible answer then is "Intelligent Design?"

There is a myriad of possible answers, so what? Who cares and why is a much more interesting question in my estimation.

Anyone who cares to understand themselves and the natural world, and how it all works, cares, and that is why they care.

Is it. Nothing to do with ideology? Just self-awareness and curiosity. On the other hand, the better we get the further we are removed from the "natural world." Doesn't really add up, does it? To watch someone rationalize it is entertaining, but otherwise, not very interesting.

Maybe that doesn’t include you.

It certainly doesn't have much practical use.

 

[pood]

It certainly doesn't have much practical use.

Oh dear. You are so clueless.