THE Evolution Thread

[DLH]

As promised @pood here is THE evolution thread to end all evolution threads. The most important evolution thread you will ever see.

Anyway, what I typically do since I post exclusively on atheist or in this case infidel forums, is I sympathize with the resident heathens having to discuss so much theology when they would much rather discuss science. I have little if any interest in science, but I'm fair.

Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is contradictory to science. I don't believe it is, but I also think it doesn't matter. Science isn't the first Biblical contradictory endeavor of mankind. Prostitutes, fortune tellers, catamites, the precursor to the modern-day Olympics, for example. Et cetera. Ad Infinitum and Nauseum for good measure.

Nothing new under the sun.

Here I want you to either tell me where evolution differs from the Bible. In very simple terms. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain something in simple terms you don't know it very well or words to that effect. No theological or scientific jargon is necessary and if you want a 500+ post thread spanning years make one because this isn't it.

But that isn't even really necessary for the purpose of my participation in this discussion. All I need from you is actual evidence, I mean show me or explain to me literally, not give me a link where someone says macroevolution contrary to the Bible is evident.

That's it. Don't show me a photograph of fractured bone fragments or similarities between apes and humans, arms on whales. Show me macroevolution.

I will warn you right now, most of what you show me will be bullshit.

 

[Ford]

 

[steve_bank]

This is good, I made it in time for the owning credits.

I love these old movies. I can guess the dialogue without having seen it before.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH

We have been through this ad nauseam with theists. There is no point to wasting the time.

Read a few books. Then cone back.

I haven't read them, try Dawkins' books on evolution. He is an established evolutionary biologist.

Richard Dawkins transformed our view of God in his blockbuster, The God Delusion, which sold more than 2 million copies in English alone. He revolutionized the way we see natural selection in the seminal bestseller The Selfish Gene. Now, he launches a fierce counterattack against proponents of "Intelligent Design" in his latest New York Times bestseller, The Greatest Show on Earth. "Intelligent Design" is being taught in our schools; educators are being asked to "teach the controversy" behind evolutionary theory. There is no controversy. Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence—from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics—to make the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection." His unjaded passion for the natural world turns what might have been a negative argument, exposing the absurdities of the creationist position, into a positive offering to the reader: nothing less than a master’s vision of life, in all its splendor.

I did read Stephen J Gould's books on evolution. I heard him speak here in Seattle in the 90s. He was a paleontologist.

https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780674006133?invid=18254253331&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NMPi&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjNGd1ue3jAMVzSJECB3wJQxKEAQYAiABEgLQ9vD_BwE

Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes and The Panda's Thumb are easy reads. Meant for the non scientific public.

 

[DLH]

DLH

We have been through this ad nauseam with theists. There is no point to wasting the time.

Read a few books. Then cone back.

I haven't read them, try Dawkins' books on evolution. He is an established evolutionary biologist.

Richard Dawkins transformed our view of God in his blockbuster, The God Delusion, which sold more than 2 million copies in English alone. He revolutionized the way we see natural selection in the seminal bestseller The Selfish Gene. Now, he launches a fierce counterattack against proponents of "Intelligent Design" in his latest New York Times bestseller, The Greatest Show on Earth. "Intelligent Design" is being taught in our schools; educators are being asked to "teach the controversy" behind evolutionary theory. There is no controversy. Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence—from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics—to make the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection." His unjaded passion for the natural world turns what might have been a negative argument, exposing the absurdities of the creationist position, into a positive offering to the reader: nothing less than a master’s vision of life, in all its splendor.

I did read Stephen J Gould's books on evolution. I heard him speak here in Seattle in the 90s. He was a paleontologist.

https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780674006133?invid=18254253331&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NMPi&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjNGd1ue3jAMVzSJECB3wJQxKEAQYAiABEgLQ9vD_BwE

Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes and The Panda's Thumb are easy reads. Meant for the non scientific public.

So you can't simply demonstrate that microevolution is contrary to the Bible and you can't simply explain or demonstrate that macroevolution is true. See, this was simple. Even though you did exactly what I said not to do in the OP we've still accomplished what I set out to accomplish.

 

[Ford]

As promised @pood here is THE evolution thread to end all evolution threads. The most important evolution thread you will ever see. Even though pood has demonstrated remarkable patience it has also manifested a cross disposition of late. It seems like an insolent child. Petulant Poo. As it were.

Starting with supreme unfounded arrogance and insults tells me we're in for an entertaining ride.

Anyway, what I typically do since I post exclusively on atheist or in this case infidel forums, is I sympathize with the resident heathens having to discuss so much theology when they would much rather discuss science. I have little if any interest in science, but I'm fair.

Generally speaking, when you come to discuss the validity of a well-established scientific model that's stood as the standard for a century and a half, it's not a good idea to lead with a claim to be willfully ignorant of science and how it works.

Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is contradictory to science. I don't believe it is, but I also think it doesn't matter. Science isn't the first Biblical contradictory endeavor of mankind. Prostitutes, fortune tellers, catamites, the precursor to the modern-day Olympics, for example. Et cetera. Ad Infinitum and Nauseum for good measure.

It's also not a great move to follow that willful ignorance with "and I don't care what you say, the Bible is always right."

Here I want you to either tell me where evolution differs from the Bible. In very simple terms. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain something in simple terms you don't know it very well or words to that effect. No theological or scientific jargon is necessary and if you want a 500+ post thread spanning years make one because this isn't it.

In the simplest terms, the Bible says that an all-powerful deity simply willed every animal on the planet into existence with a flourish and declared it "good." Evolutionary biology necessitates a longer answer and as we learn more about it, scientific "jargon" becomes necessary. There are scientists who write for the layman (the above mentioned Dawkins and Gould are good starts) but - simply put - evolution does not make a sweeping declaration starting with "and God said." If you refuse to read even the simple popular books on the topic, this will be a short thread for sure.

But that isn't even really necessary for the purpose of my participation in this discussion. All I need from you is actual evidence, I mean show me or explain to me literally, not give me a link where someone says macroevolution contrary to the Bible is evident.

So you want us to bring fossil evidence to your house and show you why it is evidence of evolution in person? That's an unreasonable request. You're going to be asked to follow links and read.

That's it. Don't show me a photograph of fractured bone fragments or similarities between apes and humans, arms on whales. Show me macroevolution.

I will warn you right now, most of what you show me will be bullshit.

And a bookend of arrogance and ignorant presumption. You've essentially claimed victory in your first post, stuck your fingers in your ears and loudly screamed "I'm not listening."

And while this is hardly the be-all and end-all of threads on evolution v Bible, it is certainly not far off from the many that have been foisted on this forum in the past. As has already been pointed out, we've seen this before. Theist confidently strides in and claims they've "debunked" one of the cornerstones of modern biology, flatly refuses to listen to any evidence to the contrary, and declares victory ahead of time.

The twist where you demand to be presented with physical evidence is a new one, but if you refuse to pick up a book or read a website, perhaps you should get on a ship and head to the Galapagos? That's what Darwin did, and if you'd rather go someplace closer to a large land mass, you could go to Madagascar like Wallace. You DO know about Alfred Russel Wallace, don't you?

 

[steve_bank]

What aspect of the bible are you referring to in regards to mircoevolution? Be specific.

1. The bible says this.
2. Microevolution says this.
3, Therefore the bible is true as stated in #1.

IOW make a cogent argument about something.

 

[DLH]

Starting with supreme unfounded arrogance and insults tells me we're in for an entertaining ride.

We here at DLH enterprises strive for excellence in, among other things, entertaining rides. We keed, we keed as Triumph the insult comic dog would say if you could sign him, or he was funny.

Generally speaking, when you come to discuss the validity of a well-established scientific model that's stood as the standard for a century and a half, it's not a good idea to lead with a claim to be willfully ignorant of science and how it works.

Tell it to Ignaz Semmelweis. Wait a minute, they killed him. That is how it works. How else would it work?

It's also not a great move to follow that willful ignorance with "and I don't care what you say, the Bible is always right."

The Bible isn't always right. I can demonstrate this. In the case of microevolution, I've suggested the Bible and current science are in agreement while in the case of macroevolution they are not. We observe the former and not the latter. You disagree? State your case.

In the simplest terms, the Bible says that an all-powerful deity simply willed

Wait. Wait. Stop right there. All powerful? Can you elaborate on that. Keeping with the requested simplicity for brevity and practicality requested in the OP?

every animal on the planet into existence with a flourish and declared it "good."

With a flourish?

Evolutionary biology necessitates a longer answer and as we learn more about it, scientific "jargon" becomes necessary.

No it doesn't. This isn't science. This is a public forum.

There are scientists who write for the layman (the above mentioned Dawkins and Gould are good starts) but - simply put - evolution does not make a sweeping declaration starting with "and God said." If you refuse to read even the simple popular books on the topic, this will be a short thread for sure.

I want you to show me macroevolution without faith. If I were going to explain God to you, I wouldn't just say read this book by someone. I can show you.

So you want us to bring fossil evidence to your house and show you why it is evidence of evolution in person? That's an unreasonable request. You're going to be asked to follow links and read.

I don't need you to do that. Just show me. Do you not know what that means or are you bullshitting me?

Watch. Here, I'll show you. I believe God exists. It's faith. I can't show you. If you take away God and put macroevolution in there that's great. We're done. But if you say anything other than that, show me. You don't need to recreate it in the lab like real science, just show me.

Also, God has nothing to do with it. You don't need to bring him into it. Ocham's Razor. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

 

[Ford]

Watch. Here, I'll show you. I believe God exists. It's faith. I can't show you.

Yeah, we're done here.

 

[DLH]

What aspect of the bible are you referring to in regards to mircoevolution? Be specific.

1. The bible says this.
2. Microevolution says this.
3, Therefore the bible is true as stated in #1.

IOW make a cogent argument about something.

From Revelation In Space: Bible Data: Science and the Bible: Evolution:

Observable evolution, which aligns with the biblical creation account of "kinds," refers to changes within species or groups, where variations occur but do not cross the threshold into another "kind." This contrasts with speculative evolutionary theories that propose mechanisms not directly observed, suggesting transformations across "kinds."

In terms of biblical "kinds," these are often seen as divisions where species or groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The boundary of "kinds" could be interpreted as where fertility between different groups ceases, suggesting that while there can be significant variation within a kind, there's a natural limit to how far this variation can extend before it no longer crosses with another kind. This understanding aligns with a view where evolution is acknowledged within the bounds of what is observed in nature - that is, variation and adaptation within species rather than across them into entirely new kinds.

 

[DLH]

Watch. Here, I'll show you. I believe God exists. It's faith. I can't show you.

Yeah, we're done here.

Yes I think we are. I've showed you that I can't show you God exists and you've shown me you can't show me macroevolution exists other than conceptually in faith.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The Bible is not a science book.
The Bible is not a history book.
The Bible is a mythology book, just like a book of Greek mythology is a mythology book.
Biblical "kinds" is not a scientific term, and does not relate in any way to evolutionary terminology.
Why do you want your mythology book to be linked to concept of evolution? So as to somehow give it some validity or credibility? That doesn't work, as your mythology book remains invalid to science.

 

[DLH]

The Bible is not a science book.

Agreed.

The Bible is not a history book.

Hmmm. Okay. What would constitute a history book and why isn't the Bible an example of that?

The Bible is a mythology book, just like a book of Greek mythology is a mythology book.

Iliad. Odyssey.

You know. It's been a while since I whipped out my trusty wordbook. Come with me now on a magical journey through definition land.

Oxford definition of Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Mythology of course, is the study (ology) of that: Also used to describe a collection of myths.

I was taught in school that Paul Revere rode through the town shouting "The British are coming." That was myth. I was taught man evolved from some common anscestor. Illustrated with cave men that were depicted as half ape/half man. That's myth. Both of those aren't history or science, though they could be described as pseudo-science, science fiction. Myth.

Biblical "kinds" is not a scientific term, and does not relate in any way to evolutionary terminology.

The Bible predates science by a substantial number of years.

Why do you want your mythology book to be linked to concept of evolution? So as to somehow give it some validity or credibility?

[laughs] No.

That doesn't work, as your mythology book remains invalid to science.

As it should. But so does macroevolution not to be confused with microevolution.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It is irrelevant that the Bible predates science (and it does so only in the sense that the modern definition of science is only a couple of centuries old, as the pre-Biblical ancient Greeks practiced a form of science before the name existed), as many things do, including mythologies older than the Bible.
Macroevolution is not a term used in evolutionary biology, so yeah it is an invalid term used by anti-evolution (and anti-science) creationists such as yourself.

 

[pood]

As promised @pood here is THE evolution thread to end all evolution threads. The most important evolution thread you will ever see. Even though pood has demonstrated remarkable patience it has also manifested a cross disposition of late. It seems like an insolent child. Petulant Poo. As it were.

Anyway, what I typically do since I post exclusively on atheist or in this case infidel forums, is I sympathize with the resident heathens having to discuss so much theology when they would much rather discuss science. I have little if any interest in science, but I'm fair.

Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is contradictory to science. I don't believe it is, but I also think it doesn't matter. Science isn't the first Biblical contradictory endeavor of mankind. Prostitutes, fortune tellers, catamites, the precursor to the modern-day Olympics, for example. Et cetera. Ad Infinitum and Nauseum for good measure.

Nothing new under the sun.

Here I want you to either tell me where evolution differs from the Bible. In very simple terms. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain something in simple terms you don't know it very well or words to that effect. No theological or scientific jargon is necessary and if you want a 500+ post thread spanning years make one because this isn't it.

But that isn't even really necessary for the purpose of my participation in this discussion. All I need from you is actual evidence, I mean show me or explain to me literally, not give me a link where someone says macroevolution contrary to the Bible is evident.

That's it. Don't show me a photograph of fractured bone fragments or similarities between apes and humans, arms on whales. Show me macroevolution.

I will warn you right now, most of what you show me will be bullshit.

The purpose of this thread is for you to provide lulz for us. It has no other purpose.

So far, you have failed. Well, not completely. That you think evolutionary theory predicts “arms on whales” was worth a chuckle of pity at your ignorance, but I’m afraid “chuckle” is not “lulz.”

That said, however, I was surprised to discover that the Smithsonian recently released a reconstruction of a startling new fossil find. Here it is:





Now, you expect us to “show” you macroevolution. But I already gave you a link to observed instances of macroevolution, as opposed to those correctly inferred from the robust fossil record and molecular biology, and you admitted you did not read it. So, as usual, you are bullshitting, without the slightest interest in a good-faith discussion.

If you ever become interested in such a discussion, you will need to remove your snout from your Holy Babble and instead dig into big-boy texts about biology and evolution. Only then can you return here to the big-boy table to discuss what you have learned.

Absent that, your only duty here is to provide us with lulz. As of now, alas and alack, this thread is lacklulzter.

Actually learn something before spouting off, or provide us with lulz. Unless you do one or the other,

</thread>

 

[DLH]

It is irrelevant that the Bible predates science (and it does so only in the sense that the modern definition of science is only a couple of centuries old, as the pre-Biblical ancient Greeks practiced a form of science before the name existed), as many things do, including mythologies older than the Bible.

You said the Biblical term "kinds" wasn't a scientific term. How could it be since it predated science by centuries?

Macroevolution is not a term used in evolutionary biology, so yeah it is an invalid term used by anti-evolution (and anti-science) creationists such as yourself.

Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level. In contrast, microevolution is evolution occurring within the population(s) of a single species. In other words, microevolution is the scale of evolution that is limited to intraspecific (within-species) variation, while macroevolution extends to interspecific (between-species) variation. The evolution of new species (speciation) is an example of macroevolution. This is the common definition for 'macroevolution' used by contemporary scientists. Although, the exact usage of the term has varied throughout history.

Macroevolution addresses the evolution of species and higher taxonomic groups (genera, families, orders, etc) and uses evidence from phylogenetics, the fossil record, and molecular biology to answer how different taxonomic groups exhibit different species diversity and/or morphological disparity. (Wikipedia)

 

[DLH]

The purpose of this thread is for you to provide lulz for us. It has no other purpose.

So far, you have failed. Well, not completely. That you think evolutionary theory predicts “arms on whales” was worth a chuckle of pity at your ignorance, but I’m afraid “chuckle” is not “lulz.”

That said, however, I was surprised to discover that the Smithsonian recently released a reconstruction of a startling new fossil find. Here it is:


Now, you expect us to “show” you macroevolution. But I already gave you a link to observed instances of macroevolution, as opposed to those correctly inferred from the robust fossil record and molecular biology, and you admitted you did not read it. So, as usual, you are bullshitting, without the slightest interest in a good-faith discussion.

If you ever become interested in such a discussion, you will need to remove your snout from your Holy Babble and instead dig into big-boy texts about biology and evolution. Only then can you return here to the big-boy table to discuss what you have learned.

Absent that, your only duty here is to provide us with lulz. As of now, alas and alack, this thread is lacklulzter.

Actually learn something before spouting off, or provide us with lulz. Unless you do one or the other,

</thread>

I didn't say I thought that evolutionary theory predicts anything, I said I didn't want to see photographs of arms on whales. That's what we call sarcasm. Odd you didn't catch that.

I don't care about a link. I also said that. You can give me a link but not as an answer. This is a discussion forum, not a link forum. You don't respond with links. You provide links as supplemental. YOU claim macroevolution has been observed? SHOW ME!

The reason my simple request is a joke to you, why no one can do what I ask, is that there is no contradiction between observable evolution and fantasy religious nonsense. If you have a link as you describe "observed" instances of macroevolution most of the work is done for you.

Since you - all of you - are incapable of understanding I will do the work for you.

Wikipedia says that Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population.

It has a picture for you.



Those - are finches.

There. Done. Simple. The finches changed. The Bible says that's cool. Nothing there contradicts it.

Wikipedia says that Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level.

It has a picture for you.



Those - are finches.

There. Done. Simple. The finches changed. The Bible says that's cool. Nothing there contradicts it.

Species, linked above, is defined as "the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."

That's the definition of the Biblical kind. From my site:

"Observable evolution, which aligns with the biblical creation account of "kinds," refers to changes within species or groups, where variations occur but do not cross the threshold into another "kind." This contrasts with speculative evolutionary theories that propose mechanisms not directly observed, suggesting transformations across "kinds."

In terms of biblical "kinds," these are often seen as divisions where species or groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The boundary of "kinds" could be interpreted as where fertility between different groups ceases, suggesting that while there can be significant variation within a kind, there's a natural limit to how far this variation can extend before it no longer crosses with another kind. This understanding aligns with a view where evolution is acknowledged within the bounds of what is observed in nature - that is, variation and adaptation within species rather than across them into entirely new kinds.

You see? The finch didn't become an accountant or iguana. That's rhetorical. Sarcasm.

 

[pood]

While waiting for lulz, others can enjoy some 14 million years of evolution condensed to four minutes: whales, from land to sea. Brilliant!

 

[pood]

Still no lulz, except a few chuckles from Revelation in Space at your unread forum. Please up your lulz game.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH


Learning to make and control fire is science. As is learning to harden wooden spears with fire. Bows and arrows.

Not a Scientific Cosmology:
It's important to note that biblical cosmology is not a scientific theory about the universe but rather a theological framework for understanding God's creation

The Three-Part World:
The Hebrew Bible depicts a world with the heavens (shamayim) above, Earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.

IOW the u verse goes around the Earth which is wrong.

According to a traditional biblical timeline, Noah's flood is believed to have occurred around 2348 BC.

Given the time frame and only the crew of the Ark and its creatures on board all the pant and animal genetic biodiversity and all the major civilizations would have had to develop in a very short period of time. Microevolution does not get around that.

The fossil and archaeological record does not support creationism. A 19th century Christian came up with the idea that when god created the universe he put the fossils where we find them. A theological work around.

We see natural selection at work, we just have to look at how a virus mutates and becomes easier to spre4ad among humans.

There are examples of higher level organisms.