THE Evolution Thread

[DLH]

I wonder if anyone is going to actually wade through all the codswallop above. Maybe NHC will have the intentional fortitude. It was wrong and dumb in the very first sentence and that’s where I stopped. It no doubt got wronger and dumber as it got longer and stupider.

I honestly don't think that would be possible.

 

[pood]

I wonder if anyone is going to actually wade through all the codswallop above. Maybe NHC will have the intentional fortitude. It was wrong and dumb in the very first sentence and that’s where I stopped. It no doubt got wronger and dumber as it got longer and stupider.

I honestly don't think that would be possible.

You’re right. It may not be possible for the stuff you write to be dumber or stupider. I think you touched bottom. Congrats.

 

[pood]

On the one hand we have a mountain of evidence and observation in the lab and wild for macroevolution; we have numerous observed speciation events, we have a robust fossil record including a virtually complete record of the evolution of a land mammal into a whale; we have that and much more fossil evidence besides for evolution going on all over the place, all of it supported by molecular biology; we have retrodictions and predictions that agree with evolutionary theory; we have a shit ton of practical uses for genetics and evolution in medicine, biotechnology, evolutionary algorithms, vaccination, and on and on; and … on the other hand …

We have an ancient book of fairy tales written by bronze-age goat herders.

Yup, hard to choose between the two.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It was wrong and dumb in the very first sentence and that’s where I stopped. It no doubt got wronger and dumber as it got longer and stupider.

I'm with you -- it's not worth wading through. I did skim a bit, and found this gem of a sentence that you missed:
"I believe the Bible -- that's knowledge, because even though the world tells me I'm wrong I don't believe them."
What a strange thought: that is knowledge, BECAUSE I hold to it in defiance of "the world". There's no "because" there. It's on the level of a screed from the Unabomber's cabin in the deep dark woods. He might as well have said, "I am the Church of One, and I heed the words of Me." I applaud the energy and concision of NoHolyCows in entering the fray, but really, is there a payoff? I'm more inclined to the Mencken approach to religious flapdoodle: good ol' snark.

 

[pood]

It was wrong and dumb in the very first sentence and that’s where I stopped. It no doubt got wronger and dumber as it got longer and stupider.

I'm with you -- it's not worth wading through. I did skim a bit, and found this gem of a sentence that you missed:
"I believe the Bible -- that's knowledge, because even though the world tells me I'm wrong I don't believe them."
What a strange thought: that is knowledge, BECAUSE I hold to it in defiance of "the world". There's no "because" there. It's on the level of a screed from the Unabomber's cabin in the deep dark woods. He might as well have said, "I am the Church of One, and I heed the words of Me." I applaud the energy and concision of NoHolyCows in entering the fray, but really, is there a payoff? I'm more inclined to the Mencken approach to religious flapdoodle: good ol' snark.

I wonder what this guy was doing during Covid. Is he an anti-vaxxer? Does he understand anything about viruses and evolution and vaccines? Where did he think the coronavirus came from? Was it a mysterious plague sent by Yay! Hovah? Does he have any clue that the coronavirus evolved? That we are in a constant evolutionary arms race with viruses and that this one managed to get by our defenses? Does he know what a a vaccine is? How it works? Anything?

 

[DLH]

@DLH
I get the impression that you believe that the world is billions of years old but there is no macroevolution....

I have no idea how old the universe is and I have perhaps less interest. I don't care. If science and the Bible are at odds, like I said, it wouldn't be the first or most important contention. I think light takes time to get here from a distance which negates the idea of the heavens and earth having been created in 144 literal hours six thousand years ago, but isn't that what creationism says? Well, what do they base that on? I also know that the Hebrew in Genesis 1 doesn't support any of that.

So what do you think happened?

What the Bible says as I currently understand it. God created the heavens and earth and everything in them. The nonsensical debate, the pitting of science against the Bible, reminds me of the chicken and the egg. In order to have a chicken you first have to have a fertilized egg. You can't have that without male and female. Unless they were created first. And apples and oranges. Let's say you read God created all of the living creatures according to their kind. Do you have to assume that he created a house cat that became a hyena, or a tiger that became a house cat or could you speculate that he created various forms of each kind?

I have no idea because what the Bible tells me is God created all living things according to their kind. The question becomes, in the debate, what is the difference between the Biblical kind and the biological term species? I stated earlier in the thread what I thought they were. Was I wrong? I certainly could have been but I don't think anyone said so. Except for possibly @pood and @steve_bank who don't count. They are too ideologically fixated to be anywhere near reasonable or to even begin to present a reasonable argument. Nay sayers. Haters!

Gollum! Gollum! They hates us. Give 'em a round of applause. Excellent. Who cares and why?

God created lots of different species and rather than them evolving into other species God instead created new species using divine intervention?

You use species when you refer to God? Why? You are trying to conflate science and theology? God created lots of different kinds and they changed over time, but not into another kind. That's what I know. "Prove" i.e. demonstrate the possibility that I'm wrong. What are those possibilities?

And he made their DNA in such a way that it appeared that species involved into other species? What was the point of having millions of years if there was actually no macroevolution?

I'm a Bible student with little knowledge or interest in science. You're asking me these questions is like asking your gardener to perform brain surgery on your child. Species? Macroevolution? What are those? Give me Bible chapter and verse for those so I can test them like I did the immortal soul and hell. By the way, most people believe those two are Biblical rather than theological suppositions.

Most people are usually wrong. You yourself said humans weren't apes, someone said there is no such thing as macroevolution. They probably think it a derogatory term used by ignorant creationists. Maybe it is. Show me. Wikipedia said otherwise and well, if Wikipedia says it that is almost as good as science.

If you believe in billions or trillions of instances of divine intervention then do you believe divine intervention is still happening today? Like when a human is conceived is God personally giving them a soul or something?

No! God created them according to their kind. What does that mean? Can you piece that together with science? If I ask you if you can test the Biblical concept of the soul, you would say yes or no? Why? Because the immortal soul was a teaching adopted by the apostate church through an intricate but pretty well documented history. Read Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28. It doesn't involve a great deal of intellectual prowess.

Well, look at that! The Bible says soul and hell right there. Yeah. The Bible is wrong, isn't it? Well, I don't know, what is soul and what is hell. Soul is the life of any breathing creature, the blood. Hell is the grave. Are those mystical, theological mysteries of a spiritual blah, blah, blah. You get decades of theological nonsensical jargon. Bullshit. If you think science is immune to that due to its methodology you aren't paying attention.

Bullshit. You can investigate the difference. Now let's say you disagree with me. Who has the better argument?

 

[Tharmas]

I'm sorry to be late to the party, and I haven't waded through absolutely all of the posts yet, but something attracted my attention early on in the thread.

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:

You seem to be unaware of Linnaeus and his famous classification system, incidentally developed a century before Darwin wrote. "Finch" is not a Species. It is not a Genus. It is a Family comprising several genera, each of which contains several species, defined as you define species - groups of animals that can't interbreed successfully. North America alone contains 17 Finch species.
So there, you've demonstrated "macroevolution" yourself, even if ignorantly.

 

[DLH]

You seem to be unaware of Linnaeus and his famous classification system, incidentally developed a century before Darwin wrote. "Finch" is not a Species. It is not a Genus. It is a Family comprising several genera, each of which contains several species, defined as you define species - groups of animals that can't interbreed successfully. North America alone contains 17 Finch species.
So there, you've demonstrated "macroevolution" yourself, even if ignorantly.

Someone said it didn't exist. Tell me, if you can, what a Biblical kind is and how it may or may not relate to species, Genus, etc. ad infinitum.

 

[DLH]

That’s a bold claim for someone who hasn’t actually responded to the evidence.

None was given.

 

[steve_bank]

That’s a bold claim for someone who hasn’t actually responded to the evidence.

None was given.

Options for the creationist.

1. Ignore the facts of geology, archeology, and paleontology.
2. Refute the facts of geology, archeology, and paleontology.
3. Ignore everything but the bible and blindly believe.
4. Spin interpretation to get around facts.

DLH's response here is #3. Typical theist.

 

[pood]

That’s a bold claim for someone who hasn’t actually responded to the evidence.

None was given.

And there you have it. Outright denial, in three ignorant words, of the mountain of evidence that was so thoughtfully given to him.

 

[pood]

I have no idea because what the Bible tells me is God created all living things according to their kind. The question becomes, in the debate, what is the difference between the Biblical kind and the biological term species? I stated earlier in the thread what I thought they were. Was I wrong? I certainly could have been but I don't think anyone said so. Except for possibly @pood and @steve_bank who don't count. They are too ideologically fixated to be anywhere near reasonable or to even begin to present a reasonable argument. Nay sayers. Haters!

Gollum! Gollum! They hates us. Give 'em a round of applause. Excellent. Who cares and why?

You are falling apart before our very eyes.

The writers of the bible had no idea about genetics or evolution. They were trying to describe the world with the best guesses they could come up with, and that includes “kinds.” Their “kinds” are wrong, and have long been replaced by phylogenetic trees showing the evolved relationship between and among species. Every living thing descends from a last universal common ancestor that has now been dated to some 4.2 billion years ago.

 

[steve_bank]

Speciation is when a population diverges to the point where interbreeding is no longer possible.

All humans are one species, all humans can interbreed.

While not all feline species can interbreed successfully, many can, resulting in fertile or infertile hybrid offspring; examples include the liger (lion and tiger) and tigon (tiger and liger).

No, not all felines are the same species; while they belong to the same family (Felidae), there are many different species within that family, including domestic cats, lions, tigers, and many others.

Speciation is the evolutionary process where a population evolves into distinct species, often through reproductive isolation, leading to the formation of new lineages.

The fossil record provides crucial insights into speciation, the process of new species arising, by documenting temporal sequences of morphological change, rates of speciation, and genetic differentiation, although it's incomplete and biased towards organisms with hard parts.

In modern terms biblical kinds probably refers to species. The fossil record does not support the idea of a single one time event of creation for all species.

Human taxonomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans are classified as subspecies to Homo, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu (with some other research instead classifying idaltu and current humans as belonging to the same subspecies[1][2][3]).

Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, knowledge of human evolution has increased significantly, and a number of intermediate taxa have been proposed in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The most widely accepted taxonomy grouping takes the genus Homo as originating between two and three million years ago, divided into at least two species, archaic Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens, with about a dozen further suggestions for species without universal recognition.

The genus Homo is placed in the tribe Hominini alongside Pan (chimpanzees). The two genera are estimated to have diverged over an extended time of hybridization, spanning roughly 10 to 6 million years ago, with possible admixture as late as 4 million years ago. A subtribe of uncertain validity, grouping archaic "pre-human" or "para-human" species younger than the Homo-Pan split, is Australopithecina (proposed in 1939).

A proposal by Wood and Richmond (2000) would introduce Hominina as a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, with Homo the only known genus within Hominina. Alternatively, following Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and possibly Sahelanthropus, may be placed on equal footing alongside the genus Homo. An even more extreme view rejects the division of Pan and Homo as separate genera, which based on the Principle of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees as Homo paniscus (or similar).[4]

Categorizing humans based on phenotypes is a socially controversial subject. Biologists originally classified races as subspecies, but contemporary anthropologists reject the concept of race as a useful tool to understanding humanity, and instead view humanity as a complex, interrelated genetic continuum. Taxonomy of the hominins continues to evolve.[5][6]

DLH, if you have questions others here are more knowledgeable than I am.

The gist of it is us humans and other critters trace back to common ancestors. The common idea of humans coming form monkeys or chimps is false.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Question: has this guy ever once, on this site, considered that a response to his screeds has caused him to reconsider and (shudder, quiver, spasms) change his thinking?
Maybe it happened. I missed it if it did.

 

[Ford]

Bonobos and humans aren't the same species or genus so they can't breed or produce a fertile offspring. They say man is a primate and so are bonobos but man is not an ape.

That’s right, but humans are apes.

That is the answer to my request? That is where evolution and the Bible differ? A hell of a roundabout piled on top of a mountain of bullshit but probably as good as it gets.

Evolution and the Bible differ because they are two different things. The Bible is a two-part book, with the first part being a collection of stories about ancient Hebrews. Some are historical in nature (there really was a temple in Jerusalem and probably a King David) while some are outright myth (Noah's ark, Moses freeing the Hebrews from Egypt), and the second half focuses on the teachings of a Jewish guy who claimed to be the Messiah. At best second and third hand accounts of what he allegedly said, but containing no actual writings of the man. The collection of stories was codified into a book because a Roman emperor converted to Christianity.

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by damned near every piece of evidence collected in the past 150 years. Evolution is testable, repeatable, and not based on oral histories or "I heard from a guy once that his grandpa met Jesus and he seemed really chill."

And yes. Humans are apes. Much in the same way that both minnows and sharks are fish.

 

[excreationist]

@DLH
I get the impression that you believe that the world is billions of years old but there is no macroevolution....

I have no idea how old the universe is and I have perhaps less interest. I don't care.

If the universe is 6000 years old there is probably no macroevolution (as AiG defines it). If it is old there is either macroevolution or God divinely intervened and made it seem like fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds and mammals, etc. For this thread at least it makes a big difference what the age of the earth is.

 

[DLH]

If the universe is 6000 years old there is probably no macroevolution (as AiG defines it).

I don't think we can any more seriously consiider that as we can a flat earth.

If it is old there is either macroevolution or God divinely intervened and made it seem like fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds and mammals, etc. For this thread at least it makes a big difference what the age of the earth is.

The Bible doesn't indicate the age, there isn't an objection of any reasonable date. I think the likelyhood that we can put a number on it is a guess, but it certainly isn't in the neighborhood of 6,000 years.

I doubt both of those possibilities but for the sake of argument why do you seem insistent on fish evolving into ampibians into reptiles, mammals, etc.

 

[DLH]

If the universe is 6000 years old there is probably no macroevolution (as AiG defines it).

I don't think we can any more seriously consiider that as we can a flat earth.

If it is old there is either macroevolution or God divinely intervened and made it seem like fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds and mammals, etc. For this thread at least it makes a big difference what the age of the earth is.

The Bible doesn't indicate the age, there isn't an objection of any reasonable date. I think the likelyhood that we can put a number on it is a guess, but it certainly isn't in the neighborhood of 6,000 years.

I doubt both of those possibilities but for the sake of argument why do you seem insistent on fish evolving into ampibians into reptiles, mammals, etc.

 

[Ford]

If the universe is 6000 years old there is probably no macroevolution (as AiG defines it).

I don't think we can any more seriously consiider that as we can a flat earth.

If it is old there is either macroevolution or God divinely intervened and made it seem like fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds and mammals, etc. For this thread at least it makes a big difference what the age of the earth is.

The Bible doesn't indicate the age, there isn't an objection of any reasonable date. I think the likelyhood that we can put a number on it is a guess, but it certainly isn't in the neighborhood of 6,000 years.

I doubt both of those possibilities but for the sake of argument why do you seem insistent on fish evolving into ampibians into reptiles, mammals, etc.

Why did you attribute the above quotes to me when I didn't make them? I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

[excreationist]

If the universe is 6000 years old there is probably no macroevolution (as AiG defines it).

I don't think we can any more seriously consiider that as we can a flat earth.

You said "I have no idea how old the universe is and I have perhaps less interest. I don't care." but you seem to think it is a lot older than 6000 years.

If it is old there is either macroevolution or God divinely intervened and made it seem like fish evolved into amphibians which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds and mammals, etc. For this thread at least it makes a big difference what the age of the earth is.

The Bible doesn't indicate the age, there isn't an objection of any reasonable date. I think the likelyhood that we can put a number on it is a guess, but it certainly isn't in the neighborhood of 6,000 years.

Hebrew calendar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hebrew years are generally counted according to the system of Anno Mundi (Latin: "in the year of the world"; Hebrew: לבריאת העולם‎, "from the creation of the world", abbreviated AM). This system attempts to calculate the number of years since the creation of the world according to the Genesis creation narrative and subsequent Biblical stories. The current Hebrew year, AM 5785

The Hebrews would have a lot of knowledge about what Genesis says.

I doubt both of those possibilities but for the sake of argument why do you seem insistent on fish evolving into ampibians into reptiles, mammals, etc.

Well fish appeared earlier in the fossil record, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds and mammals.... I mean you don't find birds 200 million years ago, etc. Either it involved evolution or every now and then God created new lifeforms using divine intervention. Which is it?