Evolution Vs. Creationism

[DLH]

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

There is the direct quote above.

Note bolded part.

IOW, NOBODY says a human will produce a bonobo or a chimp. Evolutionary theory DOES say humans will produce more humans.

Do you not understand the point? Evolution doesn't contend with the Bible in this. It's a simple matter of classification.

 

[pood]

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

There is the direct quote above.

Note bolded part.

IOW, NOBODY says a human will produce a bonobo or a chimp. Evolutionary theory DOES say humans will produce more humans.

Do you not understand the point? Evolution doesn't contend with the Bible in this. It's a simple matter of classification.

Yes, I understand the point, and you are being slippery and evasive again. You said the bible allows for microevolution, but not macroevolution, and you dismiss macroevolution as being false, and deliberately ignored by your own admission a link to a paper that listed OBSERVED instances of macroevolution.You falsely claimed that the fossil record and molecular biology do not provide evidence for macroevolution. You have not demonstrated where the bible says ANYTHING about evolution, and you have not responded to my point that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution automatically follows, since accrued microevolutionary changes over time inevitably result in changes not just to genotypes but to phenotypes including speciation. You have not responded to the point that we have a nearly complete fossil record of the transition of a land mammal to a whale over some 13 million years, a transition backed by the molecular record that you deem not to be evidence without saying why. Finally, you said you would start your own thread on macroevolution. Please do.

 

[DLH]

Yes, I understand the point, and you are being slippery and evasive again.

I don't see how that's possible. Everything I say is reinterpreted by you. You are the slippery one.

You said the bible allows for microevolution, but not macroevolution, and you dismiss macroevolution as being false, and deliberately ignored by your own admission a link to a paper that listed OBSERVED instances of macroevolution.You falsely claimed that the fossil record and molecular biology do not provide evidence for macroevolution. You have not demonstrated where the bible says ANYTHING about evolution, and you have not responded to my point that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution automatically follows, since accrued microevolutionary changes over time inevitably result in changes not just to genotypes but to phenotypes including speciation. You have not responded to the point that we have a nearly complete fossil record of the transition of a land mammal to a whale over some 13 million years, a transition backed by the molecular record that you deem not to be evidence without saying why. Finally, you said you would start your own thread on macroevolution. Please do.

I will. In the proper time.

 

[EricH]

Yes, it does, but that is not what you were talking about.

You are going to tell me what I was talking about?

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans CANNOT and NEVER WILL produce a bonobo, a chimp, or any other ape, as an OFFSPRING. You implied otherwise.

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

Is that not a "scientific" fact? Is that not in accordance with current evolutionary science? If not tell me exactly how it isn't.

The children born to humans will always be human. The children born to chimpanzees will always be chimpanzees. Evolution doesn't happen over one generation or even a dozen generations.

The children born to human parents will be human but will not be genetically identical to their parents. While these genetic differences are small from generation to generation or even over many dozens of generations, the differences will add up over time given reproductive isolation and the filter of natural selection. And over millions of years these differences will give rise to separate species. The ancestor of every living thing will always be the same species as its offspring, but if you trace its ancestry back long enough you will arrive at ancestors that are different species from the offspring. If you trace the human lineage back about 6 million years you will arrive at a species that is ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. If you trace this lineage back even further, say 390 million years, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that was a fish that had learned how to use its fins to "walk" in shallow water to hunt prey, and its descendants were able to colonize land. That is how evolution works.

There can be debate about exactly how much difference is needed to differentiate one species from its ancestral species that is different enough. Its a spectrum, and any lines that we humans draw for purposes of classification is a simplification for convenience. The species we see today is a snapshot in time. If you had a telescope located 6 million light years away from Earth, and you looked at Earth with this telescope, you would see another snapshot of life on this planet, one that happened to include an animal that would go on to give to rise modern chimpanzees and humans.

 

[pood]

Yes, it does, but that is not what you were talking about.

You are going to tell me what I was talking about?

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans CANNOT and NEVER WILL produce a bonobo, a chimp, or any other ape, as an OFFSPRING. You implied otherwise.

I didn't imply anything, I said "You can say humans are classified as apes, but you can't say a human will produce a bonobo or chimpanzee. Or they will produce a human."

Is that not a "scientific" fact? Is that not in accordance with current evolutionary science? If not tell me exactly how it isn't.

The children born to humans will always be human. The children born to chimpanzees will always be chimpanzees. Evolution doesn't happen over one generation or even a dozen generations.

The children born to human parents will be human but will not be genetically identical to their parents. While these genetic differences are small from generation to generation or even over many dozens of generations, the differences will add up over time given reproductive isolation and the filter of natural selection. And over millions of years these differences will give rise to separate species. The ancestor of every living thing will always be the same species as its offspring, but if you trace its ancestry back long enough you will arrive at ancestors that are different species from the offspring. If you trace the human lineage back about 6 million years you will arrive at a species that is ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. If you trace this lineage back even further, say 390 million years, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that was a fish that had learned how to use its fins to "walk" in shallow water to hunt prey, and its descendants were able to colonize land. That is how evolution works.

There can be debate about exactly how much difference is needed to differentiate one species from its ancestral species that is different enough. It’s a spectrum, and any lines that we humans draw for purposes of classification is a simplification for convenience. The species we see today is a snapshot in time. If you had a telescope located 6 million light years away from Earth, and you looked at Earth with this telescope, you would see another snapshot of life on this planet, one that happened to include an animal that would go on to give to rise modern chimpanzees and humans.

He’s ignoring reality on purpose.. He already said he didn’t look at a link I provided giving observed instances of macroevolution, because he doesn’t like reality. He really believes that a fictional cartoon character in a tribal book of fairy tales, Yay! Hovah, actually existed, and created the world and the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. He doesn’t understand that there was no first man and woman, just a first human population, and doesn’t want to know about it.

 

[EricH]

He’s ignoring reality on purpose

Its much easier to defend your irrational beliefs if you ignore reality.

 

[Swammerdami]

Yes, I understand the point, and you are being slippery and evasive again.

I don't see how that's possible. Everything I say is reinterpreted by you. You are the slippery one.
...
I will. In the proper time.

Pardon me for butting in. But allow me to test the claim about "slippery and evasive":

Scientists believe that if we could somehow trace your ancestry, your mother's mother's mother's mother, back through many millions of generations we would come to a primitive fish. Do you, DLH, believe those scientists are correct?

@DLH -- To avoid a further thousand posts of slipperiness and evasions, kindly confine your answer to one of these two choices:

A. YES
B. NO

Thanks in advance.

 

[NoHolyCows]

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

Correct. Observation is the backbone of science—and evolution has been observed repeatedly, in the fossil record, in genetics, in laboratory settings, and in real-time speciation events. Evolutionary theory wasn’t pulled from thin air or inherited from ancient philosophers; it’s built on mountains of data across multiple disciplines. Unlike faith-based systems, science demands evidence and correction. If you agree that observation is essential, then rejecting evolution—which is supported by overwhelming observational data—is intellectually dishonest.

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.

This is a lazy and historically incoherent smear. Evolution is not “rooted” in ancient philosophy any more than astronomy is rooted in astrology. It’s a modern scientific theory grounded in empirical biology, not metaphysics. Trying to conflate evolution with eugenics is a cheap guilt-by-association fallacy—eugenics was a social policy, not a biological theory, and its abuses were rightly condemned by scientists themselves. If your goal is to shield religious authority by attacking science, at least do so with honest arguments, not conspiracy-laced revisionism.

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.

This passage is a mix of irrelevant anecdotes and a grotesque distortion of science. Yes, racist pseudoscience existed—but it was pseudoscience, not evolutionary biology. The actual science of evolution shows all humans are part of the same species, with minimal genetic variation. Racist theories predate Darwin and were often justified by misinterpretations of scripture, not science. Blaming evolutionary theory for racism is as dishonest as blaming Christianity for every colonial atrocity—misuse is not the same as cause.

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.

This betrays a total misunderstanding of biology. Microevolution and macroevolution are not separate phenomena—they are the same process viewed over different time scales. Denying macroevolution is like claiming erosion can wear down a pebble but not a mountain. The Bible is not a science book; whether something is “in accordance with the Bible” is not a criterion for scientific truth. The final sentence is a bizarre theological backflip—if creationism is “nonsensical apostasy,” then where exactly are you standing?

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

This is the rhetorical equivalent of flipping the table when you’ve run out of arguments. Calling both positions “stupid” doesn’t elevate your stance—it just broadcasts that you don’t actually have one. If you’re trying to be provocative, congratulations. But if you’re trying to be persuasive, this juvenile dismissal does the opposite. Evolution isn’t “well received” because of some global atheist cabal—it’s accepted because the evidence is too strong to ignore.

NHC

 

[pood]

By all indications DLH is a Jehovah’s Witness, or if not an active member subscribes to their views. Everything he has stated indicates this, primarily his fixation on Jehovah and his stating that Adam was “the first man.” The JWs believe that Jehovah created Adam around 4,000 BC. Thus when he says “creationism” is stupid he is being disingenuous. He may mean other forms of creationism that differ from the JW account are stupid. Sometimes he attacks the bible as untrustworthy but this is consistent with the JW conviction that parts of the bible have been corrupted by outside influences. If in fact he is a JW he cannot accept evolution, and if an active member cannot do so on pain of excommunication from the ridiculous anti-reality cult.

 

[pood]

Also, JWs believe that Jesus is really the archangel Michael, and that Jesus/Michael finally took control of heaven by evicting Satan in 1914 (!) Satan fell to earth, so maybe that accounts for the start of World War I in that year.

 

[DLH]

He’s ignoring reality on purpose

Its much easier to defend your irrational beliefs if you ignore reality.

Bible kinds observed. Evolution not in contrast. Evolution never observed.

It can't be all three. Which two is it? And don't just bullshit. Show. Demonstrate. Defend, if you will.

 

[DLH]

Also, JWs believe that Jesus is really the archangel Michael, and that Jesus/Michael finally took control of heaven by evicting Satan in 1914 (!) Satan fell to earth, so maybe that accounts for the start of World War I in that year.

First of all, fuck the JWs, I'm not one of them. Never have been, never will be. They are not here to defend themselves so don't be so cowardly stupid. Secondly, Jesus is obviously Michael and the JWs aren't the only ones who think that. Most people who know the Bible do.

 

[pood]

He’s ignoring reality on purpose

Its much easier to defend your irrational beliefs if you ignore reality.

Bible kinds observed. Evolution not in contrast. Evolution never observed.

It can't be all three. Which two is it? And don't just bullshit. Show. Demonstrate. Defend, if you will.

Ahem.

Also, bible “kinds” are all wrong.