Assuming Evolution is True......

[shawn001]

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”

Galileo Galilei




This is a picture before any stars or galaxies or planets existed at all. Everything after the big bang evolved.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're not asking me to prove....but you want me to back up claims....?
(double talk...double minded)

No double talk at all. I choose my words carefully. In science one does not "prove" anything because science is falsifiable. What this means is science is open to change and welcomes it. To "prove" something rest in the field of mathematics.

I have "proven" that you haven't the faintest understanding of science by the amount of times throughout this forum you have shown you don't understand evolution or the scientific method.

Myself and others have tried to educate you and those that think like you by presenting you with testable "evidence" in support of evolution.

And I've already told you....faith needs no proving.

Once again. I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking you to present evidence. This thread and others like it are dealing with science. We get that you are approaching the science of the natural world with your faith but you have made claims that the accounts in your book is science. The problem is you haven't given any details as to how (a, b, c) is possible other than I should take the bible's word for it. Taking something at face value, even written without testing and falsifying the claims made is not how science works.

And your rebuttal about your sense of science need not be answered.
Read Genesis as is.
Plenty if science indicated there.

But is that it, is that the extent to your contribution to this thread..."Read Genesis as is"...?

I've read Genesis over and over and when trying to compare the supposed science in Genesis, it's all wrong. Since it's all wrong what do you recommend now?

That you don't want to believe ...doesn't matter to me.

It's not about "belief" I want the facts. so far your own belief in your bible and your god has been unable to help you to produce any.....

And if it didn't matter to you, you shouldn't and wouldn't have sparked a dialogue with me. Don't kid yourself. It matters to you. You like it...

 

[Thief]

No double talk at all. I choose my words carefully. In science one does not "prove" anything because science is falsifiable. What this means is science is open to change and welcomes it. To "prove" something rest in the field of mathematics.

I have "proven" that you haven't the faintest understanding of science by the amount of times throughout this forum you have shown you don't understand evolution or the scientific method.

Myself and others have tried to educate you and those that think like you by presenting you with testable "evidence" in support of evolution.




Once again. I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking you to present evidence. This thread and others like it are dealing with science. We get that you are approaching the science of the natural world with your faith but you have made claims that the accounts in your book is science. The problem is you haven't given any details as to how (a, b, c) is possible other than I should take the bible's word for it. Taking something at face value, even written without testing and falsifying the claims made is not how science works.




But is that it, is that the extent to your contribution to this thread..."Read Genesis as is"...?

I've read Genesis over and over and when trying to compare the supposed science in Genesis, it's all wrong. Since it's all wrong what do you recommend now?



It's not about "belief" I want the facts. so far your own belief in your bible and your god has been unable to help you to produce any.....

And if it didn't matter to you, you shouldn't and wouldn't have sparked a dialogue with me. Don't kid yourself. It matters to you. You like it...

Actually...when I was younger....
The school I attended participated in one of the first nation wide evaluation tests.
The intent was to gather info where education is best and do so through the performance of the students.

I got a ranking of 'superior' in science....high average in math.
I happen to love science and math.

As for your personal attack....shallow at best.....juvenile....low....

So....you choose your words carefully?....and science can be falsified?

So without science that can be affirmed......
And a theological discussion that you reject...for lack of science....

Are you done now?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually...when I was younger....
The school I attended participated in one of the first nation wide evaluation tests.
The intent was to gather info where education is best and do so through the performance of the students.

I got a ranking of 'superior' in science....high average in math.
I happen to love science and math.

Then something went wrong in your experiment if you're still doubting evolution and common ancestry.

As for your personal attack....shallow at best.....juvenile....low....

But you make it so easy with your ignorance of the scientific method and the fact of evolution and all.

So....you choose your words carefully?

Yep.....

....and science can be falsified?

Yes. Do you understand what "falsified" means?

So without science that can be affirmed......
And a theological discussion that you reject...for lack of science....

What?

Are you done now?

Not as long as you continue to perpetuate the misguided notion that any of Genesis has anything to do with actual science....

 

[Me Myself]

Actually are brains are shrinking. So no.

Actually, female brain is shorter than that of a male in our human species.

elephant´s brains are far larger than ours.

It´s not the size it´s how you use it

 

[Tiberius]

Actually, female brain is shorter than that of a male in our human species.

elephant´s brains are far larger than ours.

It´s not the size it´s how you use it

Actually, it's the size in relation to body size.

 

[painted wolf]

Assuming Evolution is True, are the human beings in general getting more and more
intellignet or less and less intelligent with the passage of generations? Please support
your argument with concrete reasoning and evidence.

Define intelligent...

And no, intelligence is not determined by brain size unless there is a extreme difference in brain size. A few cc's isn't going to have any difference at all.

Also, brain to body ratio isn't that reliable either... unless you think the average chickadee or sparrow is as smart as you are. Birds can have much higher brain to body ratios than mammals.

Intelligence isn't a simple trait based on just one or even a few genes... it's a complex measure of behavior, education, and personal/cultural perception.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

Then something went wrong in your experiment if you're still doubting evolution and common ancestry.



But you make it so easy with your ignorance of the scientific method and the fact of evolution and all.



Yep.....



Yes. Do you understand what "falsified" means?



What?



Not as long as you continue to perpetuate the misguided notion that any of Genesis has anything to do with actual science....

That one question indicates you can't follow me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That one question indicates you can't follow me.

Only when you end your chain of thought with (........), so it would seem I needed clarification as to what you were getting at.

 

[tree]

I think we were probably getting smarter throughout the generations up until the point that being smart no longer gave us more advantage and made us more fit for survival and pass on our genes.

For the early generations of humans being smart ensured that you would most likely live longer because you could outsmart prey and predators and better survive. Nowadays even the dumbest person can have a relatively long life and have many children passing on genes that may not have been passed on in earlier times.

I don't think in general we are much more intelligent than our earliest ancestors, we have just slowly developed a vast knowledge that is passed on to subsequent generations, building up over time adding to the knowledge that each generation possesses making them seem relatively smarter than generations before.

 

[Thief]

I think we were probably getting smarter throughout the generations up until the point that being smart no longer gave us more advantage and made us more fit for survival and pass on our genes.

For the early generations of humans being smart ensured that you would most likely live longer because you could outsmart prey and predators and better survive. Nowadays even the dumbest person can have a relatively long life and have many children passing on genes that may not have been passed on in earlier times.

I don't think in general we are much more intelligent than our earliest ancestors, we have just slowly developed a vast knowledge that is passed on to subsequent generations, building up over time adding to the knowledge that each generation possesses making them seem relatively smarter than generations before.

Are you then saying Adam was intelligent enough to understand his bride to have been a clone?
That he was given his twin sister for marriage?
The missing navel would not be a mystery?

Or was he animal enough to ignore the origin of his mate?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you then saying Adam was intelligent enough to understand his bride to have been a clone?

That he was given his twin sister for marriage?

Explain to us how one can be a twin sister and a clone at the same time. Can you present any biological evidence to support your assertion?

The missing navel would not be a mystery?

Why? Did the mythic "Adam" have a navel? If he did then Yes, Even not having one would have been slightly curios but considering your book says he was created from dust then we can't assume he had a navel. In fact the opposite would make sense if he was made from dust and had no mother or father. Then he wouldn't have seen the fact that Eve had no navel as a mystery at all.

 

[Thief]

Explain to us how one can be a twin sister and a clone at the same time. Can you present any biological evidence to support your assertion?



Why? Did the mythic "Adam" have a navel? If he did then Yes, Even not having one would have been slightly curios but considering your book says he was created from dust then we can't assume he had a navel. In fact the opposite would make sense if he was made from dust and had no mother or father. Then he wouldn't have seen the fact that Eve had no navel as a mystery at all.

Adam is a chosen son of God.
Man was created Day Six.

Have you been reading Genesis?...and my posts?
or just hoping I'll get tired?

Being made of dust is true for all that walk this earth.

 

[shawn001]

Adam is a chosen son of God.
Man was created Day Six.

Have you been reading Genesis?...and my posts?
or just hoping I'll get tired?

Being made of dust is true for all that walk this earth.

"In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart."

"Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species."

Common fallacies
[edit] Not the only woman

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10]
Not a contemporary of "Adam"

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These should not be confused with adam and eve in the bible, but rather molecular DNA studies and modern humans origins.

Modern humans came out of africa around 200,000 years ago. There were other human sub speicies on the planet as well.

 

[shawn001]

I am only using wikipedia for the basis info. There is much more to it all.

 

[Thief]

"In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother's side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart."

"Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species."

Common fallacies
[edit] Not the only woman

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women alive at Eve's time have descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10]
Not a contemporary of "Adam"

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These should not be confused with adam and eve in the bible, but rather molecular DNA studies and modern humans origins.

Modern humans came out of africa around 200,000 years ago. There were other human sub speicies on the planet as well.

Okay...how many documentaries have I seen on this topic?...only God knows.

Adam is the first to walk with God.
A chosen son of God.
That would be his only distinction.

I happen to believe in evolution...it took place during Day Six.
Chapter Two of Genesis is a separate event.

 

[Krok]

I happen to believe in evolution...it took place during Day Six. Chapter Two of Genesis is a separate event.

Luckily, what you believe is of no value at all. People believe they talk to Elvis. Crazy.

It's what you can demonstrate that's important to the rest of us. It has been demonstrated with verifiable, empirical evidence, that evolution of organisms has happened for the last 3.8 billion years.

You've only demonstrated that you believe in something. That's it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Man was created Day Six.

Actually this is incorrect. Homosapien has been on the planet much longer than what the bible says.

Have you been reading Genesis?...and my posts?
or just hoping I'll get tired?

I've read Genesis and we both agree that it should not be used as a science book. Even when the claims are examined it appears it has nothing to do with science..:sad:

 

[Thief]

Luckily, what you believe is of no value at all. People believe they talk to Elvis. Crazy.

It's what you can demonstrate that's important to the rest of us. It has been demonstrated with verifiable, empirical evidence, that evolution of organisms has happened for the last 3.8 billion years.

You've only demonstrated that you believe in something. That's it.

So what do you think you disagree with?

I believe in evolution.

I also believe in God.

I believe God can manipulate His creation if He wants to.

So what if Man has been on the earth longer than Day Six?
I never said it was twenty four hours.

 

[Asking]

Assuming Evolution is True, are the human beings in general getting more and more
intellignet or less and less intelligent with the passage of generations? Please support
your argument with concrete reasoning and evidence.

Dumb people are just as capable breeding as intelligent people. Evidence? Just look around. Therefore there is no reason to believe that we'll evolve in any particular direction.

I also don't believe that advancements in technology necessarily mirrors any particular advancement in our intellect as a species. Again we only need to look around the world to see examples of humans living at markedly different technological levels but we don't see this as evidence that this reflects an inherent level of intellect within the populations.

Long-term evolution really can't be predicted with any accuracy because the possible variables and influences are legion.