Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence supporting evolution that NO ONE has been able to refute includes the fossil record, morphological homology, physiological homology, genetic homology, age determined through radiometric dating, geological evidence, comparative genomics, biogeography, ERV's, cytogenetics, ring species, natural selection, physics, chemistry, vestigial structures, speciation, plant breeding, animal breeding, the development of resistance, etc., etc., etc.

There is considerable confusion over adaptation and some have invented pure fantasy around it in support of their favorite dogma.

Essentially, adaptation is evolution. An adaptation that has a genetic basis subject to selection and is heritable, becoming fixed in a population over many generations is an evolutionary adaptation. What many consider adaptations are phenotypic plasticity, physiological versatility or developmental flexibility.

An octopus or flounder that changes color in rapid response to its background illustrates physiological versatility. The change is rapid within an individual and requires no change in the genes. A person developing thickened and calloused skin on the palms of their hands from prolonged work with their hands is an example of developmental flexibility. The change is gradual in response to a change in condition, but does not require or result in a heritable genetic change.

An individual does not undergo evolutionary adaptations in response to a changing environment as some deluded fantacists have suggested. A human does not grow longer arms to pick apples from the tops of trees. This does not happen, so it cannot be passed on to subsequent generations. A fish does not give birth to an amphibian. A reptile does not give birth to birds or mammals. These things are not even a part of theory and there is no evidence for them.

There has been no rapidly accelerated, universal evolution in the past 5,000 years to account for the current biodiversity and allow it to have arisen from the meager population that could have been sustained on a mythical wooden box. This is a ridiculous attempt to support a myth as fact and account for what rational minds cannot account for.

 

[dad]

The origin of life remains unknown and no scientists claims to know it.

Origins does not just mean a supposed first lifeform. It includes where man came from. Where the world came from. You are right science doesn't know, but they never stop preaching their stories.

People believe all sorts of things, but there is no evidence supporting those beliefs no matter what confused, ignorant and desperate people may say.

There is evidence for the bible six ways from Sunday. There is no evidence for origin science fables.

Science is the best means that has been developed to learn about the world around us.

Creation, the flood, Noah, and Adam do not happen to be around us now. No one cares about what actual science sees around us now in the creation/evolution debate. We care about the claims about where we came from and attacks on creation.

In some cases, this has shattered long-held beliefs, and those that support strict adherence to dogma are still reeling at the falsification of their dogma.

There is always some folks trading beliefs. But wise men know that science is dumb deaf and blind when it comes to Genesis and creation and the spiritual and the nature of earth long long ago.

This in no way means that a person cannot maintain their beliefs, but an intelligent believer will recognize that dogma is better interpreted allegorically. Those that cannot are doomed to suffer repetitious bouts of denial that cannot be supported.

Great definition of evolton (TOE).. "repetitious bouts of denial that cannot be supported"

Some might end up haunting the fringes of life pretending they know something when they know nothing. Instead of a living belief, they have a scared, desperate little belief that is dying of ignorance.

Some might. But evos are generally already over the deep end already. Relax though, I do not even expect you to learn to use quotes properly, let alone defend your religion. Or even admit your beliefs are anything but beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do pigeon chess players have to rely so strongly on fallacies, fantasies and gaps? Straw man arguments and twisting words does not strike me as the hallmark of God's messengers. If the world of evidence fit their contorted claims, then there would be no need for the deluded fantacists to use such tricks and empty claims.

 

[dad]

Evidence supporting evolution that NO ONE has been able to refute includes the fossil record, morphological homology, physiological homology, genetic homology, age determined through radiometric dating, geological evidence, comparative genomics, biogeography, ERV's, cytogenetics, ring species, natural selection, physics, chemistry, vestigial structures, speciation, plant breeding, animal breeding, the development of resistance, etc., etc., etc.

Name anything on the list that does not involve the same state past belief as the basis? You can't. Preaching is all you do and cannot begin to face truth or defend your belief.

There is considerable confusion over adaptation and some have invented pure fantasy around it in support of their favorite dogma.

Self aggrandizing blather that means nothing.

Essentially, adaptation is evolution. An adaptation that has a genetic basis subject to selection and is heritable, becoming fixed in a population over many generations is an evolutionary adaptation. What many consider adaptations are phenotypic plasticity, physiological versatility or developmental flexibility.

So what? In other words modern evolving. Well, former nature evolving may not have required generations or reproduction or ancestors! In all ways you do nothing but peddle your baseless, unsupportable fiction and belief in a same nature in the past. That got old long ago, in case that is news.

An octopus or flounder that changes color in rapid response to its background illustrates physiological versatility. The change is rapid within an individual and requires no change in the genes. A person developing thickened and calloused skin on the palms of their hands from prolonged work with their hands is an example of developmental flexibility. The change is gradual in response to a change in condition, but does not require or result in a heritable genetic change.

No. But in the former nature adapting was different. You are trying to hold the past to today's standards. That is all you ever do!

An individual does not undergo evolutionary adaptations in response to a changing environment as some deluded fantacists have suggested. A human does not grow longer arms to pick apples from the tops of trees. This does not happen, so it cannot be passed on to subsequent generations. A fish does not give birth to an amphibian. A reptile does not give birth to birds or mammals. These things are not even a part of theory and there is no evidence for them.

Humans did evolve in many ways as needed in the former nature though. They could change skin color and all sorts of things that could not happen today.

There has been no rapidly accelerated, universal evolution in the past 5,000 years to account for the current biodiversity and allow it to have arisen from the meager population that could have been sustained on a mythical wooden box. This is a ridiculous attempt to support a myth as fact and account for what rational minds cannot account for.

You are not qualified to speak of 5000 years. You do not know the different between 5000 years and seventy million years!

 

[YoursTrue]

What report is this? I would like to see it.

My beliefs are Christian. What do they have to do with science and the evidence?

Now you are just telling us that YOU cannot imagine something that you do not understand. I do not understand banking and finance, but that has no bearing on the reality of banking and finance.

Reviewing this post, may I ask you how you reconcile the Bible (as a Christian) with the theory of evolution?

 

[dad]

Why do pigeon chess players

So now you fancy yourself as a great chess player with other posters as pigeons in comparison. The delusions mount.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess this thread is dying out. There doesn't seem to be anyone posting here besides me. At least not anyone that is doing more than posting feeble rants without benefit of logic, evidence or a sound theory to support their views.

I cannot get over the idea that a person's faith must be incredibly weak and fragile to have to exist as they demand it. It is very sad in my opinion.

 

[dad]

I guess this thread is dying out. There doesn't seem to be anyone posting here besides me. At least not anyone that is doing more than posting feeble rants without benefit of logic, evidence or a sound theory to support their views.

I cannot get over the idea that a person's faith must be incredibly weak and fragile to have to exist as they demand it. It is very sad in my opinion.

No wind in your defeated religious sails. That is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reviewing this post, may I ask you how you reconcile the Bible (as a Christian) with the theory of evolution?

The story of Genesis is allegory. It was written by people that did not have the same knowledge of the world that is available to you and I.

I have spent the last 35 years studying and researching biology. There is no reason to reject what I have learned and to do so without valid reason would be lying to myself. Since I also believe in God, I would have to reject that belief if it were demanded that I must maintain it based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Since belief is not predicated on that, I can consider it allegory and all is well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reviewing this post, may I ask you how you reconcile the Bible (as a Christian) with the theory of evolution?

Considering the Bible to be the literal and infallible dictation of God is an assumption. One that cannot be demonstrated to be correct either. It is not a requirement that I hold that belief of literal infallibility in order to be Christian. Claiming that one must in order to be Christian is changing Christian theology from worship of God to worship of the Bible. It also presumes positions that, in turn, cannot be demonstrated and is an attempt to remove faith from the equation where it is unnecessary to do so. If faith is a key component of belief in God, then why do so many struggle to remove it from Christianity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reviewing this post, may I ask you how you reconcile the Bible (as a Christian) with the theory of evolution?

I accept that you are Christian. You may have knowledge that I do not possess or even understand. I know that I have only a basic understanding of physics and there are atheists on here that know considerably more about the subject and may have forgotten more than I will know, but that does not have any impact on my beliefs. It neither makes your personal position on belief greater or lesser than my own. Where we can speak to those things arises in the claims that others make. For instance, claiming that physical laws were different 5,000 years ago is meaningless and empty when that fact cannot be demonstrated. It is merely one person's belief and has no bearing on conclusions based on evidence than my childhood admiration of Andrew Jackson does.

 

[McBell]

I guess this thread is dying out. There doesn't seem to be anyone posting here besides me. At least not anyone that is doing more than posting feeble rants without benefit of logic, evidence or a sound theory to support their views.

I cannot get over the idea that a person's faith must be incredibly weak and fragile to have to exist as they demand it. It is very sad in my opinion.

Yes it is.
It might pick back up once people get bored.
But there is a good chance some creationist will either create another bogus attack thread or will hijack a thread to help strengthen their weak faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

The story of Genesis is allegory. It was written by people that did not have the same knowledge of the world that is available to you and I.

I have spent the last 35 years studying and researching biology. There is no reason to reject what I have learned and to do so without valid reason would be lying to myself. Since I also believe in God, I would have to reject that belief if it were demanded that I must maintain it based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Since belief is not predicated on that, I can consider it allegory and all is well.

Just to note, and I ask you how would you be a Christian (by that I mean to believe what Christ spoke)?

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept that you are Christian. You may have knowledge that I do not possess or even understand. I know that I have only a basic understanding of physics and there are atheists on here that know considerably more about the subject and may have forgotten more than I will know, but that does not have any impact on my beliefs. It neither makes your personal position on belief greater or lesser than my own. Where we can speak to those things arises in the claims that others make. For instance, claiming that physical laws were different 5,000 years ago is meaningless and empty when that fact cannot be demonstrated. It is merely one person's belief and has no bearing on conclusions based on evidence than my childhood admiration of Andrew Jackson does.

Laws are laws, but again, how do you fit God in with those laws (physical, not moral laws for this discussion). I'm just wondering how you claim to be a Christian, on what basis? Is there a God and what is his role, if you believe He has any?

 

[McBell]

Laws are laws, but again, how do you fit God in with those laws (physical, not moral laws for this discussion). I'm just wondering how you claim to be a Christian, on what basis? Is there a God and what is his role, if you believe He has any?

That is a most interesting question.
On what basis do you claim to be a Christian?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just to note, and I ask you how would you be a Christian (by that I mean to believe what Christ spoke)?

Anything specific?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Laws are laws, but again, how do you fit God in with those laws (physical, not moral laws for this discussion). I'm just wondering how you claim to be a Christian, on what basis? Is there a God and what is his role, if you believe He has any?

His role would be the same as it always has been. It is our understanding of it that is different. My basis is the same as any Christians. I believe based on faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a most interesting question.
On what basis do you claim to be a Christian?

He claims it, so I have nothing else to go on. It is good enough for me, since I do not have the ability to know.

 

[YoursTrue]

His role would be the same as it always has been. It is our understanding of it that is different. My basis is the same as any Christians. I believe based on faith.

So does your faith lead you to believe that Moses existed, for instance? Because Jesus certainly spoke of him.

He claims it, so I have nothing else to go on. It is good enough for me, since I do not have the ability to know.

Rather than ask you why you choose what you say is Christianity rather than Hinduism, I will ask if you believe Jesus existed? Because you claim to be Christian, but you say it's based on faith, so there are two questions I have in order to understand. Do you believe Jesus existed, and why do you have faith in what you call Christianity rather than Hinduism?

 

[YoursTrue]

He claims it, so I have nothing else to go on. It is good enough for me, since I do not have the ability to know.

Well, in order for me to understand the mindset of someone like yourself who claims to be a Christian, yet believes strongly in evolution, I have more questions.
Right now I wonder if you, claiming to be a Christian, actually believe the history written at Matthew chapter one, which goes into the genealogy of Jesus Christ.