Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

It is a view I cannot understand. To see doom and gloom everywhere and feel it is increasing and at the same time almost expressing joy for that fact. Happiness to spread gloom and doom while living a relatively peaceful life from which to launch proclamations of impending destruction. It's funny way to interpret the Bible. Honestly, I wish they had left Revelations out of the Bible when they were deciding what to include.

It is a view I cannot understand. To see doom and gloom everywhere and feel it is increasing and at the same time almost expressing joy for that fact. Happiness to spread gloom and doom while living a relatively peaceful life from which to launch proclamations of impending destruction. It's funny way to interpret the Bible. Honestly, I wish they had left Revelations out of the Bible when they were deciding what to include.

It’s a psychological issue.
Evidently one that afflicts unfortunate
people in every generation.

Theres a Babylonian clay tablet that
bemoans the fecklessness of todays youth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s a psychological issue.
Evidently one that afflicts unfortunate
people in every generation.

Theres a Babylonian clay tablet that
bemoans the fecklessness of todays youth.

I think so too. And one that is promoted more widely by certain group dynamics and ideology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Me neither. It's like living in a state of perpetual depression or something.

I think selectively self-fulfilling. If all you look for is gloom and doom. All you will see is gloom and doom. If you are part of a group that promotes that or else, then that is what you will see.

There's some really weird stuff in there.
I was briefly obsessed with the book of Revelation when I was around 10 years old, for some reason.

It is a fascinating book, but one that is probably used to support every sort of wild and dark idea that comes down the pike. Christian nationalists like it for promoting a warrior Christ that will make America great again. Others make all sorts of things out of the symbolism that is a veiled condemnation of Rome of the time.

At best, it tells us that empires rise and fall. Otherwise, it is a prediction that giant, humanoid insects using helicopters and tanks will destroy us all. Or so some interpret.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t see “doom everywhere”. I’m not naïve tho, either.

“Science continues to progress”… I agree with that. The medical field has made some great advancements.

But some things science has discovered, many times, has been abused by man’s greed… The discovery of burning fossil fuels to aid industry is a prime example.

It’s funny in a way… you mention “climate change awareness”, but you seem to conveniently ignore what is adding to the situation that led to the need to be aware.

Climate change is a serious problem…. Not good.

And the “pushback on abuse” you said means you recognize there is abuse that needs attention.

Abuse is on the rise, it’s not decreasing…Drug abuse is rampant. Emotional & mental anguish is worse than ever. And more families are falling apart.

There is a good thing coming, though… one thing you’ll probably love:
the destruction of “Babylon the Great” (religion that misleads), by the political elements in this world (the “Scarlet colored Wild Beast”), Revelation chapters 17 & 18.

You and many others will enjoy that.

Correction, mental anguish is not worse. It has always existed. It is better analyzed and treated now. It seems worse only because we are more aware of it..

 

[Tomef]

I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

You inspired me to write you a nice song:

Reality is bad! Reality is bad!
yes it is YES it is
yes it is yes it is
yes it is yes it is
It's bad!

My nonsense world is Good! My nonsense world is good!
yes it is YES it is
yes it is yes it is
yes it is yes it is
It's good!

I feel this adequately captures the complexity and sophistication of your world view. No need to thank me! You can set the words to any tune you like.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture

These are both incorrect. We have mountains of supporting evidence for those claims.

But I wouldn't expect you to know what supports those conclusions, so for you, of course it's all guessing just you're guessing that a god is responsible.

There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarding all life arising from one common ancestor.

None for you, but there is for the educated.

You offer yourself as a standard or someone whose opinion should be taken seriously, but that's not going to happen as long as you keep making mistakes like these.

the Bible is not a science journal.

Yet that is where your "science" comes from.

The farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics. Sheesh.

Sheesh is right. You don't know enough about the science to be expressing opinions about it. Artificial selection is done by selecting individual organisms, not species. The rose or puppy that that is closer to one's goal is selected to breed is selected to breed with the previous closest. In this way, the gene pool is modified to include a greater frequency of desired alleles in a breeding subpopulation.

I'm no ape.

You don't know enough science for your opinions to be taken seriously. Man is unique among the apes for standing upright, not living in jungles or swinging through trees, being relatively hairless, intelligent enough to have language and technology, and being an omnivore, but none of that makes him not an ape from a biological perspective.

most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims

You believe ridiculous things, but the scientists don't. As I said, I wouldn't expect you to be able to distinguish between a sound, evidenced argument and a ridiculous claim. They look the same absent the necessary education.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

Nature doesn't select according to desire. It selects for fecundity

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?

Genetic variation is random, but selection is a non-random process acting on the results of a random process.

There is also the argument that the DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, the geographic column, etc, is solid evidence for the theory.

And it's a very strong claim. Evolution is considered the best evidenced of the scientific theories.

Consilience - "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects."

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that your doubt, which is faith-based, is unreasoned. This is the scientific consensus, and it's considered settled science within the community of evolutionary scientists. That creationists disagree is irrelevant. They aren't part of the discussion.

But don't feel picked on or that that is because you disagree with them. They also don't care about the opinions of the scientifically literate who happen to agree with them.

I find when evolution believers are confronted with their own data, the easiest thing they seem to do, is hide their eyes, and make statements that are basically... strawman..

The data is why the theory is considered correct beyond reasonable doubt.

According to scientists, "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," Thus... The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds. Seems there is a conflict with the data, but this is only one of many examples.

You don't seem to understand how science works, probably because unlike your faith, it is tethered to evidence. We accumulate new evidence. At any given stage, the narrative is the simplest account that unifies all relevant evidence at that time. When new evidence arises not adequately explained by the old narrative, it is modified to fit the new data set.

You seem to see that as a flaw of science.

I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators

You have a very confused concept of what is going on in science and how critical thinkers think. You want them to "admit" to your wrong ideas about what each is doing. Until you get it right, of course people will reject your words.

From your link:

"NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head. Dr Tan, along with four collaborators from Australia and Spain, examined 51 species of Australian leaf beetles in their natural habitats, and discovered that each beetle's colour pattern is similar to the host plants that the beetle lives on, suggesting that those conspicuous colours help the beetle blend in with the plants it inhabits."

That's how science works. With new evidence comes a new leading hypothesis. Before scientists were aware that the colors were camouflage, it was most likely that they were warnings to potential predators as is the case in much of the animal kingdom as with poisonous frogs. With new data, a new interpretation was called for. Hypotheses are always tentative.

Assumptions are not facts. That is my point.

You didn't need to make that point here, but you might tell your pastor that.

And assumption isn't really the correct word if it means believed as fact. Leading hypothesis is more correct. When there is more than one logically possible hypothesis and none can be ruled in or out, we keep them all although we order them according to likelihood and according to Occam's parsimony principle.

Are you not suggesting basically, that the OP is attacking the ToE, as though it will somehow make an argument for a creator God? I'm saying, no, that is not the case. What did I miss?

Your denial isn't credible. Nor is it accompanied by an alternative motive.

Of course the reason creationists attack the science is because it contradicts their faith-based beliefs, and since they have no argument in support of those beliefs, the hope is to undermine the science. If you weren't a creationist, you wouldn't have started this thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many celebrate Easter regarding the resurrection of Jesus and Christmas re: his birth by means of a virgin. Would you say those things are magic since some say that anything that appears not according to the deemed laws of nature in a religious sense must be 'magic.' So if you celebrate Easter and Christmas especially if you go to church -- would you say it's different from science as an answer? Or would you also say like some here do that it's magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many celebrate Easter regarding the resurrection of Jesus and Christmas re: his birth by means of a virgin. Would you say those things are magic since some say that anything that appears not according to the deemed laws of nature in a religious sense must be 'magic.' So if you celebrate Easter and Christmas especially if you go to church -- would you say it's different from science as an answer? Or would you also say like some here do that it's magic?

Yes, it probably never happened. It would fit the definition of "magic" if it did. The US is an excellent example of how quickly and strongly false beliefs can take hold. There are countless Republicans that still believe that Trump won in 2020. Just as there were likely many followers of Jesus that did not believe that he died. Since this was a Roman crucifixion his body would not have been taken down. Part of the punishment was to leave bodies up until they were far past the point of being recognizable. Within a week people would not have been able to tell who that was on the cross. The bodies left up were a very dire warning not to mess with the Roman government. By the way, the story has quite a few holes in it. John has his crucifixion happening on a different day at a different time. They all have different descriptions of what happened at the tomb. And like I said, the Romans did not take bodies down. They did not care about local religions when it came to crucifixions. Also mere thieves would not have been crucified. Crucifixion was the ultimate state crime and it took what the Romans considered to be the equivalent of January 6 for it to kick in.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is a view I cannot understand. To see doom and gloom everywhere and feel it is increasing and at the same time almost expressing joy for that fact.

In Jesus’ prophecy of the “Last Days” in Luke 21, He mentioned signs (indicating His coming / presence) like “wars and disturbances”, “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another food shortages and pestilences; and…..anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (The “sea” is the wicked people - Isaiah 57:20; and the “heavens” are the governments - Eph.3:10)
It is just like that today… people don’t know where to turn.

Jesus continues:
“But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.”

It's funny way to interpret the Bible.

It’s what the Bible says.

Honestly, I wish they had left Revelations out of the Bible when they were deciding what to include.

Why?

Revelation is the book (chaps.17 &18) that describes false religion as a Harlot, and informs us that it is going to be destroyed soon; that’s great! It has misled the nations long enough!

It’s also Revelation that tells us…”I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and He will reside with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them. And He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” - Revelation 21:3,4

That’s part of the “Good News of the Kingdom” that Jesus said would be preached “for a witness …; and then the end will come.” - Matthew 24:14

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just as there were likely many followers of Jesus that did not believe that he died. Since this was a Roman crucifixion his body would not have been taken down. Part of the punishment was to leave bodies up until they were far past the point of being recognizable. Within a week people would not have been able to tell who that was on the cross.

Yes, that would normally have been the case.

But the Romans were willing to appease the Jews. (Jewish religious customs required burying bodies quickly.)
The Romans had enough trouble on their hands. They didn’t want to add any more fuel to the growing rebellion among the Jews.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many celebrate Easter regarding the resurrection of Jesus and Christmas re: his birth by means of a virgin. Would you say those things are magic since some say that anything that appears not according to the deemed laws of nature in a religious sense must be 'magic.' So if you celebrate Easter and Christmas especially if you go to church -- would you say it's different from science as an answer? Or would you also say like some here do that it's magic?

I "celebrate" easter because of tradition, chocolate and because it's fun for the kids.

Easter over here is all about chocolate eggs and the easter bunny. Christian mythology actually never comes up.

 

[blü 2]

Speaking about creation vs. evolution, some churches say God was in Mary's. womb. Well, God-in-the-flesh anyway. Any church that teaches that is not one I would go to.

Would you go to a church teaching that Jesus was the ordinary son of a Jewish mother who had his sins washed away by John the Baptist, at which point and not earlier God adopted him as [his] son (Mark 1:10-11) as God had earlier adopted David as [his] son (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33)?

If not, why not?

 

[Tomef]

It is just like that today… people don’t know where to turn.

It's just like every period of history. In every generation there are some bunch of characters claiming ' the end is nigh'. There were people saying that 1000s of years ago, and every generation since. 'Coincidentally' the description also fits the time in which the book was actually written, to address the conditions of life for believers at the time. That's what it was written for, to fob off their present concerns with some gibberish about a coming messiah, in the same way as religious leaders have for their generation of the gullible ever since, over and over and over and over again, the same thing in slightly different guises.

People do indeed know where to turn - towards dealing with reality. Fortunately for the future of humankind, the number of people taken in by such meaningless drivel about gods coming on clouds and smiting everything into oblivion is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. The more people abandon such idiotic notions and focus on doing useful things, the better.

 

[Audie]

I "celebrate" easter because of tradition, chocolate and because it's fun for the kids.

Easter over here is all about chocolate eggs and the easter bunny. Christian mythology actually never comes up.

Like Christmas in Hong Kong

 

[YoursTrue]

In Jesus’ prophecy of the “Last Days” in Luke 21, He mentioned signs (indicating His coming / presence) like “wars and disturbances”, “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another food shortages and pestilences; and…..anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (The “sea” is the wicked people - Isaiah 57:20; and the “heavens” are the governments - Eph.3:10)
It is just like that today… people don’t know where to turn.

Jesus continues:
“But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.”

It’s what the Bible says.

Why?

Revelation is the book (chaps.17 &18) that describes false religion as a Harlot, and informs us that it is going to be destroyed soon; that’s great! It has misled the nations long enough!

It’s also Revelation that tells us…”I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and He will reside with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them. And He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” - Revelation 21:3,4
T
That’s part of the “Good News of the Kingdom” that Jesus said would be preached “for a witness …; and then the end will come.” - Matthew 24:14

As far as "doom and gloom" goes -- I wonder just how happy people are whose family members were killed or homes were destroyed lately in the hurricane. How happy are those who are persecuted -- oh course, Jesus did say to rejoice when being persecuted...and yes, it is a blessing. Just like some would celebrate Christmas, claiming to be Christian, yet not believing that Jesus was born to a virgin they refuse to acknowledge that God's kingdom, under the rulership of Jesus Christ, is going to manifest itself way beyond any threats we may have in various ways. Thank you, HC, for your post here. For the promise of God's Kingdom many of us are very happy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like Christmas in Hong Kong

Right. Many celebrate these things and go to church but do not believe Jesus was born of a virgin. There are those who claim to be Christian and go to church but believe in evolution, and not miracles such a as Jesus being born to a virgin and healing the sick, lame and blind. That's "magic" some say. And they "believe" in evolution, therefore -- the Christmas story they take part in is a fantasy but makes them possibly feel good, I suppose. Others pray what is known as the "Lord's Prayer," but prove false to its words. Thank you so much for answering! It helps. I really appreciate it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I "celebrate" easter because of tradition, chocolate and because it's fun for the kids.

Easter over here is all about chocolate eggs and the easter bunny. Christian mythology actually never comes up.

Excellent! You get an A+ for being honest here, while others hide behind cloaks. Going to church, maybe even mouthing the Lord's Prayer if said in church. Yes -- I wonder how the Pope and other church-goers believe in Jesus born of a virgin while believing in evolution, healing the sick, going to heaven -- as a "myth" or "magic," you think, logically of course...Ah, thank you!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that would normally have been the case.

But the Romans were willing to appease the Jews. (Jewish religious customs required burying bodies quickly.)
The Romans had enough trouble on their hands. They didn’t want to add any more fuel to the growing rebellion among the Jews.

Yes, the Jews interaction with the Romans is an interesting account.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's just like every period of history. In every generation there are some bunch of characters claiming ' the end is nigh'. There were people saying that 1000s of years ago, and every generation since. 'Coincidentally' the description also fits the time in which the book was actually written, to address the conditions of life for believers at the time. That's what it was written for, to fob off their present concerns with some gibberish about a coming messiah, in the same way as religious leaders have for their generation of the gullible ever since, over and over and over and over again, the same thing in slightly different guises.

People do indeed know where to turn - towards dealing with reality. Fortunately for the future of humankind, the number of people taken in by such meaningless drivel about gods coming on clouds and smiting everything into oblivion is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. The more people abandon such idiotic notions and focus on doing useful things, the better.

In any event, I don't believe God wants Christians to be so cheerful about gloom and doom. I can't see God wanting Christians so excited at what the consider to be the demise of so many that are not saved. Some groups don't seem to consider anyone not them to be Christian or have a snowballs chance and seem pretty arrogant and happy about it to me. According to them, they know when it will all happen too. Oddly, the Bible says otherwise, but I guess those groups interpret these things as they see fit and decide that's how it is for everyone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Excellent! You get an A+ for being honest here, while others hide behind cloaks. Going to church, maybe even mouthing the Lord's Prayer if said in church. Yes -- I wonder how the Pope and other church-goers believe in Jesus born of a virgin while believing in evolution, healing the sick, going to heaven -- as a "myth" or "magic," you think, logically of course...Ah, thank you!!!

Here's a hint....

On precisely the subject of evolution vs creationism, the pope once said: "God is not a wizard with a magic wand".
As for the rest... I'm pretty sure the Pope (and devout catholics) believe in the virgin birth, jesus as a miracle worker, etc.