Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

My position is different from everyone; both sides of the issue. The Atheists want to lump my unique angles as Right wing bias, since it is not 100% their party line.

But your views ARE right wing bias. Don't blame others for what you decided to believe. It's like blaming black people for why you're in the KKK.

The Creationists are less judgmental even though I also depart from their party line.

This doesn't match what I observe.

 

[YoursTrue]

We'll leave it to you, then, to explain why whales have vestigial hip bones.

"For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land. But now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction"

Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[YoursTrue]

We'll leave it to you, then, to explain why whales have vestigial hip bones.

"For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land. But now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction"

Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[wellwisher]

well, that‘s paragraph was a load of crap.

within the theory itself, there are no mentions of any religion or of any god, and there are not even allusions to any part of the scriptures.

What you seeing as debates, have nothing to do with the theory itself, because the theory of evolution is completely neutral with regards to religions - the debates are happening outside of the theory.

if you pick up any university biology textbooks, the focus are all on the organisms that showed diversity among populations, and they happened genetically. There are no “for or against” religions or religious beliefs (there are no sides), because those subjects are outside of the scopes of textbooks, because religion aren’t relevant in biology textbooks.

There are no attempts in this biology textbooks to refute or to disprove God or gods, because the existence of any deity isn’t relevant.

But it isn’t just biology. Physics, chemistry, earth sciences and astronomy, none of their respective textbooks teach anything about god or about religion, because they are also outside the scopes of the respective science textbooks.

sure, there are debates, but they are happening outside the studies in biology.

if you want to study religion at any university, then find classes in theology, or culture studies that include the history of religions and the roles they played in societies. If religion have any role in science at university, then it would be in Social Sciences, not in Natural Sciences.

The problems are with Natural Sciences, the problems are with some theists, particularly creationists, who think their religions and scriptures are essential in natural sciences, that they have to push their personal beliefs into studies and researches of sciences.

But you have read the Bible, particularly Genes 1 & 2. Does it EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT LIFE, ABOUT THE BIOLOGY OF LIVING ORGANISMS.

As the real focus of Genesis creation were about creation of humans, so what explanation does Genesis have to explain Adam and Eve - like their anatomy, as in how they work? Can Genesis how the brains, or lungs, or hearts or their sex organs are structured and how they each functioned? What are muscles, organs or bones are made of?

Saying that Adam was magically created from dust, and not from reproduction and not from being born - that’s not explanation, Genesis 2:7 is a fairytale, a myth, a fiction. It has no value at all, add nothing to scientific knowledge.

Christian Creationism - whether it be OEC or YEC or Intelligent Design - they are just superstitions with no factual knowledge and no basis in reality - they are pretension, window-dressings for their religions.

The black box math of dice and cards is where the religion aspect comes in. As an example of this effect, we have yet to find hard tangible proof of life on other planets. Science needs hard proof. The data we do have, says that there is only hard proof for life on earth.

However, to those who dabble in the black box sciences, they will use the black box math as a substitute for hard data; calculate the odds to define proof in their Black box religion. You can deny this being a religion, since this is done in the dark, where no face of any god can be seen; political loophole. Science has rigorous data criteria, that separates black box wishful thinking, from tangible reality.

Can you explain why evolution is the only area of science that constantly engages religion? This is a religious war, due to black box darkness causing the imagination to fill in the blanks, all with low evidence standards. The word "risk", can be one in a million, but can manipulate and be used to stampede the other 999,999. Black box games is why science has a data standard.

The fossil data that is available is good, but the massaging of the data, in the dark, is where the problem begins.

In rational science, if someone could show one data point where Einstein's relativity breaks down, this theory would come into question. In the land of dice and cards, the data does not even have to hit the curves, since that is drawn last. Einstein theory is tight and can make predictions with a tight tolerance. Evolution cannot make quantitative predictions; subjective picture.

The effect is similar to the spiritual person seeing God in the beauty of nature, while the Evolutionist will see evolution in the beauty of nature; sensory expectations. Black box science expects to find life on other planets; one data point can outweigh a million duds.

 

[Pogo]

Curious - what drove you away from the Unitarian church? I was just reading about their beliefs on wiki and find them very interesting.

Not driven away, drifted away, I highly recommend it if you are a spiritual thinking person but still to much woo for a curmudgeon like me.

We covenant to:
Be together in community, guided by love and respect.
Be open, friendly, and welcoming to all.
Be engaged in congregational life.
Communicate compassionately, directly, and honestly.
Listen deeply and kindly to each other.
Believe in others’ best intentions.
Support and inspire each other’s quest for truth and meaning
Acknowledge, respect, and value our differences.
Work to serve our community’s shared goals.

 

[Pogo]

"For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land. But now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction"

Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

www.smithsonianmag.com

Yup, that's vestigial, largely lost its original function which does not mean that it has no function or even a function unrelated to its original function.
Makes sense in evolutionary terms and this is an example of the continued discoveries that science makes possible by not being dogmatic.

 

[gnostic]

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

Neither Genesis 1, nor 2, have “not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions…” of author or authors writing during the time of Babylonian Exile, post-586 BCE, where plants (Genesis 1:11-12 & 2:8-9), fishes (1:20-22) & birds (1:20-22 & 2:19-20), and land animals (1:24-25 & 2:19-20) - including humans (1:26-27), were all created from nothing…meaning, not by reproduction.

Supernaturally, non-living soil (or dust of the ground) have magically transformed into a living adult human male (Adam, 2:7). While woman was created from Adam’s rib, after land animals & birds). Again, no reproduction & no birth for any life in Genesis 2, just like that in Genesis 1, unnatural creation.

And no one observed any of these events as narrated in Genesis 1 & 2, just 2 different creation myths, most likely borrowed from Babylonian literature of much older Mesopotamian religion, which predated all known biblical writings.

The Jewish creation & flood myths actually show borrowing (or more precisely, “adapting“) Neo-Babylonian myths, except that these versions can be traced back to older Akkadian texts (2nd millennium BCE, eg Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, Enūma Elis, Epic of Gilgamesh (where flood hero is known as Utnapishtim), etc), to even older clay tablets of Sumerian religion (3rd millennium BCE, eg Enki & Ninmah, Song of the Hoe, Eridu Genesis, Death of Bilgames (Sumerian name for Gilgamesh; this poem only mentioned Ziusudra & the Flood, with Ziusudra being a Sumerian name for Utnapishtim), and many more myths.

In the long history of Mesopotamian religion & storytelling, the soil type are usually of clay.

Even in Egypt, there are numbers of creation myths, in which humans were made from soil, including the myth of Khnum, a god who humans from clay & water, moulding them into shape on his pottery wheel:

There are no observations of god or designer…you cannot measure them…and you cannot test them.

And btw, fossils are evidence, regardless if you you accept them or not…you simply don’t have the “know-how” to determine if analyse the fossils…you are not biologist, and you are certainly not a paleontologist, so your rejection of Evolution, is based solely on your religion-agenda bias (in favour of Creationism), and your ignorance how they test fossils in the biological fields.

plus, fossils are not the only evidence, and certainly not the strongest evidence.

But with our current technology , you can test DNA of living organisms, you can find how they are related, species-wise, because through DNA testing, they can estimate roughly WHEN the divergence into two or more species.

 

[Димитар]

Whether Einstein or Newton, sedimentation and coalescence of matter into structures is still an effect of gravity, don't forget that large mass we call earth warping locally around tiny particles.

Yes , i agree.

However don't forget Dark Energy.

'The properties of dark matter affect how the Universe evolved, like how galaxies form and grow as well as how they clump together to form the largest structure in the Universe: the cosmic web.'

How Does Dark Matter Affect the Evolution of the Universe? | Rubin Observatory

rubinobservatory.org

 

[leroy]

No it isn't. If you look at this serioes of numbers you can see a pattern:

5 7 8 9 13 15 16 18 20 22 23 24 27 29 31 33 34 36 37 40 42 44 45 46 48 49 51

What you creationists are claiming is that since there are numbers missing that no one can determine a pattern. You are demanding that all the numbers be presented for anyone to claim that a pattern exists.

And there are hundreds of thousands of these kinds of patterns in the fossil record, all of which are consistent with each other.

So you are victim of creationist fraud that tries to minimize the vast number of examples which show a distinct pattern of evolution all over the planet. Creationism works to break down the number of fossils to smaller examples, and then tries to diminish the fossil lineage because there is not a complete sequence of examples. You perpetuate fraud. That's on you.

Take for example all the intermediates between land and flying mammals...... Consider all the transitional species + the evolutionary dead ends.

Isn't it strange and unpredicted that few if any intermediate fossils have been found ?

Both flying and land mammals are common in the fossil record .... So what makes the intermediates so scare?

The answer is we don't know, but this is not a big of a deal. We still have strong evidence for evolution........if you would suggest a different answer please share it.

 

[Pogo]

Yes , i agree.

However don't forget Dark Energy.

'The properties of dark matter affect how the Universe evolved, like how galaxies form and grow as well as how they clump together to form the largest structure in the Universe: the cosmic web.'

How Does Dark Matter Affect the Evolution of the Universe? | Rubin Observatory

rubinobservatory.org

OK, much ado about very little, dangers of pop-sci posts.

 

[Pogo]

Take for example all the intermediates between land and flying mammals...... Consider all the transitional species + the evolutionary dead ends.

Isn't it strange and unpredicted that few if any intermediate fossils have been found ?

Both flying and land mammals are common in the fossil record .... So what makes the intermediates so scare?

The answer is we don't know, but this is not a big of a deal. We still have strong evidence for evolution........if you would suggest a different answer please share it.

Bats, the only truly flying land mammal fossils are rare.

Due to the nature of powered flight, bats are pretty fragile animals. One needs to be relatively lightweight to be a successful flier, therefore most bats are relatively small and delicate creatures. As you can imagine, animals that are fragile and airborne have a relatively low chance of fossilizing. Adding to this, bats also tend to live and roost in caves and trees which are areas that are not very conducive for fossilization. Due to these factors, fossil bats are pretty rare, so this was a pretty cool discovery.

 

[Димитар]

OK, much ado about very little, dangers of pop-sci posts.

Well i think that it may be oversimplified , which can mislead if it's not done well , but it is not psuedoscience unless it's based on incorrect or poorly done Science.

So I have no issue with complex science being 'dumbed down' to a certain extent, as long as the actual message isn't tampered with.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup, that's vestigial, largely lost its original function which does not mean that it has no function or even a function unrelated to its original function.
Makes sense in evolutionary terms and this is an example of the continued discoveries that science makes possible by not being dogmatic.

So what scientists say in textbooks can be changed in a subsequent year's edition. Kind of like the theory or proclamations about the theory, such as vestigial parts. And there is no recording of a a whale evolving to a land animal or going back from a land animal, and now scientists declare that ok, it does serve a purpose after all, we just didn't know that before someone else figured it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted I dont understand your strawman version of the argument

LOL! You do not get to claim "strawman" just because you are using an incorrect version of the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you need to set aside your Atheist religion before you can see the forest through the trees. There are much smarter people that you and I debating this issue, why don't you take advantage of their knowledge and wisdom and have a look at their work.

Then you may be qualified to comment on the subject, as it is now, you're just having an emotional, irrational, reaction to being exposed.

You would greatly benefit by checking out; answersingenesis.com and creation.com

Those are pseudoscience sources. It is too bad that you know so little of the sciences that you can be misled by those liars for Jesus.

Are you interested in learning or do you prefer to look foolish when you claim that your own God is a liar?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, much ado about very little, dangers of pop-sci posts.

Similar to the universe could have come from -- nothing...OR it could have come from nothing but gravity -- or it could have come from a powerful mass that exploded...

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Here's one: https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm#:~:text=Sediment is carried from the,basins (Fisher, 1984).

And that is about volcanoclastic rocks. It is not about volcanic ash. You keep conflating deposits of volcanic ash and now even basalt with these. I know, you are looking for lame and at times apparently dishonest excuses to ignore dating using volcanic rocks. But volcanic ash is not volcanoclastic. The names are similar but they are not the same thing:

"Volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks are the products of volcanic rocks by weathering, transportation, and redeposition and mostly occur near the interaction zone of volcanic cones and lacustrine water bodies or around volcanic islands. "

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/volcaniclastic#:~:text=Volcaniclastic%20sedimentary%20rocks%20are%20the,bodies%20or%20around%20volcanic%20islands.

And I know, it can be confusing because in ways volcanic ash is "sedimentary" because it is made up of fine particles, but it also clearly igneous when it comes to dating purposes. It can be dated because any one layer of volcanic ash is of all the same age. That is shown by the fact that when one dates it the dates will be all of the same age. That is as long as you do not do something stupid, like creationists tend to do.

"Volcanic ash: the igneous sediment[edit | edit source]
Volcanic ash is, obviously, an igneous rock: it comes out of volcanoes, and you can hardly get more igneous than that. As such, you might be surprised to find an article on volcanic ash dropped into a chapter which is otherwise about sediment and sedimentary rocks. However, in many ways volcanic ash behaves like a sediment. As geologists say, it's "igneous when it goes up, and sedimentary when it comes down."

Historical Geology/Volcanic ash - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

en.wikibooks.org

Once again, we can accurately date volcanic ash because it has one source. Just do not make the mistake of dating xenocrysts or xenoliths and you will get an accurate date.

 

[leroy]

LOL! You do not get to claim "strawman" just because you are using an incorrect version of the argument.

Well I am not affirming the argument that you are objecting to. .... So end of end of discussion

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I am not affirming the argument that you are objecting to. .... So end of end of discussion

You do not get to define your own terms. That is not how language works.

 

[Pogo]

So what scientists say in textbooks can be changed in a subsequent year's edition. Kind of like the theory or proclamations about the theory, such as vestigial parts. And there is no recording of a a whale evolving to a land animal or going back from a land animal, and now scientists declare that ok, it does serve a purpose after all, we just didn't know that before someone else figured it out.

No, you are just repeating strawman anti-evolution arguments without thinking