Irony of the evolutionary belief

[MikeF]

Our species can only reason circularly. All other species before the tower of babel saw reality in terms of knowledge and processed information in a four dimensional brain/ body. We can see only our beliefs forcing our one dimensional train of thought into spirals, circles, and mobius strips.

Not sure if this is meant to be literal or poetic, either way, I can't see a way of establishing some common ground on this, as we seem to have had up to this point, so I'll leave the conversation here.

Have a great rest of your day.

 

[cladking]

Not sure if this is meant to be literal or poetic, either way, I can't see a way of establishing some common ground on this, as we seem to have had up to this point, so I'll leave the conversation here.

Surely you agree that animals and oak trees don't think like us?

Do you agree they are conscious at all?

Wouldn't you agree that we must think in terms that are familiar to us?

You may be right about not being able to establish common ground so I'll understand if you don't address these questions.


However I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why the fittest parents don't produce the fittest off spring and what evidence there is for survival of the fittest to lead to gradual change in species which is still contrary to observation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Surely you agree that animals and oak trees don't think like us?

Do you agree they are conscious at all?

Wouldn't you agree that we must think in terms that are familiar to us?

You may be right about not being able to establish common ground so I'll understand if you don't address these questions.


However I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why the fittest parents don't produce the fittest off spring and what evidence there is for survival of the fittest to lead to gradual change in species which is still contrary to observation.

It has been explained to you numerous times and you wave it away or ignore it entirely.

Evidence for evolution has been consistently provided only to see it ignored.

Why can't you provide the evidence that others ask of you? Sudden change. Darwin's assumptions. Etc., etc., etc.

I'll understand that you continue to ignore all of this, considering it contradicts pretty much everything you post.

 

[gnostic]

Surely you agree that animals and oak trees don't think like us?

oak trees, or any other trees, don’t think, period. Such absurdity.

but since are claimant to claim that oak trees can think, then can you support your claim with evidence, or cite some scientific sources or studies that show data of thinking trees?

 

[gnostic]

It has been explained to you numerous times and you wave it away or ignore it entirely.

Evidence for evolution has been consistently provided only to see it ignored.

Why can't you provide the evidence that others ask of you? Sudden change. Darwin's assumptions. Etc., etc., etc.

I'll understand that you continue to ignore all of this, considering it contradicts pretty much everything you post.

yep.

he will never admit he is wrong, and often ignore them when he has been corrected.

Surely you agree that animals and oak trees don't think like us?

Thinking oak trees…that’s new absurdity.

@cladking still evading his error that herbivore beavers built dam to farm and eat fishes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Other than a few wild claims outside of science, fitness has never been proposed as a cause of evolution. It is an outcome of the variation of genotypes in a population in response to the environment. I've only seen one person make this claim here and the level of understanding of science from that source is dubious at best.

Fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of individuals and populations that quantifies the response of a genotype to the selection of the environment in the number of successful reproductions. Some genotypes have a greater propensity to be reproduced than others do in a given environment.

If a mutation leads to a phenotype of increased susceptibility to a disease, then the presence of that disease in the population would limit the reproductive success of any member of the population with that increased susceptibility. Down to zero in some cases. Unfortunately, organisms, including humans, are not equally fit. Or perhaps for the population, fortunately, since equal susceptibility to a mortality factor could very likely mean extinction.

Regarding the environment, it is all the abiotic and biotic components experienced by an individual and a population. And includes the internal as well as the external. It is not merely the weather or the climate, but does include those.

Accidents do happen and chance events can remove the more fit, fit and least fit without regard to fitness. In the words of John Maynard Smith, "If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky."

A defect in a gene that results in a three-legged rabbit would likely render that rabbit less fit and for an obvious reason. A rabbit with this genotype and phenotype would more than likely suffer a fitness deficit in a number of environments where rabbits are otherwise successfully able to exist.

 

[Eli G]

Evolution is a myth.

Adaptability and variations in animal species is the most normal thing that everyone can see in the creation of God. They do not make a new species of an old one, but a new family inside the species ... as happens with human beings and our ability to adapt and changes in our bodies; We will never stop being human because of that... just as we were never apes, nor did apes ever stop being apes, despite the variety of the apes that exist and may have existed before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is a myth.

Adaptability and variations in animal species is the most normal thing that everyone can see in the creation of God. They do not make a new species of an old one, but a new family inside the species ... as happens with human beings and our ability to adapt and changes in our bodies; We will never stop being human because of that... just as we were never apes, nor did apes ever stop being apes, despite the variety of the apes that exist and may have existed before.

Sorry, but you have zero understanding of biology. We are apes. You cannot name any significant biological difference between you and other apes. Our DNA tells us that without a doubt that we are related to other apes.

Your understanding of evolution is a bit faulty because organisms do not evolve out of their heritage. I know this is hard to understand for you, but since all of the scientific evidence is extremely clear the only way that the Adam and Eve myth and the Noah's Ark myth could be true is if God was a liar. If God is not a liar then Genesis needs to be read as morality tales or fables. They teach a lesson. So they still fulfill the "God breathed" verse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is a myth.

Adaptability and variations in animal species is the most normal thing that everyone can see in the creation of God.

How is common and regular observation of anything evidence it was created?

They do not make a new species of an old one,

That is correct. New species arise from pre-existing species through a process of evolution and pre-existing species may or may not go extinct.

but a new family inside the species

This doesn't make sense without defining what you mean "family". In taxonomy and from the evidence a family is a larger group of related species. In that context, what you say here makes no sense.

... as happens with human beings and our ability to adapt and changes in our bodies

Again, this depends on what you mean by adaptation. There are several different mechanisms that are commonly described by the general public as adaptation. Regarding the evolution of populations, it is genetic adaptation that is occuring.

; We will never stop being human because of that...

We won't stop being human. We already exist as humans. It is certainly possible that at some date in the distant future new species could evolve from ours and our species could go extinct. The evidence demonstrates that the species that exist today arose from previous species, most of which do not currently exist.

just as we were never apes,

We are apes.

nor did apes ever stop being apes

And fish are still fish. So what. The theory doesn't demand that a species just stop, because it has become an ancestor or part of a chain of common ancestry.

, despite the variety of the apes that exist and may have existed before.

And among that variety is Homo sapiens.

Why is there so much evidence that all points to and demonstrates evolution if the story in Genesis is an historical fact?

You cannot just wave it away by claiming same evidence, different interpretation. Because creationist interpretations rely on claims not in evidence that must also be demonstrated.

 

[Eli G]

Evolution is a myth.

You may consider yourself an ape, like some men consider themselves women, and women men... cool ... cool yourselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is a myth.

Evolution is a natural phenomenon with a scientific theory to explain it. It is observed. Myths are not observed.

You may consider yourself an ape, like some men consider themselves women, and women men... cool ... cool yourselves.

I consider myself an ape and all other people, including you to be apes. It is a description of our species and related species based on evidence.

Live in ignorance and denial for all I care. I just correct your errors with no expectation of reason or learning arising from the knowledge offered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is a myth.

You may consider yourself an ape, like some men consider themselves women, and women men... cool ... cool yourselves.

You're not even going to try to answer my question about the lack of any valid alternative explanation for the evidence that exists are you. No. I expect not.

 

[Eli G]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

Be real.

 

[John53]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

Be real.

Even if that were true what is your point? Creation has never been observed. God has never been observed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

Be real.

We have observed it in many ways. Of course if one has a wrong definition of evolution one can say that we never observed it. We can observe it in the fossil record. We can observe its effects in DNA, We can observe it in real life with organisms that evolve quickly.

One of the things that I try to get creationists to do when "debating" is for them to try to learn the concept of evidence. But they usually run away from learning what is and what is not evidence when it becomes obvious to them that there is endless evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for creationism.

One has to be a bit of a coward to be a creationist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution has never been observed.

Sure it has. Evidence accumulated over the last 200 years demonstrates the observations. Willful ignorance and denial doesn't change that.

The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place.

The term is "gradual change" and the evolution of species and larger taxonomic groups is seen to occur over long periods of time in many instances, but the mode of evolution is not limited to a specific duration and can occur rapidly as well under some conditions. A fact that has been observed in the evidence.

Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

It has been observed. Again, your ignorance of the subject is not evidence against it.

Be real.

I am real. I examine the evidence and come to my own conclusions and not that of some group of people that demand I look the other way and pretend it isn't there or that the evidence means something unsupportable.

Are emojis a requirement of your faith group?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

Be real.

Help me understand why someone would be so afraid of science and explanations of the natural world?

 

[Eli G]

Hehehe, afraid of science?

I'm impresed that some people who consider themselves "apes" called themselves "scientists" ...

I used to work in a psychiatric hospital, and a patient jumped off the roof because he said he was going to fly.

You can call yourself what you want ... leave me, and true science, out of your imagination.

 

[cladking]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

If it existed there would be lots of evidence but there is none. there would be many instances of slight changes in species over long periods but this is not seen. It's not that there are a lot of missing links so much as the entire "fossil record" is a missing link.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have observed it in many ways. Of course if one has a wrong definition of evolution one can say that we never observed it. We can observe it in the fossil record. We can observe its effects in DNA, We can observe it in real life with organisms that evolve quickly.

One of the things that I try to get creationists to do when "debating" is for them to try to learn the concept of evidence. But they usually run away from learning what is and what is not evidence when it becomes obvious to them that there is endless evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for creationism.

One has to be a bit of a coward to be a creationist.

After years of engaging with literalist creationist, which I take as your meaning of creationist here, I have come to the conclusion, well past overdue mind you, that there is no real interest in learning, genuine debate, or respect for what others have to say. So, I am transitioning to correction of the often fallacious, erroneous and empty claims and a few questions that I have no expectation will be answered. I offer them so that others can read them and see that they are not answered. Others can ponder or accumulate evidence for that failure in their own assessments.

The "drive by" popping in and out approach and not directly addressing my posts does not make me confident that there is much daring in their approach to this subject. The entire volume of encounters I have lead me to the conclusion that they are afraid of science, knowing its successes and even more afraid of Christians that accept science. After all, these debates occur in a medium purely resulting from the fruits of science and the application of those fruits to a user friendly technology.