• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
@YoursTrue
The ToE is not a big mess but it is highly complex in its details. On top of that, there are many hypotheses. But this is the characteristic of not only all scientific fields but also serious theology, which includes Christianity. That's why there are so many debates and discussion within Christianity itself.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Why isn't the desciption in Genesis accurate? It has already been said that it is not a science textbook, but it lays out a very distinct systematic unfolding of life on the earth as scientists recognize. First, nothing was on the earth. It was barren and void. That has been discussed with you that the Bible is NOT a science textbook. But the question really is: How do you think Moses knew that? Did he figure somehow the green grass, the animals, humans were "always there"? Tell me why you don't think that Moses didn't figure the earth was ALWAYS filled with vegetation and animal life. After all, Moses was not a scientist either. But how did he know that humans were NOT always here? That bears were NOT always here? That plants were NOT always on the earth?

Why isn't it accurate? Well, as I pointed out in the last post, the writers didn't know anything anywhere close to what we have learned about the world today. That would probably be the reason.
I know endless posters have already provided you with point by point details as to how Genesis got it wrong, so I won't be rehashing that.

I've already pointed out to you that there is no evidence that Moses ever existed in the first place. I've already also pointed out to you that the Ancient Greeks believed that the universe was once a state of nothingness called "Chaos" from which the ancestral mother, Gaia emerged and started creating gods to create other things. How do you think they "knew" that? Were the ancient Greeks divinely inspired by Zeus to know that? Or do you think they were doing what everyone else has done in history and just tried their best to explain where everything came from with the limited knowledge available to them at the time?

Furthermore, considering your statement that everything we know about the universe or world we live in is because of diligent scientists, this type of science has only been going on for a relatively short period of time, while "mankind," or homo sapiens have supposedly been around for at least 70,000 years by the timetable of evolutionary process?? Pretty fast development, want to tell me why? I love hearing those arguments about beintg food gatherers and the like during those almost 100,000 years, so they couldn't figure their way out of that type of thinking until lately. So be a nice person and tell me why it's only been a relatively SHORT PERIOD of time that humans have development scientific instruments and ability to follow up on these things? And by the way, still can't figure in reality how life all started. That question is one that evoluitionists like to shove aside.

I fail to see what this has to do with the point.

If you're asking me why didn't humans write anything down for a really long time? Well, for starters, they probably didn't have time. Most of their time to think much about it as they would have been consumed with hunting and gathering food to prepare for colder months and really just trying to survive overall.

You do realize that the Bible was transmitted orally long before it was ever written down, right?

And the latest developments were only in more recent time, like the past 150 years. Yet MANKIND is supposedly around for -- really more than 70,000 years considering which species one is talking about?? And gorillas have not as of yet invented a telescope. Maybe you think they will some day? Maybe you think, but don't know, if gorillas have been around a longer or shorter time than homo sapiens? Considering you think humans and gorillas are apes.
Yes, the latest developments came right during the thick of the scientific and industrial revolutions. Funny thing, eh?

I don't know what you think gorillas inventing telescopes has to do with anything at all.

Yes, humans are apes. Gorillas are apes. That's according to the scientific classifications we currently use. The same one you probably accept when talking about say, different kinds of birds or dogs perhaps. But for some reason you have to shut your brain down when it comes to recognizing obvious genetic relationships between humans and other animals like the great apes.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No scientist that is married to the theory of evolution will say, well, it's all been a fraud, a big mistake.
Scientists aren't married to anything. They follow where the evidence leads. That's what it's all about.

Also, as I just pointed out, the articles you provided don't falsify evolution or show it to be a "big mistake" in any sense of the words. As I just pointed out, what you keep pointing out is new information that slightly changes a small part of what scientists understand about a certain aspect of evolution, but never negates it or shows the theory of evolution to be fraudulent. Is that what you thought those articles were talking about?

There are ways to falsify evolution. But maybe you should ask yourself why nobody has ever done so, in the over 150+ years since it was first proposed. Do you have any idea how famous someone would become if they could falsify the theory of evolution? That would be a Nobel Prize-worthy event that would turn biology on its head.

But, as you said, some honest ones are saying, it's all a big mess, as they consider the discoveries and analysis. And from looking at the so-called evidence (which is NOT the ToE), it IS just that. A big mess once one comes to the realization. :)
OK, I have things to do, it's been interesting talking to you. Thanks for the conversation.
No, you said they're saying it's all a "big mess." What I said is that the details can get complicated.

I'm sorry but you don't appear to understand what evidence is to begin with. Your own views of the world are not evidence-based.

Glad you thought my not-funny post was funny though. I see you're really taking the time to take in and learn information you don't understand. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
OK, so it seems, if I'm understanding the term atheist correctly, that an atheist does not say there IS NO GOD, (or gods that he can't see or considers divine), but that he says he doesn't BELIEVE in God. Do you agree?
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I gave you more than one link.
Wiki??? You would be lost without wiki lol

Try this one
Type 3 hybrids are fertile and there is recombination during gametogenesis allowing introgression in further generations. Non-human-induced hybridization represents hybrids naturally found in nature, in which evolutionary opportunities arise when hybrids are fertile.


Harmonizing hybridization dissonance in conservation.
You posted links that you did not understand and the simple Wiki link refuted you.

It is incorrect to claim that Ligers are "fertile" in the sense that you are using the word. Males are sterile. Females have very limited fertility. It is a breeding dead end. You are just grasping at straws, the sort of action that a creationist often takes.


Ernst Mayr is credited with developing the modern biological definition of species:

:A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other geographically or ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or hybridize wherever they are in contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the populations) in those cases where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers

The reason that Ligers and Tigons fail is that they are of limited fertility. The males are sterile. I can quote the Wiki article, I can quote other sources. The females may have babies but they tend to be rather frail. The Wiki article mentions two, count 'em two examples of a liger or a tigon having offspring:

The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one of the two sexes is absent, rare or sterile, it will be the heterogametic sex. Male ligers are consequently sterile, while female ligers are not.

Ligers and tigons were long thought to be totally sterile. However, in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an island tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[24]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[25]


There have been hundreds of ligers and tigons over the years since it was found that they could interbreed and only two offspring of either tigons or ligers. Offspring that would not have survived in the wild. They are two far past the speciation event for them to interbreed the way that dogs and wolves can do. Or that even wolves and coyotes can. By the way, this sort of "fuzzy" definition of species is what is expected if evolution is correct and cannot be explained by creationism.

As two populations separate the two groups will first tend not to interbreed merely because of coloration differences and other minor changes. Technically they are still the same species at this point because the hybrid offspring will be fully fertile. Dogs and wolves are an excellent example of this. Most of the times the two will kill each other in the wild, but sometimes they will breed. Given more time as separation continues fertility problems begin to arise in breeding between when members of the two different groups mate. Given enough time it gets past the point of no return. Tigers and Lions are past that point. They can be forced to breed, but only the female offspring are fertile and their fertility is extremely limited and does not appear to produce young that would reach adulthood in the wild. Given a bit more time and we have the case of the horse and donkey which produce mules which are almost always sterile. I say almost always because I am sure of at least one and there is probably two known cases of a fertile jenny. The males again are sterile. But that is in a period of over two thousand years. If there is even more time no offspring are produced.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What was the "last species" to evolve, according to the theory?
Speciation is still continuing today. There is no "last species" that has evolved.

Too many creationists think of the species that we have right now as goals. They are not goals, they are merely results. And new results occur all of the time.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
:) C'mon, you're kidding. I don't deny science, but genetics is NOT the ToE. If anything, it supports creation. OK, I said I have things to do and I do. Perhaps later.
No, no. I am sorry, but this merits a facepalm. You are denying science. That is the problem. And there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism.

As I have pointed out before you do not understand the concept of evidence. Scientific evidence is very well defined because scientists know that they are not perfect and that there will be people that deny reality and say "That is not evidence". As a result they came up with this:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That is from Wikipedia, but I can find many other science based sources that give the same definition.

As you see to even have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific theory or hypothesis. You should know that there is no "Theory of creationism" since that would require a broad range of support. And it would need to be testable. The support of creationism is limited to a very very few people in the sciences and they cannot seem to do any science when it comes to that concept. So it fails as a "theory" on just the support part. But it also fails because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis.

You can confirm this yourself. Here is how:

Tell me, what reasonable test, based upon the merits of creationism and not the supposed failure of other ideas could possibly refute the idea.

In a shorter form: "What test could show creationism to be wrong?" No cheating with false versions of evolution. It must be based upon creationism itself.

If you cannot think of a proper test then it is not even a hypothesis and therefore it has no supporting evidence. It is just an ad hoc explanation.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That question doesn't really make sense.
It doesn't? Let me rephrase then. Is there any other species or kind that has evolved, according to the theory, since humans came from that "Last Unknown Common Ancestor"? If you would like further clarification on of the question, let me know.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Speciation is still continuing today. There is no "last species" that has evolved.

Too many creationists think of the species that we have right now as goals. They are not goals, they are merely results. And new results occur all of the time.
New species from humans?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, no. I am sorry, but this merits a facepalm. You are denying science. That is the problem. And there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism.

As I have pointed out before you do not understand the concept of evidence. Scientific evidence is very well defined because scientists know that they are not perfect and that there will be people that deny reality and say "That is not evidence". As a result they came up with this:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That is from Wikipedia, but I can find many other science based sources that give the same definition.

As you see to even have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific theory or hypothesis. You should know that there is no "Theory of creationism" since that would require a broad range of support. And it would need to be testable. The support of creationism is limited to a very very few people in the sciences and they cannot seem to do any science when it comes to that concept. So it fails as a "theory" on just the support part. But it also fails because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis.

You can confirm this yourself. Here is how:

Tell me, what reasonable test, based upon the merits of creationism and not the supposed failure of other ideas could possibly refute the idea.

In a shorter form: "What test could show creationism to be wrong?" No cheating with false versions of evolution. It must be based upon creationism itself.

If you cannot think of a proper test then it is not even a hypothesis and therefore it has no supporting evidence. It is just an ad hoc explanation.
Say what you will, unless I am wrong, looking at and analyzing family genetics is not guessing. But now that you mentioned it, maybe it is, based on similarities and suppositions.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, no. I am sorry, but this merits a facepalm. You are denying science. That is the problem. And there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism.

As I have pointed out before you do not understand the concept of evidence. Scientific evidence is very well defined because scientists know that they are not perfect and that there will be people that deny reality and say "That is not evidence". As a result they came up with this:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That is from Wikipedia, but I can find many other science based sources that give the same definition.

As you see to even have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific theory or hypothesis. You should know that there is no "Theory of creationism" since that would require a broad range of support. And it would need to be testable. The support of creationism is limited to a very very few people in the sciences and they cannot seem to do any science when it comes to that concept. So it fails as a "theory" on just the support part. But it also fails because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis.

You can confirm this yourself. Here is how:

Tell me, what reasonable test, based upon the merits of creationism and not the supposed failure of other ideas could possibly refute the idea.

In a shorter form: "What test could show creationism to be wrong?" No cheating with false versions of evolution. It must be based upon creationism itself.

If you cannot think of a proper test then it is not even a hypothesis and therefore it has no supporting evidence. It is just an ad hoc explanation.
To say that God did not use similar elements in creation if he wills is denying reality, logic and reason. He could have yes, designed what he wanted to, using similar but not exactly the same genes, just like building a house uses similar items.
Again and ... again,,,there is no proof of evolution. Not one mineral, not one atom, or gene proves evolution.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
New species from humans?
Why not? If two populations of humans were isolated from each other for long enough they would likely undergo speciation. They would both still be Homo sapiens, but they would be different species of Homo sapiens.

Part of our problem with labeling species is that it is still based to a great extent on a system that was not based upon evolution.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Say what you will, unless I am wrong, looking at and analyzing family genetics is not guessing. But now that you mentioned it, maybe it is, based on similarities and suppositions.
Neither is it guessing to conclude that we are related to other apes. It is the same science, the same logic, the same evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
To say that God did not use similar elements in creation if he wills is denying reality, logic and reason. He could have yes, designed what he wanted to, using similar but not exactly the same genes, just like building a house uses similar items.
Again and ... again,,,there is no proof of evolution. Not one mineral, not one atom, or gene proves evolution.
You are making the error of trying to tell God how he had to create life. Life itself tells us a totally different story. The Bible never says or even implies that it is literally true. And since all of the evidence supports evolution and God would have had to plant false evidence, a form of lying, if the creation myths of the Bible are true, then if God can't lie a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be correct.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It doesn't? Let me rephrase then. Is there any other species or kind that has evolved, according to the theory, since humans came from that "Last Unknown Common Ancestor"? If you would like further clarification on of the question, let me know.
You mean the "Last Common Ancestor". And the last common ancestor with what? When it comes to humans the "Last Common Ancestor" of all humans would be much more recent than either mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam. But even in that relatively short time period there have been new species formed of other animals. Examples of recent speciation are discovered almost every year.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why not? If two populations of humans were isolated from each other for long enough they would likely undergo speciation. They would both still be Homo sapiens, but they would be different species of Homo sapiens.

Part of our problem with labeling species is that it is still based to a great extent on a system that was not based upon evolution.
OK, I see what you're saying. So let me rephrase or ask in a slightly different way. Are you saying that in the "line of descent" as categorized by Darwin and his supporters, evolution FROM humans becoming a different type of ape (such as gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, all as categorized as coming from an "Unknown Common Ancestor."? If so, please explain or delineate. I mean like you're saying that something, somehow in the homo sapien type will go extinct, or that those with dark skin or light skin will become another species if separated long enough?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You mean the "Last Common Ancestor". And the last common ancestor with what? When it comes to humans the "Last Common Ancestor" of all humans would be much more recent than either mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam. But even in that relatively short time period there have been new species formed of other animals. Examples of recent speciation are discovered almost every year.
According to what I understand, apes remain apes. Gorillas still remain gorillas. (Fish remain fish.) The rest is conjecture regarding evolution as in discovering fossil remains. No proof of evolving from disosaurs to birds.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
OK, I see what you're saying. So let me rephrase or ask in a slightly different way. Are you saying that in the "line of descent" as categorized by Darwin and his supporters, evolution FROM humans becoming a different type of ape (such as gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, all as categorized as coming from an "Unknown Common Ancestor."? If so, please explain or delineate. I mean like you're saying that something, somehow in the homo sapien type will go extinct, or that those with dark skin or light skin will become another species if separated long enough?
If you separate any two population of the same species long enough they will evolve to the point where they can no longer interbreed. We see all sorts of examples of that in all stages. So if you separated different populations of humans long enough you would have at least two different species of humans.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
According to what I understand, apes remain apes. Gorillas still remain gorillas. (Fish remain fish.) The rest is conjecture regarding evolution as in discovering fossil remains. No proof of evolving from disosaurs to birds.
You almost sound like you are getting it and then you demonstrate that you do not. Never ever say "no evidence" when it comes to evolution because you simply do not know if there is evidence or not. And birds are dinosaurs. The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct a 65 million years ago. The only dinosaurs that survived were the birds:

Bird - Wikipedia

Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only living dinosaurs.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If you separate any two population of the same species long enough they will evolve to the point where they can no longer interbreed. We see all sorts of examples of that in all stages. So if you separated different populations of humans long enough you would have at least two different species of humans.
So again -- you believe that the present population (or type) of homo sapiens will evolve to -- another type of homo sapien or something different but closely connected to homo sapiens. Right? I mean maybe eventually they could develop wings? Or legs like kangaroos? I'm not being particularly funny, those are serious questions for you to consider.
Apprise me, please. I don't remember, maybe you can help in a few words. Are Neanderthals considered "homo sapiens"?
 
Last edited:
Top