New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[SkepticThinker]

Every creature has genetic differences, just as every grain of sand and every snowflake is different--praise God! When you consider how many grains of sand there are...

Yes, we have genetic diversity, which is required for evolution to occur.

Are you saying that god creates every single individual grain of sand and every single snowflake?

... My children are different than me genetically, which does not mean they are regressing or progressing to become closer to non-homo sapiens!

There is no regressing and progressing in evolution in the way you are speaking of it. There is change. Too many random changes would have to occur in exactly the same way for one creature to turn back into another (like a dog turning into cat). I guess it's possible, but I doubt it's very likely.

I think you are misusing "transition" in the Darwinian sense. Perhaps I misunderstand your point?

I'm just trying to point out that small genetic changes add up to large changes over time. In that sense, everything is an intermediary form. The types of transitional forms you are talking about (on larger scales) exist in the fossil record as well. But I'm trying to point out the connection between the small changes and the large ones and how it's just a long, continual process.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your purpose seems to be to argue that biblical science is so eerily prophetic and prescient that we should attribute its authorship to a source with what would have been super-human knowledge at the time the words were written. Is that correct?

If that comment is incorrect or incomplete, would you please modify it so that it expresses your larger point accurately.

Close! Define "biblical science". The Bible is a religious and not a scientific test. Yet it contains numerous scientific accuracy points, some of which were only verified in the past century or so. Further, it is an uncanny predictor of human behavior, politics, religion including Judaism, Christianity and other religions, modern Israel, etc., etc., etc. - the Bible was written by a super-intelligent source, yes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because the required changes would be first, regressive back to the common ancestor, and then have to follow the same mutations to get to dogs. While not strictly impossible, it is incredibly unlikely.

Once a line branches, the separate branches don't re-unite.

You have to prove the lines of descent first. The lines of descent are "proven" mostly by fossil similarities and not by DNA!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No the verses are past tense. Even stretches does not indicate it is currently happening only that it happened during the verses time-frame. For example I am stretching a towel now does not mean I am stretching it in 10 years

How many of these are in the past tense, would you say?

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is that you are discussing a very small change in the gene pool of the human race in the case of your children compared to their parents, and they might not be in the direction that the human race will eventually evolve. In that sense, you might say that your children are not transitional forms.

But if their differences offer survival advantages that are selected for and eventually establish themselves in the human genome, then they will have been transitional forms.

And you might have one of each type of child: one an intermediate in the direction that the species is evolving, and one an experiment in evolution that doesn't establish itself.

The concept makes more sense when discussing large populations over multiple generations. That's the scale being considered when examining fossils

There is little or no genetic comparison made among fossils.

There is no present evidence of any transition on Earth now. Macro-evolution is the search for a mechanistic alternative to a creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are talking about millions of specific, directed mutations, each of which has to confer a selective advantage. I think the tornado in the junkyard has a better chance constructing its 747 (Hoyle's fallacy)



I don't see that. Isn't faith based thinking the essence of closed-mindedness? It's the refusal to consider reason and/or evidence.

Maybe we should define our terms. Open-mindedness, to me, is the willingness to examine new evidence impartially combined with the willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. A person that makes decisions based on reason and evidence is doing just that.

A faith based thinker does the opposite. During the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, each was asked by the moderator what would cause him to change his mind about a matter. Nye answered evidence. Ham said that he wouldn't believe anything that contradicted his understanding of scripture.

Those two epitomize open- and closed-mindedness. Which of those does SkepticThinker most resemble, and which is more like you?

I am willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. So are you.

I consider myself a rationalist who tries as much as possible to go by logic and math rather than feelings and magic. So do you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Two people have tried to harm me in my adult life, both unjustly and unprovoked, neither succeeded. I don't know either any more, I never attempted to avenge their perfidy, I was never their enemies, and I am indifferent about them, having no emotion response to the thought of either. What would you have done differently that you are calling loving an enemy?

To me, those are just empty words that mean no more than to not harbor resentment or seek revenge (restitution is not revenge). Should I have sent them flowers? Put their kids through college?

And whatever you would do, how is that evidence for a god?

The desire I have to bless my enemies, rather that "having no emotion response", is a prompting of God's Spirit.

Martyrs who asked for God to richly bless the people who beat them to death, while they beat them, were also motivated by God's Spirit.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe that, but not your report about Hitchens. There is too much evidence to suggest that Hitchens would never make such a comment, and just your recollection to the contrary.

But here's me being open-minded like many other skeptics here: Show the evidence, and I'll say, "Well look at that! I was wrong." Don't, and I will continue to reject the claim just as I reject your claim that you experience a god, a claim that I also consider sincere, but also a misinterpretation of your psychological state.

I don't understand. You are saying ALL of my experience regarding God is a state(s) of my mind? God leaves His fingerprints in many places. The Bible is replete with them. I would say I have "evidence demanding a verdict".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you think such behaviours and kindnesses are strictly limited to Christians/Christianity? I don't see this dichotomy you're presenting here where the only explanation is that these people are either crazy or the Christian god must be real. Maybe they're just caring people, as many of us are. Maybe they respect the man for his ideas and oratory skills, and his championing of human rights enough to ignore his views on religion. Maybe they're following the dictates of their religious group. But, even if they are, that still doesn't point to the existence of any god(s). I don't see how you're drawing that connection.

Hitchens has also spoken and written about other people claiming to be Christians who have written him letters and emails wishing him ill will and suggesting that god is punishing him for speaking out about religion. What do we make of those?

I don't see how the ability to send love to someone you don't like when they are in need, is any kind of evidence for any god. It's evidence that humans have the ability to do so.

Do YOU love your enemies? That would be evidence that this power to love is not solely Christian.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes it would. What's the best piece of evidence you've got?

I'm asking you--what is the kind of evidence you require? I've seen different pieces of evidence affect different people at different times and in different ways, leading to their conversion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, we have genetic diversity, which is required for evolution to occur.

Are you saying that god creates every single individual grain of sand and every single snowflake?



There is no regressing and progressing in evolution in the way you are speaking of it. There is change. Too many random changes would have to occur in exactly the same way for one creature to turn back into another (like a dog turning into cat). I guess it's possible, but I doubt it's very likely.
I'm just trying to point out that small genetic changes add up to large changes over time. In that sense, everything is an intermediary form. The types of transitional forms you are talking about (on larger scales) exist in the fossil record as well. But I'm trying to point out the connection between the small changes and the large ones and how it's just a long, continual process.

God created the mechanisms by which all snowflakes are different, and grains of sand, and we wonder about many of these things. God left signatures, if you will, of design everywhere.

What you saying regarding evolution is not new information to me. It is all assumptive, however. I understand "many little changes can result in larger aggregate changes" but remain unconvinced.

 

[Jose Fly]

The Bible is a religious and not a scientific test. Yet it contains numerous scientific accuracy points, some of which were only verified in the past century or so.

This talking point that's common across most religion makes no sense. It's essentially "Our holy book said X, centuries before science discovered X to be true."

If that were true, then why weren't adherents to that religion running around telling everyone that X was true, before science discovered it? Why is it only after science makes a discovery that the adherents turn up and declare "Oh....um.....our holy book says that too"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Close! Define "biblical science". The Bible is a religious and not a scientific test.

Biblical science refers to the descriptions of the way nature formed and how it works found in the Bible.

Yet it contains numerous scientific accuracy points, some of which were only verified in the past century or so.

The Bible's track record for scientific accuracy is very poor.

Furthermore, none of it is useful.

Further, it is an uncanny predictor of human behavior, politics, religion including Judaism, Christianity and other religions, modern Israel, etc., etc., etc. - the Bible was written by a super-intelligent source, yes.

I don't see it. The Bible seems just like what you would expect of Bronze age men. What should a book written by a super-human intelligence look like?

Here's one take on that:

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

Here's another (from RG Ingersoll):

• It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

• It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

• It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

• There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

• Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

• Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired

• It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

• It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

• It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

• It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

• It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have to prove the lines of descent first. The lines of descent are "proven" mostly by fossil similarities and not by DNA!

The lines of descent are irrelevant to validity of the theory. We don't know which hominan (sic) fossils are ancestral, and which are branches from our line. If the distinction isn't clear, by analogy, our fathers and great-grandmothers are our ancestors, but our aunts, uncles, and their descendants are not. Is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) more or a grandmother or great-aunt?

We don't know yet, and don't need to know to that they . However that story plays out - however that tree looks - the theory will remain intact.all descended from a common ancestral ape.

Furthermore, nothing needs to be proven. You should try to assimilate that idea. It's not science's role to prove anything.

It's role is to observe nature and draw useful conclusions about it. The conclusions are tentative, and usually incomplete, meaning that they can expanded.

If you can offer a better interpretation of those fossils - one that better predicts what can and cannot be found in nature and can be put to more use than the scientific one, please share it.

If not, shouldn't we stick with what works best?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"many little changes can result in larger aggregate changes"

Far from being convincing, this extrapolation, which worked fine within a Victorian age understanding, has been soundly debunked scientifically if not academically

All lines of evidence show this not to be the case re. natural history, the abrupt appearances and stasis revealed by the fossil record, direct experimentation on living animals, be it flies/ bacteria/ dogs-
and the nested hierarchical structure of DNA

Adaptation is strictly limited within specific parameters

eye color, beak size, hair density etc can be tweaked using specific variables in the digital code of DNA, just as the color and size of text in our posts here-

But these little changes can never re-write the software that supports them and create an entirely new software application, i.e. it's not just a matter of scale but a logical impossibility inherent to adaptable information systems like this-

not something anyone could understand 150 years ago.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is little or no genetic comparison made among fossils.

True. Fossils are mostly compared morphologically and by age.

There is no present evidence of any transition on Earth now.

That is incorrect. There is a plethora of evidence for ongoing evolution, even in human beings.

Macro-evolution is the search for a mechanistic alternative to a creation.

Evolution is the proposed mechanism to account for the diversity and commonality seen in the tree of life and outperforms creationism in every way.

Creationism is not scientific (testable or falsifiable), predicts nothing, has no supporting evidence, explains nothing, and offers no mechanism. It's simply an idea that is of no help. That's why it was replaced by the scientific theory, which is the opposite in every one of those ways.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't faith based thinking the essence of closed-mindedness? It's the refusal to consider reason and/or evidence.

Maybe we should define our terms. Open-mindedness, to me, is the willingness to examine new evidence impartially combined with the willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. A person that makes decisions based on reason and evidence is doing just that.

A faith based thinker does the opposite. During the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, each was asked by the moderator what would cause him to change his mind about a matter. Nye answered evidence. Ham said that he wouldn't believe anything that contradicted his understanding of scripture.

Those two epitomize open- and closed-mindedness. Which of those does SkepticThinker most resemble, and which is more like you?

I am willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. So are you.

I consider myself a rationalist who tries as much as possible to go by logic and math rather than feelings and magic. So do you.

With all due respect, your position in the creation-evolution discussion is faith based. It cannot be arrived at by looking at the evidence open-mindedly, which accounts for there being so many atheist evolutionary sciences and interested, educated lay people. You came to it through faith, not evidence, and no evidence could move you from it.

Isn't that correct?

If you disagree, please tell me what, assuming hypothetically that you have it wrong, could possibly convince you of that.

Also, how does creationism differ from magic?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The desire I have to bless my enemies, rather that "having no emotion response", is a prompting of God's Spirit.

Martyrs who asked for God to richly bless the people who beat them to death, while they beat them, were also motivated by God's Spirit.

You have a habit of ignoring questions asked of you. When called on it, you apologize and ask which question. Last time, I went and found it for you. But not this time.

In your post above, you failed to acknowledge let alone answer the multiple questions asked of you. I will assume that that is because as I suggested, "love your enemies" is an empty phrase, and that Christians do mo more in that area than anybody else. That was my point, and when you don't address the questions asked to establish it, you tacitly concede the point.

If that's not what you intend to do or how you want to be perceived, please make the effort to cooperate. You can begin by following the arrow links back to my post that you answered with the above, re-reading it, and answering the questions this time.

Incidentally, I don't see how asking a god to bless the enemy beating you to death is a virtue, but there appears to be no point in asking you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are saying ALL of my experience regarding God is a state(s) of my mind?

Yes. My position is that people who say that they feel God feel themselves. People saying that they speak with God are having internal conversations with themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This talking point that's common across most religion makes no sense. It's essentially "Our holy book said X, centuries before science discovered X to be true."

If that were true, then why weren't adherents to that religion running around telling everyone that X was true, before science discovered it? Why is it only after science makes a discovery that the adherents turn up and declare "Oh....um.....our holy book says that too"?

Have you noticed that when the believer says, "See, we got something right," it's a tacit admission that science, not the Bible, is authoritative in these matters even in the minds of believers?

Someone who considered the Bible authoritative would say that science only got one thing right - that the universe had a beginning - but failed to identify the six days of creation or the manufacturing of mankind from dust and a rib.

But nobody says that. They struggle to make scripture conform to the science and ignore or rationalize the parts of the Bible that don't work.

I've got a good illustration of your after-the-fact observation. One guy told me that the Bible foretold of modern telecommunications by citing a scripture from Job : "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" - Job 38:35

Of course, nobody had a clue that "lightnings" could be used to communicate until man discovered the science and technology of telecommunications. Nobody thought to study "lightnings" to see how to make them say "Here we are." Yet this is offered as evidence of divine knowledge.

And frankly, what are the odds that in a 750,000+ word book you couldn't find a handful of sentences that can be retrofitted after the fact to mildly suggest the scientific revelation like this "stretching the heavens like a tent" for expansion of the universe and "hanging the earth on nothing" for an earth not supported by pillars from below? Forget that this tent is still stretching, has no outside, and offers no shelter, and that the earth is not hanging.