On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Obviously not. What a strange thing to say. That was over 50 years ago. Why would you expect present day science textbooks to ignore 50 years of scientific progress?


So a scientific idea that was once accepted was taught in textbooks, then it was shown to be wrong and following that it no longer is in textbooks.

What's your point?

Are you also going to complain that physics textbooks didn't teach relativity before Einstein came up with it?

I am stating that what was taught as truth to people in general has sometimes changed. Thus what was taught as true and accepted without question from many does not always hold as true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, are you saying that what was taught by means of textbooks as true in 1970 is still the same today in textbooks? You might want to do some research starting with Haeckel's theory that has since been negated but was taught as truth not that long ago.

No, Haeckel did not have a "theory". His work fell far short of that. But as usual you are confused You are conflating evo-devo with recapitulation. They look the same to the uneducated, but they are quite different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am stating that what was taught as truth to people in general has sometimes changed. Thus what was taught as true and accepted without question from many does not always hold as true.

Please show when they ever taught recapitulation in the last fifty years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am stating that what was taught as truth to people in general has sometimes changed.

You didn't show that at all.
You merely mentioned an idea that was once somewhat accepted which was then later rejected.
I don't even know if textbooks even mentioned this idea, but I'll go ahead and assume it did.
You haven't shown textbooks presented this idea as "truth". That is just another claim of yours.
To show it was presented as such, you will be required to actually cite textbooks and quote it word for word.

Thus what was taught as true and accepted without question from many does not always hold as true.

Obviously it wasn't accepted without question, since if it wasn't questioned then it wouldn't be rejected today....

 

[Astrophile]

Where's the backup? You can't see because -- it's -- not == there for our eyes to "see." Genes are there -- bones are there -- fossils are there -- brains of various sizes are there -- but those things do not verify lifeforms via the process of the theory of evolution. Nope. I am thankful or that.

In your opinion, what evidence would verify the theory of evolution? Your attitude reminds me of the words of Abraham to the rich man in Luke 16:31. (Of course, fossils have 'risen from the dead', but you still do not accept evolution.)

 

[Astrophile]

You didn't show that at all.
You merely mentioned an idea that was once somewhat accepted which was then later rejected.
I don't even know if textbooks even mentioned this idea, but I'll go ahead and assume it did.
You haven't shown textbooks presented this idea as "truth". That is just another claim of yours.
To show it was presented as such, you will be required to actually cite textbooks and quote it word for word.



Obviously it wasn't accepted without question, since if it wasn't questioned then it wouldn't be rejected today....

When I started studying science, in the late 1950s and 1960s, the books that I borrowed from the library treated Haeckel's theory of recapitulation as at best rather doubtful, and not something to be accepted uncritically. One of my books (Evolution and Its Modern Critics), which was published in 1937, adopted the same attitude. Other books on evolution that I bought during the late 1970s and 1980s barely mentioned Haeckel, or mentioned him in different contexts from his recapitulation theory. American text-books may have been different from British ones - Haeckel fell out of favour in Britain after World War I - but I should be surprised to learn that his recapitulation theory was still being taught as fact during the 1970s even in the USA.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In your opinion, what evidence would verify the theory of evolution? Your attitude reminds me of the words of Abraham to the rich man in Luke 16:31. (Of course, fossils have 'risen from the dead', but you still do not accept evolution.)

Each Spring I find plants have ' risen from the dead ', so to speak, but that is Not evolution, more like resurrection ( No evolution needed )

 

[YoursTrue]

In your opinion, what evidence would verify the theory of evolution? Your attitude reminds me of the words of Abraham to the rich man in Luke 16:31. (Of course, fossils have 'risen from the dead', but you still do not accept evolution.)

The evidence that would verify (for me) the theory of evolution would be the actual change-by-change in the organisms. I know this cannot be done and so scientists go by the theory using fossils, but at this point in my questioning of those here I see no cogent evidence surmising the transformation from, for instance, fish to apes. By that I mean more than looking at organisms and saying, "See? These water dwellers have four appendages, therefore that means they are in the line that evolved to apes..."

 

[Valjean]

The evidence that would verify (for me) the theory of evolution would be the actual change-by-change in the organisms. I know this cannot be done and so scientists go by the theory using fossils, but at this point in my questioning of those here I see no cogent evidence surmising the transformation from, for instance, fish to apes. By that I mean more than looking at organisms and saying, "See? These water dwellers have four appendages, therefore that means they are in the line that evolved to apes..."

It's been observed and recreated a million times! How it happens has been explained to you a hundred times!
You either don't understand it, refuse to learn it, deliberately dissemble, or have the memory of a goldfish.

I don't think anything would verify evolution for you. Magic creation is a fixed belief with you, that nothing can penetrate.
I believe your arguments here are either insincere or obtuse, and discussion seems futile.

 

[Pogo]

It's been observed and recreated a million times! How it happens has been explained to you a hundred times!
You either don't understand it, refuse to learn it, deliberately dissemble, or have the memory of a goldfish.

I don't think anything would verify evolution for you. Magic creation is a fixed belief with you, that nothing can penetrate. Y
I believe your arguments here are either insincere or obtuse, and discussion seems futile.

Don't be dissing on the Goldfish.

Do goldfish really have a 3-second memory?

The answer is a definitive NO.

www.livescience.com

 

[Audie]

Don't be dissing on the Goldfish.

Do goldfish really have a 3-second memory?

The answer is a definitive NO.

www.livescience.com

While at uni in the USA, I was in a dorm
room of a girl who had two goldfish.

Both of the fat body / huge fin sort,
that have to struggle so hard to swim.

I commented on the ethics of breeding
such fish, but she insisted they were from
the wild just as God made them.

Irrelevant to your post but in line with the elsewhere demonstrated
staggering ignorance of our religious friends.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Each Spring I find plants have ' risen from the dead ', so to speak, but that is Not evolution, more like resurrection ( No evolution needed )

Or more like breaking dormancy (evolution needed).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Or more like breaking dormancy (evolution needed).

Evolution needed ? or warm sun and rain to ' wake up ' the plants
Evolution needed or the warmth of the Son (JC) and his regulating the weather - Mark 4;39
Right conditions to resurrect (wake up bringing back to life) the dead on Resurrection Day
Resurrection Day meaning: Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for a thousand years

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Or more like breaking dormancy (evolution needed).

Interesting that you chose the word dormancy
Because thinking of being dormant we can connect that to sleep, deep sleep
In Scripture the dead are likened to being in a deep unconscious sleep - Psalm 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14
So, like a plant in winter the dead are sleeping, slumbering, comatose, inactive, inoperative and motionless
Resurrection ( breaking dormancy ) on Resurrection Day is like Spring's wake up call
Just more than Spring's weather because the sleeping dead will hear Jesus' voice to wake up again - John 5:28

 

[Valjean]

Evolution needed ? or warm sun and rain to ' wake up ' the plants
Evolution needed or the warmth of the Son (JC) and his regulating the weather - Mark 4;39
Right conditions to resurrect (wake up bringing back to life) the dead on Resurrection Day
Resurrection Day meaning: Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for a thousand years

What are you talking about? The form and capabilities of the plants are products of evolution. The plants evolved to survive the existing situation of Sun and warmth rain, &c.

Resurrection day? Where's the evidence of that? Till you find objective evidence all you have os folklore and tradition. It's all mythology, at this point.

Finally, what sort of correlation are you trying to illustrate?

 

[Valjean]

Interesting that you chose the word dormancy
Because thinking of being dormant we can connect that to sleep, deep sleep
In Scripture the dead are likened to being in a deep unconscious sleep - Psalm 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14
So, like a plant in winter the dead are sleeping, slumbering, comatose, inactive, inoperative and motionless
Resurrection ( breaking dormancy ) on Resurrection Day is like Spring's wake up call
Just more than Spring's weather because the sleeping dead will hear Jesus' voice to wake up again - John 5:28

So what's your point -- that some scripture reminds you of biological processes?
Are you trying to claim a correlation, pointing out some apophenic speculation, or just preaching??

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about? The form and capabilities of the plants are products of evolution. The plants evolved to survive the existing situation of Sun and warmth rain, &c.

Resurrection day? Where's the evidence of that? Till you find objective evidence all you have os folklore and tradition. It's all mythology, at this point.

Finally, what sort of correlation are you trying to illustrate?

Plants evolved to survive the existing situation of the sun rising, warmth, rain, etc.? Sounds very much instituted by a "Higher Power" to me...

 

[Pogo]

Plants evolved to survive the existing situation of the sun rising, warmth, rain, etc.? Sounds very much instituted by a "Higher Power" to me...

When you start with your conclusion and have no mechanism in between, we don't care beyond feeling sorry for your lack of curiosity.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Evolution needed ? or warm sun and rain to ' wake up ' the plants
Evolution needed or the warmth of the Son (JC) and his regulating the weather - Mark 4;39
Right conditions to resurrect (wake up bringing back to life) the dead on Resurrection Day
Resurrection Day meaning: Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth for a thousand years

As others above have pointed out, dormancy is an adaptive strategy used by some plant species to survive periods of cold. As with any selectively advantageous strategy, this is the result of natural selection.
Not sure about the relevance of your biblical quotes to explaining plant dormancy, though.

 

[Pogo]

Plants evolved to survive the existing situation of the sun rising, warmth, rain, etc.? Sounds very much instituted by a "Higher Power" to me...

everything does to you, every answer is the same higher power, now how about showing us what this higher power is and how it does any of these things that are to complicated for any other solution?