On Evolution & Creation

[Audie]

The basic principles of evolution are perfectly simple.
Living things reproduce themselves.
The members of a descendant generation are not identical to their parents or to one another. The organisms that possess variations that make them better adapted to their environment and therefore more likely to reproduce will pass on these variations to their descendants; organisms that are less well adapted to their environment will not have descendant to inherit their variations.
Environments are always changing.
Over thousands or tens of thousands of generations, small beneficial variations will accumulate sufficiently to produce new species.

Have you learnt these basic principles? If not, why not?

How could anyone possibly not know?

 

[Audie]

Show me one language that produced a different language.

Go to Singapore and regard the development of Singlish.
But it has three parent languages lah.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would recommend something more didatic.

I think it was Quagmire who once recommended edx courses. This may be of use.

Syllabus | ANTH207x | edX

courses.edx.org

Not unless someone like yourself or Quagmire can answer questions as the particular website is being read. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

More examples of observed speciation:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

Chimps don't give birth to humans. Wolves don't give birth to poodles. Latin speakers didn't give birth to French speakers.
The changes are s-l-o-w; small changes over multiple generations, eventually accumulating into an organism quite different from the original.

Very good! Chimps do not give birth to humans. Excellent! Also, chimps being so closely related to humans do not have publications and testing regarding the process of evolution and/or abiogenesis. Among other things.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of from, for example, fish to apes. I am willing to look at the evidence you adhere to if you can show the absolute transfer from (for example) fish through the multitudinous changes over the many years to apes. And answer questions about the formation that supposedly happened.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not unless someone like yourself or Quagmire can answer questions as the particular website is being read. Thanks.

I'm not following. Why would you take such a stance?

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of from, for example, fish to apes.

You are either lying outright or suffering from misguided pride that makes you reckless and foolish.

Which is it?

 

[Valjean]

How could anyone possibly not know?

Willful ignorance. Refusal to see or consider contrary evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are either lying outright or suffering from misguided pride that makes you reckless and foolish.

Which is it?

So go ahead and show it...

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not following. Why would you take such a stance?

If you cannot answer questions regarding the information in any website you are citing, then it is very likely you do not have any answer regarding why scientists say what they do. So instead of arguing over it, why not choose a website that you personally like and believe, and we'll discuss it and if I have any questions about what is said there, perhaps you can answer them. OK? Otherwise, (1) don't bother, and (2) it is taken that you do not know or understand why the scientists are saying what they are saying. So which one of those websites you have read do you want to get started on?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not following. Why would you take such a stance?

You are recommending certain information. If you cannot explain it upon my examination and questions, why should I believe what is stated on the website? Beyond that, there's really nothing to discuss, because you are not willing to look with exactitude and answers as to what is being said. Nothing difficult about it except somehow I see you're not willing to answer. That's ok. By this time it's expected. I say that with regret because you and others like you are so ensconced in your ideas that you really cannot explain them. I have gotten used to it. Thanks, though.

 

[John53]

I'm not following. Why would you take such a stance?

If I were a suspicious person it would be my opinion that there is no desire to try and understand anything, only a desire to regurgitate nonsense from watch tower publications.

I guess I must be a suspicious person because I googled watch tower + evolution and came across much of the stuff I've seen including the harassment of Christians who agree with evolution.

"Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching."

 

[YoursTrue]

It doesn't have a 'theory', in any scientific sense. It has claims, but the claims have no more evidentiary backing than the claims about Thor or Athena.
Where does the Bible provide any observable or testable evidence for this God?

The sad part, in my opinion, is that you don't see the evidence. But that's where I basically stop for now for going beyond that is -- not feasible right now. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

If I were a suspicious person it would be my opinion that there is no desire to try and understand anything, only a desire to regurgitate nonsense from watch tower publications.

I guess I must be a suspicious person because I googled watch tower + evolution and came across much of the stuff I've seen including the harassment of Christians who agree with evolution.

"Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching."

So I can only figure that you do not want to examine Evolution 101 together with me, is that right? And since you are the one believing in the theory, I would expect and hope you can answer questions as we go along with the information on Evolution 101. I was kind of hoping for it, but I guess not.

 

[Valjean]

Very good! Chimps do not give birth to humans. Excellent! Also, chimps being so closely related to humans do not have publications and testing regarding the process of evolution and/or abiogenesis. Among other things.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of from, for example, fish to apes. I am willing to look at the evidence you adhere to if you can show the absolute transfer from (for example) fish through the multitudinous changes over the many years to apes. And answer questions about the formation that supposedly happened.

Much of this is just flat-out wrong, YT. The theory of evolution hasn't become the foundational principle of all Biology by there being "nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of."
You've been shown the evidence, been linked to it, and had it explained to you countless times, right here on RF, and apparently it evaporates completely in short order, if it was ever incorporated into the paradigm in the first place.
Knowledge is built on previous knowledge, like a tower raised brick by brick. If you don't incorporate facts into your understanding to support later facts, nothing will ever be raised or understood.

This is why people are reluctant to assist you in your readings. Nothing seems to sink in.

Scroll to 1.45:

 

[Argentbear]

Very good! Chimps do not give birth to humans. Excellent! Also, chimps being so closely related to humans do not have publications and testing regarding the process of evolution and/or abiogenesis. Among other things.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of from, for example, fish to apes. I am willing to look at the evidence you adhere to if you can show the absolute transfer from (for example) fish through the multitudinous changes over the many years to apes. And answer questions about the formation that supposedly happened.

please, enough with the games, you aren't willing to look at evidence at all

 

[John53]

So I can only figure that you do not want to examine Evolution 101 together with me, is that right? And since you are the one believing in the theory, I would expect and hope you can answer questions as we go along with the information on Evolution 101. I was kind of hoping for it, but I guess not.

I offered a discussion with simple terms... you declined. Not sure what else you need to know? Your reply to my offer said it all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Much of this is just flat-out wrong, YT. The theory of evolution hasn't become the foundational principle of all Biology by there being "nothing, absolutely nothing to show/demonstrate/evidence these really slow small changes spoken of."
You've been shown the evidence, been linked to it, and had it explained to you countless times, right here on RF, and apparently it evaporates completely in short order, if it was ever understood in the first place.
Knowledge is built on previous knowledge, like a tower raised brick by brick. If you don't incorporate facts into your understanding to support later facts, nothing will ever be raised or understood.

This is why people are reluctant to assist you in your readings. Nothing seems to sink in.

Scroll to 1.45:

In all honesty and fairness, you say that I've been shown the evidence for the theory of evolution to be considered true, I suppose, in all educational fairness, why not just provide some verifiable evidence again and answer questions about it? Since you're the believer, and I have questions. If you and others are unwilling to do that -- well, that's ok, and we can hopefully stop here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I offered a discussion with simple terms... you declined. Not sure what else you need to know? Your reply to my offer said it all.

In other words, there is an apparent need for an excuse why useful information that would lead to greater understanding is rejected. And apparently coupled with the need to place the blame for that choice on others instead of placing it where it clearly belongs in the person making that demand to begin with.

It boggles the mind how this is a logical and rational way to go about things, but I've learned that it is not uncommon. I definitely don't recognize it as Christian or biblical.

 

[YoursTrue]

I offered a discussion with simple terms... you declined. Not sure what else you need to know? Your reply to my offer said it all.

I do not recall that I declined. I am willing to try. Maybe I just did not read your invitation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not everyone is a Caleb, @YoursTrue