The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

IMO, evolution is just plain old common sense, in that it appears that all material objects tend to change over time, and both genes and life forms are material objects.

Yes! And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden".

You can't step into the same river twice but when it changes its course it is always sudden. There is no significant gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" that wasn't engineered in the lab. We see sudden change when we see it at all.

 

[rrobs]

All you are doing is demonstrating to us, that you refuses to learn, and making biased and ignorant judgement without understanding what you are arguing about.

I see this time and time again, creationists making threads and arguing from position ignorance or making circular rationalized assumptions about their belief in books (referring to Bible).

Like people who know little to nothing about the scriptures telling the score to those who do?

 

[rrobs]

How so?
This seems like some kind of post hoc fallacy.

What are the odds of someone presenting a scenario that nobody actually accepts or has put forth or believes and using that as a foundation to cast doubt?

Yes - well not the strawman version that you put forth.


I have to laugh when I see statements like this.

Do you really think that when we refer to "observation" in science we mean actually seeing a particular event?

I have never observed Mt. Vesuvius erupting. But I can look at the evidence (not the eyewitness testimony - that is not even necessary) and conclude that yes, Vesuvius erupted.

I have never directly observed DNA mutating, but I have observed the results of DNA sequencing and can "see" the mutations.

"Observe" does not mean what non-science folk think it does.

There is nothing in the scriptures that would preclude DNA mutations. However, you have not observed one genus becoming another. A cow (a population of cows to be precise) can have as many mutations as it wants, but it'll always be a cow, a different species, but a cow nonetheless. Any direct or indirect evidence that might suggest otherwise is incredibly scanty and nothing more than supposition.

Interestingly, Genesis says God made everything after it's "kind" which is the Greek word "genos" or genus. So far science has not observed anything that would prove otherwise.

 

[metis]

Yes! And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden".

You can't step into the same river twice but when it changes its course it is always sudden. There is no significant gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" that wasn't engineered in the lab. We see sudden change when we see it at all.

The rate of genetic changes are variable. For example, the ancestors of the shark have changed little in millions of years. OTOH, bacteria and viruses can change year to year or even less.

Generally speaking, smaller gene pools tend to change more quickly than larger ones, land forms more quickly than aquatic ones, lesser years of age more than older ones when they reproduce, harsher environments more than consistent environments, etc.

 

[rrobs]

The Bible is derived from people who understood the theory of "evolution" as it actually exists. This is one of the chief reasons the Bible fixates on behavior.

Much of our Theory of Evolution is derived from the ideas of a great Look and See Scientist named Darwin.

Have you considered that Genesis was written to a people who lived around 4,000 years ago? Maybe they didn't have the basis to understand DNA. Do you think that could have anything to do with the narrative in Genesis?

 

[cladking]

Have you considered that Genesis was written to a people who lived around 4,000 years ago? Maybe they didn't have the basis to understand DNA. Do you think that could have anything to do with the narrative in Genesis?

I believe they had a fairly good understanding of DNA but only in a "theoretical" sense. They lacked optics to visualize small things and the chemical knowledge to apply it to such subtleties. But they saw a mathematical logic that underlay individuals, reproduction, and change in species. One could almost say that they looked through the other end of microscopes and telescopes. They saw different things than we do.
Genesis especially and the Bible generally are probably a somewhat haphazard account of ancient science and ancient understanding. Some of this knowledge appears as narratives or parables. Alchemy, astrology, comedy, poetry etc etc etc are also derived from ancient knowledge and the means that was used to acquire it. In the case of Genesis this process was more direct than most of the rest of the Bible. It appears to be an amalgam of various ancient cosmologies and is principally Egyptian in origin. There is little doubt that the egyptians understood things like the hydraulic cycle and evolution and such references appear as early as the Pyramid Texts which date back even before the invention of writing. Genesis was preserved through various "holy writings" before its preservation in the Bible.

388a. It is N. who inundated the land after it had come out of the ocean;

They must have known that marine fossils proved some land had been in the ocean.

They would have seen that some fossils were different.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 9. Means Whereby the Deceased King Reaches Heaven, Utterances 263-271

Much of Genesis can be seen in the ancient Egyptian writing all the way up through the "Negative Confessions".

 

[cladking]

The rate of genetic changes are variable. For example, the ancestors of the shark have changed little in millions of years. OTOH, bacteria and viruses can change year to year or even less.

Generally speaking, smaller gene pools tend to change more quickly than larger ones, land forms more quickly than aquatic ones, lesser years of age more than older ones when they reproduce, harsher environments more than consistent environments, etc.

I don't disagree but I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species. But even gradual change is not driven solely (or even principally in some cases) by "survival of the fittest". This concept is simply not reflective of what causes change in species. One probably can't even make a good argument that it applies to humans over the last 4000 years unless "fitness" is defined as being none too sharp.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't disagree but I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species. But even gradual change is not driven solely (or even principally in some cases) by "survival of the fittest". This concept is simply not reflective of what causes change in species. One probably can't even make a good argument that it applies to humans over the last 4000 years unless "fitness" is defined as being none too sharp.

Changes may be sudden in geologic time, but not in biologic time. Those are two very different time scales.

 

[rrobs]

I believe they had a fairly good understanding of DNA but only in a "theoretical" sense. They lacked optics to visualize small things and the chemical knowledge to apply it to such subtleties. But they saw a mathematical logic that underlay individuals, reproduction, and change in species. One could almost say that they looked through the other end of microscopes and telescopes. They saw different things than we do.
Genesis especially and the Bible generally are probably a somewhat haphazard account of ancient science and ancient understanding. Some of this knowledge appears as narratives or parables. Alchemy, astrology, comedy, poetry etc etc etc are also derived from ancient knowledge and the means that was used to acquire it. In the case of Genesis this process was more direct than most of the rest of the Bible. It appears to be an amalgam of various ancient cosmologies and is principally Egyptian in origin. There is little doubt that the egyptians understood things like the hydraulic cycle and evolution and such references appear as early as the Pyramid Texts which date back even before the invention of writing. Genesis was preserved through various "holy writings" before its preservation in the Bible.

388a. It is N. who inundated the land after it had come out of the ocean;

They must have known that marine fossils proved some land had been in the ocean.

They would have seen that some fossils were different.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 9. Means Whereby the Deceased King Reaches Heaven, Utterances 263-271

Much of Genesis can be seen in the ancient Egyptian writing all the way up through the "Negative Confessions".

When I read the scriptures I begin with the premise they are all inspired by God and therefore have a certain amount of credibility. A lot actually.

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Since you begin with the premise that they are, "his knowledge appears as narratives or parables. Alchemy, astrology, comedy, poetry etc etc etc are also derived from ancient knowledge and the means that was used to acquire it," it is no wonder you and I have a different take away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I read the scriptures I begin with the premise they are all inspired by God and therefore have a certain amount of credibility. A lot actually.

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Since you begin with the premise that they are, "his knowledge appears as narratives or parables. Alchemy, astrology, comedy, poetry etc etc etc are also derived from ancient knowledge and the means that was used to acquire it," it is no wonder you and I have a different take away.

So if a person says that something is true because he says that it is true you simply accept that claim?

By the way, that is one of the most abused verses in the Bible. It only refers to an undefined "scripture" which does not appear to mean the Bible since it did not exist at that time and some of it was written after that was written. Not only that it does not say that the Bible is without flaw, or even correct. All it says is that this undefined "scripture" was inspired by God and is useful. Not true. Not accurate. Only good for lessons.

 

[rrobs]

So if a person says that something is true because he says that it is true you simply accept that claim?

What have you ever learned in life that somebody didn't tell you? Did you ever meet George Washington, or do you just take some person's word that he lived?

By the way, that is one of the most abused verses in the Bible. It only refers to an undefined "scripture" which does not appear to mean the Bible since it did not exist at that time and some of it was written after that was written. Not only that it does not say that the Bible is without flaw, or even correct. All it says is that this undefined "scripture" was inspired by God and is useful. Not true. Not accurate. Only good for lessons.

That's not at all what the scriptures say about themselves.

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
​

Of course belief is optional, but you ought to at least know what it says before making a judgment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What have you ever learned in life that somebody didn't tell you? Did you ever meet George Washington, or do you just take some person's word that he lived?


That's not at all what the scriptures say about themselves.

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
​

Of course belief is optional, but you ought to at least know what it says before making a judgment.

Sorry, that does not really help either. Read that in context. He was referring to the disciples and their word. That is not about the Bible. The "thy" in that verse does not refer to God, but to the disciples. Quote mining almost always gives an incorrect interpretation. By that standard the Bible says "there is no God" twelve times. Unfortunately my source for that is gone. I can give a few of them but not all. Of course those quotes are taken out of context. It is an example of quote mining used to demonstrate that one should not quote mine to support or oppose an argument. Always read the Bible in context.

 

[gnostic]

Like people who know little to nothing about the scriptures telling the score to those who do?

You don’t know me so don’t judge.

I was believer in the Bible for years, since my older sister gave me a bible as a present when I was 15, and though I nearly joined a couple of churches, the first one being my sister’s, I never did join any church.

My point is that even without joining a church, for 19 years I believed in the Bible, so I am quite familiar with church teachings and Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Of those 19 years, 14 years of those years I was in hiatus, didn’t seek any more churches to join, because I was busy with my life (first with studies, then with works), but I still believed in the Bible.

Then one day, while I was researching Joseph of Arimathea for my website Timeless Myths in 2000 (then age, 34) - I came to realization that the gospel’s quoting Isaiah’s sign about the virgin and Immanuel - have completely taken Isaiah 7:14 out of context.

So for 19 years, I believed in the whole Bible for 19 years, and took Matthew’s version and Christian interpretation of the sign at face value or for granted, without cross-referencing Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew’s version of Isaiah’s passage is taken out of context, because it left out the rest of sign regarding to Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14-17). The sign was about the war Ahaz have with his enemy rulers from Israel (Pekah) and Aramaic Damascus (Rezin) (see Isaiah 7:1, and the sign is really about Assyria’s interventions in the war. Assyrian army would save Judah, when the boy Immanuel would be old enough to eat honey and curds, old enough to know right from wrong.

A similar sign was given in Isaiah 8:3-4, reinforcing the boy in the sign was Isaiah’s own son. Immanuel (in 7:14-17) is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3-4), both relating a sign when the king of Assyria will capture cities in Israel and Aram.

I read both gospel of Matthew 1 and Isaiah 7 & 8 countless times, but I didn’t understand it until 2000 that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

When I did more research about Christian versions of the messianic signs/prophecies about Jesus from other OT quotes found the gospels and reinterpreted (eg the massacre at Bethlehem, Jesus riding into Jerusalem on mule, Jesus’ resurrection in 3 days), I came into realisation that the gospels have been lying to us, taking OT passages out of contexts, because every single signs were wrong and nothing more than propaganda.

It was Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14 was my first step towards agnosticism, not Genesis 1& 2 creation. I didn’t have doubts about creation and flood, until I joined my Internet forum in 2003 (Free2Code).

Although I knew about creation and flood stories, I didn’t know about “creationism” and people who called themselves “creationists”. And since I was never biology student, I have learned Evolution and didn’t know anything about Charles Darwin and his Natural Selection (his voyage onboard HMS Beagle, from 1831 to 1836, and his publication of On Origin Of Species, in 1859).

I was more of physics person, because after high school, I studied civil engineering in the mid-80s, and in the mid to late 90s, I still think of myself as engineer, after graduating computer science (1999).

I didn’t know why they were arguing, so I borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook and read up on it, as well as researching what creationism is.

Only then, I can make informed decision, that creationists’ claims were wrong. It was only then, in another forum, that. I had my first doubts about Genesis creation and flood.

But it wasn’t just the creation story don’t match with science. Much of the stories from Adam to Solomon, don’t match with history and archaeology.

For instances, Genesis 10, the Table of Nations, particularly about Egypt and Mesopotamia, are all wrong, historically and archaeologically.

The last 20 years from 2000 to present, I have different insight about church reinterpretation of the scriptures.

No, rrobs, you shouldn’t be judging me what I do or what I don’t know about the Bible.

Do you always judge people by stereotyping anyone who disagree with you, not knowing and understanding the Bible?

I thinking many people living in western countries, were brought up with being Christians, but for whatever reasons, left their churches, and become atheists. Just because they are atheists, it doesn’t mean they have no understanding of the Bible, or they forgotten what their former churches taught them.

Jesus told us not to judge, unless you wants to be judged.

Although I don’t take the Bible at face value anymore, I still value Jesus’ teaching about morals, tolerance and compassion. Being agnostic, doesn’t mean I have forgotten some of Jesus’ positive teaching. What I disagree with mostly are interpretations of the messianic signs.

Don’t crap with me, and I won’t crap about you, rrobs...meaning don’t you presume I know nothing about the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

When I read the scriptures I begin with the premise they are all inspired by God and therefore have a certain amount of credibility. A lot actually.

That was my mistake when I was younger, when I used to believe in church teachings, thinking that the Holy Spirit inspired apostles, disciples, evangelists.

Inspiration don’t mean facts, or even the truth.

Singers are/were inspired to write and sing songs.

Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci were inspired to paint.

Homer was inspired by the Muses to write The Iliad and The Odyssey.

Tolkien was inspired to write The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.

For creative purposes, inspiration are blessings of human inventiveness and imagination. But what are written, drawn or spoken don’t necessarily mean these inspirations are true.

 

[gnostic]

There is nothing in the scriptures that would preclude DNA mutations. However, you have not observed one genus becoming another. A cow (a population of cows to be precise) can have as many mutations as it wants, but it'll always be a cow, a different species, but a cow nonetheless. Any direct or indirect evidence that might suggest otherwise is incredibly scanty and nothing more than supposition.

Interestingly, Genesis says God made everything after it's "kind" which is the Greek word "genos" or genus. So far science has not observed anything that would prove otherwise.

I still think you need to learn and understand what are probable and possible in evolutionary biology, instead of making yourself a complete fool in making claims about something (that’s not true), which clearly you don’t understand.

 

[McBell]

Like people who know little to nothing about the scriptures telling the score to those who do?

It is so annoying when theists do this.
Especially when they top their blatant ignorance of the their scriptures with something like "you are not a {insert denomination here} so you can not possibly understand"

 

[Ouroboros]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

As a pantheist, I consider life to be an integral part of how the world works, so it's not hard for me to believe in a primordial soup or whatever was necessary for life to begin. Now, there are some hypotheses suggesting that components and parts of life didn't begin in the soup but in space, for instance around brown dwarf stars. We do know there's amino acids and organic matter in space, other planets, and even around stars like the browns. So the soup might have been in some other place. I don't know, but I can surely believe there was something, based on my "religion". Just a friendly foot note to the discussion.

 

[Bear Wild]

You don’t know me so don’t judge.

I was believer in the Bible for years, since my older sister gave me a bible as a present when I was 15, and though I nearly joined a couple of churches, the first one being my sister’s, I never did join any church.

My point is that even without joining a church, for 19 years I believed in the Bible, so I am quite familiar with church teachings and Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Of those 19 years, 14 years of those years I was in hiatus, didn’t seek any more churches to join, because I was busy with my life (first with studies, then with works), but I still believed in the Bible.

Then one day, while I was researching Joseph of Arimathea for my website Timeless Myths in 2000 (then age, 34) - I came to realization that the gospel’s quoting Isaiah’s sign about the virgin and Immanuel - have completely taken Isaiah 7:14 out of context.

So for 19 years, I believed in the whole Bible for 19 years, and took Matthew’s version and Christian interpretation of the sign for granted, without cross-referencing Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew’s version of Isaiah’s passage is taken out of context, because it left out the rest of sign regarding to Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14-17). The sign was about the war Ahaz have with his enemy rulers from Israel (Pekah) and Aramaic Damascus (Rezin) (see Isaiah 7:1, and the sign is really about Assyria’s interventions in the war. Assyrian army would save Judah, when the boy Immanuel would be old enough to eat honey and curds, old enough to know right from wrong.

A similar sign was given in Isaiah 8:3-4, reinforcing the boy in the sign was Isaiah’s own son. Immanuel (in 7:14-17) is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3-4), both relating a sign when the king of Assyria will capture cities in Israel and Aram.

I read both gospel of Matthew 1 and Isaiah 7 & 8 countless times, but I didn’t understand it until 2000 that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

When I did more research about Christian versions of the messianic signs/prophecies about Jesus from other OT quotes found the gospels and reinterpreted (eg the massacre at Bethlehem, Jesus riding into Jerusalem on mule, Jesus’ resurrection in 3 days), I came into realisation that the gospels have been lying to us, taking OT passages out of contexts, because every single signs were wrong and nothing more than propaganda.

It was Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14 was my first step towards agnosticism, not Genesis 1& 2 creation. I didn’t have doubts about creation and flood, until I joined my Internet forum in 2003 (Free2Code).

Although I knew about creation and flood stories, I didn’t know about “creationism” and people who called themselves “creationists”. And since I was never biology student, I have learned Evolution and didn’t know anything about Charles Darwin and his Natural Selection (his voyage onboard HMS Beagle, from 1831 to 1836, and his publication of On Origin Of Species, in 1859).

I was more of physics person, because after high school, I studied civil engineering in the mid-80s, and in the mid to late 90s, I still think of myself as engineer, after graduating computer science (1999).

I didn’t know why they were arguing, so I borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook and read up on it, as well as researching what creationism is.

Only then, I can make informed decision, that creationists’ claims were wrong. It was only then, in another forum, that. I had my first doubts about Genesis creation and flood.

But it wasn’t just the creation story don’t match with science. Much of the stories from Adam to Solomon, don’t match with history and archaeology.

For instances, Genesis 10, the Table of Nations, particularly about Egypt and Mesopotamia, are all wrong, historically and archaeologically.

The last 20 years from 2000 to present, I have different insight about church reinterpretation of the scriptures.

No, rrobs, you shouldn’t be judging me what I do or what I don’t know about the Bible.

Do you always judge people by stereotyping anyone who disagree with you, not knowing and understanding the Bible?

I thinking many people living in western countries, were brought up with being Christians, but for whatever reasons, left their churches, and become atheists. Just because they are atheists, it doesn’t mean they have no understanding of the Bible, or they forgotten what their former churches taught them.

Jesus told us not to judge, unless you wants to be judged.

Although I don’t take the Bible at face value anymore, I still value Jesus’ teaching about morals, tolerance and compassion. Being agnostic, doesn’t mean I have forgotten some of Jesus’ positive teaching. What I disagree with mostly are interpretations of the messianic signs.

Don’t crap with me, and I won’t crap about you, rrobs...meaning don’t you presume I know nothing about the Bible.

This is one of those posters that if you disagree with what they believe then say "you know nothing". I have read your posts many times about the bible and have been impressed. But "rrobs" gets uncomfortable when someone knows so much or more in his so called expertise and just sounds ignorant when arguing about evolution which he clearly has no clue about.

 

[gnostic]

This is one of those posters that if you disagree with what they believe then say "you know nothing". I have read your posts many times about the bible and have been impressed. But "rrobs" gets uncomfortable when someone knows so much or more in his so called expertise and just sounds ignorant when arguing about evolution which he clearly has no clue about.

rrobs is forgetting that there are many atheists were former Christians.

They don’t simply forget what they have read from the Bible or what they have been taught at churches they used to attend.

Although I never officially join any church, I did learn from them.

And as I said in my longer reply to rrobs, I didn’t go the biology route, instead I have chosen the physics road for my civil engineering and computer science courses.

My knowledge in biology didn’t go beyond Year 9 high school, so I didn’t know much about biology, and completely clueless about evolution prior to 2003.

In order to learn about Evolution, all I did was borrowed a biology book from my cousin.

It is obvious that I am no expert in biology, but even in my novice’s eye, i can see the numbers of mistakes rrobs have made, particularly about speciation. It doesn’t take a genius, to see how misinformed rrobs is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is so annoying when theists do this.
Especially when they top their blatant ignorance of the their scriptures with something like "you are not a {insert denomination here} so you can not possibly understand"

And then they frequently make the error of quoting out of context. Of course anyone that believes the "hundreds of prophecies about Jesus line" has to do this. If a verse even vaguely looks as if it would be applied to Jesus they do so shamelessly while ignoring the fact that two can play that game. I used to have a list of 12 verses that said "there is no god". All taken out of context of course but if they can play that game so can I. One of the verses that he used to support his claims he made to me was clearly taken out of context and did not mean what he said that it did. And then they have the nerve to claim that ex-Christians do not understand the Bible. Understanding the Bible is one of the fastest roads to atheism.