The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe a "perfectly precise order" was not the best way to put it. But, whatever arose by chance would have to depend on it's nourishment (and many other environmental variables) arising at the same time.

Yes. Why would that matter?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I won't say you are wrong, but it does mean that the sequence of events would be even more unlikely than just one ancestor being the source of life. All those thousands of creatures would have to arise by chance mutations in a perfectly precise order in both time and result. If the odds of one thing happening are pretty low, I can't imagine what thousands would would do to those odds.

You have not reasoned correctly. You suggest, first, that everything must be "precise," when in fact it's anything but -- it is chaotic. But it's chaotic with a twist, called feedback -- and feedback can (believe it or not) begin to weed out some of the randomness of chaotic systems.

 

[rrobs]

Your thinking is extremely limited. It's impossible to conceive of evolution (or any number of other natural phenomena) happening when you suppose there are only 1 or 2, or a few (or even a few hundred) events involved. Trust me, if you could open you mind up to see that on this world, nothing happens by ones or twos or tens or thousands -- but by billions and more. Then it becomes easy.

Open up your mind. Big numbers are hard to grasp -- but big numbers are what a universe is all about!

My whole point is that there are indeed way more than a few things involved. I'll give you your billions and more, it still doesn't prove evolution. It is still a theory with no more intrinsic truth than Genesis.

 

[rrobs]

Yes. Why would that matter?

Life requires energy, i.e. nourishment of some sort.

 

[rrobs]

it is rather pointless in calculating the odds of an event that already happened.

One genus evolved into another? Any specifics on that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life requires energy, i.e. nourishment of some sort.

Stating the obvious does not help your case.

Do you understand that there are literally mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none whatsoever for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One genus evolved into another? Any specifics on that?

Poorly worded, but yes. Humans and chimps are a different genus (though there is some debate about that). We share a common ancestor. It was not so much an evolving into a different genus. It was that the one genus eventually became two.

 

[rrobs]

You have not reasoned correctly. You suggest, first, that everything must be "precise," when in fact it's anything but -- it is chaotic. But it's chaotic with a twist, called feedback -- and feedback can (believe it or not) begin to weed out some of the randomness of chaotic systems.

Are you not specific with regards to your food or do you just randomly eat whatever you happen to see at the moment? Every living thing has very precise requirements to stay alive and thrive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you not specific with regards to your food or do you just randomly eat whatever you happen to see at the moment? Every living thing has very precise requirements to stay alive and thrive.

This appears to be a rather pointless claim.

 

[rrobs]

Stating the obvious does not help your case.

Do you understand that there are literally mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none whatsoever for creationism?

As I said, science has come up with a model to fit observed phenomena, but a model is not reality. It is an "educated guess" and nothing more.

 

[rrobs]

This appears to be a rather pointless claim.

Dig a little deeper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, science has come up with a model to fit observed phenomena, but a model is not reality. It is an "educated guess" and nothing more.

No, it is not an educated guess. And you should realize that when you personally insult the works of others that you take on a huge burden of proof.

A hypothesis may begin as an educated guess, but then real scientists do something that creationists are afraid to do. They test their ideas and try to refute them. After an idea has been tested and confirmed it is no longer an educated guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dig a little deeper.

Do your homework.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My whole point is that there are indeed way more than a few things involved. I'll give you your billions and more, it still doesn't prove evolution. It is still a theory with no more intrinsic truth than Genesis.

"Intrinsic truth." What does that mean? The theory of evolution has literally millions of data points of evidence that you (even you yourself, if you chose) can investigate. What does Genesis have? Bald statements of supposed fact.

Let me provide you with just one "bald fact" from Genesis. "Eve was created by God, by causing Adam to fall asleep, removing a rib, and making her out of that rib." You agree? Genesis says that?

Now, let me tell you a story.

First, the word for "rib" that is used in Genesis is a word that generally means "support."

Second, as eaters of meat, the Jews were aware of the anatomies of the creatures they killed. And they were aware of their own anatomy, too -- and this is important.

Third, every mammal that the Jews at the time knew about had a bone in their penis called a "baculum." Humans were the only creature they knew that did not have one. (New world monkeys, which the Jews could not have known about, also lacked a baculum and, like humans, used only hydraulics to lift that weapon into strike position.)

The Jews were also aware that every male has a very apparent scar between his testes and his anus (it's where he healed when his hormones said "thou shalt not be female"). It's call a "raphe," by the way.

Now, using the information just presented, can you try to figure out how the Genesis story of Eve being created from Adam's rib could be concocted?

It shouldn't take too much imagination -- and when you see it, it's actually quite wonderful in what it tells us about how we actively and aggressively look for answers to what we don't understand.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This appears to be a rather pointless claim.

I don't believe he understands the meaning of the word "feedback." It is not, as you well know, anything comestible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...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...

That conflates two things. Survival of the Fittest is easily recognizable, explaining how species can diverge and the extremely broad and connected tree of life. On top of that other discoveries help such as the discovery of DNA.

...If one does not believe Genesis...

It doesn't depend on that. Its not about whether you believe in Genesis but whether you can accept Genesis for what it is. Let it Genesis be something other than an argument that your views are approved of by God, because I think that is not what it is for. I think you are using it as a form of divination, as some sort of sign and some kind of device. Have you read this in Judges: "Let baal defend himself if he be a god?"

Furthermore it is a false dichotomy I think to claim that your point of view of Genesis is belief while a more educated and better researched view is unbelief. That makes no sense.

 

[epronovost]

What has not been observed, and what Genesis denies, is a frog evolving into a dog or whatever. A frog is a frog is a frog.

That's how pokemon evolve not living organism on Earth. Why you wold be searchin can be observed through the fossile record though and paleogenetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That conflates two things. Survival of the Fittest is easily recognizable, explaining how species can diverge and the extremely broad and connected tree of life. On top of that other discoveries help such as the discovery of DNA.

It doesn't depend on that. Its not about whether you believe in Genesis but whether you can accept Genesis for what it is. Let it Genesis be something other than an argument that your views are approved of by God, because I think that is not what it is for. I think you are using it as a form of divination, as some sort of sign and some kind of device. Have you read this in Judges: "Let baal defend himself if he be a god?"

Furthermore it is a false dichotomy I think to claim that your point of view of Genesis is belief while a more educated and better researched view is unbelief. That makes no sense.

All too often evolution is conflated with atheism by some believers. They seem to think that their personal version of God is the only possible version.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Intrinsic truth." What does that mean? The theory of evolution has literally millions of data points of evidence that you (even you yourself, if you chose) can investigate. What does Genesis have? Bald statements of supposed fact.

Let me provide you with just one "bald fact" from Genesis. "Eve was created by God, by causing Adam to fall asleep, removing a rib, and making her out of that rib." You agree? Genesis says that?

Now, let me tell you a story.

First, the word for "rib" that is used in Genesis is a word that generally means "support."

Second, as eaters of meat, the Jews were aware of the anatomies of the creatures they killed. And they were aware of their own anatomy, too -- and this is important.

Third, every mammal that the Jews at the time knew about had a bone in their penis called a "baculum." Humans were the only creature they knew that did not have one. (New world monkeys, which the Jews could not have known about, also lacked a baculum and, like humans, used only hydraulics to lift that weapon into strike position.)

The Jews were also aware that every male has a very apparent scar between his testes and his anus (it's where he healed when his hormones said "thou shalt not be female"). It's call a "raphe," by the way.

Now, using the information just presented, can you try to figure out how the Genesis story of Eve being created from Adam's rib could be concocted?

It shouldn't take too much imagination -- and when you see it, it's actually quite wonderful in what it tells us about how we actively and aggressively look for answers to what we don't understand.

I want to add something important to the post above: I am not accusing the ancient Jews of ignorance, or of wanton invention. They were doing science as best they could, and it's wonderful to observe it. They took account of everything they could observe, and they put it together in a way that was, given what they knew, completely coherent.

I think everybody should think this is amazing.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

So you are saying that a fictional work based on people who new little of the world to begin with and desperately wanting a to believe in a supernatural force to protect them explains the reality of our world based on independent observation and careful testing over time?
Yes science is based on observation as opposed to imagination. As for an organism changing enough to become a new genus you need time far greater than is seen in our short time on earth yet the fossil record clearly shows that occurs. Experiments in bacterial population which replicate far more rapidly show significant changed in the genetic material showing the way new species and changes enough to place the organism in a different genus if given the correct time and conditions.
As for the believability of genesis it makes no sense with what is actually known about our world outside of imagination.