The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

I think when the Greeks used the word "genus" in Genesis they were advanced enough to realize that a dog was a dog, a cat was a cat, etc. It's not a difficult concept.

Has anyone claimed that ancient people didn't know dogs were dogs? And what is the significance of knowing this in relation to evolution?

Did they know dinosaurs were dinosaurs? No mention of those pesky little critters.

 

[Valjean]

It's so complex there is no simple answer. Nonsense. Nothing is complex and everything can be expressed simply if you really understand it.

Sorry, but there are subjects that just can't be explained on a bumper sticker or a chatroom post.
Perhaps your belief that nothing's complex underlies your belief that you actually understand the issues at hand.

This is a contention. It's an assumption based on modern language. You have no evidence for this either. Homo omnisciencis arose from parents who were homo sapiens. But early modern people knew their parents were wise and powerful where we have forgotten.

Huh? H. omnisciencis? What are you talking about?
What child doesn't speak the language of his parents?
Sure, people can pick up other languages. Most people do. But this has nothing to do with linguistic change over time. If one wants to speak an archaic language she has to go out and actively study it.

I contend that any individual who spoke Ancient Language could learn modern language very quickly but it tended to be a one way change because the two languages are incompatible. There is no means to translate one to the other. It's all very very simple except it has many simple components and to understand they must all be held in mind. This is irrelevant here. If you really want to talk about it then find the appropriate thread;

For someone who spoke ancient languages, the modern version didn't yet exist, so it would be pretty hard to pick one up. Picking up an archaic language, on the other hand, just involves a visit to the library (am I dating myself? ).


Linguistics 101: There are no "incompatable" languages. Any language may be translated into any other language, however circuitously.

I think you completely missed the language analogy. Language changes over time, slowly, by tiny changes. These tiny changes accumulate over long periods till the original is no longer recognizable as the same language.
Now, substitute species, genus or 'kind' for "language."

I believe the "Tower of Babel" is our confused memory of when Ancient Language had to be cast aside world wide as the language of state because there were too few speakers to operate the states. The world was plunged into a 2000 year dark ages with occasional pockets of light.

Ancient language had to be cast aside? "World wide?" What are you talking about?

"Too few speakers to operate the state?" "The state" could not be 'operated' in another language?
A 2,000 year dark age? When was that? When did hominins ever loose language?

I'm sorry, but you seem to be raving.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's your answer as to how God uses "seed" and "kind" in Genesis?

I am waiting for you to tell me what to think.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Both Felines and Canuses evolved from a common ancestor, and that ancestor has been found in the fossil records.


I cannot force you to reject religious dogma. You will have to evolve yourself.

As I thought, his trick is to use genus to mean kind and dance on the association with the scientific use of that word.

I do not understand why some people cannot believe in God and face the facts of the world at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reproduction. Specifically seed.

Every person born has mutations that are not found in their parents. Reproduction is not stopping that. It is disseminating it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do creationists insist on using straw man arguments. If you do not want to see than stop using straw man arguments. I was correct in applying it.

It's what they're taught. They are reminded to ask why we still have monkeys, their literature does reinforce the idea of "it's just a theory," and it's such an environment that it does make possible for one of their signs outside to read "If evolution were true moms would have an extra set of arms."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least that's what they think.

Based on the evidence.

Actually, it's God that evolving me.

2Cor 3:18,

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord.
​

Are you telling me that you will turn into a dog?

You are using the word evolve with a different definition than the one associated with the scientific theory and the change recognized in the biological evidence.

Evolution as explained by the theory does not occur in individuals. It is populations of organisms that evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's what they're taught. They are reminded to ask why we still have monkeys, their literature does reinforce the idea of "it's just a theory," and it's such an environment that it does make possible for one of their signs outside to read "If evolution were true moms would have an extra set of arms."

I know you are right, but sometimes it helps to voice the frustration of dealing with the myopic degeneration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evolution within a genus. That is how new species come about and others die off. There are several species within the Feline genus, around 40 or so I believe. However, the feline genus did not come from the canus species.

100 years ago, a creationist would have denied that there was evolution occurring at all. Look how far you have come. Of course you got it wrong again. It is the shared ancestry between canines and felines that has been claimed and is demonstrated by the evidence. No one that understands this evidence is claiming that cats turned into dogs or dogs turned into cats sometime in the past.

Since reproduction does not stop biological change, based on your finest reading and understanding of the evidence, what do you propose is keeping that change bound within genera? Why are there different families of animals and plants? What about the evidence showing relationships between higher taxa?

Accept Jesus as your lord and believe God raised him from the dead. That's how you'll learn the believability of the scriptures. Sorry, I can't do it for you though.

That seems dangerously close to proselytizing.

I cannot escape the idea that you are proposing that accepting God means you have to dumb down and ignore the world around you. To pretend away what you do not understand. I do not accept that God wants that for me or for anyone else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How exactly did God use it as opposed to how science uses it?

Can you honestly tell us that you think God does not want us to learn?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What the heck is "visceral knowledge" -- a gut feeling? an emotion? familiarity? When have these ever been reliable indicators of truth? People have had "visceral knowledge" for millenia, and when did they ever agree on anything?

What 'theory'? A theory is published, tested, observable. I'm still waiting for evidence of this theory.
Huh?
An individual might be fit within a particular environment at a particular time -- but environments change.
This is just not true. There is no such observation, and there are mountains of evidence for gradual change. Simply declaring something nonsense doesn't make it so. Where is your evidence?

Good luck.

 

[cladking]

What the heck is "visceral knowledge" -- a gut feeling? an emotion? familiarity?

You quoted a sentence that defined it. You are either obtuse or insincere.

What 'theory'? A theory is published, tested, observable. I'm still waiting for evidence of this theory.

We've been talking about the fact that Peer review is meaningless and only experiment is relevant so you are being obtuse or insincere

An individual might be fit within a particular environment at a particular time -- but environments change.

And you have no evidence any environment ever changed gradually over thousands of years. Obtuse or insincere?

This is just not true. There is no such observation, and there are mountains of evidence for gradual change.

But you've produced none at all. Instead you link to arguments between religion and what you call "science". Do you really not understand that "science" has no meaning outside of experiment???!!! Nothing counts, not Peers, not beliefs, not even conclusions, ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden. There are no exceptions and no survival of the fittest except in your mind.

You can't only not argue the point but you don't understand it!!!

.

 

[rrobs]

So all those genes you share with your ancestors don't demonstrate common ancestry, the farther you go back in your family tree?

A common ancestry is one explanation. Whether the right one or not is another question. I think there could be many other explanations. I, and many others, would say it's because God managed to make a huge variety of life with a rather limited genome.

Who cares what Genesis says about scientific matters?

I don't know. The ones who don't care what science says about scriptural matters?

 

[rrobs]

Has anyone claimed that ancient people didn't know dogs were dogs?

No. Why do you ask?

And what is the significance of knowing this in relation to evolution?

You don't get the significance of me claiming a dog will always produce another dog in relation to evolution? I'm beginning to wonder if you're just playing around with my head. Not that I mind, but I don't know what you hope to gain.

 

[rrobs]

I am waiting for you to tell me what to think.

I saw you did answer the question in another post.

 

[rrobs]

Every person born has mutations that are not found in their parents. Reproduction is not stopping that. It is disseminating it.

Yes, but that in no way precludes the truth that a human will always give birth to another human. That will go on an on for as many generations as the earth lasts.

To be clear, we need to make a distinction between clones and offspring. Everything I've spoken about is based on offspring and thus will have a slightly different mutation in their genes (if that's how you want to put it). Of course, that is based on the fact two different individuals contribute their genes to the offspring. That's where we get the variety in people, but they're all people.

 

[rrobs]

Based on the evidence.

Are you telling me that you will turn into a dog?

Read the verse one more time. It doesn't say we will turn into dogs. It says we will become more like Jesus.

You are using the word evolve with a different definition than the one associated with the scientific theory and the change recognized in the biological evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do you understand me to define "evolve" and how does science define it? Where is the difference?

Evolution as explained by the theory does not occur in individuals. It is populations of organisms that evolve.

Not sure what to say about that. Wouldn't populations consist of individuals? A genetic mutation occurs within what percentage of a population? Does the mutation occur within the all individuals of a particular genus all at once? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[rrobs]

Can you honestly tell us that you think God does not want us to learn?

No. I would have to lie to say that.

 

[rrobs]

That seems dangerously close to proselytizing.

I gave you a legitimate answer to a question. I just told you what the scriptures say. As I've said over and over here at RF, belief is purely optional.

I cannot escape the idea that you are proposing that accepting God means you have to dumb down and ignore the world around you. To pretend away what you do not understand. I do not accept that God wants that for me or for anyone else.

Well, there certainly is an escape. I've done it and so have millions of others.

Assuming merely quoting scripture is just that, i.e. quoting scripture, and not proselytizing, I offer:

Gal 1:4,

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
​

Unless you want to get uber picky, I think we could say "deliver" is pretty much the same as "escape." If not, oh well.

 

[rrobs]

Can you honestly tell us that you think God does not want us to learn?

Here's what I said: "How exactly did God use it as opposed to how science uses it?" That translates into me thinking "God does not want us to learn"...how so? Besides you ought to know God wants us to learn the truth. That's why He sent Jesus. Pretty much the opposite of keeping us ignorant.