The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And you wonder why you get called out for straw man arguments. If humans started giving birth to starfish, geckos, orangutans, cheetahs or whatever that isn't human, that would not be explainable by the theory of evolution. The theory does not say that humans will give birth to some other kind of animal. It is difficult to take seriously people who say such ridiculous things

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.

I have no idea why you include this bit or what you mean by it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I do not believe God wants us to be ignorant, but the effort I see by some people is clearly an attempt to glorify and disseminate ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Looked like proselytizing to me.

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.

Are you agreeing with my assessment that you support the idea that accepting God means you have to dumb down and ignore the world around you? It sounds like you are avoiding a response by providing unsolicited responses to unwritten posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I would have to lie to say that.

Then why all the fuss when people actually do learn? Why the resistance to knowledge and understanding? Why the mischaracterization of science and fallacious arguments?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I saw you did answer the question in another post.

I didn't see your other post until after my response to this post.

 

[tas8831]

Just to be clear here it was a mutation that tied the wernickes area more closely to higher brain functions which allowed complex language and THIS complex digital language that created the human race (Homo Sapiens). The language became too complex for individuals to use and a new language arose that is analog (modern languages). These many new languages required a translator in each brain which is the brocas area. All of history is apparent in these terms.

Citation please.

 

[rrobs]

And you wonder why you get called out for straw man arguments. If humans started giving birth to starfish, geckos, orangutans, cheetahs or whatever that isn't human, that would not be explainable by the theory of evolution. The theory does not say that humans will give birth to some other kind of animal. It is difficult to take seriously people who say such ridiculous things

I have no idea why you include this bit or what you mean by it.

I'm really sorry to say this, but you are one of the most closed minded people I've ever come across. You just can't get through your head what I'm saying. You keep misrepresenting what I say. You're either incredibly thick minded or you're playing games.

 

[rrobs]

Looked like proselytizing to me.

Are you agreeing with my assessment that you support the idea that accepting God means you have to dumb down and ignore the world around you? It sounds like you are avoiding a response by providing unsolicited responses to unwritten posts.

You are sooooo right in your own eyes. Pitiful really.

 

[rrobs]

Then why all the fuss when people actually do learn? Why the resistance to knowledge and understanding? Why the mischaracterization of science and fallacious arguments?

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge.

 

[cladking]

Citation please.

Language arose suddenly 40,000 years ago. Since we know from experiment and observation that there are no gradual changes in life then it follows that something in humans suddenly arose making complex language possible. The most likely possible change was a (sudden) mutation in the human brain and the most likely mutation is just something simple like the ability to use higher brain functions in communication. I'm all ears if you have another hypothesis but I'm sure you don't because you already believe in evolution, the power of trial and error, the efficacy of superstition, and the omniscience of science. You believe beavers invented dams genetically and termite cities are the result of genetics despite the fact such beliefs are illogical and based almost solely on inductive reasoning rather than experiment.

Everything in existence had to come from things that already existed. Yet we still ponder whether an egg or a chicken came first. We can't see the forest for the trees and can't really understand the trees because all life is consciousness which is fundamental to its understanding. So instead of seeing experimental results and observation we see our beliefs.

What exactly do you think made humans unique? Do you believe we are more intelligent than rabbits and pigs? Why do you think we have such difficulty learning even the simplest animal languages? My theory is the simplest explanation for everything and it is nearly a perfect fit with what ancient people said. It explains evidence, logic itself, science and history. It is mostly a different perspective.

As I said earlier in this thread we'll probably never know the causative events of any change in major species. Oh sure, we can be witness to some by causing them and have seen the results of population bottlenecks imposed on dogs and farm animals etc, We can deduce and even show how homo omnisciencis arose but showing the cause of homo sapiens is going to remain impossible even though we know the name of the first individual which is preserved in a confused form right in the Bible. We'll probably be able to show the growth in the brain that defines our species in children between two and three years of age. We probably in time could even recreate homo sapiens except there are ethical concerns with doing so.

If you want citations it will be necessary to do the work. Until then I can only refer you to every observation and experiment ever made as well as the known facts and history. It is your job to find an observation or fact that contradicts this theory. Find something illogical about it. Don't ask for citations because biologists are wrong and believe in gradual change despite the fact they can't show it. I can show that all change is sudden and that ancient writing is in agreement. I have provided endless "citation" from logic and and experiment yet you simply choose to see something different. All change is sudden and all individuals are equally fit.

 

[cladking]

Language arose suddenly 40,000 years ago. Since we know from experiment and observation that there are no gradual changes in life then it follows that something in humans suddenly arose making complex language possible. The most likely possible change was a (sudden) mutation in the human brain and the most likely mutation is just something simple like the ability to use higher brain functions in communication. I'm all ears if you have another hypothesis but I'm sure you don't because you already believe in evolution, the power of trial and error, the efficacy of superstition, and the omniscience of science. You believe beavers invented dams genetically and termite cities are the result of genetics despite the fact such beliefs are illogical and based almost solely on inductive reasoning rather than experiment.

You believe you can understand life without even so much as a working definition of "consciousness". You don't understand the most fundamental aspect of life and then you want to understand impossibly complex things like what causes it to change suddenly. Some things simply don't give up their secrets to inductive reasoning. We come into being suddenly and then we move on suddenly and in between the only things we have is Knowledge > Understanding > Creation formed from language and shoulders of the giants upon whom we stand along with reason and true science.

Without consciousness every rabbit is for most practical purposes exactly the same. Some seem more fit because two rabbits can't be in the exact same place at the same time. This is reality and what you see are your beliefs and inductive reasoning.

 

[gnostic]

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge.

No, it isn’t.

Fear of god, of any god, only leads to ignorance and superstition.

Superstition are based on two things, fear and ignorance. Superstition never lead to knowledge.

Look it up, rrobs, look up “superstition”.

Superstition

a widely held but irrational belief of supernatural influences, especially as to leading to good or bad luck, or practice of such belief.

This is only brief and incomplete definition to the word. Below is the opening paragraph in the wiki article:

A superstition is a belief or practice typically resulting from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality (false causal attribution), a belief in fate or magic, perceived supernatural influence, or fear of that which is unknown. It is commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy, and certain spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific (apparently) unrelated prior events.

So the “God did it”, like creation, flood, parting the Red Sea, flying chariot pulled by horses (Elijah), turning water into wine, healing the sick, exorcism of demons, prophecies (eg Revelation), etc, are all examples from the Bible, are all examples of superstitions.

“God did it”, doesn’t lead to knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You think there are other explanations that would explain your genetic connection with your ancestors that doesn't involve common ancestry with them? Do tell.

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

Just wondering why you're referencing the Bible in a thread about evolution and science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge.

Really? Can you demonstrate that?
Can you explain how that makes any sense?

 

[rrobs]

No, it isn’t.

Fear of god, of any god, only leads to ignorance and superstition.

Superstition are based on two things, fear and ignorance. Superstition never lead to knowledge.

Look it up, rrobs, look up “superstition”.

This is only brief and incomplete definition to the word. Below is the opening paragraph in the wiki article:

So the “God did it”, like creation, flood, parting the Red Sea, flying chariot pulled by horses (Elijah), turning water into wine, healing the sick, exorcism of demons, prophecies (eg Revelation), etc, are all examples from the Bible, are all examples of superstitions.

“God did it”, doesn’t lead to knowledge.

Well, I was just going by:

Prov 1:7,

The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
​

You're credentials are? In other words, where do you get your ideas? Mine come from the scriptures.

 

[rrobs]

You think there are other explanations that would explain your genetic connection with your ancestors that doesn't involve common ancestry with them? Do tell.

You're making a circular argument.

Just wondering why you're referencing the Bible in a thread about evolution and science.

Read the OP for that.

 

[rrobs]

Really? Can you demonstrate that?
Can you explain how that makes any sense?

All you have to do is fear (old English for "respect") God and you'll get the answer.

Seriously, how can you make a judgment on what a book says without having read the book? To be sure, I don't mean a casual reading, but an actual study. I know you may tell me you have read it, but it's obvious you didn't do so with an open mind or with any degree of objectivity.

The theory of evolution is a pitiful attempt by man to put man on the throne, to raise man to the level of a god. That's nothing new, just a different wrapper.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All you have to do is fear (old English for "respect") God and you'll get the answer.

Nonsense.

That's not how knowledge is obtained.

Seriously, how can you make a judgment on what a book says without having read the book?

Not sure why you're asking this question but I've read the Bible cover to cover. Also, I used to be a Christian.

This doesn't address my question though. We're in a thread about the believability of a scientific theory, and you're quoting the Bible at people. I'm wondering what on earth the Bible has to do with scientific theories. What do ancient holy texts have to do with any of this? Why quote them?

To be sure, I don't mean a casual reading, but an actual study. I know you may tell me you have read it, but it's obvious you didn't do so with an open mind or with any degree of objectivity.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with questions.

Who cares if anyone has read the Bible with an open mind or not? Why should anyone do that? What does the Bible have to do with scientific theories? Why is the Bible more special than any other ancient holy text?

The theory of evolution is a pitiful attempt by man to put man on the throne, to raise man to the level of a god. That's nothing new, just a different wrapper.

Nonsense. It's got nothing to do with God, same as gravity or germ theory.

It's man's attempt to understand what's going on in the world around us. Like every other field of scientific study.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're making a circular argument.

Nope.

You're avoiding the question and the point though.

Read the OP for that.

I read it. Don't see an answer.

 

[Yazata]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis.

I don't think that Hebrew mythology really provides us with any useful information regarding origins.

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.

I think that it was Darwin who mentioned "primordial soup" in one of his many letters, in a context where he was admitting that he had no explanation for life's origins.

As for me, I don't know how life originated. I do assume that life had natural as opposed to supernatural origins. I don't actually know that (how could I?) but it's a working assumption. I also think that the origin of the first cells was probably a much longer and more laborious step-by-step process than the idea that fully formed prokaryotic cells just somehow popped out of a "primordial soup" would suggest.

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?

There was almost certainly no distinction between plants and animals when the first cells appeared. And they were perhaps arguably all autotrophs. (I have some doubts about that and speculate that heterotrophs were there from the beginning.)

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.

Experimental evolution is most definitely a thing in microbiology. But in microbiology, the familiar genus-species definitions seem to break down. (Horizontal gene transfer etc.) The fundamentals of microbial taxonomy are an open question.

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

Of course. There are lots of very interesting speculative hypotheses though. There's no need to silence that.

But atheists shouldn't pretend to know things that they don't actually know. I agree with that part of your point.