The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[gnostic]

As far as kinds, birds are not humans.

Good grief

As I said, a 9-year old would know that and a whole lot more. That doesn’t help with explaining what Genesis mean by kinds.

All you are doing is comparing one obvious thing against obvious another thing, without any real knowledge.

Heck, even illiterate Neolithic people would know that much.

Where the explanations in the Bible? Where the insightful knowledge?

I was asking for knowledge in the Bible, I am not asking for so obvious comparison that even a 9-year old would know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good grief

As I said, a 9-year old would know that and a whole lot more. That doesn’t help with explaining what Genesis mean by kinds.

All you are doing is comparing one obvious thing against obvious another thing, without any real knowledge.

Heck, even illiterate Neolithic people would know that much.

Where the explanations in the Bible? Where the insightful knowledge?

I was asking for knowledge in the Bible, I am not asking for so obvious comparison that even a 9-year old would know.

Good grief

As I said, a 9-year old would know that and a whole lot more. That doesn’t help with explaining what Genesis mean by kinds.

All you are doing is comparing one obvious thing against obvious another thing, without any real knowledge.

Heck, even illiterate Neolithic people would know that much.

Where the explanations in the Bible? Where the insightful knowledge?

I was asking for knowledge in the Bible, I am not asking for so obvious comparison that even a 9-year old would know.

As I said, the Bible is not a scientific textbook.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible isn’t biology treatise, it explain nothing and it teach nothing about biology.

God did it, doesn’t explain human or other animal anatomy. The Bible have no explanations about cells, and all the different types of cells that make up life.

Biology not only explained what they are (anatomy), they also explain how they work or function (physiology).

Plus, no where in Genesis and the rest of Bible, does it ever what “kinds” are.

You say the scale tips in favor of the Bible, but even a nine year old, today, know more about biology than whoever wrote Genesis. You saying this about scale, is nothing more than distorted and exaggerated handwaving that the Bible know more about biology than science.

You might want to go to jw.org and look up the term 'kind.' Kind — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry what do birds building nests and humans building houses, have anything to do with evolution or with the Bible?

First off, Bible provide no explanations on how to build any of these, by birds or by humans...

Second, constructing a house or a nest, have nothing to do with Evolution.

Evolution is only about biology, about biodiversity over time.

Actually, since reading your post again now, there is nothing in biological research that proves evolution. Chemicals can bind, separate, or combine, but it does not prove or demonstrate evolution. And nothing in fossil evidence that proves evolution either insofar as biology goes. To say that a bonobo is something like 98-99% of human dna is not proof of evolution. It is proof that a bonobo has 98-99% similar dna to a human. Now if it were 100%, that would take a different turn.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it's circular because you are merely assuming less well suited individuals are less likely to survive. Obviously fit individuals living in a less optimal environment than fit individuals living in an optimal environment have fewer off spring on average but it doesn't matter who produces the next individual, it will still be fit.

Let's say you are a world class athlete and very healthy and strong, but you have a peanut allergy. You are on a ship's lifeboat with 19 other people who are not particularly fit or healthy, but have no peanut allergies. You all land on an island with nothing much that humans can eat, but it does have a lot of peanuts that can be harvested.

Well I'm sorry to tell you that you have a serious problem, no food. You can try to eat the peanuts but it's surely fatal. The other 19 can survive until help comes. So you are not fit given your allergy, and that's just the way it goes in nature But the others are fit because they can survive on peanuts.

Does this clarify what fitness means to you now?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is not a science textbook. But for those times, it was remarkable. Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed and harassed by his professional colleagues because he washed his hands and promoted his findings.

Semmelweis based his ideas on evidence and not on an ideology. The same methodology that you ridicule.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's say you are a world class athlete and very healthy and strong, but you have a peanut allergy. You are on a ship's lifeboat with 19 other people who are not particularly fit or healthy, but have no peanut allergies. You all land on an island with nothing much that humans can eat, but it does have a lot of peanuts that can be harvested.

Well I'm sorry to tell you that you have a serious problem, no food. You can try to eat the peanuts but it's surely fatal. The other 19 can survive until help comes. So you are not fit given your allergy, and that's just the way it goes in nature But the others are fit because they can survive on peanuts.

Does this clarify what fitness means to you now?

I can imagine the nonsense response about consciously choosing to eat peanuts and the allergic individual evolving because of that consciousness in his bottleneck. Or whatever nonsense will be offered up to deny your explanation of biological fitness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, since reading your post again now, there is nothing in biological research that proves evolution. Chemicals can bind, separate, or combine, but it does not prove or demonstrate evolution. And nothing in fossil evidence that proves evolution either insofar as biology goes. To say that a bonobo is something like 98-99% of human dna is not proof of evolution. It is proof that a bonobo has 98-99% similar dna to a human. Now if it were 100%, that would take a different turn.

No one is saying that chemistry proves evolution. I am not sure why you are making that statement.

Again, there is no proof in science. But I understand it is futile to explain that to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is not a science textbook. But for those times, it was remarkable. Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed and harassed by his professional colleagues because he washed his hands and promoted his findings.

Dr. Semmelweis was not mentioned in the Bible. Not sure if you are aware of that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do read about evolution. I have textbooks about it. Statements are made and to be taken in many cases, on faith. You can say that as well about the Bible, however I feel the scales weigh in on the side of the Bible.

What statements? Do you have any examples are do you expect us to take what you say on faith?

 

[F1fan]

Check out Dr. Semmelweis, he was badly treated by his peers before his idea of cleanliness was accepted. It is amazing in today's day and age, also that doctors didn't believe him for quite a while.

Was that back in 2019 or something?

 

[F1fan]

I do read about evolution. I have textbooks about it. Statements are made and to be taken in many cases, on faith. You can say that as well about the Bible, however I feel the scales weigh in on the side of the Bible.

That's why you get an F in school science class.

 

[F1fan]

The Bible is not a science textbook. But for those times, it was remarkable. Dr. Semmelweis was ridiculed and harassed by his professional colleagues because he washed his hands and promoted his findings.

See, you religiously biased folks are those who are laughing at evolution.

 

[F1fan]

As I said, the Bible is not a scientific textbook.

Right, yet you think it is more accurate than science books.

 

[F1fan]

I can imagine the nonsense response about consciously choosing to eat peanuts and the allergic individual evolving because of that consciousness in his bottleneck. Or whatever nonsense will be offered up to deny your explanation of biological fitness.

Maybe he can pray away the peanut allergy. It works on gay people, right?

Alas, he will die.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biological fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a given phenotype in comparison to other phenotypes in a population in relation to a particular environment.

It is not a description of the general state of health and vigor of an individual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe he can pray away the peanut allergy. It works on gay people, right?

Alas, he will die.

It doesn't sound like it would matter, except maybe to make the guy feel better about the inevitable.

 

[cladking]

Let's say you are a world class athlete and very healthy and strong, but you have a peanut allergy. You are on a ship's lifeboat with 19 other people who are not particularly fit or healthy, but have no peanut allergies. You all land on an island with nothing much that humans can eat, but it does have a lot of peanuts that can be harvested.

Well I'm sorry to tell you that you have a serious problem, no food. You can try to eat the peanuts but it's surely fatal. The other 19 can survive until help comes. So you are not fit given your allergy, and that's just the way it goes in nature But the others are fit because they can survive on peanuts.

Does this clarify what fitness means to you now?

You are assuming this will cause a change in species. And you are assuming it is the cause of change in species. If half the population was allergic to peanuts and only one survivor of twenty had the allergy then it would actually lead to fewer individuals with allergies. If the other 19 survivors were actually rescued where the guy with allergies died and were all octogenarians it would have very little effect on the species in the medium term (a few generations).

There's no question that those unsuited to their environment are at greater peril than others. The question is is this what drives the change in species and I say "no" simply because every individual is fit. Let's postulate instead that one of the passengers is sickly and always searching for strange foods. The other 19 are healthy young single men and women. There is no food on the island but the sickly one discovers that some tuber is delicious and satisfying. Others get sick when they eat it. After a century of waiting for rescue there is no one alive on the island. By the same token if a few individuals of a species had found this tuber and eating it saved them from extinction then their off spring would be very different than those which perished. There are numerous common genes and consciousness to all behavior and these genes occur in clusters. The off spring will be different. The degree to which they are different is related to just how "different" the behavior is. If any humans could eat wood then a group of wood eating humans would breed something more akin to a cow or a termite than a human. Obviously no human can digest wood so this is an extreme example. A more realistic one might be some sort of solar pulse that killed every bird not protected by several feet of stone. Many species would have exceedingly few individuals surviving. But in very short order the world would be repopulated by various species of birds. Some of these species might be burrowers that hunted rodents or worms. Many more would nest in caves.

You are simply assuming that because we can see the unfit perish that this unfitness drives the change in species. Then every time you see the weak die or trained athletes with peanut allergies die then this must cause evolution. It is a circular argument because you must start with the assumption that "natural selection" will remove less adaptable individuals from the gene pool. But nature doesn't select individuals to die rather disease and foxes select individual rabbits to die and even the best laid plans go awry. Nature isn't conscious just as you say but every single one of her creatures most assuredly is conscious and they are all equally fit and in some environment are each least likely to be "naturally selected".

Watching the weak die and the strong procreate is fine but it's still Look and See Science. There is no evidence it drives any significant change in species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A population bottleneck is an event that drastically reduces the numerical size of a population and leads to a reduction in genetic diversity. It is a reduction in the gene pool of a population. Using modern techniques, historical bottlenecks can be detected and roughly dated. For instance, there is a recent bottleneck detectable in African elephants due to overhunting and poaching in the 19th Century.

A population bottleneck does not precipitate a speciation event or increase genetic diversity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution occurs when the environment selects members of a population that have genetic variants that allow them to survive selection. In a sense, they are protected by selection. This does not mean that those less suited all suddenly die, but their fitness under selection is on average lower than the fitness of those favored by selection. Gradually, those without the suitable variation reproduce less frequently and their genetic contribution is lost to the population due to their decreased fitness. If selection continues to occur, eventually the population is different enough from the ancestral population that they are a new species.