[deleted]

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Why does that dispute it? Catholics and mainline protestants combined outnumber evangelicals and black protestants in the US (at least according to Pew). And of course, most Christians are not Americans.

Actually what it suggests is that Catholic, Orthodox and Mainline Protestant are by and large more likely to accept the theory of evolution than the general populace (edit: in the USA) is.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'd recommend a series of introductory texts on evolutionary biology. Academic texts are usually very dry, but there are lots of good 'popular science' style books that give you a very good overview of evolutionary biology.

One of the best books is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin - which describes around 3.5 billion years of the evolutionary development of homo sapiens (ie, you and me). There is also a PBS documentary, if you don't want to read.

The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins is engaging and provides a good general underpinning of the basics of evolutionary biology, although it can be a little polemic at times. The same description could also be applied to Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

For a slightly more technical approach, without the polemics but also not quite as entertaining, try Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, by Brian and Deborah Charlesworth.

If you want to just watch stuff, instead of reading, Harvard has a free, open youtube channel with 22 lectures on evolutionary biology. This is not a structured programme, but if you understand everything in it, you'll probably have a better understanding of evolutionary biology than about 95% of the general population.

If you want to do some serious learning, and are willing to do some thing more active than just reading/watching, there are a number of free university courses available. One of the very best is the Yale Open Course on evolution, ecology and behaviour. Be warned though, the course is long - 36 1 to 2 hour lectures, plus readings.

Another highly recommended course is the MIT introduction to biology. Again, long and involved and plenty of work, but ultimately worth it.

 

[sfs]

Actually what it suggests is that Catholic, Orthodox and Mainline Protestant are by and large more likely to accept the theory of evolution than the general populace (edit: in the USA) is.

True.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's strange how evolution works just fine for them, could it be your dogma that's causing you the problems? or could it be you just don't want to accept the evidence, more people accept evolution than don't because it works, just ask the drug manufacturers who are fighting against nasty things that are evolving before their very eyes.

Back up your claims - fit the theory to the observational evidence.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. White-tail deer mate with White-Tail deer and produce only White-tail deer. Brown bears mate with brown bears and produce only brown bears.

You have only observed variation in the species when two infraspecific taxa within the species mate. Asian and African, Husky and Mastiff, etc, etc....

I think it's you that does not want to accept the evidence - and is why you will now run from attempting to show me how your theory matches what we observe and claim it happens differently, but only when we are not there to observe it.

I say the Asian remained an Asian and the African remained an African - and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian. I say the Mastiff remained a Mastiff and the Husky remained a Husky and neither evolved into the Chinook. Prove me wrong and prove yourself right. Well, I am waiting????

 

[ecco]

I say the Asian remained an Asian and the African remained an African - and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

• What would you call the son of an Asian woman and an African man?
• What would you call the son of an African woman and an Asian man?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

• What would you call the son of an Asian woman and an African man?
• What would you call the son of an African woman and an Asian man?

Doesn't matter what I would call them - they've already been named.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asian

Well if we don't ignore the observational evidence they came from at the minimum of two separate infraspecific taxa that existed before them.

But I notice you are running from fitting the theory to the observational evidence too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

WOULD BE or SHOULD BE?

Both really.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Atheist and Theistic Evolutionists alike,

I'm looking for study material on the theory of evolution. What are the most convincing materials (books, papers, videos, etc.) for evolution that you know of?

A good place to start would be a high school or college biology book. You can get a very good price on used text books. They maybe 5 years outdated but I took biology 50 years ago in High School. We have to keep up with the changes over the years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

• What would you call the son of an Asian woman and an African man?
• What would you call the son of an African woman and an Asian man?

They often use mes·ti·zo or mu·lat·to. On the census they have a category for mixed races. So they would be considered Asian-African. They would qualify in both categories. As an Asian or as a African for grant money or whatever other governmental benefits maybe available.

http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Federal law mandates that the government allocate 23 percent of its contracting work to small businesses. Of this portion, 5 percent is meant for businesses with economically or socially disadvantaged owners. These are essentially minority-owned businesses.

It isn't chump change. Total federal contracting in its 2011 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2011) was $477 billion, so 5 percent works out to $23.85 billion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

just ask the drug manufacturers who are fighting against nasty things that are evolving before their very eyes.

And just what is up with that strawman??????? Missed that one.

An E coli bacteria remains an E coli bacteria. You see no more variation within that infraspecific taxa within the bacterial species to which it belongs than you see in the Asian infraspecific taxa within the human species to which it belongs.

E coli has NEVER been observed to become anything other than E coli. They can't - they receive no other genomes during reproduction. Unlike the Asian which can mate with an African and exchange genomes to create a new infraspecific taxa - the E coli exchanges none with any other bacterium and will always remain E coli.

Just as the Asian can have changes in eye color or height, etc due to dominant and recessive genes - so too can the E coli have changes due to dominant and recessive genes.

E coli have never evolved into anything. Laboratory tests have proven this definitively. After billions of generations and billions of mutations E coli in the lab remained the exact same infraspecific taxa they started as - E coli. The gene for citrus consumption was simply made dominant - it always existed but was never the dominant gene because citrus took too much energy to metabolize. Only when it was the only food source did that gene eventually become dominant. But the E coli themselves remained E coli.

http://www.worldwidejournals.com/ijar/file.php?val=May_2015_1432027310__06.pdf

"The present study was carried out to determine the antimicrobial effect of three different fruit juices against six enteric pathogens named Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella Typhi, Salmonella Paratyphi A, Shigella flexneri, Shigella sonnei,Escherichia coli. The study was done by time kill assay method where the antimicrobial activity of the fruit juices was checked in different time intervals. The use of different concentrations (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) of citrus juice extracts had an effective antibacterial activity against. Lemon juice was the most effective against the test organisms in both undiluted and diluted concentration. Orange juice and sweet lemon juice showed antimicrobial activity only against Vibrio cholerae."

E coli simply reproduce slower in citrus environments because it takes more energy to metabolize than do it's preferred food sources. Otherwise they are almost unaffected by it, they simply reproduce at a reduced rate as they spend more energy metabolizing it.

You are confused in thinking drug manufacturers use evolution to fight bacteria and virus - those bacteria and virus never become anything but what they have always been. Their dominant and recessive genes simply switch on or off - changing their resistance or susceptibility to specific drugs - as those E coli switched on citrus metabolism to dominance from recessive.

Not once in the history of drug vaccines has a scientists said - this E coli has become a new bacteria - so we need a new drug. When they make drugs to fight E coli - they make drugs only for that E coli. They are mostly successful because the E coli can only switch dominant and recessive genes during reproduction. Not once in the history of drug manufacturing has any scientist had to create a new drug for E coli because E coli evolved into something else. It has always been E coli and will always be E coli. It simply becomes resistant to drugs over time due to dominant and recessive genes.

The drugs eventually become ineffective because the receptors to which they once attached have been made recessive and a different gene has become dominant - and the drug then has less effect on the specimen. But I can state with 100% confidence that E coli or any bacteria or virus has never become anything other than what they started out as. Hence your inability to show anywhere where any of them have become something new in any observational data. Only in your mind does this exist as a possibility.

 

[ecco]

Justatruthseeker

I say the Asian remained an Asian and the African remained an African - and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.​

ecco

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

Well if we don't ignore the observational evidence they came from at the minimum of two separate infraspecific taxa that existed before them.

Let me rephrase that a little to make my question clearer:
Given Genesis and Adam & Eve and the Great Flood some 4200 years ago...

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

Also, what were the "separate infraspecific taxa that existed before them"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Given Genesis and Adam & Eve and the Great Flood some 4200 years ago...

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

The Asians came from Shem, the Africans came from Ham.

 

[sfs]

The Asians came from Shem, the Africans came from Ham.

But justa thinks there were three different Asian thingummies that contributed to Native Americans. Where did the three of them come from?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They often use mes·ti·zo or mu·lat·to. On the census they have a category for mixed races. So they would be considered Asian-African. They would qualify in both categories. As an Asian or as a African for grant money or whatever other governmental benefits maybe available.

http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Federal law mandates that the government allocate 23 percent of its contracting work to small businesses. Of this portion, 5 percent is meant for businesses with economically or socially disadvantaged owners. These are essentially minority-owned businesses.

It isn't chump change. Total federal contracting in its 2011 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2011) was $477 billion, so 5 percent works out to $23.85 billion.

You were doing well until you go to the fifth sentence.
What does any of that have to do with the historical diversification of early human species that eventually led to the Asian and African populations we know of today?

 

[AV1611VET]

But justa thinks there were three different Asian thingummies that contributed to Native Americans. Where did the three of them come from?

Hmmm .... don't know.

The Native Americans came from Shem.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You were doing well until you go to the fifth sentence.
What does any of that have to do with the historical diversification of early human species that eventually led to the Asian and African populations we know of today?

If you go east and west the climate does not change much. The problem is to go north and south. When they came up out of Africa they entered into an area that Neanderthal man dominated. As the human increased the Neanderthal decreased. This took place about 40,000 years ago when they find three artifacts, fishing nets, sowing needles and fishing hook. With these simple tools they were able to come up out of Africa and adapt to a more northern climate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you go east and west the climate does not change much. The problem is to go north and south. When they came up out of Africa they entered into an area that Neanderthal man dominated. As the human increased the Neanderthal decreased. This took place about 40,000 years ago when they find three artifacts, fishing nets, sowing needles and fishing hook. With these simple tools they were able to come up out of Africa and adapt to a more northern climate.

Okay, now that I can understand.
What I don't understand, is why you went on a mini-rant about academic grants for Asians and Africans in the US.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker

I say the Asian remained an Asian and the African remained an African - and neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.​

ecco

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

Let me rephrase that a little to make my question clearer:
Given Genesis and Adam & Eve and the Great Flood some 4200 years ago...

• Where did the Asian come from?
• Where did the African come from?

Also, what were the "separate infraspecific taxa that existed before them"?

Let me rephrase a little more to make the answer a little clearer.

Noah had three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. His sons had wives.

"Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber” (Genesis 10:21), and this is important because the word Eber is the origin of the Hebrew word for “Hebrew.” The word Shem means “name,” which implies that Noah expected this son’s name to become great. He was right—the modern words Semitic and Semite are derived from Shem’s name. The Bible records that Shem had five sons: Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram (Genesis 10:22). Shem lived to be 600 years of age (Genesis 11:10–11) and became the ancestor of the Semitic peoples (Genesis 10:1, 21–31). Abraham, a descendant of Shem, is the first person in the Bible who is referred to as a “Hebrew” (Genesis 14:13).

Shem’s son Elam was the father of the Elamites, who later settled east of Mesopotamia. Shem’s son Ashur, whose name is related to the word Assyria, is most likely the father of those who settled the ancient region of Assyria (Genesis 2:14). Arphaxad is thought by many scholars to be a compound form of the Hebrew word for “Chaldea,” which was a region in southern Mesopotamia (Genesis 11:10–13). It was through Arphaxad that Eber came. Scholars believe that the descendants of Shem’s son Lud became known as the Lydians of Asia Minor. And Aram is identified by Bible scholars with the area northeast of the Promised Land, known today as Syria (cf. 2 Kings 16:6). The sons of Aram are listed in Genesis 10:23. Of Aram’s sons, Uz is later referred to in the book of Job (Job 1:1).

Noah’s firstborn son, Japheth, is listed as the father of Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras (Genesis 10:2). Their descendants became the people who lived to the north and west of Israel and, after Babel, spoke what today are classified as Indo-European languages.

Ham, the youngest of the Noah’s three sons, had four sons: Cush, Mizraim (Hebrew for “Egypt”), Put, and Canaan (Genesis 10:6; 1 Chronicles 1:8). Egypt was later called the “land of Ham” (Psalm 78:51; 105:23; 106:22). The Hamitic peoples are shown in Genesis 10:6–20 as becoming a godless and worldly power. It was the land of Palestine that was assigned to Ham’s son, Canaan, and for centuries it was under the control of the Egyptians. Ham is the father of the Arabians, Canaanites, and Africans, including the Egyptians. Due to Ham’s sin against his father (Genesis 9:20–25), Noah cursed Canaan, saying Canaan would be a servant to Shem (Genesis 9:26). This was fulfilled centuries later when the Israelites entered the land of Canaan and subdued the inhabitants of that land (1 Kings 9:20–21).

You would know the answer had you ever read the Bible. At no time did African or Asian evolve from single things. In all cases it begins with two separate infraspecific taxa. Male and female created He them. If you actually understood genetics you would know the human genome is not improving - but is building up errors over time. leading to the inescapable conclusion that Adam was created genetically perfect - with all of the possible genetic combinations contained within his genes. These were separated when Eve was created. We therefore start with (two) separate infraspecific taxa. A+B=C and D and E, etc, since all combinations were then possible. At no time does A+A=B. All we need do is observe the natural world to see the validity of this statement. Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. B, C, D etc, etc is never produced until the Asian mates with an African.

Now, you are free to ignore the observational evidence that Asian never become anything but Asian and believe they evolve into other things. Just do not ask me to ignore all observations of the natural world to pretend your theory has any validity at all.

And now you should also know why it appears man came from Northern Africa - because the Ark landed in Turkey and where the sons of Noah began their dispersal across the earth. The sons of Mizraim (Ham) later went north and took over Canaan, which you mistake as a migration from Africa of all humans.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Okay, now that I can understand.
What I don't understand, is why you went on a mini-rant about academic grants for Asians and Africans in the US.

The question I answered was people that have parents from two different "races". I gave the governments definition based on the census and the distribution of government funds. If you have a different approach then tell us what it is.

Some people say that race is a myth and that we should not make any sort of a distinction between people. But governments do not share their bias and Uncle Sam has guidelines to differentiate and reward people in some categories.

 

[ecco]

In all cases it begins with two separate infraspecific taxa. Male and female created He them. If you actually understood genetics you would know the human genome is not improving - but us building up errors over time. leading to the inescapable conclusion that Adam was created genetically perfect - with all of the possible genetic combinations contained within his genes. These were separated when Eve was created. We therefore start with (two) separate infraspecific taxa. A+B=C, C+A=D, etc, etc. At no time does A+A=B. All we need do is observe the natural world to see the validity of this statement. Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. B, C, D etc, etc is never produced until the Asian mates with an African.

• Are you saying that Adam is one infraspecific taxa.
• Eve is a different infraspecific taxa.
• Eve's genetic makup is inferior to Adam's?

Now, you are free to ignore the observational evidence that Asian never become anything but Asian and believe they evolve into other things. Just do not ask me to ignore all observations of the natural world to pretend your theory has any validity at all.

I would never ask you to pretend anything. You do quite well in that department with no need for outside help.