Evolution according to Zosimus

[EternalDragon]

Inferred

Inferred

Inferred

Inferred

Not guessed.

Not assumed.

That requires evidence, not just similarities.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That requires evidence, not just similarities.

I know right? Pretty soon people are going to try and tell me that dogs are canines. Someone might even try and tell me that a tomato is a fruit.

Such hogwash.
Such wow.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[[serious]]

That requires evidence, not just similarities.

Luckily, we have evidence. Take, for example, genetic analysis.

Now, the tree of life was initially build around morphology, and large segments of it are still only from morphology. But whenwe gained the ability to sequence the DNA it gave us the opportunity to test the predictions of that tree. So, we formed a hypothesis:

If the nesting hierarchy of morphology is due to common descent, non coding heritable markers (which are independent of morphology) are predicted to also build a nested hierarchy like that of the morphology based tree.

Guess what happened...

But how can we test it NOW? Well, there are plenty more species to sequence. Each one is a new test. We are also still discovering species. those test both the morphological nested hierarchy and the genetic one.

So yeah, inference, not guesses.

 

[lasthero]

The same for the formation of planets, the moon, the interior of the earth

Before I go on, ED, please don't ignore the other responses just to focus on this.

I found that last part interesting. You seem to be implying that, because we've never been inside the Earth, we can't say anything about what it's like? That it's all just a guess? Do you seriously believe that, or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Split Rock]

That requires evidence, not just similarities.

Similarities in morphology is evidence.
Similarities in genetic sequence is evidence
Similarities in development is evidence
Similarities in biochemistry is evidence.

Just as you are similar to your close relations, closely related species are similar as well. Of course, there is more than simlarities in isolation. There are similarities in geological space and time (stratigraphy), which you guys ignore with your incorrect analogies to lining up random objects together and saying, "see a pencil sharpner evolved into a car!.. aren't evos dum?!"

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

.... incorrect analogies to lining up random objects together and saying, "see a pencil sharpner evolved into a car!.. aren't evos dum?!"

Holy Smokes, I need a drink!

 

[EternalDragon]

I know right? Pretty soon people are going to try and tell me that dogs are canines. Someone might even try and tell me that a tomato is a fruit.

Such hogwash.
Such wow.

-CryptoLutheran

What do names, assigned by man to creatures, have to do with evidence?

Some day someone might tell you that God created the canidae and the
tomato (Solanaceae).

 

[Astrophile]

In conclusion, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's what evolution is. Anyone who tries to tell you that evolution has to do with fossils, or abiogenesis, or apes turning into humans, or whether God created life, or whether science has disproved God's existence simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

As I see it, the point of the fossil record is this. Every living thing is descended from an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past (to the origin of life, if you like). We all had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, ad infinitum. However, ancient rocks (say of the Paleocene epoch, about 55-65 million years ago) don't contain fossil apes and monkeys, although living apes must have had Paleocene ancestors (the unbroken lineage that I mentioned in the second sentence). Mesozoic rocks don't contain fossil whales, although living whales must have had Mesozoic ancestors. Palaeozoic rocks don't contain ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, although Mesozoic ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs must have had Palaeozoic ancestors.

If, to use my first example, modern apes and monkeys must have had Paleocene ancestors, but we don't find fossil apes and monkeys in Paleocene rocks, it appears to follow that apes and monkeys must have descended from Paleocene ancestors that were not themselves apes or monkeys; in other words, there must have been macro-evolution. The same argument applies to the Mesozoic ancestors of whales and the Palaeozoic ancestors of ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs.

I have raised this point many times, but have never received an answer. It can't be that difficult to comprehend; we must be able to understand that our lineage, through parents, grandparents, etc. extends back into the past without any break or interruption, so why is it so difficult to see the significance of the fossil record for the history of evolution?

 

[EternalDragon]

As I see it, the point of the fossil record is this. Every living thing is descended from an unbroken line of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past (to the origin of life, if you like). We all had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, ad infinitum. However, ancient rocks (say of the Paleocene epoch, about 55-65 million years ago) don't contain fossil apes and monkeys, although living apes must have had Paleocene ancestors (the unbroken lineage that I mentioned in the second sentence). Mesozoic rocks don't contain fossil whales, although living whales must have had Mesozoic ancestors. Palaeozoic rocks don't contain ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, although Mesozoic ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs must have had Palaeozoic ancestors.

If, to use my first example, modern apes and monkeys must have had Paleocene ancestors, but we don't find fossil apes and monkeys in Paleocene rocks, it appears to follow that apes and monkeys must have descended from Paleocene ancestors that were not themselves apes or monkeys; in other words, there must have been macro-evolution. The same argument applies to the Mesozoic ancestors of whales and the Palaeozoic ancestors of ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs.

I have raised this point many times, but have never received an answer. It can't be that difficult to comprehend; we must be able to understand that our lineage, through parents, grandparents, etc. extends back into the past without any break or interruption, so why is it so difficult to see the significance of the fossil record for the history of evolution?

There are all kinds of breaks in the fossil record and it isn't as neat
as you think it is. It is full of fully formed creatures within their kinds
that were buried quickly by water and sediment.

Natural processes are not capable of building life from microbial mats
of vegetation on up to man. Unless you invoke higher intelligence into
the equation.

 

[lasthero]

There are all kinds of breaks in the fossil record and it isn't as neat
as you think it is. It is full of fully formed creatures within their kinds

What's a 'kind'?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Sidebar: It might be worthwhile to those who've not yet studied Evolution, to do so (get a handle on the terminology) -- and for now gracious bow out and let those who do know, engage in science.

 

[bhsmte]

Sidebar: It might be worthwhile to those who've not yet studied Evolution, to do so (get a handle on the terminology) -- and for now gracious bow out and let those who do know, engage in science.

Valiant effort, but unrealistic, considering the motivation some have to protect a tightly held belief.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Valiant effort, but unrealistic, considering the motivation some have to protect a tightly held belief.

Why thank you kind Sir!

Having recently (over the past six years) come to a place where I wanted to know what Evolution is, not what had been filtered down to me through the safety net of a strictly Christian viewpoint -- I am very conscious of the wall of fear (not always fear) which surrounds my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Who are looking at something through the veil of something else. Because they've been told that if they embrace it, it means that they will then lose their faith, their baptism and their Lord. None of that is true!
It's rooted in an unhealthy view of the Christian sacred texts, which elevates it even above the Lord himself. Sort that out, and immediately you'll have a student, who is more eager to learn, than even the Atheist who has already turned (or begun turning) their backs on GOD. (well, it's not always that cut-and-dry, is it?)

We're all so wonderfully different, when it comes to this matter of learning something new. Some are comfortable in their particular worldview, and they don't want to listen to what others have to say -- they don't even want to listen to those who have similar worldviews. It's a very human thing, this thing we do. We block out the sunshine that will help us grow, when we listen to the voice of fear -- which says our petals, our leaves, our stems, our roots, our flowers and our fruits will wither and die!

So many have been told that if they reject aspects of their sacred texts, then before they know it -- it will all just melt away and their faith, their baptism, their Lord -- will no longer be in their hearts.

Not everyone has the courage to take such a risk and so they view it, as if it were evil incarnate, spewing forth vile abominations that will poison faith with doubt -- and send them to a horrible eternity.

Some people's worldviews are strong enough to manage new ideas, and hold in themselves conflicting, contradictory and opposing views -- without falling apart - but not all. I am lucky that way, for I come from a very liberal mindset, and therefore understand that my faith cannot be lost, for it's not that sort of faith -- it travels with me into all things. I can learn from the beggar on the street, from the crooked politician (not much though) and from the sage, the wise man and yes, even from an evil man who's heart has gone ice cold to the things of God. In fact, my best tutors in Biological Evolution are hardcore Atheists - my best lessons in Theology, were from hard core Atheists. My best lessons about Atheism, were from hard core Atheists. One day one of them asked me, 'Am I your brother?' I said, 'Yes, you are a prodigal'

I really hope that more of my sisters and brothers will lose their fear, and learn and grow and shine and bless this world which is so cold and hard.

 

[bhsmte]

Why thank you kind Sir!

Having recently (over the past six years) come to a place where I wanted to know what Evolution is, not what had been filtered down to me through the safety net of a strictly Christian viewpoint -- I am very conscious of the wall of fear (not always fear) which surrounds my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Who are looking at something through the veil of something else. Because they've been told that if they embrace it, it means that they will then lose their faith, their baptism and their Lord. None of that is true!
It's rooted in an unhealthy view of the Christian sacred texts, which elevates it even above the Lord himself. Sort that out, and immediately you'll have a student, who is more eager to learn, than even the Atheist who has already turned (or begun turning) their backs on GOD. (well, it's not always that cut-and-dry, is it?)

We're all so wonderfully different, when it comes to this matter of learning something new. Some are comfortable in their particular worldview, and they don't want to listen to what others have to say -- they don't even want to listen to those who have similar worldviews. It's a very human thing, this thing we do. We block out the sunshine that will help us grow, when we listen to the voice of fear -- which says our petals, our leaves, our stems, our roots, our flowers and our fruits will wither and die!
So many have been told that if they reject aspects of their sacred texts, then before they know it -- it will all just melt away and their faith, their baptism, their Lord -- will no longer be in their hearts.
Not everyone has the courage to take such a risk and so they view it, as if it were evil incarnate, spewing forth vile abominations that will poison faith with doubt -- and send them to a horrible eternity.
Some people's worldviews are strong enough to manage new ideas, and hold in themselves conflicting, contradictory and opposed ideas -- without falling apart - but not all. I am lucky that way -- I come from a very liberal mindset, and therefore understand that my faith cannot be lost, for it's not that sort of faith -- it travels with me into all things. I can learn from the beggar on the street, from the crooked politician (not much though) and from the sage, the wise man and yes, even from an evil man who's heart has gone ice cold to the things of God.
In fact, my best tutors in Biological Evolution are hardcore Atheists - my best lesson in Theology, were from hard core Atheists. My best lessons about Atheism, were from hard core Atheists. One day one of them asked me, 'Am I your brother' I said, 'Yes, you a prodigal'

I really hope that more of my sisters and brothers will lose their fear, and learn and grow and shine and bless this world which is so cold and hard.

Fear is a good word to utilize here.

Let's be real here, as a general rule, any type of faith belief is fragile to some degree, because the person has put their eggs in the basket, without any type of objective external evidence to confirm their belief is legit. Some people can do so and adjust their faith beliefs by still acknowledging well evidenced realities. Others, can not do so and they feel threatened by any evidence, which may call into question what their faith is built upon. In the latter, they become overly protective, and build strong defense mechanisms to protect the belief; confirmation bias, denial and selective reasoning.

When a person's psychology allows it, they may accept new knowledge which will either cause them to adjust their faith belief, or even abandon it all together and each person does so on their own time and place, when it is their idea.

 

[Astrophile]

There are all kinds of breaks in the fossil record and it isn't as neat
as you think it is.

I didn't say that there were no breaks in the fossil record; I said that there were no breaks in the chain of ancestors. One can't have a break in one's ancestry where one member doesn't have any parents, followed several generations earlier by a member of the same lineage who didn't have any children.

Natural processes are not capable of building life from microbial mats of vegetation on up to man.

In that case, what members of the Cambrian biota were our ancestors? As I've already said, there were no breaks in the chain of ancestors, so we must have had ancestors who lived during the Cambrian period. We don't find fossil humans in Cambrian rocks, therefore our Cambrian ancestors were not human beings. If I'm wrong, if our Cambrian ancestors were human beings, why don't we find their fossils in Cambrian rocks?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Fear is a good word to utilize here.

Let's be real here, as a general rule, any type of faith belief is fragile to some degree, because the person has put their eggs in the basket, without any type of objective external evidence to confirm their belief is legit.

Now this is where you are applying the wrong terminology. Faith is not, as religion is not weak -- you are thinking with the wrong side of your brain. Let Jesus teach you about seeds -- they are tiny, but they grow into massive trees. Healthy religion, healthy faith is very good and very robust and as someone said in a joke, it has evolved right along with everything else.

Some people can do so and adjust their faith beliefs by still acknowledging well evidenced realities. Others, can not do so and they feel threatened by any evidence, which may call into question what their faith is built upon. In the latter, they become overly protective, and build strong defense mechanisms to protect the belief; confirmation bias, denial and selective reasoning.

Yet another term, which fails - 'evidence' There is no evidence that can shake a person religion (if it is good, if it is solidly ground on the ROCK) You see that's something you're not getting right.

When a person's psychology allows it, they may accept new knowledge which will either cause them to adjust their faith belief, or even abandon it all together and each person does so on their own time and place, when it is their idea.

Finally, the word I've seen others use 'knowledge' -- You have a very stolid view of this, and as such I can understand why you are agnostic and atheist (very fashionable now days)

 

[bhsmte]

Now this is where you are applying the wrong terminology. Faith is not, as religion is not weak -- you are thinking with the wrong side of your brain. Let Jesus teach you about seeds -- they are tiny, but they grow into massive trees. Healthy religion, healthy faith is very good and very robust and as someone said in a joke, it has evolved right along with everything else.



Yet another term, which fails - 'evidence' There is no evidence that can shake a person religion (if it is good, if it is solidly ground on the ROCK) You see that's something you're not getting right.



Finally, the word I've seen others use 'knowledge' -- You have a very stolid view of this, and as such I can understand why you are agnostic and atheist (very fashionable now days)

Fashionable to be atheist?

In the United States, being labeled as atheist is equivalent to being a rapist in regards to trust and studies have confirmed the same.

Ok, so if no evidence of any kind can shake a person's faith belief, what do you think I required for that person to do personally (psychologically) to shield themselves from said evidence?

Faith beliefs require either significant compartmentalization and or strong defense mechanisms to protect it. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, if the faith belief is healthy for the person, but the psychology of belief is an interesting subject to read up on.

The Two Kinds Of Belief | Psychology Today

 

[EternalDragon]

I didn't say that there were no breaks in the fossil record; I said that there were no breaks in the chain of ancestors. One can't have a break in one's ancestry where one member doesn't have any parents, followed several generations earlier by a member of the same lineage who didn't have any children.

In that case, what members of the Cambrian biota were our ancestors? As I've already said, there were no breaks in the chain of ancestors, so we must have had ancestors who lived during the Cambrian period. We don't find fossil humans in Cambrian rocks, therefore our Cambrian ancestors were not human beings. If I'm wrong, if our Cambrian ancestors were human beings, why don't we find their fossils in Cambrian rocks?

None of them were our ancestors. We were created humans and remain
humans. Also I do not consider layers in the earth as "time periods" so
there are indeed human fossils in the "Cambrian" as well as dinosaur
fossils, fish fossils, horse fossils, etc.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In the United States, being labeled as atheist is equivalent to being a rapist in regards to trust and studies have confirmed the same.

I suppose I am thinking of England, and the sort of support and applause that debates illicit from the numerous growing body of devotees. I'm sure you know what I mean.
England is very (?) different, but America is fast catching up -- the drop offs from Church attendance in the States is certainly a statistic that I'm aware of. (though to be honest, I don't keep up -- and don't bother myself too much with such things)

Ok, so if no evidence of any kind can shake a person's faith belief, what do you think I required for that person to do personally (psychologically) to shield themselves from said evidence?

You misunderstand me. I see you have combined 'faith belief' -- you do not know the value of religion. It does not shield, it inquires, it shakes up, it looks deeply, it explores, it penetrates, it will not rest until real ignorance (which depends up such poor things as 'evidence') has been removed and in it's place powerful reason. ('Wisdom' if you will) It is unafraid of evidence, it seeks deeply into matters and searches out weaknesses, flaws -- it hunts for perfection.

Faith beliefs require either significant compartmentalization and or strong defense mechanisms to protect it. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, if the faith belief is healthy for the person, but the psychology of belief is an interesting subject to read up on.

The Two Kinds Of Belief | Psychology Today

I'm sure there are many good articles to read, but we are not playing games here - you and I. You think you know what you are talking about, but it's clear that you have a very poor understanding of these matters.

I too played games when I was a little boy, but as St. Paul -- 'I have put them away.'

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose I am thinking of England, and the sort of support and applause that debates illicit from the numerous growing body of devotees. I'm sure you know what I mean.
England is very (?) different, but America is fast catching up -- the drop offs from Church attendance in the States is certainly a statistic that I'm aware of. (though to be honest, I don't keep up -- and don't bother myself too much with such things)



You misunderstand me. I see you have combined 'faith belief' -- you do not know the value of religion. It does not shield, it inquires, it shakes up, it looks deeply, it explores, it penetrates, it will not rest until real ignorance (which depends up such poor things as 'evidence') has been removed and in it's place powerful reason. ('Wisdom' if you will) It is unafraid of evidence, it seeks deeply into matters and searches out weaknesses, flaws -- it hunts for perfection.



I'm sure there are many good articles to read, but we are not playing games here - you and I. You think you know what you are talking about, but it's clear that you have a very poor understanding of these matters.

I too played games when I was a little boy, but as St. Paul -- 'I have put them away.'

How exactly am i playing games?

And i hate to break it to you, but some do use faith beliefs as a shield.