Evolution Primer

Status
Not open for further replies.

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Either:

One species can develop into another


or

Species have been created at intervals since the beginning of the World


or

All species were present from the beginning of the World


Which do you think is true?

Well it's always interesting to contemplate what is a "beginning".. Maybe there was no beginning as such but creation is continous.. The origin of life could be extraterrestrial. Genesis says "In the beginning.." but maybe that meant in the beginning of this particular universe or field or maybe in the sense of most beginnings..

- Art

Now the big question: is there a green pill?
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Either:

One species can develop into another


or

Species have been created at intervals since the beginning of the World


or

All species were present from the beginning of the World


Which do you think is true?

Now the big question: is there a green pill?

Ask Mork...^_^

Yes there is a green pill and it is exactly that - it is green - that is the only property it needs. Any bulking material, filler, sweetener, binding agent or glaze is incidental.


It has no other essential properties so it has no function, so it is a placebo, but one that is identified as being green.


The reason it is green is so the people who take that one can gather with others who took the green pill and discuss the reasons for taking it. Those who chose the green pill are on average more intelligent and morally resilient and ethical than those who took the blue one. You chose well.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Either:

One species can develop into another

or
Species have been created at intervals since the beginning of the World
or
All species were present from the beginning of the World


Which do you think is true?

Matching Genesis to science is either impossible or very difficult,

which color would you take?
 
Upvote 0

Arthra

Baha'i
Feb 20, 2004
7,060
572
California
Visit site
✟71,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Matching Genesis to science is either impossible or very difficult,

which color would you take?

Are you still on those pills?

I don't think Genesis is a science text but it was an explanation given for the world in ancient Hebrew around two or three thousand years ago..

One cannot in my view break it down into a matter of "colors" or "pills"... either.

- Art
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Expressed from the species point of view it would be:

Every species originated in the creation event(s) mentioned in Genesis 1

Species originated by divine intervention at intervals over millions or billions of years

All species originated by development from other species
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Expressed from the species point of view it would be:

Every species originated in the creation event(s) mentioned in Genesis 1

Species originated by divine intervention at intervals over millions or billions of years

All species originated by development from other species
Or a mixture: God creates species at intervals, and those specially created species go on to evolve into more species.

So God created the Reptile species (which then evolved into the myriad of reptiles we see today) before he created the Mammal species (which also speciated).

Of course, that goes against the entire evolutionary record, but there you go.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Of course, that goes against the entire evolutionary record, but there you go.
Indeed


There is the blue text that is the Genesis version and the red text that is the science version. Compromises violate both scripture and science.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
errata:

Owing to changing schools a few times I got a total of 4 weeks of biology in school, so this may be all wrong:
...

Sorry, I really don't know much biology, but I thought I did OK filling in for a creationist

OK, I'll hold the fort for AppliePie until Friday

...
The absence of Chromosomal defects means inbreeding is fine. This could also explain the long lives of the ancients.
...

It turns out the cheetah has exactly that problem, down to about 7 individuals during the massive mammal die out 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

And from the article on cheetah extinction (ABC news), and the one on cheetah skin grafts, I discovered that...

Genetic defects isn't the only problem -

lack of genetic variety means one disease could wipe out the entire population.

And for some reason no one has yet found, lack of genetic variety leads to skull asymmetry.

Humans have picked up diseases from all over the World and shared them, some like the plague killed most people who contracted them. Humans are very numerous and form a big enough reservoir of infected individuals for some diseases such as flu to mutate and evolve within our population.

Cheetahs have a small population and limited range and so have not picked up any lethal diseases.


Geneticists have shown there is a lot of variety in the human gene pool. Even just looking around reveals tall thin Africans, short (pygmy) Africans, muscular Africans, slightly built Celtic type Caucasians, Viking type Caucasians, Mongolians, Polynesians, Arabs and others. Hair can be coarse and straight or curly or fine and straight, some men go bald very young, others haven't at 85, some people can not distinguish between bitter and sour, others between red and green, some can curl their tongues...


I can't see how one father (Noah) and five women 4,500 years ago gave rise to the variety we now have, especially if all five women can from just one Adam and one Eve.

Anyway it looks like even if their alleles had no defects the human race would not have survived this far,

sorry about the mistake :sorry::blush:
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Or a mixture: God creates species at intervals, and those specially created species go on to evolve into more species.

So God created the Reptile species (which then evolved into the myriad of reptiles we see today) before he created the Mammal species (which also speciated).

...

so evolution is all right when God does it


when scientists talk about it evolution is a myth, but to get the huge range of animals in the World from the small selection on the Ark God uses evolution and it's OK when he does it
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think the point is that no one has ever seen a man evolving from an ape or whatever. We can only speculate that he did. Facts cannot be built upon speculation, or upon so called evidence we spend endless time speculating on.

So, Sorry, evolution is like a bottomless pit, jump in it and we are forever falling into the darkness of speculations.

The only actual proof we can possibly have for the evolution of man from animal is if we actually see some kind of animal evolving into a man before our very eyes, similar to how we see a caterpillar 'evolving' into a butterfly.

Anything else is pure speculation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
40
✟14,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I think the point is that no one has ever seen a man evolving from an ape or whatever. We can only speculate that he did. Facts cannot be built upon speculation, or upon so called evidence we spend endless time speculating on.

So, Sorry, evolution is like a bottomless pit, jump in it and we are forever falling into the darkness of speculations.

The only actual proof we can possibly have for the evolution of man from animal is if we actually see some kind of animal evolving into a man before our very eyes, similar to how we see a caterpillar 'evolving' into a butterfly.

Anything else is pure speculation.

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly ignorant and hypocritical. It is ignorant because you obviously have not studied evolution for yourself. If you did, you would know that evolution is not blind speculation. Specation is a fact of reality. Putting your head in the sand does not make it go away.

It is hypocritical because your beliefs about the truth of the Bible are not based on facts. So you have no grounds to critisize the field of science, which has much higher standards of veracity than theology does.

Third, you are basing your conclusion on our limited perception. We humans have only understood science for a couple hundred years. Contrast this to the millions and billions of years required for evolution to occur, and it should be no surprise that we have not seen our own evolution take place.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I think the point is that no one has ever seen a man evolving from an ape or whatever. We can only speculate that he did. Facts cannot be built upon speculation, or upon so called evidence we spend endless time speculating on.
Actually, they can: the amount evidence supporting the 'speculation' that humans evolved from previous animal species is staggering. It's more likely that humans evolved from animals, than it is atoms exist.

So, Sorry, evolution is like a bottomless pit, jump in it and we are forever falling into the darkness of speculations.
Speculations which can be tested for, and potentially discarded. Thus far, they've survived 140 years of rigorous scientific scrutiny, and amassed an incredible amount of evidence in their favour.

The only actual proof we can possibly have for the evolution of man from animal is if we actually see some kind of animal evolving into a man before our very eyes, similar to how we see a caterpillar 'evolving' into a butterfly.
No animal will ever evolve into the human species: that process took millions of years of mutation and natural selection, the precise details of which are highly unlikely to exactly occur again. Species can only evolve into new, hitherto unknown species.

That said, we can see species evolve into new species: there is a large list of observed instances of speciation, both induced in the lab and observed in the wild (the existence of nylon- and citrus- eating bacterial species are my favourite).

Oh, and, caterpillars don't 'evolve' into butterflies :doh:.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think the point is that no one has ever seen a man evolving from an ape or whatever. We can only speculate that he did. Facts cannot be built upon speculation, or upon so called evidence we spend endless time speculating on.

So, Sorry, evolution is like a bottomless pit, jump in it and we are forever falling into the darkness of speculations.

The only actual proof we can possibly have for the evolution of man from animal is if we actually see some kind of animal evolving into a man before our very eyes
...

Anything else is pure speculation.


Sounds good to me.

All you want is for the apes to create video recorders and record from 5 million years ago until 270,000 years ago when H S Sapiens became a sub species and really until now to show our continuity from 270,000 years ago.

I assume you also need video evidence that Jesus existed?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

searching12

Newbie
Apr 30, 2009
13
1
England
✟15,139.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think the point is that no one has ever seen a man evolving from an ape or whatever. We can only speculate that he did. Facts cannot be built upon speculation, or upon so called evidence we spend endless time speculating on.

So, Sorry, evolution is like a bottomless pit, jump in it and we are forever falling into the darkness of speculations.

The only actual proof we can possibly have for the evolution of man from animal is if we actually see some kind of animal evolving into a man before our very eyes, similar to how we see a caterpillar 'evolving' into a butterfly.

Anything else is pure speculation.


LOL. Well you can apply all your arguments above to the Christian religion and its most sacred tenets: Jesus' life and death, resurrection, Biblical miracles, etc.

If you want proof of these, why don't you want proof of the resurrection of Christ?

Evolution of all life on earth is not a theory, it is a scientific fact. Another fact is that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. It is very evidently written by mortal men, and not godly inspired. So to go and believe everything said in the Bible as truth, is more than a little naive. It's just downright irresponsible.

/rant over :liturgy:
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
...

So to go and believe everything said in the Bible as truth, is more than a little naive. It's just downright irresponsible.
...


I threw away ten years of my life learning and following the Bible.

Some people did worse; read my signature:
.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upon the realisation thereof, you have become an atheist, right?

I wasn't aware I was using the double standard game: no one knows how old the universe is because no one was there etc. but then with Biblical stuff a much lower standard, well no proof at all was required. But it got a bit too double standard with something I was expected to believe but couldn't find out exactly what it was.


What did it was a very knowledgeable Christian, one that knew more than I did, had also never resolved if the Noah Flood was local or global. He lent me a book he thought had the answer, I read it and found the author spent a few pages in it also explaining he was puzzled.


The problem is a local flood is contrary to scripture and a global flood is contrary to everything except scripture.


I couldn't continue as things were. The other Bible experts could continue believing because they were paid by their churches so they lost nothing by continuing to be all religious whereas I was losing my chances to move up the career ladder (and lost them in fact).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

searching12

Newbie
Apr 30, 2009
13
1
England
✟15,139.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I wasn't aware I was using the double standard game: no one knows how old the universe is because no one was there etc. but then with Biblical stuff a much lower standard, well no proof at all was required. But it got a bit too double standard with something I was expected to believe but couldn't find out exactly what it was.

Actually, it is possible to calculate the age of the universe: it is around 13.7 billion years old.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.