The Demise of Evolution

[d taylor]

Humans have never laid eggs.

The very earliest mammals laid eggs and now only one very small branch does likewise. (Just two species).

Can you explain what point you are trying to make? It seems to jump around from belly buttons to eggs.

As i stated if evolution is true then explain the evolution of the human birth process from whatever it was before the womb. What did the womb evolve from and over the Billions of years how was life brought fourth from a human before the womb.
Because a human (or what ever science call them millions of years ago) evolving certainly would not have started out with a womb and bringing forth life from a womb, like we do today.

 

[VirOptimus]

As i stated if evolution is true then explain the evolution of the human birth process from whatever it was before the womb. What did the womb evolve from and over the Billions of years how was life brought fourth from a human before the womb.
Because a human (or what ever science call them millions of years ago) evolving certainly would not have started out with a womb and bringing forth life from a womb, like we do today.

We are not responsible for your education.

Btw; evolution=observed fact. The theory of evolution=explains how evolution works.

 

[Ophiolite]

As i stated if evolution is true then explain the evolution of the human birth process from whatever it was before the womb. What did the womb evolve from and over the Billions of years how was life brought fourth from a human before the womb.
Because a human (or what ever science call them millions of years ago) evolving certainly would not have started out with a womb and bringing forth life from a womb, like we do today.

As Vir Optimus said, we are not responsible for your education, but I don't mind pointing you in the right direction.
Amniotes.
That's a good starting point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As i stated if evolution is true then explain the evolution of the human birth process from whatever it was before the womb. What did the womb evolve from and over the Billions of years how was life brought fourth from a human before the womb.
Because a human (or what ever science call them millions of years ago) evolving certainly would not have started out with a womb and bringing forth life from a womb, like we do today.

You could very easily do a Google search on the question you're after. Although I very much doubt that you'll accept it...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Show me evidence of a human egg

Photomicrograph image of human egg with sperm in attendance:

 

[Shemjaza]

As i stated if evolution is true then explain the evolution of the human birth process from whatever it was before the womb. What did the womb evolve from and over the Billions of years how was life brought fourth from a human before the womb.
Because a human (or what ever science call them millions of years ago) evolving certainly would not have started out with a womb and bringing forth life from a womb, like we do today.

Okay.

Well, my point was that wombs evolved in our family tree long before anything you would call a human or even a primate.

Apes, monkeys, rabbits and rats all have wombs... and so did their common ancestor.

 

[Kylie]

Photomicrograph image of human egg with sperm in attendance:

Sperm in attendance.

I've got a mental image of all those little sperms saying things like, "Anything else we can get for you, m'lady?" "Another cup of hot cocoa, m'lady?"

 

[roman2819]

This is an argument for evolution?

I'm not even going to bother with your first para "The Parable of the Buddhist Diner". It says nothing about the topic apart from your Buddhist friend desperately needing to spend a little time studying biology

Your first post was about evolution. This second post appears to vacillate between the existence of your God and evolution. Let me give you an initial heads up Roman. Many Christian churches and individuals accept the idea of evolution. It is also possible to be a non-believer in gods (an atheist) and not accept evolution. The two concepts are not interdependent.

Now for your second para.

The first sentence is internally contradictory. You have non-believers with the common trait of thinking god(s)exist? - by your definition they are non-believers. To make it even worse you have these non-believers worshipping gods for millennia. I'd hazard a guess at what you're trying to say but I really have no idea.

Next bit.

What is so amazing about people, Christians or non believers talking about God? And why wouldn't they talk about God if some of them believe it exists and some don't? And because the creation idea still exists doesn't make it true. We could apply the same silly logic to astrology and a flat earth.

Your big finish? - a rewind of the Argument From Incredulity.

Roman - you come across as a nice but naïve kid but your arguments aren't arguments and your thinking is all over the place. If you seriously believe you have an argument against evolution please, for your sake, test it out privately, preferably in a Biology Faculty or Museum of Natural History.
OB

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today. And i disagree with this theory of evolution. I ask if Occams has the same definition of evolution but there has been no answer. Well, maybe he believes in a halfway evolution where there is god involvement... or he is still trying to figure out.

Occams claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing. There are also individuals who consider themselves advanced and scientific, but who can't even use basic science to explain how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism. They think -- wrongly -- that creation is a naive myth but could only defend their 'scientific' theory with vague and general words. God's creation ls right before us and around us --- if people do not act blind, or do not try to separate the neurones that connect the eyes and brains.

 

[Speedwell]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today.

That is by no means a "conventional understanding." It is a propaganda ploy by some minority churches who see evolution as a threat to their reading of the Bible, not to belief in God.

Occams claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing.

It is amusing to see you write off Roman Catholics, for instance, as "a few minority churches."

 

[JackRT]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today. And i disagree with this theory of evolution. I ask if Occams has the same definition of evolution but there has been no answer. Well, maybe he believes in a halfway evolution where there is god involvement... or he is still trying to figure out.

Occams claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing. There are also individuals who consider themselves advanced and scientific, but who can't even use basic science to explain how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism. They think -- wrongly -- that creation is a naive myth but could only defend their 'scientific' theory with vague and general words. God's creation ls right before us and around us --- if people do not act blind, or do not try to separate the neurones that connect the eyes and brains.

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way address the origins if life, it only attempts to explain what has happened since then. So, your assertion that denial of God is the conventional understanding is in no way accurate.

 

[Occams Barber]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today. And i disagree with this theory of evolution. I ask if Occams has the same definition of evolution but there has been no answer. Well, maybe he believes in a halfway evolution where there is god involvement... or he is still trying to figure out.

I'm an atheist Roman. My 'definition' of Evolution obviously doesn't include a god. This doesn't mean that a Christian view of Evolution can't include God.

Occams claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing.

It's always a good idea to do a little research before making this type of statement. This article:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

will make it clear that acceptance of Evolution is common among major Christian (and other) churches and a majority view of individuals within most (US) mainline churches. The article also goes a little way to explaining how Christians incorporate evolution into their theology. This BIOLOGOS article talks about the concept of Theistic Evolution (BIOLOGOS is a well respected organisation of Christian scientists who support evolution);
Theistic Evolution: History and Beliefs - Articles

Judging from your earlier posts your understanding of evolution is very limited. You might find this basic info, developed by the University of Southern California, useful;
Welcome to Evolution 101!

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today.

That does seem to be the conventional view of a subset of humanity. However, it's not the view of the sub-set of humanity who conceived, developed, tested, amended and validated the theory.

How could it be? Science currently, and for some considerable time, has worked to the principle of methodological naturalism. That is, science investigates the natural world on the basis that events proceed in consistent and somewhat predictable ways. It neither denies, nor accepts supernatural elements, but rather considers them outside the scope of its methodology. So evolutionists address only how the diversity of life on this planet arose via common descent. They do not concern themselves with how that first common ancestor appeared. If it turns out to be pan spermia, or aliens dropping off a sample, or the Hand of God, or abiogenesis from increasingly complex molecular reactions, it would make no practical difference to evolutionary theory.

Edit: corrected typo off not fof

 

[Gene2memE]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today.

That's your "conventional understanding", but it is in no way representative of what the actual theory says, nor what the majority of people who understand the theory believe.

And i disagree with this theory of evolution.

It's a fictitous strawman invented by you to tilt against. Of course you disagree with it.

Well, maybe he believes in a halfway evolution where there is god involvement... or he is still trying to figure out.

There are multiple versions of the belief of divine intervention into the otherwise naturalistic process of evolution. These are generally encompassed under the heading 'Theistic Evolution'.

Occams claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing.

According to 2019 polling by Pew Research, about 80% of US adults believe humans have evolved over time, and about 48% of the population believe God (or another higher power) was involved in the process. A mere 18% believe that humans were created in their present form.

So, far from being the view of a 'few minority churches', Theistic Evolution is the majority view of all major Christian denominations (Roman Catholic, Evangelical & White/Black Mainline Protestant) in the US.

There are also individuals who consider themselves advanced and scientific, but who can't even use basic science to explain how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism.

I have a basic university level education when it comes to evolutionary biology, but I don't see myself as qualified to offer anything apart from a very basic overview of evolution when it comes to a cellular level.

Asking laymen, or even non-specalist scientists, to explain "how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism" is like asking an airline passenger to explain how the flight control software works on a jumbo jet.

They think -- wrongly -- that creation is a naive myth but could only defend their 'scientific' theory with vague and general words. God's creation ls right before us and around us --- if people do not act blind, or do not try to separate the neurones that connect the eyes and brains.

If you want to research the scientific literature on evolutionary biology, or learn about evolution, there are more free resources to avail yourself of than could be consumed in a lifetime.

Harvard, Yale, Duke, Wellesely, Stanford, the American Museum of Natural Science, the Royal Society, Oxford University and others all offer free, university level courses teaching the fundamentals of evolutionary biology.

There are also open access journals with thousands of papers freely available.

If you're willing to pay a little, there are literally millions of journal articles available via Google Scholar.

I urge you to follow the evidence.

 

[roman2819]

That is by no means a "conventional understanding." It is a propaganda ploy by some minority churches who see evolution as a threat to their reading of the Bible, not to belief in God.

It is amusing to see you write off Roman Catholics, for instance, as "a few minority churches."

For past 50 years at least, evolution has been taught in school as the alternative to creation, the theory of evolution claims that living creatures and things started and change by thenselves without God, as opposed to theory of creation (where God designed and created). These are the concepts of evolution and creation that are heard almost everywhere - from Asia to Middle East Europe and Americas. It is what I mean by the conventional belief.

Now some people are changing the theory again. Now you are saying there is no such conventional theory. Others are saying that evolution does not mean no God, even though evolution has been taught in school as opposite to creation theory. In Asia, most churches do not believe in evolution, but of course, no one can stop some churches in USA or wherever to believe whatever they want. To those churches that believe in evolution, do they even have a clear definition of evolution? Are they saying there is a half-god evolution, that God exists? Or are they intellectual but lacking clarity?

 

[roman2819]

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way address the origins if life, it only attempts to explain what has happened since then. So, your assertion that denial of God is the conventional understanding is in no way accurate.

You may claim that theory of evolution does not address origin of life but others believe that it does. So who is right? Are you more right than them or they are less wrong than you?

May I refer up to post #174, which is about common conventional idea of evolution. Whether you agree with it or not, most people think that theory of evolution means life started by itself -- without God the Creator -- and evolved over eons of time to what we see today.

 

[roman2819]

I'm an atheist Roman. My 'definition' of Evolution obviously doesn't include a god. This doesn't mean that a Christian view of Evolution can't include God.

It's always a good idea to do a little research before making this type of statement. This article:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

will make it clear that acceptance of Evolution is common among major Christian (and other) churches and a majority view of individuals within most (US) mainline churches. The article also goes a little way to explaining how Christians incorporate evolution into their theology. This BIOLOGOS article talks about the concept of Theistic Evolution (BIOLOGOS is a well respected organisation of Christian scientists who support evolution);
Theistic Evolution: History and Beliefs - Articles

Judging from your earlier posts your understanding of evolution is very limited. You might find this basic info, developed by the University of Southern California, useful;
Welcome to Evolution 101!

OB

You claim that ".... Evolution obviously doesn't include a god. This doesn't mean that a Christian view of Evolution can't include God" is a total self-contradiction.

You are saying that the theory of evolution -- which says there is no God - can be acceptable by Christians who believe in God. How do you manage to wrap your head around such an absurd statement?

Sounds like you don't know what you are saying.

And it make the rest of your statements totally worthless.

 

[Jimmy D]

For past 50 years at least, evolution has been taught in school as the alternative to creation

It's taught as science. "Creation" is for the religious education department.

the theory of evolution claims that living creatures and things started and change by thenselves without God, as opposed to theory of creation (where God designed and created).

No. The Theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life, you may have heard someone conflating the two but it's not the case.

Now some people are changing the theory again. Now you are saying there is no such conventional theory.

No one has "changed the theory" as you imply. Origin of life is one area of study, evolution of life is another. It's not that difficult to understand.

Others are saying that evolution does not mean no God, even though evolution has been taught in school as opposite to creation theory.

Why do you keep saying this? Did you go to school? TOE is not taught as opposition to anything. There is no such thing as "Creation theory" in science, it's a theological concept.

Billions of people seem perfectly capable of having faith in God and accepting the theory of evolution.

In Asia, most churches do not believe in evolution,

Speculation your honour.

 

[roman2819]

That's your "conventional understanding", but it is in no way representative of what the actual theory says, nor what the majority of people who understand the theory believe.



It's a fictitous strawman invented by you to tilt against. Of course you disagree with it.



There are multiple versions of the belief of divine intervention into the otherwise naturalistic process of evolution. These are generally encompassed under the heading 'Theistic Evolution'.



According to 2019 polling by Pew Research, about 80% of US adults believe humans have evolved over time, and about 48% of the population believe God (or another higher power) was involved in the process. A mere 18% believe that humans were created in their present form.

So, far from being the view of a 'few minority churches', Theistic Evolution is the majority view of all major Christian denominations (Roman Catholic, Evangelical & White/Black Mainline Protestant) in the US.



I have a basic university level education when it comes to evolutionary biology, but I don't see myself as qualified to offer anything apart from a very basic overview of evolution when it comes to a cellular level.

Asking laymen, or even non-specalist scientists, to explain "how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism" is like asking an airline passenger to explain how the flight control software works on a jumbo jet.



If you want to research the scientific literature on evolutionary biology, or learn about evolution, there are more free resources to avail yourself of than could be consumed in a lifetime.

Harvard, Yale, Duke, Wellesely, Stanford, the American Museum of Natural Science, the Royal Society, Oxford University and others all offer free, university level courses teaching the fundamentals of evolutionary biology.

There are also open access journals with thousands of papers freely available.

If you're willing to pay a little, there are literally millions of journal articles available via Google Scholar.

I urge you to follow the evidence.

You were saying "That's your "conventional understanding", but it is in no way representative of what the actual theory says, nor what the majority of people who understand the theory believe."

The conventional understanding of evolution is stated in post #174. That is what most people in most part of the world believe it, it is not only my view of evolution. It is the view of the MAJORITY for at least 50 years since it was taught in school.

You also said, "I have a basic university level education when it comes to evolutionary biology, but I don't see myself as qualified to offer anything apart from a very basic overview of evolution when it comes to a cellular level. ... Asking laymen, or even non-specalist scientists, to explain "how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism" is like asking an airline passenger to explain how the flight control software works on a jumbo jet."

Of course, it is fair to say laymen like ourselves should not be expected to explain changes at cellular level. However, the truth is that no proponents of evolution, no biologists or no doctors etc have managed to explain changes at cellular level either. Now, a specie cannot just evolve to another without cellular change, isn't? Biological change just don't come from CGI. The truth is no one can explain the changes that need to happen.

I will look for a post which I wrote 5 or 6 years ago, in this forum: It is about a medical specialist who had a passion to verify and explore the theory of evolution -- and he did that for more than half his life. I will post it when I find it. Yes he followed the evidence. If anyone is qualified to speak about evolution, he is.

 

[Jimmy D]

You claim that ".... Evolution obviously doesn't include a god. This doesn't mean that a Christian view of Evolution can't include God" is a total self-contradiction.

You seem poorly informed on the topic.

You are also quote-mining Occam...

He said to him, as an atheist, evolution doesn't include God...but to a Christian it can. It doesn't look like you bothered to read the link to Biologos he posted.

You are saying that the theory of evolution -- which says there is no God

Where does the Theory of Evolution say that? Seriously, where? I won't call you a liar, because you are obviously just repeating what you have been told in good faith, but this is simply not true.

can be acceptable by Christians who believe in God. How do you manage to wrap your head around such an absurd statement. Sounds like you don't know what you are saying.

Somebody is making absurd statements. seriously read the links Occam provided... the Biologos site has a lot of information regarding how christianity and science can be reconciled.

 

[Speedwell]

For past 50 years at least, evolution has been taught in school as the alternative to creation,

Not in this country. In the US, evolution has been and is taught as science, to the exclusion of biblical creationism. The existence of God and His authorship of our being is not denied in classrooms or textbooks. In fact, it would not be lawful for a science teacher to do so.