• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Top 10 signs you don't understand evolution at all.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,355
17,093
Here
✟1,475,711.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As an atheist (and evolutionist) myself, I would agree with some of the things on the list.

For example, there definitely is some confusion between big bang cosmology and evolution...people (of religious faiths) often falsely assume that the two studies are joined at the hip, but they are not...there are plenty of "theistic evolutionists" who accept most of the codified theory of evolution, but reject the idea of big bang cosmology.

However, some of the things I'd definitely disagree with the author on...

For example:
#10
10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.

Sorry to the author, but evolution and the bible are at odds...no other way to slice it. The bible tells a very specific story about some things that are completely at odds with the theory of evolution. This is going to sound harsh, but if there is someone who professes to be a "Bible-believing Christian" and also accepts evolution, then they're clearly cherry picking the parts that they want to follow and the ones they don't.

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.

This one isn't as cut and dry as the author is making it seem, while I'll agree that acceptance of evolution isn't quite the same as partaking in religious faith, the religious folks do have a somewhat valid argument in terms of the fact that we, as evolutionists, are putting some measure of faith in the scientific community that we choose to trust. Sure, some of the things we can review ourselves...we can look at the studies, the data, etc... However, for all of us who aren't evolutionary science experts (few are), we are putting some trust in the scientists who are highly trained in that field even though we don't fully understand all of the things they're looking at.

It's no different than a mechanic in that regard...I don't know how to rebuild an engine myself, but if I meet a mechanic who's ASE certified, I will have a certain measure of confidence and "faith" in the idea that they do know how it's done.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'd agree with both of those. Is there a link to the rest of the list that I'm just not seeing?

There is a link in the OP. If you have me on ignore, you're not going to be able to see it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.
At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very large changes.

I've never liked this definition of microevolution/macroevolution and in some ways I blame it for a lot of the confusion about the subject.

Based on my understanding, macroevolution is a description of evolution of the higher clades versus microevolution which is evolution within a population. However, the idea merely adding up a bunch of microevolution and you get macroevolution is a bit flawed mainly because the delineation is not merely an accumulation of changes. Rather, it's the divergence of species that is "macroevolutionary".

Or perhaps another way to look at it is microevolution is vertical and macroevolution is horizontal with respect to a phylogenetic view.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Satanist.
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've never liked this definition of microevolution/macroevolution and in some ways I blame it for a lot of the confusion about the subject.

Based on my understanding, macroevolution is a description of evolution of the higher clades versus microevolution which is evolution within a population. However, the idea merely adding up a bunch of microevolution and you get macroevolution is a bit flawed mainly because the delineation is not merely an accumulation of changes. Rather, it's the divergence of species that is "macroevolutionary".

Or perhaps another way to look at it is microevolution is vertical and macroevolution is horizontal with respect to a phylogenetic view.

You bring up a good point and it's part of the problem of looking at the evidence for evolution as a metaphorical ladder and placing "micro" on a lower rung than "macro" - hence the "evolution at taxa above species level". It's an accurate description, of what we're talking about, but not a truly accurate description of what happened in the past.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.

Sorry to the author, but evolution and the bible are at odds...no other way to slice it. The bible tells a very specific story about some things that are completely at odds with the theory of evolution. This is going to sound harsh, but if there is someone who professes to be a "Bible-believing Christian" and also accepts evolution, then they're clearly cherry picking the parts that they want to follow and the ones they don't.

It all depends upon whether it was the author's intent to give us a scientific account of creation, when such a thing wouldn't have even been part of his mental universe. His concerns would have been theological, and there is a good amount of theology which can be taken away from what he wrote.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
None of us was there from the beginning. So....none of us has a PURE starting point to use when studying evolution

Again, are we "evolving" (moving...changing) to a better state of being

Or actually "evolving" (moving...changing) from the better state

A CHRISTIAN will tell you we are "evolving" from the better and PURE and Original state of being

And in that process moving further and further away from the PURE starting point
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
None of us was there from the beginning. So....none of us has a PURE starting point to use when studying evolution

What is this even supposed to mean?

Again, are we "evolving" (moving...changing) to a better state of being

Or actually "evolving" (moving...changing) from the better state

There is no "better state". We simply evolve in response to our environment, same as every other living thing on the planet.

A CHRISTIAN will tell you we are "evolving" from the better and PURE and Original state of being

And in that process moving further and further away from the PURE starting point

Okay. So what?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is this even supposed to mean?



There is no "better state". We simply evolve in response to our environment, same as every other living thing on the planet.



Okay. So what?
Overlay
Everything affects and effects

There is nothing PERFECT and unchanged in its original state
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
None of us was there from the beginning.

The earth was. And it tells us it's very, very old and life on it has been evolving for a very long time.

Again, are we "evolving" (moving...changing) to a better state of being

Or actually "evolving" (moving...changing) from the better state

A CHRISTIAN will tell you we are "evolving" from the better and PURE and Original state of being

And in that process moving further and further away from the PURE starting point

This comment is quite ironic given the subject of the thread.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[
The earth was. And it tells us it's very, very old and life on it has been evolving for a very long time.



This comment is quite ironic given the subject of the thread.
Were you there at the beginning of all things?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Were you there at the beginning of all things?

What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? If you cannot keep on topic - per forum rules - please stop replying to the thread. If you can stick to the topic of the thread, I welcome your participation.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry to the author, but evolution and the bible are at odds...no other way to slice it. The bible tells a very specific story about some things that are completely at odds with the theory of evolution. This is going to sound harsh, but if there is someone who professes to be a "Bible-believing Christian" and also accepts evolution, then they're clearly cherry picking the parts that they want to follow and the ones they don't.

God is Spirit. God is not a biologist. So God is going to tell a spiritual side
to a story, rather than a Popular Mechanics version. Some Christians consider
God to talk to talk like a Garage Mechanic, "Well first I loosed the screws, then
I remove the carburetor and blew the water out of the float bowl.....etc"

God sometimes tells spiritual stories, sometimes mechanical ones.
One mechanical example: Lazarus and the rich man.
Here is a description of a man in hell, yet literalists refuse to
believe that
it is a literal description of Hell. Why? I dunno.
Because they prefer it to be more roast pig-on-a-spit I guess.

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So here is a man in Hell, having a conversation about his family.



It doesn't sound like a pig-on-a-spit to me.

FwG8asr25d-6.png



By the same token, God is not always mechanical in scripture.
The purpose of Genesis is to describe that God Created everything
by His hand in His own purpose. Not to create a biology or geology lesson
for people to follow.



It's sad when people resort to the "You just don't understand me" argument.
hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others


This, of course, is the defining characteristic of science: Not that is observable and repeatable, but that it is testable and falsifiable. There is very little that fit the former criteria, but evolution absolutely fits the latter.

Sorry. "observable and repeatable" is correct according to science.
That would include "testable" again which defines supported and falsified theories.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.