where did evolution go?

[Rationalt]

Another hilarious point crossed my mind. Some of the african bantus migrated to Nevada ate some local buffalo meat and changed their appearance totally including heads full of red hair.

 

[BaconWizard]

Another hilarious point crossed my mind. Some of the african bantus migrated to Nevada ate some local buffalo meat and changed their appearance totally including heads full of red hair.

Please be specific: which part of my assessment of the appalling desecration of The Old Testament by utterly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] examples of Humankind and even worse examples of Christianity, do you not agree, in order to reject Science and critical thinking as principles?

 

[theophilus777]

LOL, I am nothing if not passionate about this subject. It is not rejection of evolution per-se, it is the deliberate promulgation of ignorance that makes steam come out of my ears and hypocrisy only increases the temperature!

So is this the part where I get you going about the wedge document? You know, I have heard an MD teach in a Church, pseudo-science originated by the Id movement.

As for knowing The Bible, meh, not as well as I should. While I reject theism as truth, I do not reject it as natural and significant with works such as The Bible being of massive value; the ultimate in Literature.

Anyhow good to meet you too.

Theism as a natural phenomenon? Sounds like something someone would write a thesis on ...

 

[Rationalt]

Please be specific: which part of my assessment of the appalling desecration of The Old Testament ..

I don't understand why you are addressing this question to me while replying to my post ?. Were you mentally sound while making this post ? .

 

[BaconWizard]

I don't understand why you are addressing this question to me while replying to my post ?. Were you mentally sound while making this post ? .

It was addressed to you because I wished you to be specific and explain which part of my assessment of the appalling desecration of The Old Testament do you not agree, in order to reject Science and critical thinking as principles.

This will require that you read that original post before replying to it this time around, and then being specific in explaining which part of my assessment you do not agree, such that you are able to reject Science and critical thinking as principles. I hope that helps.

 

[BaconWizard]

So is this the part where I get you going about the wedge document? You know, I have heard an MD teach in a Church, pseudo-science originated by the Id movement.



Theism as a natural phenomenon? Sounds like something someone would write a thesis on ...

In another lifetime perhaps. But meanwhile, there are some fascinating youtube vids about an hr or so long each, by Dr (latterly Prof) Robert Sapowlsky that spend time on the neurological basis and behavioral evolution of religiosity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Another hilarious point crossed my mind. Some of the african bantus migrated to Nevada ate some local buffalo meat and changed their appearance totally including heads full of red hair.

Are you really just not aware of the current (and incredibly well supported) understanding of the out of Africa hypothesis and human migration?

I cannot imagine a comment like this except out of the intent of being intentionally obtuse.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rationalt]

Are you really just not aware of the current (and incredibly well supported) understanding of the out of Africa hypothesis and human migration?

I cannot imagine a comment like this except out of the intent of being intentionally obtuse.

-CryptoLutheran

May be you should read up on Polygenism. That 'incredibly' supported out of africa hypothesis creates more funny problems than I posted.

If out of africa theory is to be believed Everybody except negroid and other blacks , migrated from africa, and ended up with out any means of ocean travel to far flung places like japan, mongolia , nevada and developed very specific genetic traits not seen else where. Even the genetic differences between white western europeans and east europeans are significant.

 

[theophilus777]

In another lifetime perhaps. But meanwhile, there are some fascinating youtube vids about an hr or so long each, by Dr (latterly Prof) Robert Sapowlsky that spend time on the neurological basis and behavioral evolution of religiosity.

Do these show a genetic or psychological predisposition to Faith?

 

[dcalling]

I'm not a scientist, but I know a Christian biologist who has been working on this issue for most of his life. Basically, he tells me that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and any so-called evidence for a young Earth or alternatives is negligeable. An anti-evolutionary scientist can sound very convincing to the layperson, but my scientist friend sees the flaws and rather shoddy fieldwork.

Evolutionary theory is not going away, but this does not in any way affect my belief in God and that he is the origin of all things. What are we evolving towards? Catholic theologian Karl Rahner would say, in a word, Christ.

The earth is most likely older than 6000 years, but the Bible does not teach the earth is 6000 years old. The generations mentioned by the Bible could mean "line of" instead of "son of" (begot).

But I also have a Christian biologist professor, who strongly believe that we are created and evolution is not what it appears, so it is all theories

 

[Zoness]

But I also have a Christian biologist professor, who strongly believe that we are created and evolution is not what it appears, so it is all theories

This isn't directed at you, its more of a PSA because of the comment you made, which I quoted above.

I'm uncomfortable with this assertion because I find putting a religion's creation story on equal weight with researched, vetted scientific consensus to be disingenuous. Of course that doesn't that I intend to offend people who hold literal creationist views but they simply have only basis in their religious texts and should not be held on the same plane as the scientific research and debate. That's where the origin of creation vs evolution as a fight began and it implies that because evolution is a theory, that is somehow less supported and that literal creationism is equally likely. "It's just a theory!!" is one of the more popular tropes in this regard but often people asserting it aren't familiar with exactly what a scientific theory is.

 

[theophilus777]

I'm uncomfortable with this assertion because I find putting a religion's creation story on equal weight with researched, vetted scientific consensus to be disingenuous.

I didn't read him saying anyone did that. The statement actually made was much better qualified.

"It's just a theory!!" is one of the more popular tropes in this regard but often people asserting it aren't familiar with exactly what a scientific theory is.

When US courts state that evolution is a fact, they fuel that fire. they really don't mean the entire thing, from the first life form to modern man is fact. they mean evolution as change over time is fact. but because they don't qualify their statement, those that hear it get all riled up and ... here we are.

 

[dcalling]

This isn't directed at you, its more of a PSA because of the comment you made, which I quoted above.

I'm uncomfortable with this assertion because I find putting a religion's creation story on equal weight with researched, vetted scientific consensus to be disingenuous. Of course that doesn't that I intend to offend people who hold literal creationist views but they simply have only basis in their religious texts and should not be held on the same plane as the scientific research and debate. That's where the origin of creation vs evolution as a fight began and it implies that because evolution is a theory, that is somehow less supported and that literal creationism is equally likely. "It's just a theory!!" is one of the more popular tropes in this regard but often people asserting it aren't familiar with exactly what a scientific theory is.

I was a atheist before and I believed in evolution fully, but you can't be 100% sure we were the product of evolution and not created. The evidences are just lacking (can you give concrete evidences?). Most of the evidences are natural selection, the evolving part is kinda missing except on micro cell levels maybe.

The DNA is like a program, if you ever write some complex one before, you will know that just by designing and writing it won't work, it has to be tuned/tested to get it to work.

All I am saying is that you need to keep an open mind, instead of "Evolution is the absolutely correct and any naysayers are blasphemes"

 

[BaconWizard]

Do these show a genetic or psychological predisposition to Faith?

Psychological, yes. But there's a lot to trawl through to find a specific vid and time-stamp otherwise I'd link it for you.

 

[BaconWizard]

Those silly scientists.. they claim The Earth is spinning at 1,036 miles per hour and yet when I looked out of my window this morning everything was clearly standing still.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I was a atheist before and I believed in evolution fully, but you can't be 100% sure we were the product of evolution and not created.

Nor can I be 100% sure that the letter in my mailbox was delivered by the postman and not by space aliens.
However, these two are not equally likely scenarios, and it would be kind of silly to assume the latter just because I cannot be 100% certain.
What's important in both cases is this: the first option (i.e. evolution and the postman delivering the letter) is not only a more rational explanation for what's going on, it's also got a TON of evidence going for it, rendering it a highly probable solution to the question at hand - even if there's still a chance that it might be wrong, or that we misconstrued at least *part* of the scenario.

The evidences are just lacking (can you give concrete evidences?). Most of the evidences are natural selection, the evolving part is kinda missing except on micro cell levels maybe.

Does the term "fossils" mean anything to you? For example, the evolution of the horse as we know it today is *extremely* well documented, just to mention a single case.
Few theories in science are better supported by evidence from all across the board than evolution by means of natural selection. There simply is no controversy, and creationism certainly does not qualify as an equally valid hypothesis.

If it's evidence you are looking for, then you should actually be appalled by creationism or its pseudo-scientific masking as "intelligent design" and the like. Why? Because its foundation rests ENTIRELY on unsupportable a priori conclusions, such as supernatural deities and bronze age creation myths.

Boiling it down to its essence, creationism offers an explanation that is no explanation at all, but simply gives a name to ignorance by attributing it to the unfathomable supernatural. It's like trying to understand how thunderstorms work, and then "answering" that riddle by saying: "Magic."

 

[dlamberth]

"Evolution is the absolutely correct and any naysayers are blasphemes"

I wouldn't use the term "blasphemes". But as we look around at what God's own creation shows us, it's become totally clear that it is through evolution in which God creates new life forms.

Now, what causes change in life forms. I don't believe we have all of the answers to that question yet.

.

 

[BaconWizard]

It's like trying to understand how thunderstorms work, and then "answering" that riddle by saying: "Magic."

And then having "Magic science" where it is "explained" using sciency words but none of the principles that would make it science.

The trouble is some people (not necessarily you, dcalling) equate lack of understanding and/or failure to perform proper research a lack of evidence. The evidence is there alright, you're just not a very good detective.

Serious science is not easy or intuitive or accessible to everyone. It is difficult and takes time and effort and some resources even to understand sometimes.

Not everyone is smart and that puts pay to any science for those people, but I don't think everyone who isn't deeply enamoured of science is just dim. Lots of people who DO support evolution do so simply because they trust what they are taught and trust those teaching it (and lots are dim too!) Exactly the same goes for creationism.

Not everyone who does have the smarts, has the passion, desire or time or even access to the info, when there are plenty other issues to take their attention.

The smoking gun, for those who for whatever reason don't spend much time in science, is that evolutionary biologists are true scientists and WANT you to ask questions, WANT to be challenged, WANT to provide evidence and would be happy to be proven wrong, since discovering a falsehood is a step closer to truth.


The ID folk don't want any of that, and you can find some that are even prepared to lie and deceive you to ensure that you remain in their camp at any cost, starting with false statements about what it is the Evolution actually says or is even about!

That's evidence too: it addresses not only that such people know full well that evolution is factual, but also their moral character.. that they do not want to be right, they only want to win or be seen by their peers to be winning. At all costs.

Would you be guided in spiritual matters by such a person? If Christ had espoused such qualities he would not have had himself tortured and killed, he would have simply raised an army.

 

[BaconWizard]

I wouldn't use the term "blasphemes". But as we look around at what God's own creation shows us, it's become totally clear that it is through evolution in which God creates new life forms.

Now, what causes change in life forms. I don't believe we have all of the answers to that question yet.

.

For the sake of clarity, are you saying you believe Evolution, but not natural selection?

 

[dlamberth]

For the sake of clarity, are you saying you believe Evolution, but not natural selection?

I do see natural selection as an element of evolution, but I also see other forces at work that could cause changes in the DNA. As an example, the inner desire or need might cause the DNA structure of a particular group to change to satisfied the need or desire. I realize that's not "scientific" yet, but I've read accounts of that type of inner DNA caused change being looked at and studied. And because in my world we are much more than a physical being, intuitively, that makes a lot of sense to me.

.