Jump to content
SouthernMo

Evolution

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure of your background so I'm not clear how to answer this. I take from your reply though that you aren't Mormon?

In any case if you reject the JST there's still no reason to assume Genesis 1 is the physical creation of the earth given the differences from Genesis 2. The idea that it was a spiritual creation is attested to in ancient texts such as Philo. I'd assume you'd give even less consideration to Philo than Joseph so I'd just turn around and ask why you think your interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct given how much it contradicts what we know of the fossil record. That is, Genesis 1 is vague about how it is to be read, there's existing Jewish tradition of reading it as a spirit creation, and reading it as a physical creation contradicts science so why not read it as a spiritual creation where there's no conflict?

The only thing the fossil record can truly tell us is that a bunch of animals got buried.....the bible tells us it was by a huge flood (Genesis 7). The fossil record makes perfect sense, but only if there was a global flood.

Genesis 7: [17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 

Remember the global flood lasted a year. 

I'm not sure why such an intelligent man as yourself would struggle reading Genesis 1. Try reading it as literal days like it says, morning, and evening......throw all of your pre-conceived ideas out. Just read it for what it say and don't force your erroneous "scientific" ideas into the text. I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.  

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It also doesn’t jive with the asexual reproductive creatures or the creatures that change sex throughout their life cycle. 

I think those creatures would probably fall into the "creeping things" category? 

[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I'm not sure why such an intelligent man as yourself would struggle reading Genesis 1. Try reading it as literal days like it says, morning, and evening......throw all of your pre-conceived ideas out. Just read it for what it say and don't force your erroneous "scientific" ideas into the text. I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.  

LOL. My "erroneous scientific ideas." Guess that explains your background. Who am I to believe? My lying eyes or your idiosyncratic reading of Genesis of an ambiguous text with no way to know if the reading is the right one?

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.  

Perhaps you are right.  There are a few bible verses that differ with science.  Let's look at a few:

Leviticus 11:20 teaches that fowls walk on four feet.  Heathen scientists claim that fowls have only two feet!  One day, the bible will be proven literally true, and we'll see the fowl's extra two feet with our spiritual eyes.

Matthew 13:31-32 teaches that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds.  Unfortunately, modern scientists have been lying to us and telling us that orchid seeds are smaller.  These 'secular' measuring tools erroneously show that mustard seeds are typically 1,500 micrometers long and orchid seeds only 85.  Micrometers are another one of Satan's tools to deceive us, and turn us away from the truth of the bible!

Proverbs 6:6-8 teaches that ants act independently.  Can you believe all those malicious lies spread by etymologists (and anyone with an ant farm) teaching that ants work together under a queen?  Those ants are faking their cooperation and subservience to the queen to lead us away from the pure god-given truth established thousands of years ago.

1 Kings 7:26 teaches that the brass basin in King Solomon's temple held 2,000 baths of water.  2 Chronicles 4:5 teaches that the same brass basin held 3,000 baths.  The so-called 'mathematicians' of our day argue that 2,000 is a different number than 3,000.  One day, they will repent, see that the bible is literally true, and that 2,000 does in fact equal 3,000; there is no mathematical discrepancy here; the bible is literally correct in all things.

 

 

 

 

Or not...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Leviticus 11:20 teaches that fowls walk on four feet.

Maybe its the intermediate class:  The platypus is a remarkable mammal found only in Australia. ... The platypus is a duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, egg-laying aquatic creature native to Australia

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Maybe its the intermediate class:  The platypus is a remarkable mammal found only in Australia. ... The platypus is a duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, egg-laying aquatic creature native to Australia

It's possible.  Moses - who was raised in the Middle East in 1500 BC - might have had traveled to Australia and returned, was referring to the platypus as the fowl in his writings.  Somehow despite being one of the most well-recorded/preserved authors of the books of the Bible, and the most important prophet to Judaism, there is no record or even legend in the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash of his travels to and from Australia.

Elder Occam's Razor states that when justifying scriptural problems, the most complicated (yet somehow remotely possible) answer is usually correct.  It's related to the Christian principle that the more crazy the idea is, the more faith it requires, and thus the more righteous one is by believing the idea.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/18/2018 at 6:08 AM, snowflake said:

Ok, i was a believer in your religion as well for quite some time. What's your take on the abiogenesis problem?

image.jpeg.361507e951af73b625fdf13d10708dba.jpeg

Well, that feels like a non sequitur, but I have nothing else to do for my last 30 minutes of work, so I guess we’ll just talk about this other stuff now. 

First off, I doubt you were ever a believer in my religion, because I worship certain NBA players and every single dog that I see. 

Do you mean the m-word church? Because I’m technically no longer affiliated. 

As for abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution, I like the theory that self replicating RNA developed into DNA, but I’m really not an expert on this completely different thing that I commented on.

But, hey, isn’t belief in an uncreated god the ultimate abiogenesis? So maybe we’re still in the same church. The “I can’t explain abiogenesis church.”

I’m counting this as a conversion. Welcome to the fold. 

Edited by FunOnlineMan
A typogenesis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/18/2018 at 2:56 AM, katherine the great said:

Not sure what the Nazis have to do with Darwin. Maybe you're mixing up the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Darwin was not a proponent of eugenics--that was his cousin.

Not sure why your responses attempt to deflect from the main point of this thread.

Nazi's loved Darwinism:

If survival of the fittest is the law or Darwinism's view of Nature, why not help Nature along by removing the "less than fit." 

Darwin's cousin would not have pursued Eugenics but for his reading of the Origin of Species.

Are you understanding the connection here? the adoption by Darwin's cousin of the philosophy underpining Eugenics?

The eugenics movement was initiated by Sir Francis Galton, a Victorian scientist. Galton's career can be divided into two parts. During the first, Galton was engaged in African exploration, travel writing, geography, and meteorology. The second part began after he read the Origin of Species by his cousin Charles Darwin. The book convinced Galton that humanity could be improved through selective breeding. During this part of his career he was interested in the factors that determine what he called human "talent and character" and its hereditary basis. Consequently, he delved into anthropometrics and psychology and played a major role in the development of fingerprinting. He also founded the field of biometrics, inventing such familiar statistical procedures as correlation and regression analysis. He constructed his own theory of inheritance in which nature and not nurture played the leading role. He actively began to promote eugenics and soon gained important converts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700278

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/18/2018 at 1:02 AM, FunOnlineMan said:

 

Hi. I do. It did. It also became octopus, fruit flies, whales, naked mole rats, vultures, Australopithecus, chameleons, elephants, deinonychus, etc.

This has been shown and verified through multiple methods. You can study it yourself, free of charge. You don’t have to, but you can. Try delving into phylogeneny for a while. To me, it’s as enjoyable as it is informative.

Perhaps you could post one reference that discusses your claim?

Not change over time but spontaneous change from one form into another; from what I've read the theories are:

1. Lightning struck the muddy puddle the one-celled organism was in and from there, ti evolved

2. Hundreds of proteins randomly aligned themselves in the sequence necessary to mutate and evolve

Personally, I try and remain critical of any theory where implied/forced consensus is the popular view

  1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
  2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
  3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
  4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
  5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
  6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
  7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
  8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
  9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
  10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 12/19/2018 at 7:14 AM, snowflake said:

I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.  

If I were looking for demonstrable answers about biology, I’d ask biologists. If I were looking for demonstrable answers about geology, I’d ask a geologist. If I were looking for confusing and easily misinterpreted answers about church stuff, I’d ask a scripture. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

As for abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution, I like the theory that self replicating RNA developed into DNA, but I’m really not an expert on this completely different thing that I commented on.

Too many people cop out of considering abiogenesis.  Scientists should be able to start with the most basic and primitive RNA molecules and investigate how they could have "evolved" into more complex operations.  At least on the level of viruses and bacteria.  Many of those things could have existed without cell walls, etc.  Therefore abiogenesis is truly a part of the larger field of evolution.  Fully entrenched and contained as a proper subset.  Google primitive RNAs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Perhaps you could post one reference that discusses your claim?

You only want one? That should be easy, unless you think evolution is something completely different than the theory says it is… wait…hold on… I’m just… I’m just reading the rest of your post to make sure that’s not what you think.

Quote

Not change over time but spontaneous change from one form into another;…

Oops. That’s biblical creationism, not evolution. I think the references would be genesis and the imagination of every single person who reads genesis, because it’s a vague creation myth, likely borrowed from neighboring theologies, more than likely a  and containing absolutely no science. 

Quote

…From what I've read the theories are:

1. Lightning struck the muddy puddle the one-celled organism was in and from there, ti evolved

Did you read that on answers in Genesis? Because I have bad news about Mr. Hovind’s credentials, logic, reasoning, scientific awareness, ability to not commit fraud, and fashion sense. The bad news is those things. They’re bad. 

If you read it somewhere else, I apologize for lumping you in with guys like that, it’s just they’re the ones who push the idea that the theory of evolution changed suddenly fro a monkey to a straw man. 

Quote

2. Hundreds of proteins randomly aligned themselves in the sequence necessary to mutate and evolve

Personally, I try and remain critical of any theory where implied/forced consensus is the popular view

Then sitting through church must be a real tough pill to swallow. 

Quote
  1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
  2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
  3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
  4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
  5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
  6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
  7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
  8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
  9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
  10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Switching between those links and my response on a mobile device has made this otherwise hoot of a conversation pretty burdensome.

Tell you what. Why don’t you pick your favorite article that disproves the mounds of evidence for common ancestry, and I’ll read that one?

That or your favorite three reasons why you think I should forsake what I can observe for what I can dream up on my own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

You only want one? That should be easy, unless you think evolution is something completely different than the theory says it is… wait…hold on… I’m just… I’m just reading the rest of your post to make sure that’s not what you think.

Oops. That’s biblical creationism, not evolution. I think the references would be genesis and the imagination of every single person who reads genesis, because it’s a vague creation myth, likely borrowed from neighboring theologies, more than likely a  and containing absolutely no science. 

Did you read that on answers in Genesis? Because I have bad news about Mr. Hovind’s credentials, logic, reasoning, scientific awareness, ability to not commit fraud, and fashion sense. The bad news is those things. They’re bad. 

If you read it somewhere else, I apologize for lumping you in with guys like that, it’s just they’re the ones who push the idea that the theory of evolution changed suddenly fro a monkey to a straw man. 

Then sitting through church must be a real tough pill to swallow. 

Switching between those links and my response on a mobile device has made this otherwise hoot of a conversation pretty burdensome.

Tell you what. Why don’t you pick your favorite article that disproves the mounds of evidence for common ancestry, and I’ll read that one?

That or your favorite three reasons why you think I should forsake what I can observe for what I can dream up on my own.

Thanks for replying.

I think we are of similar mind sets.

When your schedule allows, please advise as to the mountains of evidence that point to your claim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, longview said:

Too many people cop out of considering abiogenesis.  Scientists should be able to start with the most basic and primitive RNA molecules and investigate how they could have "evolved" into more complex operations.  At least on the level of viruses and bacteria.  Many of those things could have existed without cell walls, etc.  Therefore abiogenesis is truly a part of the larger field of evolution.  Fully entrenched and contained as a proper subset.

Cool. I consider it all the time. I just don’t consider it evolution. It’s separate. It doesn’t matter how the first lifeforms arrived. Evolution is the theory that however it got here, primitive life became modern life.

Evolution and abiogenesis are both under the umbrella of biology, and they’re both science, but they’re different theories. Otherwise, all of science is the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang theory is all of science.

10 minutes ago, longview said:

  Google primitive RNAs.

 Okay. Now what? Which link do I click?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thanks for replying.

I think we are of similar mind sets.

When your schedule allows, please advise as to the mountains of evidence that point to your claim.

 

I said mounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I said mounds. 

:)

 

Mounds, eh?

 

Sounds like them Mound-building Hopewell and Adena?

 

Too soon?

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

:)

 

Mounds, eh?

 

Sounds like them Mound-building Hopewell and Adena?

 

Too soon?

Got heem!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Cool. I consider it all the time. I just don’t consider it evolution. It’s separate. It doesn’t matter how the first lifeforms arrived. Evolution is the theory that however it got here, primitive life became modern life.

If you want to build a new form of life (a new animal), the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information (new code). 

How does it do that? How could it do that? Random mutation cannot create new code! Natural selection cannot create new code! You need new information. 

We know from experience (in computer code) that if you start randomly changing code in information systems like DNA and computer code you are going to fundamentally degrade that code before you get anything that is new and useful. If you are a computer programmer and randomly start changing 0's and 1's, are you going to create a new program or operating system?, or are you going to introduce glitches and bugs into the program you already have?  (credit do Dr. Stephen Meyer).

Information sciences have shown that these typse of random mutations are incapable of generating something fundamentally new. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Cool. I consider it all the time. I just don’t consider it evolution. It’s separate. It doesn’t matter how the first lifeforms arrived. Evolution is the theory that however it got here, primitive life became modern life.

You are still copping out.  Scientists should be able to experiment with primitive RNAs that lead to coacervates and thriving soupy messes that lead to greater diversity of viruses and bacterias giving rise to protozoa, amoebas and various other skittering microscopic critters. And on an on.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Nazi's loved Darwinism:

Nazi's loved their misinterpretation/twisting of science.

 

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Are you understanding the connection here? the adoption by Darwin's cousin of the philosophy underpining Eugenics?

No. Darwin's theory was elegant and supported by evidence. Galton was a pseudoscientist.

 

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The book convinced Galton that humanity could be improved through selective breeding.

Every moron in Europe (and most of the world) already knew about selective breeding. They didn't need to read Darwin's work to know about it.

 

Any truth can be twisted into an evil. History is full of such things. It isn't a reflection on the truth--it's a reflection on man's ability to commit evil acts in the "name" of truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

If you want to build a new form of life (a new animal), the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information (new code). 

How does it do that? How could it do that? Random mutation cannot create new code! Natural selection cannot create new code! You need new information. 

We know from experience (in computer code) that if you start randomly changing code in information systems like DNA and computer code you are going to fundamentally degrade that code before you get anything that is new and useful. If you are a computer programmer and randomly start changing 0's and 1's, are you going to create a new program or operating system?, or are you going to introduce glitches and bugs into the program you already have?  (credit do Dr. Stephen Meyer).

Information sciences have shown that these typse of random mutations are incapable of generating something fundamentally new. 

 

Wow.  Thank goodness evolution and natural selection don't work like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Wow.  Thank goodness evolution and natural selection don't work like that.

Where am I wrong? Or where is Dr.Meyer wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

If you want to build a new form of life (a new animal), the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information (new code). 

The answer is sex. 

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

How does it do that? How could it do that? Random mutation cannot create new code! Natural selection cannot create new code! You need new information. 

The answer is sex again. 

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

We know from experience (in computer code) that if you start randomly changing code in information systems like DNA and computer code you are going to fundamentally degrade that code before you get anything that is new and useful. If you are a computer programmer and randomly start changing 0's and 1's, are you going to create a new program or operating system?, or are you going to introduce glitches and bugs into the program you already have?  (credit do Dr. Stephen Meyer.

Thank you, Dr. Meyer for describing how computers work. He and I agree that this form of evolution is impossible. 

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Information sciences have shown that these typse of random mutations are incapable of generating something fundamentally new. 

 

So, the answer, obviously, is that the Christian iteration of Yahweh did it. Well played. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, longview said:

You are still copping out.  Scientists should be able to experiment with primitive RNAs that lead to coacervates and thriving soupy messes that lead to greater diversity of viruses and bacterias giving rise to protozoa, amoebas and various other skittering microscopic critters. And on an on.

So, if scientists create life from non-life in a laboratory, will you tear up your bible and build a Darwinian finch shrine? Or will you come up with another feat of strength for the biologists to perform?

Because dna, phylogeny, the fossil record, ring species, etc. are all evidence of evolution.

What is your theory of how life arrived in its present state? Is it just a verbatim retelling genesis 1? If so then please supply some evidence of your theory too. I wouldn’t want to hog all the good times

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Where am I wrong? Or where is Dr.Meyer wrong?

Hint: some of the words in his post are blue and underlined

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×