Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i guess the point of disbelief is why did the evolution stopped with humans, monkeys, cats,dogs, etc? no more evolution with the current form of human and animals as we know it?
These are pretty clearly *huge* mutations. However, an excellent example of natural selection would be eyesight. It is no lie that a lot of humans require glasses, and it is partially genetic. We live in an artificial world full of tools, so our environment is not nearly as threatening as a "natural" environment would be. If we were living in such world, people that couldn't see well wouldn't see predators that easily, resulting in those with genetically sharper vision seeing more clearly.
The synethetic environment we live in has made our world easier to live in, so natural selection will occur in a relatively longer time.
Changes in biblical strategy occur over centuries, not overnight, as a revision to a scientific theory might. And they only occur when the facts are irrefutible or troublesome to the mumbling congregation. In other words, when the peasants are getting restless and the church is feeling threatened.
Yep! Rather like the way they've handled the utter defeat in regard to geocentricism. Most Christians today will utterly deny that the Bible presents concepts that only work if the sun revolves around the Earth. Yet for sixteen centuries, that's exactly what Christians were taught. Anyone who believed differently was seen as a heretic and a danger to Christianity as was Galileo. Talk about evolution today and many Christians will tell you that there's nothing in the Bible that excludes the evolutionary process, yet Christianity managed to pass legislation against the teaching of this very "acceptable concept" and is still fighting to have creationism taught today. My prediction is that as creationism continues to lose ground and more and more examples of evolution become documented, Christians will soon be claiming that the Bible never taught anything but evolution.
Because that's what Christians do. They read the Bible for what it says, then fight anything which demonstrates to the contrary. And when the Bible's claims are finally fully refuted, they slowly back away, change what they believe, and then try to work their new beliefs into what they read in the Bible. Once that process is finished, they begin claiming that the Bible has never said what they first claimed it to say, and further claim that either Christianity never taught that, or that it was the fault of the church, not Christianity.
What is the point of disbelief? What does evolution have to do with religion?
ah, in case you are not reading the non believers reason for disbelief of God, it is that humans, animals evolved from species to species, not created in our their current form for what - 6,000-10,000 yrs now.
evolution also said the universe was not created but rather evolved. and these self proclaimed know it all scientific "intellectuals" use these science discoveries to insult the opposing people as if those "facts" give them the automatic right to do so.
No good scientist would ever claim to know it all. There wouldn't be much of a point in science if we already knew everything.
We do know a lot of things we once didn't, and the origin of man is one of them. It's the human ego and imagination that's convinced itself that we're special; that we're apart from all the other lowly animals and nature; made up a god that looks like us, loves us, listens to us, and is gonna show all those meanies who don't believe in him a thing or two one day.
To the best of my knowledge, no other species on the planet has done this. Hey, maybe we are special then....or not
ah, in case you are not reading the non believers reason for disbelief of God, it is that humans, animals evolved from species to species, not created in our their current form for what - 6,000-10,000 yrs now.
Uhh, that's not the reason at all. The reason we are UNABLE to believe is because of the impossible things religion subscribes to and has no evidence for...You know Poof and god creates everything, including talking snakes etc.
Quote:
evolution also said the universe was not created but rather evolved. and these self proclaimed know it all scientific "intellectuals" use these science discoveries to insult the opposing people as if those "facts" give them the automatic right to do so.
No evolution doesn't say that at all...Evolution is only concerned with life, not the birth of the universe.
ah, in case you are not reading the non believers reason for disbelief of God, it is that humans, animals evolved from species to species, not created in our their current form for what - 6,000-10,000 yrs now.
That's not what non-believers say. It's what AiG say that they say.
1...Evolution does not say that we evolved from apes. Only those that are ignorant of evolutionary theory say that.... As a matter of fact humans are a species of ape...The others are Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gibbons and Urang-utans...We apes share a common ancestor.
It would be nice if you would read what I write and not what you think I'm trying to write.
I was responding to Riflemans claim that "no one has ever said man evolved from apes". That's not what I think, that is what used to be taught in schools and to a large degree still is.
Quote:
2...I don't believe Darwin said any such thing. If he did he was mistaken.
Again. This was in response to Riflemans claim.
Darwin did make the case that we evolved from the great apes. He chose not to include that belief in his published works because to do so would would make ALL his theories unaccetable to even non fundamentalists. Nobody, religious or not, at that time would accept that idea.
As far as whether he was right or wrong. That's your call.
Quote:
3..Ask me and I'll say.....Since we did not evolve from monkeys, there is no missing link between us and monkeys..."Missing link" is more of a media expression than scientific, and is not important overall as evidence for evolution.
I didn't ask you See I even remembered the smiley face this time to indicate I'm joking.
No we didn't evolve from monkeys and that isn't what the missing link was anyway. That's my point.
Ask two strangers what the missing link is and I'll bet you a " you were right" that they both say it's the link between man and monkeys.
I stand corrected. My apologies. I meant to say "modern up-to-date evolutionary theory, not the 1950s out of date stuff, no longer states that we evolved directly from apes". In fact, we and they both evolved from a common lemur-like pre-ancestor.
I wish this was true but it's not. The same wrong things are still being taught.
Quote:
It's just that, even back when I took introductory biology in 1973, the "from apes" line of reasoning had already been abandoned. Remember, the only source of information and paleontological info back then was a bunch of mostly British scientists hovering around Africa looking for "The Missing Link", some imaginary ape-man hybrid. DNA was only discovered in the early '50s, and even at that, they surely didn't understand it's workings, means of mutation or relationship to all the cellular mechanisms even in the late '60s and early '70s. Even my undergrad degree, acquired in 1978, left a lot to be desired, but at least we knew that DNA was responsible No oddball hybrids required. It's sadly ironic to hear modern Christians still quoting 1960s thinking as a rebuttal against the facts of Evolution. Sorta like calling a 1965 Camaro "the ultimate sportscar" in 2010.
Your older than I am and it was still being taught when I got my learnin' many years later.
The first Camaro was built in 1966 so yes it would odd to call a 65 camaro the ultimate sports car
Quote:
Unfortunately, I / we bio-scientists who were taught post- 1965, and who have also kept up, know this is a really tired old story. It's like putting up a drawing of the earth as the center of the universe, and then saying...
"You scientists are ALWAYS changing your mind! We can't trust you!"
That only holds if you insist that our knowledge remain static, that we remain a stationary target for your relentless critiques. Sorry; ain't gonna happen! I've recently been reading my son's 2009 intro biology text and there's a whole lot of new and elegantly confirmed information there. And, given such spectacular new methodologies as DNA genome mapping, such antiques as "The Missing Link" are no longer necessary to show transition. We're all transitionals, in fact, every organism on the planet, given that mutations and genetic drift don't stop, ever. So absolutely NO, we don't have to find one now that we can map and show DNA changes and lineage over time. It's the coup de gras against time-worn and improbable theistic explanations against Evolution.
Don't hold advancements in knowledge against science however. That's just silly.
But then again, if that's how you choose to see it, then go for it.
Not sure what that dissertation was about. It wasn't about anything I said.
Religion has it's fanatics and so does science. I just happen to think that in this day and age scientific zealots are more of a danger than religious zealots.
.
There were front page articles a few months ago claiming scientists had found the missing link. Obviously they hadn't found it because the link they claimed to have found isn't the link that was suppose to be missing. These were legitimate scientists making these foolish claims.
It happens time after time.
Personally if I was a religious man I would throw my hat in the ring with Christians. It makes absolutely no difference in my life one way or another if evolution is right or wrong. I could care less if my parents were monkeys. Makes no difference to me, it's meaningless. I always strive to learn things but with science, in the end, whether I'm a retard or scholar, I'll end up the same way. DEAD.
The point about The Missing Link is that it's no longer necessary to prove Evolution. It's like the public pay phone: it's time has come and gone; it's no longer necessary, and while they do exist, the phone companies are tearing them up as they need repair.
We no longer need to find a transitional. Doesn't mean we won't but no scientist is likely going to say "This is THE ONE!" because there wasn't such a specific and lonely organism. Just a near-infinite number of in-betweeners. If you understood how genetic drift and mutation of single genes occurred, you'd see we do not need to look for the mythical "half-ape, half-man". That equals ancient wishful thinking, long before DNA was discovered. Same goes for anything any historical scientist said: a lot of early errors. (Trust the fundamentalist Christian movement to gather them up and throw them in our faces.... sigh.) Darwin was simply completely insightful and correct in the larger concept. As to the details: how could he have known those?
DNA genome mapping will, on many occasions in the future, and if DNA is available, enable us to place the "B" sample precisely between it's "A" ancestor and it's later "C" inheritors. That's not to say there won't then be another sub-species that fits between "A" and "B"; that's to be expected unless we truly find a pair of genomes that are only different by a few genes. Then, we either have essentially the same organisms, or a slightly modified pair.
Simple, huh? And logical too, huh? Exactly as Dr. Occham and his ever-so-sharp Razor would predict.
The fossil record has absolutely no obligation to provide primo undamaged DNA samples for each and every transitional, now does it? It's careful, rigorous and peer-reviewed scientific research that has logically deducted the results we now see. Where it's speculative, scientists will happily fess up to that, and couch their conclusions accordingly.
There are probably millions of intermediate "types", "races", sub-species, and species out there. There would have to be. Everything is always en-route to a different, presumably better genotype, even us humans. But certain good fits, with little to improve them except implausible things (like us growing functional wings), just take a comfortable position in their niche, and their "evolution" is slowed. And unless we humans were willing to stay in the trees and eat banans all day, we happily left that niche occupied with the various apes, where they remain today.
And barring a rise of T-Rexs by the millions again, unnoticed, we humans won't be genetically deposed from our position any time soon either. There are measurable indicators of genetic drift in humans and others over time, including potential improvements. How else do you explain those improvements highlighted above if God made us in His image, He being perfect and all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by baket
ah, in case you are not reading the non believers reason for disbelief of God, it is that humans, animals evolved from species to species, not created in our their current form for what - 6,000-10,000 yrs now.
Evolution also said the universe was not created but rather evolved.
Quote:
Hogwash. Again. You really are full of mis-info, aren't you girl!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
No evolution doesn't say that at all...Evolution is only concerned with life, not the birth of the universe.
(She goes on, wading in deeper....). ...and these self proclaimed know it all scientific "intellectuals" use these science discoveries to insult the opposing people as if those "facts" give them the automatic right to do so.
Quote:
Yes, facts do, in fact, give one the right to use them without fear of contradiction. You're just unhappy at having been cornered, so you're offering insults instead. Good strategy!
Or: Why not think about it first, and be open to realizing you might be wrong, based on the evidence at hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by achickenchaser
No good scientist would ever claim to know it all. There wouldn't be much of a point in science if we already knew everything.
I love this simple response. Thx, CC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by achickenchaser
We do know a lot of things we once didn't, and the origin of man is one of them. It's the human ego and imagination that's convinced itself that we're special; that we're apart from all the other lowly animals and nature; made up a god that looks like us, loves us, listens to us, and is gonna show all those meanies who don't believe in him a thing or two one day.
To the best of my knowledge, no other species on the planet has done this. Hey, maybe we are special then....or not
Sing with me now, with pride in your voice: "I'm an animal, you're an animal, all God's childrens is just animals!"
Catchy, ain't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See I even remembered the smiley face this time to indicate I'm joking.
Animalium honorus
