Why Evolution is a Fairytale for Grown-Ups

[Robert W]

Why do the aborigines of Australia have two fewer chromosomes than I?

I post not educate you about that. Ask others that question.

 

[San Souci]

That hasn't always been the case ... multicellular life barely occupies 10% of Earth's existence ... or is this a "Young Earth" thing? ...

Took 6000 years. Genises said so.

 

[ReinyDays]

Took 6000 years. Genises said so.

... and what does Genises [sic] say is created? ...

 

[San Souci]

... and what does Genises [sic] say is created? ...

That is obvious. But who cares? Non-Believers will be in Hell anyway.

 

[ReinyDays]

That is obvious. But who cares? Non-Believers will be in Hell anyway.

It is? ... then state it ... what was created in Genesis? ...

 

[DukeU]

Only if you are ignorant or willfully blind. Fossils tell us when, where, how, what, and why. There is plenty of other evidence.

 

[ReinyDays]

Evolution is a scientific theory ... it doesn't need proof ... it's assumed ... and it fits all available evidence ... or do you have another scientific theory in mind ...

The Bible is not science ... it's philosophy ... what we use to write social laws, not scientific laws ...

 

[DukeU]

it's assumed

Thanks for the admission, and I agree.

 

[Mac1958]

The fact is, we don't know how the hell we got here. We don't know YET.

Religion--whichever religion it may happen to be -- is just faith/belief. Science doesn't have The Answer. Yet.

There are some things that are just unknowable. Yet. To claim to have The Answer, right now, is just hubris.

 

[scruffy]

what you posted doesnt explain how the first human was birthed from what ever primate evo claims,,
nor does it show us how cows became whales and dinosaurs became birds along with a long list of other magical claims made by evolution,,

You don't get it.

Evolution is biophysics, not fossils.

Fossils are the end result. Biophysics is what determines the shape of an organism, how many limbs it has, and whether it has whiskers.

I already posted tons and tons of data on the Hox genes, which determine segmentation, cephalization, lateralization, and everything else that's naively called a "species".

I also posted some juicy pictures of Hox gene mutations, including point mutations and gene duplication. If you haven't seen them I'd suggest searching through some of the other evolution related threads in this forum.

A point mutation in a Hox gene can give a chicken human feet, all at once. I posted a pic of that too. From there it's a very short step to the rest of a human, and combinatorial explosion can get you there in just a few generations.

Fossils are almost worthless from the standpoint of biophysical evolution. Would you expect to understand quantum chemistry by taking a few snapshots of a chemical reaction? Of course not. So why pretend fossils tell the story of evolution?

You need to see thousands of examples of chemical reactions before you can figure out the rules that govern them. You need a dozen different kinds of spectroscopes, and you have to work your way through particle-in-a-box before you get to nonlinear dissipation. Fossils are snapshots, they're of little value and little meaning. What you really want to know is exactly what you said - how to change a dog into a cat. A Hox gene will get you halfway there, it'll give you a dog that meows instead of barking.

 

[Moonglow]

That is obvious. But who cares? Non-Believers will be in Hell anyway.

You guarantee.

 

[alang1216]

Kent E. Hovind is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist with a young-Earth creationist ministry. His theology tells him the TRUTH, he doesn't need to review the science to know if it is valid. I'm sure he is a smart guy and has been told about the evidence for evolution but, like progressive hunter, he claims fossils only tell us that something died. A claim easily refuted.

Blind faith at its worst and something I've never understood. People who profess to believe in a Creator have no interest in learning about his creation and just let others tell them what to believe. If I was God, I'd be pissed.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thanks for the admission, and I agree.

That's why we call it a "scientific theory" and not "scientific truth" ... theory is specifically designed to be challenged ... but that challenge has to be scientific ... observable, measurable and we need to be able to duplicate the results ... it's this last part that the Bible fails science ... the miracles cannot be tested by experimentation ... therefore, it's not science ...

The specific assumption in ToE is "once is enough" ... any beneficial mutation need only happen once, after so many generations, this mutation will dominate the entire gene pool ... here we're defining "beneficial" as increasing successful reproduction opportunities ...

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." -- Ecc. 1:2

 

[TNHarley]

So what is abrahamic creation then? A fairytale for children?

 

[alang1216]

So what is abrahamic creation then? A fairytale for children?

A myth told around a camp fire by pre-literate people. Like ghost stories, they are entertaining and offered moral lessons. IMHO.

 

[ReinyDays]

A myth told around a camp fire by pre-literate people. Like ghost stories, they are entertaining and offered moral lessons. IMHO.

There's an argument that the Bible and it's contents are political spin ... a tale told in order to assert a land claim in the Levant ... it was convenient in 1000 BC ... it's convenient in 2000 AD ... one could frame this as an early example of "Manifest Destiny" or "Pax Romana" ...

"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." -- Gen 13:15 ...

 

[alang1216]

There's an argument that the Bible and it's contents are political spin ... a tale told in order to assert a land claim in the Levant ... it was convenient in 1000 BC ... it's convenient in 2000 AD ... one could frame this as an early example of "Manifest Destiny" or "Pax Romana" ...

"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." -- Gen 13:15 ...

My understanding is that the OT was written down by the Hebrews exiled in Babylon. They collected the ancient oral traditions of their people and the later writings of their prophets. They gave the story of the Exodus a prime place in their writings, since it matched the Babylonian exile's return. Hebrews from a foreign return to their homeland and are given it by God to rule over. Archeology tells us Exodus didn't happen that way but it was a great narrative for the exiles.

 

[progressive hunter]

You don't get it.

Evolution is biophysics, not fossils.

Fossils are the end result. Biophysics is what determines the shape of an organism, how many limbs it has, and whether it has whiskers.

I already posted tons and tons of data on the Hox genes, which determine segmentation, cephalization, lateralization, and everything else that's naively called a "species".

I also posted some juicy pictures of Hox gene mutations, including point mutations and gene duplication. If you haven't seen them I'd suggest searching through some of the other evolution related threads in this forum.

A point mutation in a Hox gene can give a chicken human feet, all at once. I posted a pic of that too. From there it's a very short step to the rest of a human, and combinatorial explosion can get you there in just a few generations.

Fossils are almost worthless from the standpoint of biophysical evolution. Would you expect to understand quantum chemistry by taking a few snapshots of a chemical reaction? Of course not. So why pretend fossils tell the story of evolution?

You need to see thousands of examples of chemical reactions before you can figure out the rules that govern them. You need a dozen different kinds of spectroscopes, and you have to work your way through particle-in-a-box before you get to nonlinear dissipation. Fossils are snapshots, they're of little value and little meaning. What you really want to know is exactly what you said - how to change a dog into a cat. A Hox gene will get you halfway there, it'll give you a dog that meows instead of barking.

wheres the proof of that??

 

[ReinyDays]

My understanding is that the OT was written down by the Hebrews exiled in Babylon. They collected the ancient oral traditions of their people and the later writings of their prophets. They gave the story of the Exodus a prime place in their writings, since it matched the Babylonian exile's return. Hebrews from a foreign return to their homeland and are given it by God to rule over. Archeology tells us Exodus didn't happen that way but it was a great narrative for the exiles.

My understanding is the Bible and archeology meet in the Kingdom of Judah ... the Bible claims a second Kingdom of Israel ... for which there's no physical evidence ...

The thought is the Bible was whipped up in order to justify Judah expansion ... "See, the Bible says we own your lands ... so buzz off will you?" ...

 

[progressive hunter]